It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Could the 6.4 quake (9/9/11) in Vancouver be a foreshock to a mega quake?

page: 13
71
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by StealthyKat
There was a 4.4 earthquake in west TEXAS while ATS was shutdown...


Which proves that ATS being off line allows earthquakes to take place that otherwise would have been suppressed

Just kidding! Was ATS off line? I had not noticed.




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by westcoast
 


"Always look on the right scale at the side" - (even though the scale is on the left) - to the tune of "Always look on the bright side of life"


so I know it isnt just local interference.


At 3 microns it is probably worms farting! Well weather anyway.

You mean to say you did not see this?


or this which has something of the look of the sky you showed although a different colour



or possibly even this sort of effect



Had to laugh!


What else might cause this other than a meteor??


And you come up with earthquakes when I would have immediately said solar wind /CMEs - in other word auroras.


I doubt very much if you would see the things they were measuring.

*ducks as the earthquake cloud adherents break into a frenzy and batter Puterman over the head*


edit on 12/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)


ETA: The bold is not me - it is some weirdness caused the the photo urls


edit on 12/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   


This is not a prediction. I have no idea if I'm right about what i saw...and even then, what it really might mean. This is just one possibility...but on the VERY off chance that it's right....I just have to go with it. Reason being...awareness. Please. Anyone living in this area, be aware and pay attention. To the sky, yourself, animals, nature. Let's continue to watch the seismographs.
reply to post by westcoast
 


First I have to say....I could NOT believe the image when I saw the Canada Quake going in a straight line to your home....that is craazy WC! Hopefully and prayerfully there will not be anything to it other than an image.


I have to agree with you though. It is one thing to freak out and say something is coming but it is indeed another saying..."Hey, this is what I see....be aware". Total difference in the two and I think you are conveying yourself well when you say to be aware. No fear is needed..just be aware.

It is still waaaay too quiet in the EQ world for me. This weekend I expected to see more than I saw. Where is all the pressure and when will it be released!!!!????



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
spaceweather.com...

One thing that I have noticed, and I may be wrong of course..... I look at spaceweather every day and it seems that when the solar wind is around 450-500, that is when the earthquakes occur.

Like I said, I may be wrong, but something to keep an eye on?



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Isn't Vancouver on the Ring of Fire?



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I'd like to add that a 4.2 hit at 2:30 a.m. this morning. This NWCNarticle said it was in the same spot as the 6.4.

Edit:
I pulled it up on USGS and the map looks like it wasn't the same spot, but fairly close.
USGS link to summary

Magnitude 4.2 - VANCOUVER ISLAND, CANADA REGION
2011 September 12 09:37:32 UTC

Earthquake Details

This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.

Magnitude 4.2
Date-Time

Monday, September 12, 2011 at 09:37:32 UTC
Monday, September 12, 2011 at 02:37:32 AM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 50.781°N, 129.947°W
Depth 29.4 km (18.3 miles)
Region VANCOUVER ISLAND, CANADA REGION
Distances 179 km (111 miles) W of Port Hardy, British Columbia, Canada
197 km (122 miles) SW of Bella Bella, British Columbia, Canada
517 km (321 miles) WNW of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
543 km (337 miles) WNW of VICTORIA, British Columbia, Canada
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 28.7 km (17.8 miles); depth +/- 11.2 km (7.0 miles)
Parameters NST=210, Nph=214, Dmin=201.5 km, Rmss=1.68 sec, Gp=158°,
M-type=body wave magnitude (Mb), Version=6
Source

Magnitude: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Location: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)

Event ID usc0005ssi
edit on 12-9-2011 by collietta because: Add earthquake location, summary



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I thought you were yelling at me until you explained about the bold. I thought I might have actually irritated you.


Always priding myself in admiting when I am wrong about something....I am happy to say that I am now leaning toward a rare daytime aurora sighting. I am both relieved that it probably was just the solar wind....and excited that I caught it on film.

