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: 143
159
<< 140  141  142    144  145  146 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by murkraz
 


Thank you very much for that!

Ok, there is one at 5ish km depth and I'm guessing that string of them at 10.0 is a default depth (?) whereas most of them seem to be around 30ish km +/- a smidge.

They also seem to be bound fairly closely spatially.

Things that make you go hmmm...




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by murkraz
 


Things that make you go hmmm...


well, I wouldn't b going hmmmm as much if billions of tax payer money wasn't spent on building highly destructive impactors and rovers to see through/analyze rock.. for a dead planet like mars when Venus is much more interesting... and closer... and less talked about in projects yet with plenty of projects to boot.

they can't say they are for Venus... because what they tell us of Venus tells us that they wouldn't last on Venus, so they send them to mars where nothing is really happening except funny looking rocks they put all over the enquirer to make us THINK something interesting is on Mars.

ok, now that i'm even more paranoid, I'll leave that at that and get back to the quake watch.

EDIT... not to mention china, russia and the US having a space race pissing contest and china saying oh, how clever of the US to let the public be aware of what you are doing, thereby raising interest and making it ok to spend that much money when our people don't KNOW what WE are even doing... hint hint US of A...and watch us do something more clever and just push large objects OUT of the WAY... hint hint US of A....


Do they even understand how paranoid they MAKE US?
edit on 20-5-2012 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by murkraz
 


Thank you very much for that!

Ok, there is one at 5ish km depth and I'm guessing that string of them at 10.0 is a default depth (?) whereas most of them seem to be around 30ish km +/- a smidge.

They also seem to be bound fairly closely spatially.

Things that make you go hmmm...

The string of 5s seem to be following the 6 mag that was registered at 10 km. I know 10 is usually the default, but I'm unsure of the instances in which 10 is chosen. I figure they would have changed it if it wasn't fairly shallow. It seems the larger 5+ were more shallow than the majority of the 4s.

I noticed that it started to the west, then jumped further east, then let out the 5.9 and 6.0 more in the middle of everything. Now the east side of the swarm is picking up.

Makes me wonder if stress will give around the middle again. Hopefully nothing large pops out.

@NotAnAspie,

How did you get into that subject?


I thought Venus was literally a chaotic shell of sulfuric acid rain. Never really researched it. I've always been more interested in Mars, which I feel definitely has some secrets, though any traces I am unsure of as they claim it has been enduring a 600,000,000 year drought.

I'd love to see a good picture of Venus all the same.
edit on 20/5/12 by murkraz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by murkraz
 


whats normal anymore? this activity is eerily similar to last year I wish there were some way to give the people of japan a warning to be prepared I have a very bad feeling about this, and with all the talk of a large quake being overdue... anyway last year if i remember correct the swarm stopped for a few days making things look ok and back to normal thats when the 9 hit I even remember thinking where did the swarm go?

I will be watching for the silence in this area next thats for sure.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL
reply to post by murkraz
 


whats normal anymore? this activity is eerily similar to last year I wish there were some way to give the people of japan a warning to be prepared I have a very bad feeling about this, and with all the talk of a large quake being overdue... anyway last year if i remember correct the swarm stopped for a few days making things look ok and back to normal thats when the 9 hit I even remember thinking where did the swarm go?

I will be watching for the silence in this area next thats for sure.

Here's an animation of the swarm beforehand and after.

Seems the only difference really is the 7.2 that started things off. These things are so unpredictable, but I definitely think that it's wise to be watchful when swarms like this accelerate out of nowhere, even with the 9 mag and all the tension that is still going on.




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by murkraz

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by murkraz
 


Thank you very much for that!

Ok, there is one at 5ish km depth and I'm guessing that string of them at 10.0 is a default depth (?) whereas most of them seem to be around 30ish km +/- a smidge.

They also seem to be bound fairly closely spatially.

Things that make you go hmmm...

The string of 5s seem to be following the 6 mag that was registered at 10 km. I know 10 is usually the default, but I'm unsure of the instances in which 10 is chosen. I figure they would have changed it if it wasn't fairly shallow. It seems the larger 5+ were more shallow than the majority of the 4s.

I noticed that it started to the west, then jumped further east, then let out the 5.9 and 6 more in the middle of all of those 4s and 5s. Now the east side of the swarm is picking up.

Makes me wonder if stress will give around the middle again. Hopefully nothing large pops out.

@NotAnAspie,

How did you get into that subject?


I always thought Venus was literally a chaotic place of acid rain and sulfur. I've always been more interested in Mars, which I feel definitely has some secrets, though any traces I am unsure of as they claim it has been enduring a 600,000,000 year drought.

