The MATRIX of 188 - LEY LINES of the 188 DAY Mega-Quake Cycle Discovered & linked to NEW MADRID QUAK

reply to post by truthseekr1111

NOPE, its called showing CONTRAST with other stations that have different readings.

and since there's evidence that shows USGS has manipulated data and/or failed to correct errors in its data, anyone with a brain who's investigated this GOVERNMENT controlled source, knows that other data must be considered IN CONTEXT.

Different readings from different stations is the way in which a quake is characterized. The magnitude is just one part of the puzzle. The depth and epicenter are also important.

The claims of manipulation of data are nothing more than an unsubstantiated urban legend.

This is just an excuse for cherry picking. Please provide other readings that you used for this so-called contrast.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

since if it was obvious baloney, the overwhelmingly majority let alone more than just you and 1 or two posters here, would support what you're asserting not to mention would have already presented an intelligent counter-argument showing exactly how and where whats been validated, is false.

The ley lines is simply a hoax with no merit. It relies in a meaningless attempt to overlay some of the active tectonic boundaries discovered by science.

in your OPINION perhaps… but the facts and evidence suggest otherwise

so your opinion is therefore worthless as anything that disproves the ley lines, the pattern of 188 and the fact that these recent quakes ALL follow the exact dates and pattern that was explained.

The fact the lines are based on or created by the locations where MAJOR and GREAT QUAKES that DO NOT happen all the time in the context you're implying, have struck, as well as the pattern of 188 days as explained has correlated to 5 MAJOR & Great Quakes IN A ROW not to mention the SUMATRA quake and as far back as 200 years to the NEW MADRID quake, alone shows the ley lines are not the type of coincidence or twisting the lines to OVERLAP quake prone zones, skeptics like you try to CLAIM.

If the lines were coincidence, there would be NO PATTERN correlating to MAJOR and RARE 7+, 8 and 9 mags over at least as far back as 200 years, let alone 5 MAJOR & Great Quakes having occurred 5 TIMES IN A ROW.

You can deny these FACTS all you want.... but it doesn't invalidate the discovery, the pattern, or ley line map goes far beyond the COINCIDENCE that you keep CLAIMING.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

Even if what I've already explained (to which you've given no logical response refuting) wasn't valid, the fact that the 188 day pattern consistently correlates to dates where rare and unusual 7, 8 and 9 mag quakes occur as far back as 200 years, alone refutes your claim and supports what the video claims.

That has not been done. Your making this up now. Where was the recent quake? Why are some of the dates already given not on 188 day intervals? I and others have already pointed this out in previous posts.

what recent quake?

which dates are you talking about?

pointed what out?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

the fact you have no logical response at all, doesn't prove what I've said is irrelevant.

The entire thread is about cherry picking. It is about faking data in some cases of the 188 day interval. It is about irrelevant discussions of magnetism.

No, its about evidence thats PROVEN a pattern

Nowhere have you proven any data has been "faked" STOP LYING.

What discussion about magnetism are you referring?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

the fact that you seem to be the only one with that OPINION and argument, suggests otherwise.

This is a logical fallacy. Two mistakes. One is that it is opinion. Two that numbers are meaningful. It's the data that is important and that data strongly suggests otherwise.

You've presented no proof that anything you've claimed is in fact true.

So claiming something is false, is different than proving it.

claiming the data suggests otherwise and therefore means what you claim is true, IS ALSO A LOGICAL FALLACY

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

yeah, and the fact everyone knows australia and the where the quake hit is such an ACTIVE fault zone!

Strawman argument. I never made any statements about that. What I did point out was that the quake was not a M6 or greater.

If there were no readings and evidence that showed the quake was a 6 mag or greater, then what you CLAIM would be true.

the fact there are readings and evidence the australia quake was 6 mag or greater, proves your claim BS

reply to post by truthseekr1111

the fact there are readings and evidence the australia quake was 6 mag or greater, proves your claim BS

All I see is an empty claim here. Where are these things you speak of? Offer us something.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

the fact that EVERY major quake on the 188 cycle has hit on these "imaginary" ley lines is such an OBVIOUS coincidence! Nothing interesting to see here folks!

Choosing so-called lines that overlap much of the quake zones of the world simply shows a reliance on science.

Already addressed and debunked that.

Originally posted by stereologist
Skipping over most of the quakes that do not fit the cycle is cherry picking. Claiming 188 day cycle when quakes do not hit on those days is fibbing.

PROVE most of the quakes that do not fit the cycle have been skipped over.

PROVE a PATTERN has not been established by showing all the evidence for the pattern, is false.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

You've presented no proof that anything you've claimed is in fact true.

So claiming something is false, is different than proving it.

claiming the data suggests otherwise and therefore means what you claim is true, IS ALSO A LOGICAL FALLACY

It is your onus to support these claims. What is clear is that you have posts believing the USGS and you openly state they lie and have rejected their data.

Your actions are called cherry picking.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

No, its about evidence thats PROVEN a pattern

Nowhere have you proven any data has been "faked" STOP LYING.

What discussion about magnetism are you referring?

You brought in magnetism. I stated it was irrelevant. You said no. Now it appears to be so irrelevant you do not realize why you mentioned it in the first place.

The pattern of 188 in which I pointed out in an earlier posts did not all on 188 intervals. Is that the "proven" pattern?

reply to post by truthseekr1111

what recent quake?

which dates are you talking about?

pointed what out?

All of this was in my post. I don't need to repeat myself. Please go back and read what I wrote.
Thanks.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111

 

So we are left with a failure of this hoax of ley lines:
1. not lines
2. cherry picking
3. missed dates
4. irrelevant issues tossed in
etc.

No where have you proven the 188 day cycle or ley lines are a hoax, especially using the 4 items above which is based on an argument out of context with no specifics.

In fact, the evidence proves the opposite

Originally posted by stereologist
A quake of M6 or better happens almost every other day on average.

please provide evidence to support that CLAIM.

when the stats and context are presented in a detailed manner, what you claim does not apply in determining
whether or not the 188 day cycle is valid or not.

Originally posted by stereologist
That's like the flip of a coin in picking a day on which a M6 or better hits.

So far you're making a generalization that shows no specific examples or context, and is therefore meaningless.

reply to post by truthseekr1111


Please read the thread and see that I and others have already pointed out that the interval was not 188 in all cases.

End of story.

reply to post by truthseekr1111

please provide evidence to support that CLAIM.

when the stats and context are presented in a detailed manner, what you claim does not apply in determining
whether or not the 188 day cycle is valid or not.

Lowering the threshold to near certainty makes the claims here meaningless.

Here is your evidence.
earthquake.usgs.gov...

So far you're making a generalization that shows no specific examples or context, and is therefore meaningless.

Let me be more explicit. I thought this was quite clear.

An event that has about a 50-50 chance is equivalent to other events with a 505-50 chance.
1. Chance of a M6 or better quake on a given day: approximately 50-50
2. Chance of a coin flip being heads: 50-50

Thus selecting a day and seeing a M6 or better day is about the same chance as flipping a coin.

reply to post by truthseekr1111
Sorry about previous comment.
It took me 3 times to read through presentation to find the related time cycle of earthquakes.
If you brought them up front then it's much easier to follow.

It's amazing phenomenon. Except the eq locations, the time is acceptable even few days or a week off and so do the earthquake magnitudes. Just wonder did you discover this or someone else?

However, I dont know how long this will last and I am afraid that the phenomenon like many others would not last longer or forever. Just wait and see next time.

It's excellent discovery.

Within the time-frame? Yes? No?