I don't regret putting the other info out there though, because like I said, at the off chance that it was from the quake or a pending one, it is more than worth documenting. I don't care if it makes me look stupid.




I am still a bit preplexed with first the direction of the streaks....basically from NW to SE. I thought Auroras always cam from due North...but that may be just wrong. I saw some pictures late last night of local pictures taken friday night of the auroras out in San Juans...which would have been under what I saw, so got me to thinking it might be more possible. The only other time I saw them (about 14 yrs ago) it was VERY different. They were undulating and very green, like ribbons in the wind reaching down to the ground. But then again...this was a different solar wind and not at night, so who knows??

Either way, it is documented.

That 4.2 is over 200 km away from the 6.4 and (according to the earlier quoted geologist) on a different fault. So I would most definately say it is NOT an aftershock. In fact, USGS STILL isn't listing any aftershocks. Anything 3.5 or above should be there. I have not figured this one out yet. Bugging me.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
A substantial increase in activity on the Portland, OR. webcorders . . . . relative to normal average.

I am not sure if this means anything whatsoever but just thought I would point it out.

USGS Portland, OR

Also . . . the wind is calm in the area.
edit on 12-9-2011 by nonnez because: Wind



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by westcoast
 


If you wold like to know more about "The next big one" on Vancouver Island READ ON!

Vancouver,City on the EDGE
John Clague Professor of Geology- Simon Fraser Univerity
Robert Turner- Geological Survey of Canada-Research Scientist
ISBN 0-9697601-4-0

9 or GREATER
1000 BC
600 BC
AD 300
AD 700
January 26,1700 Destroyed most of native population in the area that is now Vancouver... and the resultant tsunami destroyed "a 1000 km length of the Eastern coast of Honshu Island (Fukushima) with waves up to several meters high" They go on to say that the next 9 or greater will settle the area that Vancouver is built on by several meters (based on previous geological records) below the level of the Pacific Ocean !! (see the photo [pg 121]of stratified evidence intidal marsh substrate) Again these are reputable scientists with a firm background in Geology! They are not conspiracy theorists!!! Find the book... (library) Read the FACTS... then Repost this and tell your friends in the Vancouver area!
I believe that this Huge Earthquake is imminent!



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Source


02:37 a.m. PDT September 12 - A M 4.2 earthquake occurred 100 km off the northwest tip of Vancouver Island. This earthquake was not felt and did not cause any damage. This event occurred in an active offshore seismic zone and is not an aftershock of Friday's M 6.3 earthquake.


So, nope. It says it is NOT an aftershock.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
There was another quake in Vancouver this morning I think....4.2



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Several quakes can be foreshocks. I'm worried that the 5.9 quake that happened outside of Washington DC in August was merely a foreshock to something bigger.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by freespirit1
 


Yes please do keep any eye on that. I am still trying to find time to get round to analysing that but just keeping my web site going takes enough time.

It certainly is something that needs to be either accepted or rejected.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by strokker
 


Great post and very interesting read. The problem is, relatively speaking an IMMINENT EARTHQUAKE in geological times isn't that imminent when people in that area consider they are there for only a few years.

Yes a huge disaster is waiting for Vancouver, everyone run for the hills. It could be tomorrow, or it could be 10,000 years from now, but most likely somewhere in between.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by KevinBally
 



Several quakes can be foreshocks. I'm worried that the 5.9 quake that happened outside of Washington DC in August was merely a foreshock to something bigger.


Yes several quakes can be foreshocks, they can also be aftershocks. Just let me get out my 20/20 hindsight glasses a moment. Ah, that is better


Basically you cannot tell until after a bigger one happens. One or two have said they knew the 7.3 at Honshu was a foreshock. I call BS on that. Not only could no one have known, but no one expected a 9.0 either.