I'd love to see a good picture of Venus all the same.
edit on 20/5/12 by murkraz because: (no reason given)


venus is a lot like earth... although it has no geo-dynamo to spin off some of the heat and get it out runaway greenhouse. it could also use a moon but it's ingredients... very earth like. not to mention the fact there are twice as many venus missions as mars missions... yet when you look at the nasa programs it's MARS MARS MARS.

simply because they want to build rovers.

and then it's deep impact... simply because they want to build impactors.. Whereas china says they think it's smarter to just push comets off course if they want to hit us. DERRRR.

NO, we gotta blow these things up and list it under several different projects and an inflated budget.

these impactors are capable of doing a lot of damage. they are technically a weapon of mass destruction.

yeah.. like I was saying.. little paranoid about these earthquakes.


billions, yeah... BILLIONS.... to look at mars rocks and blow up space rocks that might only need a nudge.

EDIT... yeah, just to add to china's reaction to deep impact. Before they mentioned their "more clever" plan... they mentioned that what the US was doing was efficient.... yeah... EFFICIENT. come on, that is riddled with some very professional sarcasm. they continue by saying that their people don't know much about what they are doing (a warning) clouded with talk of limited funding and a public lack of enthusiasm (which speaking of funding Obama CUT Nasas budget and people are losing enthusiasm for having all their tax dollars spent... another warning) they didn't really say whose lack of funding. Why would they have a lack of funding when we owe THEM? ... then they reveal a "more clever" approach to asteroids and comets... right after they send a probe to the moon.

there is some serious double talk in that.

Do not kid yourselves, the east is KING of sarcasm.
edit on 21-5-2012 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by murkraz
 


wow great video it does look like there was a slow down in the swarm before the bigest hit..

one thing i noticed about the large amount of aftershocks the northern most aftershocks were mild and few. compared to the aftershocks near the epicenter of the 9.1, they almost made a line it almost looks like the exact same area we are seeing this current swarm.

would this area be more inclined for a big one because of tension?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL
reply to post by murkraz
 


wow great video it does look like there was a slow down in the swarm before the bigest hit..

one thing i noticed about the large amount of aftershocks the northern most aftershocks were mild and few. compared to the aftershocks near the epicenter of the 9.1, they almost made a line it almost looks like the exact same area we are seeing this current swarm.

would this area be more inclined for a big one because of tension?

You were right actually, that video starts at the 7 mag.

I went to EMSC and put in January 1st to March 11th of 2011.



2011-03-11 06:25:49.0 38.22 N 144.66 E 10 7.6 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 22:44:25.0 38.85 N 143.07 E 30 5.0 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 21:49:46.0 38.58 N 143.16 E 28 4.7 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 16:54:44.0 38.10 N 143.32 E 02 5.3 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 16:54:44.0 38.10 N 143.32 E 02 5.3 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 09:02:21.0 38.70 N 143.12 E 18 5.4 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 08:59:17.0 38.58 N 143.32 E 10 4.9 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 08:08:19.0 38.59 N 143.34 E 10 5.7 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 04:13:58.0 38.46 N 143.35 E 10 4.6 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 01:20:22.0 38.42 N 143.14 E 20 4.9 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 23:57:41.0 38.36 N 143.29 E 18 4.9 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 23:37:00.0 38.48 N 143.14 E 30 5.4 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 16:54:44.0 38.10 N 143.32 E 02 5.3 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 09:02:21.0 38.70 N 143.12 E 18 5.4 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 08:59:17.0 38.58 N 143.32 E 10 4.9 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 08:08:19.0 38.59 N 143.34 E 10 5.7 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 04:13:58.0 38.46 N 143.35 E 10 4.6 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-10 01:20:22.0 38.42 N 143.14 E 20 4.9 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 23:57:41.0 38.36 N 143.29 E 18 4.9 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 23:37:00.0 38.48 N 143.14 E 30 5.4 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 18:44:36.0 38.54 N 143.20 E 10 6.2 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 14:24:06.0 38.60 N 143.24 E 10 4.8 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 12:03:17.0 38.36 N 143.17 E 10 4.8 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 11:27:50.0 38.59 N 143.04 E 20 5.2 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 10:13:39.0 38.78 N 143.11 E 30 4.8 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 08:55:37.0 38.68 N 143.10 E 10 4.9 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 08:02:35.0 38.63 N 143.16 E 10 5.3 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 07:13:51.0 38.30 N 143.05 E 30 5.0 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 06:25:15.0 38.32 N 143.01 E 30 5.1 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 06:12:13.0 38.71 N 143.10 E 10 4.9 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 05:27:18.0 38.49 N 143.40 E 10 4.7 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 03:18:59.0 38.79 N 143.02 E 22 5.1 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-03-09 03:08:35.0 38.41 N 143.03 E 19 5.5 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN

