It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 44
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by kdog1982

Hard to know for sure, especially in that complicated seismic area... but I would think swarms and EQs that occur on the same spot with frequency then suddenly stopping. I'm sure the GESS/M8 guys have more sophisticated ways of discerning a possible foreshock from an isolated event. They have all sorts of toys and algorithms that we do not.

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:18 PM

Originally posted by DamaSan
reply to post by kdog1982

Hard to know for sure, especially in that complicated seismic area... but I would think swarms and EQs that occur on the same spot with frequency then suddenly stopping. I'm sure the GESS/M8 guys have more sophisticated ways of discerning a possible foreshock from an isolated event. They have all sorts of toys and algorithms that we do not.

And they will not share their toys!
What are they afraid of,anyway?

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:20 PM
reply to post by tmiddlebrook36

First off, thank you for posting in this thread rather than Robin's as has been requested. It shows that at the least, you are reading the words of and partially responding to the members of this community.

Whether or not you are honest (consistent within yourself) is yet to be seen. You tell us that we should ALL doubt you, well you've come to the right place because we (most of us here anyway, I would imagine) doubt everything including our own senses at times, so you are not telling us anything new.

You will also note that there has been a good deal of seismic-related topics covered.

There has been a lot of newly developed concepts over the last few days. Worked all weekend, which is somewhat uncharacteristic without having a major event occurring.

Here you are (presumably) referring to your work group, however the same could be said about the posters in this thread that you say you have been reading. We're not sure if we've taken any wrong turns or have gotten any closer. Earlier you mentioned that there were some here who were almost spot on in theory but have not elucidated further.

As you can tell, there is quite a bit of contention regarding the topic you broach.

The emphasis right now will take the form of a steady increase in PSA's in the region coupled with a lead up to what's called "The Great California Shake Out". You'll hear more, you'll see more, about this routine drill than you have ever before.
emphasis mine

There are already threads about this here on ATS, though they have been reported throughout the country (as a point of note, when I went to the used book store the other day, there was one playing at the pump-top ad monitor), I've seen the commercials a lot on the sports channels (especially that really creepy one where the house turns upside down) we keep our TVs on in the restaurant where I work, if there is a specific increase in SoCal that should be easy to quantify.

I'll keep you posted. The data I've seen, which is limited, is quite impressive. Leaps and bounds over previous research I have been privy to. They are expecting steady foreshocks over the next 30 days as well, so please be watching the regional S.C. area only. Quoted from today's MB, "people who are aware will begin to notice something is unusual".

In your first post you seemed to not know what the information you had related to, and yet now “have been privvy to” previous research to a degree that you are astonished at what is currently being presented

this is an email exchange from my boss regarding some research from an organization that is connected to jpl in pasadena, ca. this place is a buzz right now with new info. i've had to protect identities so i x'd out names and emails, and i don't exactly know what the info is.

Either you have an intimate familiarity with the tech or you don't know what it is. Which is it?


Nothing I hate more than when two people (whom I both generally like) that are smarter than most others around them (and know it) meet for the first time and have to figure out where they rank compared to the other. There's always a sparring match of some sort and it can take a while, but once things are sorted to the satisfaction of the participants some good work can eventually get done.

Frack and Fukushima (anyone who knows me, or has read my posts outside this thread will know how invective this expelitive is from me) these post limits!

more to follow...

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:21 PM
reply to post by jadedANDcynical

...continued from previous post.

Record 8.
Author: Rhoades, David; Evison, Frank; Kozuch, Mike
Author Affiliation: Institute of Geological Nuclear Sciences, Lower Hutt, New Zealand.
Source: Tephra, volume 17, June 1998, pages 21-23. ISSN: 0112-1359
Table, maps. Journal published by the New Zealand Ministry of Civil Defense.
Key Terms:
Countermeasures; Earthquake patterns; Earthquake prediction; Earthquake swarms;
Foreshocks; Hazard mitigation; New Zealand; Precursors; Seismic zoning
Quakeline Abstract:
New Zealand's earthquake forecasting program focuses on precursory earthquake
patterns. A description is provided of the research process for identifying a
precursory pattern and using it for forecasting as it proceeds from the anecdotal
stage to experimental stage and finally to the operational stage. Results are briefly
described of one precursor pattern currently being tested in New Zealand, the
earthquake swarm. Choices of countermeasures based on long, intermediate and short
range forecasts are also presented.
Major Topics: Earthquake Prediction; Seismology; Socio-Economic Aspects of Disasters,
Preparedness and Relief
Language: English
Publication Type: Journal article
Call Number: QUAKELINE: MCEER VF01463
Record ID: QKLN-2000-0178