Take a look at the sequence of quakes at Virginia first:


Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-08-23 17:51:04, 37.936, -77.933, 5.8, 6.0, Virginia
2011-08-23 18:46:50, 37.930, -77.934, 2.8, 0.1, Virginia
2011-08-23 19:20:26, 37.911, -78.004, 2.2, 0.1, Virginia
2011-08-24 00:04:36, 37.912, -77.950, 4.2, 7.9, Virginia
2011-08-24 04:45:26, 37.925, -77.994, 3.4, 4.9, Virginia
2011-08-25 04:06:47, 37.922, -77.988, 2.5, 0.1, Virginia
2011-08-25 05:07:50, 37.939, -77.895, 4.5, 5.0, Virginia
2011-08-25 05:59:13, 37.916, -80.215, 2.7, 12.9, West Virginia
2011-08-25 06:37:31, 37.911, -77.968, 2.3, 0.1, Virginia
2011-08-25 15:27:47, 37.950, -77.923, 2.4, 0.1, Virginia
2011-08-25 23:40:56, 37.902, -77.813, 2.6, 4.9, Virginia
2011-08-26 22:52:22, 37.887, -77.938, 2.1, 0.1, Virginia
2011-08-27 09:02:29, 37.925, -77.976, 2.0, 0.1, Virginia
2011-08-28 20:18:05, 37.933, -77.969, 2.2, 6.7, Virginia
2011-08-29 01:06:36, 37.932, -77.987, 2.3, 4.6, Virginia
2011-08-29 03:15:21, 37.939, -77.987, 2.0, 4.1, Virginia
2011-08-29 03:16:50, 37.933, -77.990, 2.7, 4.2, Virginia
2011-08-29 04:19:26, 37.936, -77.988, 2.2, 4.2, Virginia
2011-08-29 23:39:50, 37.967, -77.930, 2.1, 6.0, Virginia
2011-08-30 03:48:28, 37.906, -77.976, 2.6, 7.2, Virginia
2011-08-30 13:26:50, 37.919, -77.977, 2.1, 5.8, Virginia
2011-08-31 13:44:10, 37.922, -77.881, 2.1, 0.7, Virginia
2011-08-31 15:01:54, 37.952, -77.977, 1.8, 3.6, Virginia
2011-09-01 09:09:38, 37.951, -77.927, 3.4, 3.5, Virginia
2011-09-03 21:10:53, 37.948, -77.970, 2.0, 5.5, Virginia
2011-09-05 16:54:24, 37.946, -77.969, 2.5, 5.2, Virginia
2011-09-06 09:03:16, 37.923, -77.879, 2.1, 2.6, Virginia
2011-09-06 21:17:53, 37.936, -77.964, 2.0, 6.2, Virginia
2011-09-07 05:56:43, 37.959, -77.945, 2.1, 6.1, Virginia




That is really a pretty sure sequence of aftershocks after a main shock. I believe it is unlikely that we will see another big one for sometime, probably years, at that location.

Now Vancouver is not so easy to determine as there is not really sufficient data to make a judgement on just the USGS data


Date/Time UTC,Latitude,Longitude,Magnitude,Depth(Km),Location
2011-08-17 00:32:27, 49.566, -126.077, 3.5, 10.0, Vancouver Island. Canada Region
2011-09-09 14:22:32, 48.473, -124.868, 1.2, 39.0, Vancouver Island. Canada Region
2011-09-09 19:41:34, 49.492, -126.966, 6.4, 23.0, Vancouver Island. Canada Region
2011-09-11 19:51:53, 48.326, -123.267, 1.7, 47.5, Vancouver Island. Canada Region
2011-09-12 09:37:32, 50.781, -129.947, 4.2, 29.4, Vancouver Island. Canada Region


(Attribution as above)

Mixing the USGS and Canadian data we get this:


