187/188 DAYS ? ---- WOW----Strong 7.9/8m long earthquake shakes Mexico City

reply to post by HamSession


There is a very simple method to answer whether the 188 day cycle hypothesis is valid or not.

HamSession, since you have data, do you have software (matlab) that can process large datasets?

Simple, take all earthquake data for the last several years, cut off all earthquakes below some point (7 would be reasonable) then take the remaining earthquakes, apply a moving average filter that averages to a reasonable time like 3 to 5 days.

Finally apply the AUTOCORRELATION function, which is the mathematically sound way to determine whether periodicity exists in a noisy dataset.

All these people's opinons and bs is making my head hurt.

Autocorrelation will naturally support whether in fact earthquakes exists in the periodic series and will not be disturbed by earthquakes that do not conform to any periodic series. Also: Autocorrelation does not prescribe any particular cycle. The output will contain spikes indicating any and all cycles and the intensity of those cycles.

If no periodicities exist in the dataset the result would be a vector of random numbers.

If I had a dataset I could do this myself.

-rrr

Quakes around Mexico are ramping up in number. I hope a big one does not follow but I think it might. Are the continuing smaller quakes following a course or a fault line. They are not confined to the initial area.

P

Observations not theory. Someone will want to add a word> conspiracy.
Sphinx is looking at LEO
PI> 3.1416 x60=188.496
x2=376.992
Chile — February 27, 2010 (06:34:14 UTC) — 8.8 AXIS SHIFT FACT
376.96 days 9047 hours
Japan — March 11, 2011 (05:46:24 UTC) — 9.0 AXIS SHIFT FACT
BOTH EVENTS EARTH IN NEAR SIDE ORBIT TO LEO >>> ALIGNED TO WHAT?
In other words Earth between Sun and Leo Constellation.
NZ Quake and Fiji quakes lesser MAgnitude, no axis shift, far side orbit Earth,Sun,LEO
Halfway thru the cycle/orbit
188 days isnt a cycle but 377 days is.
March 12th 2011 to March 22 2012 including end date equals 377 days.
2004 DEC 26 Sumatra quake with tsunami 9.1
Dec 27th 2004 to Mar 22 2012
2643 days / 377 days=7.0106 cycles WTF??? Cmon Think about it.
7 cycles of 377
3 of the top quakes of all time fall on a 376.96 Day Cycle.
I must have the math wrong somewhere in these observations.
We have quakes at over 100km to 400km+ depths. 60 to 240 miles plus
How thick is the crust??????? 70km at best. On average 40 km Continents.
10-20km oceans. SO WTF?? These are mantle quakes and crustal quakes.
Potosi Bolivia 4.3 at 176 km depth.Today that's over 100 miles DEEP.
FIJI REGION 4.5 2012/03/18 571.3 Depth that's over 340 miles DEEP.
Excuse me!!!!!!
Conclusion>March 21 2012 376th day of cycle
March 22 Day 377 Axis shift>Mega quake.God help us! There are too many
nuclear pots boiling water as Einstein said. The Mexico quake swarm is the precursor to a bigger event.
IMHO

Originally posted by camus154

Originally posted by randyvs
You really are bringing nothing to the table of any value as far as getting down to brass tax of what may be an actual cause that we're looking at here. No one needs your negative bull. Try to come up something that will determine cause like the rest of us. Don't be so pathetic.

Oh puh-lease. Let's not have any false delusions of grandeur here, lest we think all of this is nothing more than massive ego stroking.

Not a single one of you has brought anything even remotely close to the table that helps explain the CAUSE here. All you're all doing is arguing over times and dates because "the truth is interesting".

Perhaps you'd like to change that now and start explaining how, even if a 188 cycle does exist, how that goes towards explaining a thing?

I suggest you just google the 188 day cycle and you will find numerous hypotheses. A lot of people here already have.

But just to give you a starting point, this cycle would land roughly on both equinoxes. As I proceed I will separate fact from hypothesis so that you have a common starting point and knowledge.

It is a *fact* that gravitational forces result in tidal effect on planets. To what extent tidal stress can result in earthquakes might be an open question, but the fact is planets and moons end up "facing the same way" to their center of orbit after a sufficient long time. Our moon faces the earth all the time. Our earth is slowing down ever so slowly so that our days are getting longer. This is a very gradual effect because the kinetic energy on the planet's rotation is simply astronomically large.

This slowdown is because of tidal braking. Read up on tidal braking. Tidal braking is dissipation of rotational energy of a body in the form of heat. This heat might be released in any form. Note that even acoustic energy and all mechanical energy dissipation ends up as heat. Note that so far these are all facts so far.

Now, this part is hypothesis and you are free to take this statement with a grain of salt, but not dismiss it without careful thought and a good explanation:

-Tidal braking can result in some of that energy dissipation occurring as earthquakes and other seismic activity *closely timed* to the points of maximum tidal stress.

THIS is the hypothesis presented by the 188 day cycle. The hypothesis is that there is a source of tidal stress that occurs twice a year, but much more strongly once a year *BECAUSE* there would be a large mass somewhere such that the line connecting that mass and the sun approximately crosses the spring equinox.