Record 41.
Author: Yama#a, T.; Knopoff, L.
Author Affiliation: Earthquake Research Institute, Tokyo University, Tokyo, Japan.
Source: Journal of Geophysical Research, volume 97, number B13, December 10, 1992,
pages 19,873-19,879. ISSN: 0148-0227
48 references. Graphs, diagram. A publication of the American Geophysical Union.
Series: Paper number 92JB01216. Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics,
University of California, Los Angeles publication number 3815.
Key Terms:
Aggregation model; Crack growth; Earthquake swarms; Foreshocks; Intermediate term
precursory clustering; Main shocks; Multiplanar earthquake fault system;
Quiescence; Rheological models
Quakeline Abstract:
A casual sequence of an earthquake swarm, extended quiescence, foreshocks, and main
shock can be understood in terms of an aggregation model of crack growth and ultimate
fusion on a multiplanar earthquake fault system. The rheological model is one of
accelerated crack growth under conditions of slip weakening, coupled with a slow
recovery of static friction after fracture. Once a slip feature has been generated
that spans a large part of the available geometry, a stress shadow is cast on other,
neighboring cracks that strongly retards and inhibits crack growth, thus initiating
the quiescent phase abruptly. The success of the model depends on the assumption that
nonlinear rheology regulates the rate of slip and that earthquake faults are not
simply connected surfaces but instead have many strands. (Authors' abstract).
Major Topics: Seismology
Language: English
Publication Type: Journal article
Call Number: QUAKELINE: SEL Per QC811.J8
Record ID: QKLN-1993-2217

...and more yet...

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:22 PM
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
... part 3:

Record 45.
Author: Mogi, Kiyoo
Author Affiliation: College of Industrial Technology, Nihon University, Izumicho 1-2-1,
Narashino City, Chiba 275, Japan.
Source: Jishin (Zisin: Journal of the Seismological Society of Japan), volume 45,
number 1, March 1992, pages 61-69. ISSN: 0037-1114
18 references. Maps, diagrams, graphs. Articles include abstracts and figure captions
in English.
Key Terms:
Earthquake swarms; Foreshocks; Mechanisms; Precursors; Prediction; Rupture
processes; Seismic gaps; Tectonics
Quakeline Abstract:
The process of the occurrence of an earthquake is discussed from the mechanical point
of view. It is emphasized that the structural heterogeneity in and around the
earthquake source region is one of the most important factors which cause the
occurrence of precursory phenomena. Earthquake precursors are classified into the
following two types. The one is the precursors which are caused by the increase in
stress. In general, long-term precursors are those of this type. The gradual increase
of earthquake swarm activity before the 1983 Japan Sea earthquake, the gradual
increase in seismic activity in the surrounding region of the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake before the main shock and the appearance of the seismic gaps of the second
kind are discussed as examples of this type. The other is the precursors which are
caused by a slowly progressive rupture process just before the sudden main fracture.
Short-term precursors are mainly those of this type. Foreshocks prior to the 1934 and
1966 Parkfield earthquakes are discussed as the typical examples of this type.
(Author's abstract).
Major Topics: Earthquake Prediction
Language: Japanese
Publication Type: Journal article
Call Number: QUAKELINE: SEL Per QE531.Z5
Record ID: QKLN-1993-0562

Record 112.
Title: Waveform and spectral features of earthquake swarms and foreshocks--in special
reference to earthquake prediction.
Author: Tsujiura, M.
Source: Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Vol.
58 Iss. 1, pp. 65-134; 1983.
Key Terms:
Spectra » earthquake swarms; Spectra » foreshocks; Precursory phenomena » earthquake
EEA Abstract:
The author analyzes waveforms and spectra for earthquake swarms, foreshocks, and
ordinary seismic activities. These analyses reveal certain differences in the activity
modes of these types of events, the most striking of which is in the similarities of
waveforms for each group. Swarm activity, occurring in a certain short time interval,
mainly consists of events with similar waveforms, belonging to an event group called
an earthquake family. Foreshock activity, on the other hand, consists of events with
individual waveform characteristics,
and in ordinary seismic activity the rate of
occurrence of earthquake families is also very low. Considering swarms as earthquake
families, the author points out other differences between their activity modes and
those of foreshock and ordinary seismic activity. These include differences in
epicenter distribution, source spectra, and corner frequencies. The author discusses
the significance of these differences and suggests possible diagnostic applications.
Major Topics: Seismology -- Earthquake Prediction
Publication Type: Journal article
Call Number: EEA: 250/T63/v.58(1)
Record ID: EEA-131000182
emphasis mine
Is it possible that they've gotten better ac recording the differences in individual waveforms or possibly that their discrimination software has gotten better at picking them out?
FTP site with multiple instances of this type of abstract. Note all the publication dates are in the 90's, with the exception of the last, which means that all of the technology was in development and by now has likely grown in a rate proportional to other sciences, especially computer simulation.