Date Time Lat. Long. Depth Mag. F Region
---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ---- - ------
2011-08-17T00:32:27,49.56680,-126.07750,3.5000,10.0000,Vancouver Island. Canada region
2011-09-09T14:22:32,48.47310,-124.86860,1.2000,39.0000,Vancouver Island. Canada region
2011-09-09T15:59:36,49.39N 127.20W 33.6 2.1ML 86 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011-09-09T19:41:30,49.34N 127.26W 38.4 6.3Mw 92 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011-09-09T19:44:43,49.36N 127.21W 35.1 4.5ML 88 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011-09-09T19:59:10,49.33N 127.20W 35.6 3.3ML 88 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011-09-09T20:07:25,49.40N 127.18W 29.5 3.3ML 83 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011-09-09T20:09:34,49.36N 127.20W 37.2 3.3ML 86 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011-09-09T20:12:02,49.50N 127.18W 29.0 3.0ML 80 km W of Gold R.,BC
2011-09-09T22:35:40,49.42N 127.16W 35.8 2.9ML 82 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011-09-09T22:47:25,49.42N 127.14W 34.7 2.8ML 80 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011-09-10T00:09:02,49.44N 127.13W 33.5 2.0ML 79 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011-09-10T00:50:02,49.43N 127.18W 34.9 2.5ML 82 km WSW of Gold R.,BC
2011-09-10T13:39:44,49.48N 127.12W 30.0 2.4ML 77 km W of Gold R.,BC
2011-09-11T19:51:53,48.32630,-123.26730,1.7000,47.5000,Vancouver Island. Canada region
2011-09-12T09:37:32,50.78110,-129.94740,4.2000,29.4000,Vancouver Island. Canada region
2011-09-12T17:12:36,49.35N 127.15W 38.8 3.2ML 84 km WSW of Gold R.,BC


Canadian Source
Other data as above
(Sorry run of of letters sheesh!!!)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Continued/.............

Now once again with a little more data we can see that this is beginning to look more like a foreshock, main shock, aftershock sequence. So was this a foreshock to a mega quake? I am still hanging my hat on the no stand and saying that this was a reasonably normal event in this area and not likely to be a precursor to a mega-quake.

Apart from anything else mega-quakes this year have been banned as they would spoil my prediction!



edit on 12/9/2011 by PuterMan because: Ah, the inevitable speeling erra




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by strokker
 

Very interesting!

Though given the periods in between each mega-quake, it's pretty hard for you to deduce that another big one is due around now:

1000 BC
600 BC (400 yr gap)
AD 300 (700 yr gap)
AD 700 (400 yr gap)
AD 1700 (1000 yr gap)
AD 2011 ?????

Maybe 2100 would be a closer guess, which means most alive today won't need to be worrying about a 9+ anytime soon.

End of the day, yes we know these things will happen one day, but stressing out, leaving for 'safer' destinations, isn't really feasible. I've been amazed by the number of stories reported where people left Christchurch after the 7.1 & 6.3 quakes, and headed to Australia and some European destinations, only to end up smack bang in the middle of a massive FLOOD or HURRICANE in the following months!

Sure stay prepared but make sure to ENJOY LIFE TODAY



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by strokker
 


A link to the information you provided would not only be good but would comply with the T & C.


John Clague Professor of Geology- Simon Fraser Univerity
Robert Turner- Geological Survey of Canada-Research Scientist


By the way is this guy a seismologist do you know?

Do worry about answering that. Here is his bio

www.sfu.ca...


edit on 12/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Puterman....just curious...what is this odd looking squiggle?



[




edit on 9/12/2011 by StealthyKat because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by StealthyKat
 


It is a telemetry spike. You see them often on the seismos. Nothing to worry about.

I will try and find the link that shows that.

By the way when posting a large picture - i,e, one wider than 590 pixels, remove the ats bit out of the enclosing [ atsimg ] tags and the picture will then scroll horizontally.

OK, you smallified it while I was typing!!

edit on 12/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)


OK, not quite the one I was looking for but look at the last signature on this page

Interpreting seismograms

You can see the similarity even though that one is even more clipped than the one you were looking at.


edit on 12/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
71
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join