Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 27
136
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
I'm not concerned about earthquakes or volcanic activity, it's just not part of my interests. Of course if one changed my lifestyles then that would be a different matter. Much of the building in the world was done before there was a very comprehensive understanding of tectonics, thus so many places that are on fault lines and at risk. No one planed purposely to build in such areas,or did so ignorantly,and until recently not many preperations or methods of construction were available to counter earthquake activity or to minimize damage. Having said that, "it's just the way it was". HOWEVER..... with all the advancements and some recent studies with insturments to detect movement and such, it seems that the birth of a whole new epoc in earthquake prognostication is on the horizon. The recent stereo telescopes watching the Sun, advancements in astronomy and sattalites, use of GPS and mapping along with devices to measure earths movements, and precursers to activity based on past histories of movement, well it just seems that a new science is here. One that with all the observations of a galactic nature, might find and reveal secrets of the mechanics of the causal dynamics. This will be said in the future to have been the birth of a remarkable time in pre-warning of earthquake knowledge. Never has humankind had so many devices at their disposal to track and prognosticate in advance of an event.




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

Originally posted by GLontra

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.


Do you realize that it has only happened 5 times in accordance to said theory.? 15% seems rather high, not low. The theory has headway but is not concrete.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLontra
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.


Holy smokes!!


You guys need to seriously check out that thread ... you think a 188 day cycle might be amazing ...

Its got nothing on the Mexican government's EQ preparedness people ...


They got the quake magnitude (initial report 7.9), time (within minutes) and location (within 330 miles)!!
edit on 21-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-3-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by antmax21
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).

I liked this myself and have often thought that these events will have escalating warnings like the weird sounds and other unexplainable events. BTW, there were a few whale beachings reported before this last quake. It has been suspected this occurs because something's affecting their sonar.
I'd also like to interject a thought here, please feel free to discuss or bash, but IMO if this anomoly (unnamed mass) as it now can be called, is the culprit and you go back to the old JPL data on a possible mass (regardless of name or names) affecting our solar system (not just our planet) and it is getting closer, could it be there will be more of these effects and not just occurring once during this proposed date? I'm asking because I noticed that the August 23, 2011 quake happened as we were going out of range of this anomoly, not into it. Like we enter a gravitational field and then leave it.
What if as we and the anomoly get closer we feel the effects going into the event as well as out? I'm hoping this is not the case and Mexico is it for this time around, but I can't help but wonder....



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by antmax21

Originally posted by GLontra

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.


Do you realize that it has only happened 5 times in accordance to said theory.? 15% seems rather high, not low. The theory has headway but is not concrete.



15% for EACH event.

If it happens three times, the probability is three times lower: just 5%



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DaWhiz
 


Good point indeed. If said object exist, (planet X) or supposed comet...one needs to ask what kind of orbit is it on?...If it were coming closer, it would not necessarily be a straight line. It would be circular, a fluid mechanic curve. Meaning as it wraps around us, at different times, like our moon/sun, it would be closer at some points and further at others. That could help your first point.

However, I will stick to happenings within the Earth's ionosphere having fluctuating waves and causing the core to get extremely active and a causation is interesting weather. Yet I still can't get to the 188 day theory....the ionosphere fluctuates extremely and not every 188 days...something else is doing this if the 188 day theory holds true.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by antmax21
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).


I said that I have a hunch it goes back to 2 years, but I have to say also that I did not rigorously check this. The rigorous checks I propose have not yet been done.

But, suppose it only goes back 2 years, then we can probably search for the statistical likelyhood of a pattern that is only 2 years long. I am sure that there would be some reasonable chance it could just be coincidence.

I do know that the longer the pattern goes, the least likely it is coincidence.

Just back of the envelope guesswork tells me that a 2 year cycle as described has a likelihood of 0.15 ^ 4 of been random chance (a chance of 1/1975).... so I would say this is statistically significant. This is based on the figure of 15% that has been thrown around and I have not verified this figure.

but I am no statistician, and my numbers could totally be wrong. I also admit my bias that I might have a "hunch" there is something to this hypothesis, but I also have to admit better test and statistics should be done.

As fas as your question of how could a pattern emerge only for the last 2 years (assuming that there *IS* something to the pattern...) then you can read my previous post.

In short, the hypothesis includes the *supposition* that there is a high mass object approaching our sun for a highly eccentric orbit. This claim has yet to be conclusively demonstrated. But, suspending disbelief, if this was the case, that could be considered a valid explanation for the pattern emerging only recently (since the alleged object would be closer than it was before)

-rrr



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLontra

Originally posted by camus154
Ugh. Fine:

January 10, 2012 -- Indonesia, 7.2
February 2, 2012 -- Vanuatu, 7.1
December 14, 2011 -- New Guinea, 7.1
October 21, 2011 -- New Zealand, 7.4

Source

You know how many fatalities resulted from all of those COMBINED?

None. Zero.

Everyone calm down and have some dip.




None of those were above 7.5

So, quakes of magnitude above 7.5 DON'T HAPPEN every month...

