New ATS Member Claiming To Have Important Warning/Information. You Be The Judge...

reply to post by kdog1982


There is an unclosed tag in one of the posts that is causing that.

I have seen it before on here.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Silverlok

 

Well good. I hope your friend in Berkeley understands that an earthquake cannot be a foreshock until there is a main shock. That is all I am saying and yet you still do not see it, but consider it necessary to attempt to belittle me because of your own lack of understanding.

Anyone who understands earthquake will not state categorically that an earthquake is a foreshock because it is not possible to do so until after another larger event. Maybe I need to repeat that several times for you, since you think I need things repeated, until it sinks in. Or maybe it just won't because you have closed your mind to anything other than what you consider was said, rather than what was said.

how many times do you like the regurgitate? you are not an earthquake expert, because ( you fail to understand any of the elements of science or it's processes ) you are not one the cutting edge ,so when you say "i am not going to post again " after being grossing wrong in the field you are commenting on and attacking posting non-confrontational posters and dragging the thread into (all ats watchers) bull# space ... ) what is your directive ///denying ignorance is it ???

The question, is this scaremongering, is valid. Because there are only two possiblities. Either, middlebrook is a whistle blower within inside information about a major disaster. Or, they are an imposter who has manufactured this story in order to deceive. Sorry, but there's no middle ground.

If middlebrook is decieving us, then they are most assurdly trying to create fear. And attention. Forgetting the motive.

Originally posted by PuterMan

Why are you thinking I was stating anyone here was scared?

Maybe because of the punctuation bit.

The way I "chop up" what you say is meant to tell you how I've interpreted it. If that's wrong, then I apologize.

However, you have spent the past page or two (I've lost count) arguing against one of the things we've been focusing on in this thread and in others - the predictive nature of "foreshocks" prior to the main quake. You haven't argued against it with any of us, but Silverlok hasn't been saying much beyond what we've been doing, and you're arguing against him. That's the way the Americans fought against the Soviets in the Korean War... by proxy.

I've also never experienced the truly grumpy PuterMan. Is this my introduction?

reply to post by Silverlok


Well seeing as you called me back into posting I guess what ever transpired was at your request.

But if you are happy throwing insults at me I really don't mind. Please carry on if it makes you feel bigger and better.

My position is still that there will be no big event in SC within 45 days and that an earthquake is not a foreshock until after a main shock. Guess we will just have to wait and see who is right.

Originally posted by Robin Marks
The question, is this scaremongering, is valid. Because there are only two possiblities. Either, middlebrook is a whistle blower within inside information about a major disaster. Or, they are an imposter who has manufactured this story in order to deceive. Sorry, but there's no middle ground.

If middlebrook is decieving us, then they are most assurdly trying to create fear. And attention. Forgetting the motive.

Something I have noticed,is TM will post something,then will immediately log out and watch for responses from the shadows.
Then,he will log back in to respond.
I do find that strange.
Kind of along the thinking if the police are tracking your phone call,you have about a minute to stay on before they can locate you.
Which,in this case is not true,cause they know your IP location immediately.
Unless he is using a proxy and being very undercover.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Silverlok

 

Well seeing as you called me back into posting I guess what ever transpired was at your request.

But if you are happy throwing insults at me I really don't mind. Please carry on if it makes you feel bigger and better.

My position is still that there will be no big event in SC within 45 days and that an earthquake is not a foreshock until after a main shock. Guess we will just have to wait and see who is right.

edit on 21/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

no and no , what is the subject of this thread ? and you are STILL WRONG ABOUT FORE SHOCKS, what the hell is wrong with you , REALITY is a weird artform

reply to post by PuterMan


I wish we could all carry this on in person over 10 or 20 beers

I know we could work this out........Peace to all!

I've been following this thread with interest, but this has gotten ugly. This may not be my place, but I feel I must post.

In my opinion, Puterman is not disputing the possible role of increases in earthquake activity, swarms or ETS as valid quake prediction elements. What I interpet him to be saying, is that no one; professional seismologist, geology student or avid quake watcher, can see a given earthquake show up on USGS or GEE, and immediately label it a "foreshock". One cannot know a quake is definitively a foreshock, until a larger quake in the same fault/rupture zone occurs. That's all.

Silverlok, I find your posts rude and full of spelling and grammatical errors.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Silverlok

 

Well seeing as you called me back into posting I guess what ever transpired was at your request.

But if you are happy throwing insults at me I really don't mind. Please carry on if it makes you feel bigger and better.

My position is still that there will be no big event in SC within 45 days and that an earthquake is not a foreshock until after a main shock. Guess we will just have to wait and see who is right.

edit on 21/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

I called you back? ...then get the "down on your knees bitch" , comment caused you to post and how are any of your arguments cogent even in a hoax thread, but no get on your knees if I owe you ...