Someone might want to tell all of these scientists that they are wasting their time trying to tease out which quakes are foreshocks before the event.

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:31 PM
Jaded,you know how it goes.
Nose in a book and side blinders.
Sometimes that is where these scientist are.

Got a little crazy here for a moment,but things have calmed down and hopefully egos have calmed down abit too.

Glad to see you back to help us put this together.
edit on 21-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:52 PM
I probably should not be posting this...but I am going to anyway.

*Mods* if you feel I am over stepping my boundaries, feel free to delete what I say from here forward.

I was in chat last night, I was board,,,only been in chat 3 times since I have been a member here at ATS.

I saw some members discussing the "hoaxes" they do here at ATS...No...I did not take down there user names (wish I had).

There were several members in chat who were discussing the "hoaxes" they have done here on ATS...and one was asking "where should I post this *hoax*"

I was disturbed. Very disturbed! I left chat. Before I left chat, one of the members in there boasted proudly "I have done,started at least a half dozen hoaxes here on ATS"....while other members were telling said member where to post the "next hoax" thread...I believe it was told to be posted in General Conspiracy section.

I informed the owner here...I don't care if those in chat last night see me as a rat...tattle tail...I am a grown up...been one for many years...the fact that these "members" find it amusing to knowingly post Hoax topics, I do not find amusing!

There were "others" in on it (where to post the conspiracy topic, not just one member alone. I just left chat. I may have some "member" who was in chat last night see me "telling" all of you this...I really don't care.

As an adult, and someone who feels that we are being misled by our government.... I find this very disturbing. Just thought I would pass this on, for what it's worth.

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:00 AM
reply to post by summer5

Thank you for that insight.
It doesn't surprise me at all.
Skeptic Overlord is on there now in reference to the"game" if you care to ask him about it.

I asked him,he responded that it was not relevant to the "game"

edit on 22-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:02 AM
reply to post by kdog1982

Thanks ROCK!

Gonna go see if I can catch him...

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:10 AM
Please continue to debate me. That's all I ask, but to everyone reading this, the skeptics and the supporters, I will say only this; I am for real. I'm new to posting anything on the internet. I'm not good at it, nor do I claim to know everything. I'm only passing along information that I gather from my professional life that weighs heavily upon me because I know we cannot publish it. I have obviously said and done things that create doubt and for that I apologize because it's the antithesis of what I'm attempting to do. I have spoken of many studies, new science, and have tried to conceal items that I know would blow my cover. Yes, there will be those who will never believe, but for those of you who do, spread the word. GESS, InSAR, etc, are programs providing a plethora of information that I can unequivocally say is mind blowing. To post it all here is futile, and impossible. I've tried my best, given unclear information by default, gone way out on a limb while posting confidential emails that I should have never done, which by the way have proven accurate. To all those who have given me 30 to 45 days, thank you. To all those who have doubted me with vigor, thank you. Keep the conversation alive. As long as we are thinking and discussing, we are all scientists.

I leave you with this for now as it is a fraction of the basis of our newly developed research, if anything becomes more specific, I will post again:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:16 AM
reply to post by tmiddlebrook36

An eight year old report?

I read that not long after it was originally published. Of course, now I'm going to go an re read it digging for clues upon which to expand searches into the research databases with.

You can't come up with anything a bit closer on a temporal scale?

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:18 AM
reply to post by tmiddlebrook36

Much appreciated.
We will study and look into it further.

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:31 AM
For cryin out loud....this thread is impossible to keep up with.

TM...thanks again for posting. Like I said earlier, I plan on watching for awhile. This is geology. Seldom do things happen quickly. If you are legit, I hope you can share more info as time goes by....


On another note: Could we PLEASE keep things civil??? We don't have to agree with each other, but I expect there to be a certain level of respect.

Puterman, you know how much I appreciate your insight. Thank you for clarifying what you meant in regards to the scaremongering. I agree. If its a hoax, than that would be the thrill. Wouldn't it be cool if there were actually a way to distinguish a foreshock from a regular one? Perhaps the scientific community is closer than we realize? (we can dream, eh?)