2011-02-26 14:40:57.0 38.25 N 143.08 E 15 5.1 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-02-22 09:53:39.0 38.39 N 143.25 E 30 5.0 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-02-21 13:24:03.0 38.30 N 143.32 E 10 4.8 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-02-15 22:12:34.0 38.66 N 143.08 E 15 4.9 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-02-15 19:01:00.0 38.37 N 143.22 E 02 5.5 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2011-02-04 20:22:14.0 38.76 N 144.58 E 40 4.5 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN

Apologies for the length of this thing, but yeah. That animation started at the 7 mag, but seems there was indeed quite the random swarm dating back as far as Feb, spread out and then pausing for a period of time before spitting out the 6, then 7 mag.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL
would this area be more inclined for a big one because of tension?

PuterMan has all the real data. His opinion was that this wasn't that far from the 9, but I also remember reading on here that the area a bit South of Hokkaido could be prone to a big one. With all those complicated faults, I wish I was more educated on their history. Might have to educate myself tomorrow on the history of Japan quakes.
edit on 21/5/12 by murkraz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by murkraz
 


lol guess my quake memory is still good


strange that they change the magnitudes so much I dont remember it being a 7.6 I thought larger but it was a year ago..., a conspiracy theorist might think it was intentional to confuse people.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnVidale
 



The M6.4 at LDEO is from their surface-wave matched filter detector. I'm not sure how it related to their CMT solutions, which generally appear slower.


Thanks for your input on that John. So are you saying that when we look at the LDEO listing here we are not actually comparing like for like? Not only do we have a confusing array of magnitudes but there seems to be a confusing array of calculations that go along side them!

Would it be fair to say that the Global CMT value (which I find is often in agreement with most) would be the more accurate calculation to latch on to?

That being the case, is it possible to explain in lay terms the difference between the surface-wave and CMT calculation and what the surface wave calculation is telling us?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


I realise this is a little OT but


like the European union Times


If you are referring to the eutimes site I would urge caution in relation to any articles you see there to do with earthquakes and similar natural disasters. The site is marked as dodgy in WOT for good reason. (Type in "web of trust" in this ulra safe search engine which does not record your IP address - all good conspiracy theorists should use it)

It is a bit like Sorcha Faal in a different guise.

As a reliable source of earthquakes information it should be treated with maximum suspicion.


the enquirer


Oh dear, just got to the post mentioning this source. I think you would be much calmer and less paranoid if you changed your sources of reading materials to ones that are more credible.


 


NO, we gotta blow these things up


Is that not what America does best?


edit on 21/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by murkraz
 



The string of 5s seem to be following the 6 mag that was registered at 10 km. I know 10 is usually the default, but I'm unsure of the instances in which 10 is chosen.


The 'default' depth, used when the depth is poorly constrained, is selected according to the area of the quake thus there are different default depths for different situations. This is the USGS explanation.


The depth where the earthquake begins to rupture. This depth may be relative to mean sea-level or the average elevation of the seismic stations which provided arrival-time data for the earthquake location. The choice of reference depth is dependent on the method used to locate the earthquake. Sometimes when depth is poorly constrained by available seismic data, the location program will set the depth at a fixed value. For example, 33 km is often used as a default depth for earthquakes determined to be shallow, but whose depth is not satisfactorily determined by the data, whereas default depths of 5 or 10 km are often used in mid-continental areas and on mid-ocean ridges since earthquakes in these areas are usually shallower than 33 km.


Source: USGS Glossary of terms

This statement has always bothered me - This depth may be relative to mean sea-level or the average elevation of the seismic stations which provided arrival-time data - as it does not appear that we know which was used. John, any input on that?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by -W1LL
 



and with all the talk of a large quake being overdue


I guess we have to be careful there to define what we mean. Are we talking mag 7? Then yes it is possible. Are we talking over mag 7? Then at this time it is my belief that this would not happen IN THAT AREA. I do however believe a little further north in the bend of the trench round Hokkaido that something larger is possible and that area has put out mag 8.5+ in the past.

The mag 9 if my calculations are right would have had a rupture extending into or past this area so I do wonder if it is possible in such a short time.

The run up from the south is more likely, or the other side of the triple in my opinion.