If this were true (and I am not saying whether it is or it isn't) then the gravitational distortion from this mass combined by the gravitational distortion of the sun would lead to a "valley" in the gravitational field across this line, much like the valley that would be created if you put two bowling balls on a bed, and use the distortion of the surface as a model for spacetime.

again, *if* this was true, the valey would have two ramps, one going down and one going up that contain *LARGE GRAVITATIONAL GRADIENTS* which will result in a large tidal stress.

Whether this are facts or not is the subject of the thread. But a plausible mechanism of action explaining the 188 day cycle has been presented. What remains to do is analyze the data over a sufficiently long period of time with a method such as what I proposed, where there is no implied periodicity input to the math, if periodicity exists it would have to emerge from the data and not be an input that we are searching for.

As far as I know this rigor of test has not been done, although it seems to me from other tests that at best this cycle wold only hold for 2 years.

It would remain as a curious fact that both fema region 5 and mexico are conducting earthquake preparedness just during this season as if there was some causal connection they know that we don't.... But that could just be a very large coincidence.

Hopefully you can now understand where other people are coming from and can come up with well thought out responses as to why you agree or disagree, instead of basing it on your personal perceptions of the people you're discussing with.

-rrr

Ok so draw a line through the sun and the earth and point your telescope in that direction. It is not hard to do. There is only a small area of sky to search. It is either there or it is not. It could also be something like a black hole, very far away but very very powerful. Whatever it is it is along a very narrow corridor, one that would be narrow enough to search with a telescope. No Johnny, not the one you got from Tandy.

P

RSOE EDIS took down their earthquake info and have now put it back up sans pacific NE data.

This is strange

P

Has everyone just conveniently forgotten that the prediction was for an earthquake on 22nd March in the New Madrid fault zone?

Well, 22nd March hasn't happened yet, and the quake in Mexico was not in the New Madrid zone. The places that are in the zone are Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi. So unless Mexico has moved, this prediction was totally and completely wrong.

You can't just change a prediction after the fact, otherwise it is not a prediction any more.

How would this prediction have been of any use if everyone in those states evacuated on March 22nd?

Or, what happens if an earthquake in the New Madrid zone happens on March 22nd? Will you then say that yesterday's event was not the real one? If so, then why are you saying that it is the real one right now?

And furthermore, if this supposed 188 day cycle is real, how come it doesn't extend back into the past before those 4 quakes? And how come there is no significance to 188 days (it is just over 6 months).

It's random cherry-picking of data, and everyone reading this site knows it.

Wow, there was just another thread popping up, about the civil protection in Chiapas having a earthquake drill for the date, and they even have the pyramid in the logo!?

Check it here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am sort of speechless right now... (well actually i could say many things, but the wording would be not very civil...)

reply to post by rickyrrr



Excellent presentation.

I hope some stat jockeys slam the data for the last several centuries or some such into some software and give us the solid output.

It IS an empirical question that deserves and empirical answer, imho.

And one not that difficult to arrive at.

reply to post by XtraTL



IIRC, one of the videos I watched on the 188 day thing really did take it back a couple hundred years or so . . . I forget exactly how far but well beyond the 4 quakes.

Originally posted by pheonix358
Ok so draw a line through the sun and the earth and point your telescope in that direction. It is not hard to do. There is only a small area of sky to search. It is either there or it is not. It could also be something like a black hole, very far away but very very powerful. Whatever it is it is along a very narrow corridor, one that would be narrow enough to search with a telescope. No Johnny, not the one you got from Tandy.

P

That's what I'm talking about. It is easy to test and easy to dismiss if it is false.

One point of caution: Some bodies have low visibility (brown dwarf or black hole) and still be a satisfactory high mass object to make the hypothesis valid, so what we should be looking for is gravitational LENSING effects, which, as you point out should not be all that hard to find (or would they? not sure I am no astronomer)

-rrr

65 minutes ago there was a 5.0 quake in Guerrero Mexico. There have been 3 quakes of 5.0 since Yesterday in this place.

The 7.8 quake was located in Oaxaca with another 4 quakes going from 5.1 to 5.3

Hope I am wrong but maybe there will be a bigger quake in Mexico originated now from Guerrero.


Maybe the 188 days prediction is not complete.

reply to post by XtraTL


You are truly ignorant. Have you read through these 26 pages of thread responses? It was only suggested that the quake would take place on the New Madrid fault because it was a likely hot spot. I don't think anyone in this thread has the ability to predict the location of an upcoming quake within any more than a few days prior to the event. The theory has also been explained here, over and over again. Stating that the quake would take place somewhere close to the 188 day marker within a few days (give or take). The fact of the matter is that this thread was started before the Mexico quake and suggested that a large quake (+7.0) would take place somewhere around march 20-22. Sure enough, on the date of the 20th a large 7.6 hit Oaxaca Mexico. If you don't find this to be a pretty interesting coincidence (to say the least), then I don't know what to tell you.