A quake of magnitude above 7.5 is a NOTICEABLE EVENT, even if there are no casualties.

It's VERY ODD that this quakes happened almost in the date predicted by the "188 days theory".


What you're doing is called Data Mining.

There is not a great difference between a 7.2 and a 7.5, the decision to use the 7.5 number is an adhoc shoehorned to fit the data after the fact. Data mining.

Same with the 188 days cycle. The prediction was 188 days, not 187 or 186. What would be deemed acceptably close? Within 5 days? 10? This is not science, it's akin to what phony psychics do. A miss is a miss, not a near hit.
edit on 21-3-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by GLontra
 


Probability is even lower, lets say you have 3 dice and want to know the probability of a 6-6-6 it would be
(1/6)x(1/6)x(1/6)

Or in your case with the 3 times 15% : 0.15x0.15x0.15 =0.003375 which is 0.3375 %

At least as far as i remember from school. (math was never my strong point, but in probability i had the best grade i ve ever reached in math :-)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by antmax21

Originally posted by GLontra

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.


Do you realize that it has only happened 5 times in accordance to said theory.? 15% seems rather high, not low. The theory has headway but is not concrete.


You do know that the chances of hitting a 15% window of probability four or five times in a row are even lower. Until somebody corrects me, I would assume that one simply has to raise 0.15 to the power of the number of repetitions. And that comes out to 1 in 1975 chance Right? (waiting for somebody who is better at statistics and conditional statistics than me)

-rrr



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by GLontra

Originally posted by camus154
Ugh. Fine:

January 10, 2012 -- Indonesia, 7.2
February 2, 2012 -- Vanuatu, 7.1
December 14, 2011 -- New Guinea, 7.1
October 21, 2011 -- New Zealand, 7.4

Source

You know how many fatalities resulted from all of those COMBINED?

None. Zero.

Everyone calm down and have some dip.




None of those were above 7.5

So, quakes of magnitude above 7.5 DON'T HAPPEN every month...

A quake of magnitude above 7.5 is a NOTICEABLE EVENT, even if there are no casualties.

It's VERY ODD that this quakes happened almost in the date predicted by the "188 days theory".


What you're doing is called Data Mining.

There is not a great difference between a 7.2 and a 7.5, the decision to use the 7.5 number is an adhoc shoehorned to fit the data after the fact. Data mining.

Same with the 188 days cycle. The prediction was 188 days, not 187 or 186. What would be deemed acceptably close? Within 5 days? 10? This is not science, it's akin to what phony psychics do. A miss is a miss, not a near hit.
edit on 21-3-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)


It is data mining. However I think that the bar of 7.5 or 7, etc can be justified in this case
As long as the bar is a representation of *sufficiently worrisome* earthquakes, because a theory that predicts *sufficiently worrisome* ones is the one one would care about. Why make a theory that predicts earthquakes that have no serious effects?

As far as the rest of the methods, As I propose, if we do autocorrelation (and moving average) then periodicities in the data would emerge. THe only inputs to the algorithm would be: threshold of sufficiently scary earthquakes and a moving average, whose time window would be chosen as a "reasonable warning time" of 3 to 5 days. Those numbers emerge from the "usefulness" parameters of the data. Provided that a moving average filter is used (and not any type of resonant filter) the only periodicity that autocorrelation would find would be periodicity from the data itself.

This is only a proposed method, I am still not able to do this as I have no data. I have proposed to HamSession, since he has the data, he could do it.

-rrr



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by GLontra
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.


I will admit to you, GLontra, that it is an enormous coincidence that they held a preparation drill for an earthquake of equivalent magnitude on the exact day it happened. Unless the drill reports are false, I doubt anyone could not marvel at that.

That said, a coincidence is hardly proof of anything. Again, I'm not discounting the enormous coincidence in the slightest. But at the end of the day, while it may be enough to pique one's interest to perhaps pay closer scrutiny to such affairs in the future, it does not prove anything in and of itself.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by antmax21
reply to post by DaWhiz
 


Good point indeed. If said object exist, (planet X) or supposed comet...one needs to ask what kind of orbit is it on?...If it were coming closer, it would not necessarily be a straight line. It would be circular, a fluid mechanic curve. Meaning as it wraps around us, at different times, like our moon/sun, it would be closer at some points and further at others. That could help your first point.

However, I will stick to happenings within the Earth's ionosphere having fluctuating waves and causing the core to get extremely active and a causation is interesting weather. Yet I still can't get to the 188 day theory....the ionosphere fluctuates extremely and not every 188 days...something else is doing this if the 188 day theory holds true.


True, but then breaking down the various theories on that note, you must add the exception:
What if said anomoly has multiple orbiting bodies? That would alter projections depending on the number of different variables. Or better yet, suppose its not what we think it is? Have we delt with anti-matter or dark matter on a large scale and its effects on solar systems? I just don't think we know enough about this yet and remember we really aren't being told much.
That is why this is puzzling me.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I wonder if there is a very large masscon somewhere on Earth that is aligning with the Sun or Moon, or Planets, or all of the above, which causes stress on the Earth's crust resulting in EQ's?