Which ever way a magnitude of "OMG pool 4" size is NOT what we want.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by -W1LL
 



and with all the talk of a large quake being overdue


I guess we have to be careful there to define what we mean. Are we talking mag 7? Then yes it is possible. Are we talking over mag 7? Then at this time it is my belief that this would not happen IN THAT AREA. I do however believe a little further north in the bend of the trench round Hokkaido that something larger is possible and that area has put out mag 8.5+ in the past.

The mag 9 if my calculations are right would have had a rupture extending into or past this area so I do wonder if it is possible in such a short time.

The run up from the south is more likely, or the other side of the triple in my opinion.

Which ever way a magnitude of "OMG pool 4" size is NOT what we want.

yes I do mean the larger mag 7.. thanks for your reply I was thinking the same thing that the area might be too close to the original 9 looking at the fault line and where they get complicated intersecting or making sharp angles is where I would think the most tension. like that one little elbow next to Tokyo.

although you give me comfort in saying not in this area I looked at the map this morning and right on top of each other the mag 5 and 4's are in the same spot as last night creeping toward the fault line it looks..

I also saw activity in cali on the same side at almost the same time . I am not sure if I remember this happening in cali last year, during the Japan swarm.
edit on 5/21/2012 by -W1LL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Just guessing, rather than checking in detail, but the matched filter detection method discards phase and simply checks every spot on the Earth every few seconds as a potential source for the seismic energy observed in the next half hour or so on every GSN station. It's a very fast and reasonably accurate way to spot earthquakes without worrying about the details of focal mechanism, time history, and depth.

The CMT station looks for the focal mechanism, location, and source duration for every event that some other method has detected. It approximately corrects for the lateral heterogeneity in the Earth, and is, so far as I know, the best available solution except in areas of exceptional local seismic networks.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Yes, there are various reference levels used for 0 depth in various location methods. Maybe a point to remember is that one wouldn't want to trust depths to within the difference between the surface and bottom of the ocean or the average elevation of the stations. Also, any significant earthquake breaks across a range of depths, and sometimes the specified depth is the onset of faulting, sometimes it is instead the centroid.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I remember it being mentioned, when the 9 hit japan last year, that was not the area that was expected to have the big earthquake, it was another fault. i the 8 last year was north, they are still expecting the big one further south

Seismologists have long predicted that the big one would probably be a repeat of the 1923 Kanto earthquake, which occurred in a dangerous fault zone close to Tokyo and killed an estimated 142,000 people.

news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by research100
 


www.rense.com...

This is the one you are talking about. The article is from 1998.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


A question for you. I have a very important theory that i believe may be similar to the squeezing of a tennis ball.
The Earth is protected by a various layers of atmosphere, ozone, magnetosphere layers.
Is it possible that due to..............., how can i word this?

If its fact that the earths plates float on a layer of molten lava and are contantly moving then it actually raises some interesting questions that i would like to throw your way. If you dont mind?

A CME that is earth directed must use force, hence why the magnetosphere gets dragged around and creates the auroras etc but here is what i find interesting. Electric current travels from negative to positive, right?
Is it possible that the pole shift will be simply a switching of direction of current, current in this case being the cme's charge and what about the influence of the Large Hadron Collider combined with HAARP on such an event?
I believe that the Earth is constantly being replenished with energy direct to its core via the poles and that maybe the LHC and HAARP may actually trying to use this. On the other hand they may be using these for other reasons but hey?
The core continuously being replenished creating a free energy source capable of how much power?
Now this is where i ask in regard to the tennis ball theory of mine.
We as a species have drilled and mined for many years. What we have taken out may have left empty spaces(may not but just a theory) These empty spaces along with an earth directed cme could it possibly cause a squeezing effect, earthquakes getting more frequent or greater magnitude? The squeezing effect caused by cme's may trigger EQ's due to compression therefore squeezing volvanos or forcing lava/oil up? Add to the equation the fact that we as a species have removed much of Earths flexibility by building miles upon miles of roads, railway lines, Tunnels, cables, Pylons all of which may restrict movement? Not forgetting the gigantic scabs of concrete that we sit on in towns and cities.
I could go further into things in relation to vibrations and the earth becoming in a sense a tuning fork.
I know that this may not make sense to many but i am actually hoping that you could share your opinions as best as you can.

I would also like to ask a few more questions if you dont mind.

Google Earth Battery
Water Battery and tell me what we are all missing here because imho energy is in abundance and i believe that energy companies are making more than 100% profit
edit on 21-5-2012 by jazz10 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
159
<< 140  141  142    144  145  146 >>

log in

join