Originally posted by Olivine
I've been following this thread with interest, but this has gotten ugly. This may not be my place, but I feel I must post.

In my opinion, Puterman is not disputing the possible role of increases in earthquake activity, swarms or ETS as valid quake prediction elements. What I interpet him to be saying, is that no one; professional seismologist, geology student or avid quake watcher, can see a given earthquake show up on USGS or GEE, and immediately label it a "foreshock". One cannot know a quake is definitively a foreshock, until a larger quake in the same fault/rupture zone occurs. That's all.

Silverlok, I find your posts rude and full of spelling and gramatical errors.

please elucidate, why those are pertinent to the OP

and grammatical is spelled wrong

Originally posted by Olivine
I've been following this thread with interest, but this has gotten ugly. This may not be my place, but I feel I must post.

In my opinion, Puterman is not disputing the possible role of increases in earthquake activity, swarms or ETS as valid quake prediction elements. What I interpet him to be saying, is that no one; professional seismologist, geology student or avid quake watcher, can see a given earthquake show up on USGS or GEE, and immediately label it a "foreshock". One cannot know a quake is definitively a foreshock, until a larger quake in the same fault/rupture zone occurs. That's all.

Yeah, a foreshock can be "looked at" as a foreshock, but isn't "known for sure" to be a foreshock, until there is another quake. In the name of cutting edge science, this is good, you know to watch for more quakes, considering this is being "looked at" as a possible/probable/maybe foreshock, and if none happen, then it wasn't a foreshock, it was the event. If another quake happens, the original movement is now "known for sure" to be a foreshock.

That probably only makes sense to me.....lol

Semantics. Or at least MY version of semantics.
You two are practically arguing the same thing, it just a matter of interpretation.
Or when to call the foreshock, the foreshock.

stop fighting and come help us out on this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

From 2009,a case of fore shocks preceding a major quake.

Foreshock sequences are characterized by some distinct

Quote from this..www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net...
Laboratory material fracture experiments
(e.g. Mogi, 1963b; Scholz, 1968) along with numerical modeling
in spring-block models (Hainzl et al., 1999) showed a
clear acceleration of the fracturing process before the main
fracture. Studies regarding seismicity in Japan, western
United States, Greece, Italy and elsewhere verified this in nature
showing that foreshock activity increases approximately
as the inverse of time before mainshock (e.g. Papazachos,
1975; Kagan and Knopoff, 1978; Jones and Molnar, 1979).

I apologize,but for some reason,my cut and paste is not working right.
In the magnitude-frequency or Gutenberg-Richter (G-R) relation

Originally posted by berkeleygal
stop fighting and come help us out on this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

my dear it's not fighting, it's denying ignorance , even on a hoax thread, a hoax thread, a , damn expensive, because it cost a lot thread, none spends money on nothing right/right? I mean unless they are retarded, why waste assets in a hoax thread, it's in the HOAX THREAD

edit why should I help?

reply to post by Silverlok


It would be great if you guys could take alook at this other thread. Please don't fight, it's all for the good of all.

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by tmiddlebrook36

 

I shall leave you to it. I shall say no more on this thread until the 8th of November.

Promises, promises... I knew that was too good to be true.

reply to post by Silverlok


Even though this is a hoax thread,alot of info has been acquired because of this hoax thread.
A theory,which could be considered a hoax,is still a theory and the only way to bring it forward from hoax territory into theoritical hypothonese (sp?) is through discussion and research.
Eventually we may find the truth,but we may not.
The end game is that we are participant in an education into the prediction of earthquakes.
That's just my take on it.
We got 30 to 45 days to find out,or not.
Any input and contributions is appreciated,but not nessesary.

Damn,I miss my computer,lost my internet connection today,relying on the old back-up wireless stuff.
So if there are major misspellings,forgive me.

reply to post by kdog1982

Exactly - this thread has been about learning new things in the field of geophysics, specifically EQ prediction. We've learned all about things such as ETS (Episodic Tremor and Slip), creep cavitation, antipode and other geodesic propagation points, advance systems in place for monitoring that we never new of before, GESS, M8 algorithms, etc. et. al. All with great sources (not TM). Any newcomer would be well served to go back and read this entire collective work of a thread. Much to learn.

It has been one of my most favorite threads with some of my most appreciated individuals, with great cooperation and decorum from everyone. You can't imagine how much we've been able to learn and accomplish in here... especially since having the thread in the HOAX bin shielded us from trolls, shills, and ego until very recently.

Puterman ... respectfully ... I believe you have made your point (over and over) and would ask that you please let it go. See you November 8th.

So,I'm still thinking,what would constitute a foreshock in So.Cal.?