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.

 

Quake Watch 2012

page: 121
159
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
update to post by PuterMan
 


Having has a listen it sounds like a local earthquake BUT so can other things. The problem is I can't tell if the double thump is because of the signal or because the seismo threw a wobbly just at the wrong moment.



Maybe a big rock got in the way of the tunneller and they had to blast it. There is a lot of noise and low rumbling so maybe the conspiracy theory about steal the water from the Great Lakes is true.

It could be a local quake, so local that the higher frequencies have not been attenuated, but equally it could be a sonic boom (it sort of has the right shape) or even thunder (although i did check and there were no storms that I could see on radar for the time). I can't imagine a sonic boom being permitted over a populated area but...

Just to throw into the mix as well we were just coming out of a KP 5 as well.



In view of the mass of these signatures in the 1 hour slice I really would not like to say it was an earthquake or sonic boom. I would need to do a lot more investigating to come up with an answer. By the way the area around that seismo station is right next to Alum Lake on one side (and water seems to cause noise) and it is also heavily infested with humans. Eww Cultural noise is certainly not out of the question.



Because of the number of events and the fact that those which appear to be more distant events are not apparently getting frequency attenuated, only amplitude, my feeling is that it is not an earthquake (yes I already said that several times). Difficult to say with the missing data.

Here is the first hour @ 20x speed. The 'bang' is @02:28

US_ACSO_BHZ_20120426-080000_800sps.WAV (282 kb)

:tunnelling
:
I don't believe that (much).




posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Their are huge salt mines under the great lake area. Some that are under Ohio. Could this be an answer?
I'm not sure on the Depth.
edit on 27-4-2012 by crappiekat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Humm - What's going on here? Now, where were They going to be doing a test?


4.0 port hardy, canada 2012-04-27 16:22:34 50.707°N 129.607°W 5.0
4.4 port hardy, canada 2012-04-27 12:52:47 50.630°N 129.696°W 10.0
3.9 port hardy, canada 2012-04-25 06:24:02 50.732°N 129.995°W 27.8
4.4 port hardy, canada 2012-04-22 08:36:20 50.649°N 129.933°W 11.6


Source



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
www.athensnews.com...

(i am chucking deep within my chest, a tear from a bigger laugh still blurring my vision. i couldn't read past the town hall meeting- i lost it. it's same kind of laughter a doctor gets get when they make a ghoulish joke post-mortem. it's a freaking car wreck. i can't turn away. and as a virtual disaster tourist, i'm cued up for the evening show. oh, what's wrong with me!? those are real people at the town meeting. how dare i replay quint in my mind's movie over and over again- in different U.S. towns- deja vu- american style.)

I am not sure about that bump in Ohio. I only asked because they'll be more quakes sooner or later. I doubt it's a quake because it's in a state park and is most probably other than siesmic. Ohio has live feeds. Interesting. So when the next well starts a swarm you can tune in to see the live quakes with installing GEE or other stuff.

www.dnr.state.oh.us...


Since my Mom is visiting Vancouver I am not rational thinking about what is happening. It is absolutely and completely and 100 % normal. Oh, I had an article detailing new faults they found in northern Washington State, but I ignored that as well and don't have link.

If a quake hits South America I wouldn't be surprised if it broke the 1960 record. I think you guys are spot on to a very likely next big event.

(or,- keep typing and i hurtcha



edit on 27-4-2012 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ericblair4891
 


So do you think this has anything to do with the mining of salt in Ohio. I see little blups there and I tend to dismiss them because of the mining. Have I been foolish in doing so. I do know that there are some faults there. But I don't know how the area emits noise because of the salt. And how does this make the noise different because of all the tunnels in the area.
edit on 27-4-2012 by crappiekat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
wats up in western Turkey ?????
looking at google earth I notish a vagely circular ground formation at the centre of those many eq's... agient caldera????
size 9 km in diametry
edit on 27-4-2012 by ressiv because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2012 by ressiv because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Missed one

I picked this up using the RealTimeEarthquakes Map thingy, set the Mag at 6+ and age at 0-30.
Well I think so, the ATS Search is a nightmare, how the heck do you find a reference to a particular post when you don't know what its key words are or when it was posted
I tried Taiwan 6.0, I tried Quake Watch 11-03-2012 ... nothing, even went back to page 98 five pages at a time, nothing I could see.

So here it is, I can't recall it at the time myself, too much happening with he Sumatra 2x8's, Michocan and Oregon, it was about 6 hrs before Oregon.
Note its Ms too, ha! are USGS coming around to their senses?


Magnitude 6.0 Ms
Location 22.647°N, 121.600°E
Depth 10.0 km ± 0.0 km
Number of Stations Used 19
Number of Phases Used 19
Minimum Distance 57.8 km (0.519°)
Travel Time Residual 1.13 sec
Azimuthal Gap 108°
Version Q
Review Status REVIEWED
Event ID us2012zgm1

earthquake.usgs.gov...