People, it is important to find a greater understanding of our planet and the way it works. Here we have some brilliant minds working hard to identify patterns and apply logic to something that we still know very little about - Earthquakes. In an effort to help protect future lives and landscapes from ruin, I suggest we all embrace this idea (take it with a grain of salt) and do some research. The answers are bound to turn up. We can either follow these bread crumbs and see where they lead us, or just scrap all of the intel gathered on the subject and start from scratch! If we are seeing ANY correlation in data between dates/times and/or locations of devestating quakes - I suggest we use it. It could very well prove to help and if it doesn't - we've still learned something.

Originally posted by XtraTL
Has everyone just conveniently forgotten that the prediction was for an earthquake on 22nd March in the New Madrid fault zone?

Well, 22nd March hasn't happened yet, and the quake in Mexico was not in the New Madrid zone. The places that are in the zone are Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi. So unless Mexico has moved, this prediction was totally and completely wrong.

You can't just change a prediction after the fact, otherwise it is not a prediction any more.

How would this prediction have been of any use if everyone in those states evacuated on March 22nd?

Or, what happens if an earthquake in the New Madrid zone happens on March 22nd? Will you then say that yesterday's event was not the real one? If so, then why are you saying that it is the real one right now?

And furthermore, if this supposed 188 day cycle is real, how come it doesn't extend back into the past before those 4 quakes? And how come there is no significance to 188 days (it is just over 6 months).

It's random cherry-picking of data, and everyone reading this site knows it.

I'll go over these in layman's (my speciality).

Q:
Has everyone just conveniently forgotten that the prediction was for an earthquake on 22nd March in the New Madrid fault zone?
Well, 22nd March hasn't happened yet, and the quake in Mexico was not in the New Madrid zone. The places that are in the zone are Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi. So unless Mexico has moved, this prediction was totally and completely wrong.
MA:
A lot of people talk about the 188 cycle, seems someone you heard predicted it would happen around that area. I heard around the south pacific ocean.

Q:
How would this prediction have been of any use if everyone in those states evacuated on March 22nd?
MA:
Disaster preppers are crazy, there still crazy.

Q:
And furthermore, if this supposed 188 day cycle is real, how come it doesn't extend back into the past before those 4 quakes? And how come there is no significance to 188 days (it is just over 6 months).
MA:
Apparently it dose, some say the gov. has known since the 60's or so, it has to do with a heavy mass object aliment we get every 188 days, maybe it is now close enough that the effects are noticeable in the form of large earthquakes?


Keep trying, one day you'll make a fine debunker..

I really can't believe that the "skeptics" are being "honest" in this discussion.

To me, it's very clear the intellectual DISHONESTY of the "skeptics" in this discussion.

I know they are not "dumb", so, the fact that they seem to not understand the OBVIOUS facts can only mean they are PRETENDING to not understand...

The "skeptics" love mathematics and statistics, but only when it's on their side...

I still can't by the theory because it leaves out so many other quakes that are of a high magnitude and do not equal the 188 theory. That said, it is still of sufficient proof that something with the last 5 major earthquakes to hit cities has been on point. I find it interesting that 188 times two is little over a year. The cycle is circular for the 188 and it seems that it is moving up towards.....
Yes you guessed it...USA.

The 188-day cycle is so precise that even the government of the Mexican state of Chiapas knew about the earthquake previously to the date.

Prove that they knew, is that they scheduled a "drill" of a quake of magnitude 7.9 (the preliminar magnitude shown on USGS) to the exact day AND time of the actual quake.

This is discussed in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Go there and see for yourself.

reply to post by rickyrrr


Yeah I like your approach straight forward and honest. Its either there or not.

---------------------

To those arguing about whether it is a day off? Seriously?

If it is observed that an EQ of magnitude 7 or greater always occurred approximately every 188 days (maybe +/- 2 days) that would be significant.

I'm not saying it does I'm just saying that would indeed be significant.

for example female menstrual cycles do not occur exactly the same number of days apart (average is 28 days), they vary within a window of time (typically 21 to 35 days) but no one would conclude that the menstrual cycle is not a cycle because the same exact amount of time does not elapse between periods.

Originally posted by antmax21
I still can't by the theory because it leaves out so many other quakes that are of a high magnitude and do not equal the 188 theory. That said, it is still of sufficient proof that something with the last 5 major earthquakes to hit cities has been on point. I find it interesting that 188 times two is little over a year. The cycle is circular for the 188 and it seems that it is moving up towards.....
Yes you guessed it...USA.

Do you realize that the probability of a quake with magnitude above 7.0 in the Richter scale to happen in the exact predicted date, or in the previous day, or in the next day, is only 15 percent ???

If you add 188 days four times starting on 27 February 2010, the day of the Chilean quake, the precise date of the "cycle" would be yesterday, March 20, and NOT March 22.

reply to post by rickyrrr


Great explanation.
However, you even said it yourself, the rigor of the test only goes back 2 years.
The thing is, is when or what started this (if it even exist)..?
What global event occurred two years ago that could have the results we are seeing?..
There may be a link with this and the loud noises that are being emitted around the world which has two theories/hypothesis, that being the core is becoming hotter and active (which can wreak havoc mother nature wise).