So I think any additional time I spend this next week (which wont be a whole lot), will be on reading up on those links by J&C and looking for any differences in these quakes. I don't expect to find anything, but never know!
edit on 22-9-2011 by westcoast because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:05 AM
Ok, looking again at the report TM linked, a couple of things pop out at me which could be indicators for further research topics in more recent databases:

InSAR is one way to forecast quakes, but perhaps not the only one. While InSAR satellites merely improve the data available to orthodox seismology, there are other techniques that break with orthodoxy.

One of these ideas is to look for surges in infrared (IR) radiation.

You mean like this:

Now, this data was found retroactively. I know there are some limitations which create some time delay when dealing with satellite data acquisition, so that may explain some of the reluctance of the scientific community to issue any sort of warning to the general public.

Note the date on the satellite scan, March 8. That is 3 days before the 9.1 (yes, puterman, I saw a while back that it had been adjusted).

More from the NASA report:

What causes rocks under pressure to emit infrared radiation? No one is certain. The frequency spectrum of the emissions shows that internal heat from friction--e.g., rocks rubbing together--is not responsible for the radiation.

In one laboratory experiment, Freund and colleagues placed red granite blocks under a 1,500 ton press--mimicking in some ways what happens miles below Earth's surface. A sensitive camera developed at JPL and GSFC monitored the rock and detected infrared emissions. Furthermore, a voltage built up on the rock's surface. This leads Freund to believe the cause might be electrical.
emphasis mine

Electrical currents in rock might explain another curious observation: Scientists doing research with magnetometers just before major earthquakes have serendipitously recorded tiny, slow fluctuations in Earth's magnetic field. One example happened during the Loma-Prieta earthquake that devastated San Francisco in 1989. Almost 2 weeks before the quake, readings of low-frequency magnetic signals (0.01-0.02 Hz) jumped up to 20 times above normal levels, and then spiked even higher the day of the quake.

The cause of these signals is unknown. In addition to Freund's idea, theories include the movement of deep, ion-conducting groundwater into cracks opened up by the crushing of rocks, electromagnetic energy released by electrons that are sheered from crystalline rocks such as granite, and a piezo-magnetic effect triggered by pressure applied to certain kinds of rocks.

Puterman, now might be a good time to break out the .pdf you linked me a while back that discusses the possibility of a fusing hydrogen core and orbiting charges that induce a resonance in the oceans. I can't find it among my u2u's and I know I wouldn't have deleted that one.

I may have downloaded (probably did a a matter of fact, but can't find it among the gigs of data (files of all types) I have about the several topics I've posted about.

I know you said you were going to stay quite until November, so you can message me with the link again I will post it as I feel it bears very strongly on the discussion of several pages back around resonance (I really seem to have struck a chord with that topic, no?) an how affects in one area of the planet will produce corollary effects elsewhere on the globe.

Finally the report closes with this:

Both the infrared and magnetic methods of quake detection are controversial. For now InSAR seems to be a safer bet for earthquake forecasting. All three, however, offer a tantalizing possibility: Someday the local weather report will forecast not only of the storms above us, but also the ones brewing beneath our feet.

Is that anything like the flying cars we're supposed to have "some day?"

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:24 AM
Sorry Tmiddlebrook's reputation went out the door with the first didn't happen as stated (the time frame). It was suppose to be within a couple weeks...that was quite a while ago

Any ONE can come here and say that "something" is going to happen in southern CA....and based on the "foreshock" information, maybe that could mean VA as well..maybe that was a "foreshock" for the east coast.

I think the digging, and information everyone is learning here is great...but please stop thinking that this poster is on the level...I don't see it any longer. There is NO proof.

This is right up there with the threads that talk about dates of destruction that never come to pass....or the rapture....

Just saying.....

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 02:36 AM
reply to post by summer5

TM's predictions and authenticity are really an afterthought for this thread. We are more focused on the exotic forecasting techniques now being used. So whether or not TM is telling the truth is really irrelevant to the direction of this thread. When he pops up, we fact check what he has to say, but we really have moved on from worrying about it too much.

TM (the potentially legit one), if you're reading, don't take any offense. We have to be skeptical. To the potentially hoaxer TM, thanks for sparking the discussion but shame on you for an attempted hoax. Either way, you've been a big help.

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:50 AM
Ok, we've got a huge satellite falling from outer space:

We've got Solar flares happening on a regular basis: Notice that it even mentions satellites falling...