No phase data, and I didn't catch it on SNZO either, it was in between snags.
11-04-2012
12-04-2012



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzy
 



the ATS Search is a nightmare, how the heck do you find a reference to a particular post when you don't know what its key words are or when it was posted


Yup been a problem for quite some time - was most difficult when things were shaking in yellowstone. Guess we are use to Google search functions so to speak. hint, hint.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   

This event has been reviewed by a seismologist.

Magnitude 6.7 (Preliminary magnitude)

Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 10:08:06 UTC
Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 11:08:06 PM at epicenter

Location 18.676°S, 174.450°W
Depth 117.8 km (73.2 miles) set by location program
Region TONGA

49 km (31 miles) W (267°) from Neiafu, Tonga
287 km (178 miles) NNE (17°) from NUKU'ALOFA, Tonga
479 km (297 miles) W (274°) from Niue Island
2631 km (1635 miles) W (263°) from PAPEETE, Tahiti, French Polynesia

earthquake.usgs.gov...



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by murkraz
 


Still data from Alaska. Weird that they always seem to do that then they delete it and replace it with the US network version.

Interesting. EMSC had 6.7 Mw and changed it to 6.3 Mb which is less accurate at that level

Magnitude 6.3 TONGA


Locat ion in Google Maps

Derived from Data Source: EMSC
Powered by QVSData
edit on 28/4/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by murkraz
 


US version in.

Down to 6.4 Mw

earthquake.usgs.gov...

 

I am wondering if USGS has this wrong. There are three tensor solutions in now 6.7, 6.7, 6.6



Source EMSC

Link to Geofon 6.6 Mw (Manually revised)
Link to GeoAzur SCARDEC page. Click top link for Tensor

 

EMSC are now going with 6.6 Mw from the 6.3 mb. (I was mistaken about them going for 6.7. I can't see that in my revisions or deletions.)

So we have everyone EXCEPT USGS within one point, yet USGS had a preliminary magnitude that appeared to be correct and was changed to 6.4 when 'reviewed by a seismologist' - you know the guy that caught the early weekend shift because he was fresh out of college.

We shall see what LDEO come up with.

By the way:

mb = 6.4 (145) ML = 7.0 ( 2) mblg = 0.0 ( 0) md = 0.0 ( 0) MS = 0.0 ( 0)

from the USGS phase data so I doubt very much if it is 6.4 Mw (from the event page M-type=regional moment magnitude (Mw), Version=9)



edit on 28/4/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
You were correct, revised back up to a 6.7 on USGS.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
update to post by PuterMan
 


USGS tensor in




12/04/28 10:08:07.68

Epicenter: -18.657 -174.704
MW 6.7

USGS MOMENT TENSOR SOLUTION
Depth 132 No. of sta: 95
Moment Tensor; Scale 10**19 Nm
Mrr=-0.88 Mtt= 0.90
Mpp=-0.02 Mrt= 0.85
Mrp= 0.50 Mtp= 0.19
Principal axes:
T Val= 1.34 Plg=23 Azm=343
N -0.00 10 248
P -1.34 64 137

Best Double Couple:Mo=1.3*10**19
NP1:Strike=245 Dip=69 Slip=-101
NP2: 93 23 -64


USGS Body-Wave Moment Tensor Solution

So basically as I suspected the main page is just BS and not worth the 'review'. USGS seems to be getting steadily worse. I am beginning to have much more inclination to defer to EMSC who seem to be far more consistent than the apparent pack of Wallys currently posting stuff at Denver.



edit on 28/4/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by murkraz
 


Looks like they did that while I was ranting!!!

 

AFI.IU.00.BHZ.2012.119

Seismo closest.
edit on 28/4/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by crappiekat
 


I don't think salt mining has much blasting involved. There was salt domes in the area of Youngstown where the injection and earthquakes were happening. Ohio salt is mostly in the northeast of the state and some areas in the southeast. They don't always have dry mines, some salt is brought to the surface in a manner not too much different than fracking. They pump water into the ground and a salty brine come back up to the surface. They pump it out and evaporate the water.

They'll be fracking in Ohio soon enough- ( i hate education- the more i learn the angrier i become. my misantrophic world view is only made more grand as each brick of fact builds a wall as big as the one in china. they didn't need to build that wall, a simple trade post would have sufficed. i wonder if there's going to be a massive quake in ohio and whether or not it will create a tsunami on lake erie.) - oh wait, they've already started fracking in Ohio and they want to do it in State Parks. So, Alum Creek State Park could see fracking in the very near future.