Or.. maybe there is a large metallic masscon here on Earth with some sort of electric charge or magnetism that aligns with a large mettalic masscon on the Moon or Sun or elsewhere?

And if not masscons, perhaps areas of high gravity on Earth face areas of high gravity on the Moon/Sun as specific times which cause this 188 day cycle.

There really are many things that could be causing it, this is just an idea I had and wanted to share.

Here is a global map of Earth gravity from 2001:
www.freerepublic.com...

Here is the most recent Earth gravity map, looks quite different from the 2001 map:
www.esa.int...


You can clearly see the higher concentrations of gravity.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
While my interests are piqued by this alleged correlation of 188 days, the events over the next day or so will potentially solidify the plausibility for me.

On a side note, I mentioned to my boss a couple of days ago we were due for a large magnitude earthquake after reading several threads and the very next day the Mexico quake hit. Spooked her out a bit. Way to go, ATS!


edit on 21-3-2012 by 59demon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Wait till tomorrow........the signs point to 3/22/12........



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
well for everybody skeptical you should all just continue to argue amongst yourselves about what kind of graph to make while the rest of us take note of the coincedence and wait 188 more days for confirmation. i mean use common sense,a big earthquake or series of them every 188 days, then you use math to discover 188 give or take a few is almost 365 cut in half, since the quakes could be one or two days before or one or two days after every time earth is halfway around the sun im gonna go on a limb and say "it has to do with space, and our sun". now not going any farther than that lets make a graph and pretend were on government team!!



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
To all of you that are hoping you have found the holy grail of predicting earthquakes, I have but this to say to you. So what if it turns out to be true (slim to not Ever) that they happen every188 days? What ? You still can't STOP them, you still wouldn't know WHERE, you still couldn't do a damn thing about a damn thing. Bottom line this whole 188 day thing is nothing more than comet elenin non-sense. Stop living in fantasy land and come back to reality. All these silly things you buy into from people trying to make a name for themselves over the internet is doing you nor them any good.

There's a lot more serious things in the world to think about, debate about, and learn about besides all this silly non-sense a lot of you fill up this website over. There is hundreds, if not thousands of Seismologist who live, breath, and sh!t earthquakes ok. If there was a pattern you would know by now about it. These guys have dedicated their lifes to studying these earthquakes, and you think some smuck, that has never even took 1 class on them is going to know more than these seismologist? Think guys, that's all I'm saying is think please.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeamUFOdotwebsdotCom
Wait till tomorrow........the signs point to 3/22/12........


How much money do you give me if nothing happens? You know nothing bigger than the usual.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
To all of you that are hoping you have found the holy grail of predicting earthquakes, I have but this to say to you. So what if it turns out to be true (slim to not Ever) that they happen every188 days? What ? You still can't STOP them, you still wouldn't know WHERE, you still couldn't do a damn thing about a damn thing. Bottom line this whole 188 day thing is nothing more than comet elenin non-sense. Stop living in fantasy land and come back to reality. All these silly things you buy into from people trying to make a name for themselves over the internet is doing you nor them any good.

There's a lot more serious things in the world to think about, debate about, and learn about besides all this silly non-sense a lot of you fill up this website over. There is hundreds, if not thousands of Seismologist who live, breath, and sh!t earthquakes ok. If there was a pattern you would know by now about it. These guys have dedicated their lifes to studying these earthquakes, and you think some smuck, that has never even took 1 class on them is going to know more than these seismologist? Think guys, that's all I'm saying is think please.


I think some of us enjoy spending our time on this. Call it an exercise in critical thinking with the minimum amount of evidence available. It is a personal choice. Are there more important things I could do? maybe.

As far as what would a pattern say if it was real: A pattern would support the view that there is a periodic tidal stress, and maybe an inbound heavy mass body. The lack of pattern would support nothing.Note what I said: It would not "prove" that a body does not exist. It may still not exist, but one cannot prove non existence, one can only state something is not detectable or cannot be found.

We *do know* where an earthquake would be most likely to hit. They are called fault zones. That narrows down our knowledge of where to a very small percentage of the earth's surface.

As far as why don't we just sit back and wait for a scientist to "go on TV and make an announcement", it comes down to personal choice. The tools and data to make a determination like this are available to anybody with some basic critical thinking skills, maybe some programming skills. Could they screw it up? sure. This is why we debate back and forth and challenge one another. Hopefully everybody learns something, but there will always be people who just want to blindly believe or just want to blindly criticize. They are the ones who are "too smart" to bother with the critical thinking process. How ironic.

Some people are more comfortable consuming the knowledge that has already been distilled by others, and some people are more comfortable learning things by themselves. If you are more comfortable trusting Main Stream Media to give coverage to the first scientist that makes a discovery like this, by all means do that. Nothing wrong with that, it is a very selective filtering process though (the process of what makes it to the front page and what does not).

One could argue that something like this would be kept secret if it was the case. Who am I to know.

-rrr
edit on 21-3-2012 by rickyrrr because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join