When I read this crap by Keven Doyel on Facebook about the USGS predicting the Landers earthquake before it happened, I had to laugh. Here is his
"most people are not aware that the landers quake was predicted internally by the USGS, approximately 30 days ahead of time, and notices circulated
internally, 7 hours prior to its rupture. (I can post the notice that we received shortly). Although we had been studying the area since a 6.1
earthquake occurred a few months earlier near Joshua Tree, CA, an earthquake in Sierra Madre, CA that registered 5.8 in 1991 steered the research for
the Landers/Big Bear sequence. The Sierra Madre fault system seemed to be capable of a much larger earthquake, however we hadn’t had opportunity to
do extensive excavation or radiocarbon dating on the fault system as the entire region had been becoming increasingly active. That said, we had very
new research that indicated the possibility of an impending sequence of larger earthquakes in the region, possibly on the Sierra Madre fault. (The
fault has since been confirmed to be capable of producing an earthquake of up to 7.9, tied with a “multiple fault rupture” sequence). This all
leads to the present day when programs between the USGS and NASA such as SESWG, GESS, InSARS, and LIDAR have provided a plethora of information that
has changed the landscape of geology. No one in the geology community will ever commit to terming a forecast as a “prediction” however in short;
this is what we are now able to do with a precision unmatched in modern science. As recently as five years ago, the prevailing thought was that we
were only able to forecast long-term events, and at best, provide “possible” or “plausible” magnitudes. However, over the last five years,
this has changed. Looking back at the Landers/Big Bear sequence, coupled with what we now know the Sierra Madre quake is capable of, what was once
only a 7-hour prediction has now developed into a more precise short-term plausibility based on the advent of space geodesy, (deformation measuring),
which has enabled major advances in understanding the deforming crust and, more precisely, atmospheric monitoring. Please research this technology and
know, although I cannot give you any specific current data, these are the programs we are using now and the data is shockingly convincing. As I’ve
mentioned to look for increasingly obvious programing and PSA’s over the next month, I’ve provided a benchmark for my credibility. Tomorrow nigh
KLCS is running and entire program, live, entitled “TOTALLY UNPREPARED”. Please watch it as this is what I’m referring to. I’m not sure how to
be more vulnerable here to make my point. Obviously, I cannot reveal my true identity and I would ask those of you who are trying to expose me to
redirect your attention to spreading the word."
The USGS and the guy that made the colored maps don't know squat about earthquake dynamics before they strike. The USGS never knows when an
earthquake is going to strike. A large one struck right under the USGS and knocked out their equipment, that is how prepared they are. Satellites
aren't needed in detecting earthquakes before they strike, and data gathered from satellites is erroneous as gathering data about animals detecting
earthquakes before they strike.
Piezoseismic systems detect all magnitudes of earthquakes before they strike. More than likely the US government will be crushed when a large
earthquake finally strikes a major city in the USA and kills thousands of people due to neglect by the USGS and the Department of the Interior. Let's
face it, destructive earthquakes that strike anywhere in the civilized world "can't" strike without being detected well in advance when using
piezoseismology. The USGS doesn't use piezoseismic systems because they are ignorant of how to detect earthquakes before they strike. The USGS
doesn't know what a piezoseimsic system consists of, simply because they have never seen one.
Who ever the quack is that keeps making those predictions about "36 Hour Earthquake Warning for the Los Angeles Basin and Salton Sea. 7.7 Earthquake
likely" should be prosecuted. Simply because he or she doesn't have any scientific basis or scientific knowlegde of that being a fact, when in fact
it will be false.
edit on 11-10-2011 by RussianScientists because: (no reason given)