A few days ago, I was having a hissy fit that Utah north to Yellowstone and beyond was quiet. Not so anymore. In fact it seems very vigorous lately. It went from below normal to above normal in a matter of a few days. Clustering. All I see is clustering. Like grapes on a vine, or birds of a feather, we indeed, stick together.

Had to add. I didn't make the round trip and I kept going on that tangent. I was going to say there is a good reason they want to pump waste water under Ohio. One is economic. They're broke. Ohio was one of the leading manufacturing states in the U.S.. Now it's know as part of the "brown belt" which refers to the rusted out factories of midwest. Ohio wants the money that's to be had in fracking and from importing waste. The porous rock after they're done with salt extraction is a good place to pump waste back in. Because there's lots of space left in the rock after the salt is removed. More dumps sites are available after they frack an area and the well is dry. Because now there is an empty spot that can be filled with garbage. Garbage and waste are a commodity of sorts. There's money in waste management. Wait until the future. We'll be going back into the garabe dumps and we'll be mining out all the materials we once threw away because there's nothing left worth going after in the ground we haven't mucked around in. Pause. Breath. Stop.


edit on 28-4-2012 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
im a bit intrigued by those two mid-west earthqukes in OK an Missouri



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Love your signature. I'm the craziest of them all. I sometimes think ATS is a CIA experiment to see if a "million monkeys" can become an organic computer. A digital computer __________, nor truely random thoughts. I digress. en.wikipedia.org...

Okie is a leftover so it's kinda normal. The Missouri quakes are quite normal.

But everything else isn't. I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. Nothing has been normal in quite a while. Lull, then boom, then sorta normal- but not really- now today is goofy. Forget about the Tonga, that's normal.

I can't even put my finger on it. I was quite content when things appeared to become routine.
So, I guess if I can't quantify it, I should just shut up.

Or I'll try. Shutting up isn't my strong suit. There's clusters in Europe and Asia and South America.
www.insidescience.org...


www.theintelligencer.net...



edit on 28-4-2012 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-4-2012 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anmarie96
Humm - What's going on here? Now, where were They going to be doing a test?


4.0 port hardy, canada 2012-04-27 16:22:34 50.707°N 129.607°W 5.0
4.4 port hardy, canada 2012-04-27 12:52:47 50.630°N 129.696°W 10.0
3.9 port hardy, canada 2012-04-25 06:24:02 50.732°N 129.995°W 27.8
4.4 port hardy, canada 2012-04-22 08:36:20 50.649°N 129.933°W 11.6


Source

And another.. 4.5
earthquake.usgs.gov...



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Activity is increasing everywhere

earthquake.usgs.gov...


Date-Time

Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 21:25:07 UTC
Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 02:25:07 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 32.192°N, 115.279°W
Depth 0.2 km (~0.1 mile) (poorly constrained)
Region BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
Distances

19 km (12 miles) SW (236°) from Guadalupe Victoria, Baja California, Mexico
54 km (34 miles) SSE (161°) from Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico
56 km (35 miles) WSW (238°) from San Luis Río Colorado, Sonora, Mexico
168 km (104 miles) ESE (102°) from Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico

Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 1.2 km (0.7 miles); depth +/- 2.7 km (1.7 miles)
Parameters Nph= 25, Dmin=51 km, Rmss=0.37 sec, Gp=194°,
M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=1
Source

California Integrated Seismic Net:
USGS Caltech CGS UCB UCSD UNR

Event ID ci15141665



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I'm going to include this Tonga one in the MajorQuakes maps and lists, I think USGS used far too many stations, obviously the more stations used the lower the average mag is going to be

USGS Phase data
I.m assuming in the USGS phase data the readings in the list are mb?

ML = 7.0 ( 2)
sta phase, arrival, mag
AFI ePn, 10:09:21.20, 7.0
URZ eP, 10:12:38.77, 7.0
WAKE eP, 10:15:45.53, 7.1
SAUI eP, 10:17:16.11, 7.1
VNDA eP, 10:18:01.77, 7.0
LUWI eP, 10:18:26.35, 7.0


The Russians used stations all to the north, while the energy went south, so their reading is skewed
RAS 6.5mb

Bottom line is, I look at SNZO before I open any Network Tabs, as soon as I seen the trace on SNZO I thought "hmmm thats a 'very-strong' quake and quite close due to the snub nose".

LISS SNZO (tagged)

edit on 28-4-2012 by muzzy because: added a couple of links


I'll answer my own question


I.m assuming in the USGS phase data the readings in the list are mb?


The type character matches the last letter of the magnitude types given in the last line of the header information (b = mb, L = ML, etc).
neic.usgs.gov...

Answer: apart from AFI which is ML the rest of the ones with 7 magnitude are mb

edit on 28-4-2012 by muzzy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
159
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join