The President will be in Denver at the bunker in less than a week:

We've got a large increase in radiation here in the U.S. :

Is it possible that this all ties in with TM's event?

Oh and if you look at the side of the moon facing earth it shows large craters that were aparently heated up by some force of nature (solar flares?), could it be that the myans were correct and this event happens here on Earth on a semi regular basis causing mankind to start over again and again?

Speaking of myans, here's an interesting theory by Morning Myan: you'll have to click on the "elenin, dead satellite, solar flares" video on the right

At this rate 30 to 45 days is starting to seem like a really long time.
But hey, don't take life too seriously, No one gets out alive.
edit on 22-9-2011 by CaptainKostr because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 06:18 AM
reply to post by CaptainKostr

Yeah, I cant help but keep thinking about D4rkN1ght.

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:01 AM
hello all,
just passing through before i get shut down again and am truly shocked by what happened on this playground while i was away

to all: thank you for coming to your senses, eventually

to those who have a problem with this HOAX, please find another.
we are learning much here

@Puterman ~ are u serious? semantics aside ... you may find some of these pertinent.
and YES, they (geologists) are and have been Studying foreshocks for the purpose of predicting larger quake possibilities for some time now ... sure wish you'd step out of the cave at least once a decade

The finding comes from an analysis of the seismic record from the lead-up to a devastating earthquake that hit Turkey in 1999. This revealed that foreshocks rippled away from the source of the rupture in the 45 minutes before the quake – the first time that foreshocks have been conclusively linked to a major earthquake. source

and another:

In the paper, we analyze 117 moderate-strong earthquakes occurred in Chinese mainland (M S≥5.5 in the east and M S≥6.0 in the west) since 1970, among them, 11 earthquakes (about 9%) have direct foreshocks and 63 earthquakes (about 51%) have generalized foreshocks. The predominant time interval between foreshock and main earthquake is no more than 30 days with a spatial distance less than 50 km and a magnitude difference over 1. From the digital seismic data in liaoning Province, we know that direct foreshock had an obvious shear-stress background before the M S=5.6 and M S=5.1 Xiuyan earthquakes occurred on Nov. 29, 1999 and Jan.15, 2000. source


Earthquake clusterings in both space and time have various forms, in particular, two typical examples are the foreshock sequences and earthquake swarms. Based on the analysis of 8 foreshock sequences in mainland China during 1966–1996, this study concentrates on the pattern characteristics of foreshock sequences. The following pattern characteristics of foreshock sequences have been found (1) the epicenters of foreshock sequences were densely concentrated in space; (2) the focal mechanisms of foreshocks were similar to that of the main shock. Such consistency of focal mechanisms with main shocks did not exist in aftershock series as well as in several earthquake swarms; (3) we found no case in mainland China during the past thirty years that a main shock is preceded by an earthquake clustering with inconsistent focal mechanisms. Finally, we found 5% of the main shocks in mainland China are preceded by foreshock sequences. source

2001 source The spectral analysis of waveforms from moderate and weak earthquakes in the Kurile-Kamchatka region allows one to rather reliably discriminate between foreshocks of forthcoming strong events and independent swarms of seismic shocks. Anomalously high frequencies of seismic radiation from foreshock sources are due to an anomalous rigidity of the seismogenic medium. Based on significant frequency anomalies determined from seismic records of foreshock sequences, the methods developed by the authors can be applied to recognize medium- and short-term seismological precursory effects.

really dude, must you be so infantile in this thread ??

for those interested in the science of this topic ... read some of the links on this search page
g oogle
or this one
and another

Deny Ignorance and question everything, even Puterman.
to clarify ... long, long ago (and still touted by USGS today) foreshocks were only designated such after a main shock but that was then and this is now ... and now, some foreshock Sequences are being identified, mapped, utilized and occasionally proving useful in predictions.

TM, glad you stopped by and are still participating, thank you for taking the risk, thank you for sharing and try to remember, some will heed Earth's warnings, some will not, it is designed that way.

edit on 22-9-2011 by Honor93 because: fix link

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by tmiddlebrook36

Another post after all this time with vague info and a reference to an already scheduled event so your "info" will appear legit.
You will have to bring more than that after all this time. If this were true and you took such pains to "warn people" it seems you would stop being so vague. You pop on here every once and a while and make some fuzzy statements and I'm not buying it anymore. I have learned more from people here than I have from you. You need to produce or hit the road....not trying to scare you away but...

top topics

<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in