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.
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)
Originally posted by rickyrrr
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
Originally posted by svetlana84
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 :-)
Originally posted by TheOneEyedProphet
BTW, cell phones were out for almost 5 hours, strange thing is that wireless mobile phone internet wasn't affected, in some cases I couldn't make calls or text, but could access the internet on my phone...
edit on 21-3-2012 by TheOneEyedProphet because: strange days
Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
Originally posted by Drew99GT
Can someone refresh me on this 188 day cycle? Is there a thread here at ATS that explains things? Thanks!
The MATRIX of 188 - LEY LINES of the 188 DAY Mega-Quake Cycle Discovered & linked to NEW MADRID QUAKE
www.abovetopsecret.com...
188 day pattern of major quakes & Illuminati 322 March 22nd Connected to February 23RD!?!??
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Just type in the number 118 in the search box and a number of threads pop up.edit on 3/20/2012 by this_is_who_we_are because: typo, aditional link
Originally posted by HIWATT
My apologies if this has already been brought up. I was following this thread until I went to bed last night and just came across this now...
www.youtube.com...
Was there a simulation of this scheduled a few weeks ago that was to take place on the 20th?????
I googled the address in that video but couldn't find the exact one (wonderful google bubbles)
"This is profound and disturbing. There was a verified "drill" planned for March 20, 2012 in Mexico for a 7.9M earthquake "simulation".... also on a separate note.. Barack Obama's daughter was at the epicenter on spring break: WTH is going on?!
We need answers.. and I don't think (at this point) any of us are going to settle for "coincidence". Who has the weapon, and why are they using it.. that is the question at this point."
Originally posted by spacekc929
Am I missing something? Why have people not simply gone back in time to test the theory? We've been reliably measuring the scale of earthquakes for a while - if we want to find out if it's true or not, why not simply go back in time before the Chile earthquake (that was the first one, right?) and see if the cycle really exists?
Personally, I don't think that the so-called "188 days" thing is a very useful theory, for many of the other reasons people have said. First, large Earthquakes (7 and above) happen something like once a month, and one of the Earthquakes used in the 188 day theory (the Canterbury one) is simply another one of those regular ol' 7ers, so we can't say that this 188 day theory is ONLY giant, Earth-tilting earthquakes. Second, even if there was a cycle, the cycle is not predictive at all. Where is the Earthquake happening? How big will it be? So far it's just "big and somewhere" and that is really useless in the long run. What, 188 days from now, will all the heads of state EVERYWHERE tell EVERY citizen to hide under their desks?
Anyways, maybe if this cycle lasted for 100 years or something scientists could do something with it, but I don't think many realize that 4 earthquakes is simply not a large enough sample size to make any kind of conclusion about the data. Either you go back in time and find a pattern from before the Chile earthquake, or you wait a while and analyze the trend after you have a good sample size of at least 50 years or so (many, many 188 day cycles.) As much as you guys would not like to admit this, this is psuedoscience at the moment. That doesn't mean it's wrong - it means there is no way to test it as of yet that provides anything reliable at all, because 4 repititions of a cycle, even if that is a long time in our lives (a few years or so), is literally nothing geologically.
Originally posted by mattydude26
theres suppose to be big earthquakes over the next 2 days apparently ??
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Originally posted by svetlana84
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 :-)
Actually I think it's a lot lower than that. According to data provided by earthquake.usgs.gov, there was an average of 15.67 earthquakes each year (over mag 7) between the start of 2000 and the start of 2012. The average number of days in each of those 12 years was 365.25 days.
This would mean that there are about 8.0656 quakes over mag 7 every 188 days. Thus it seems we have roughly a 8 in 188 chance of hitting the target each time. We know for a fact that the 188 day cycle holds true for at least 4 events (this newest event is actually 186.92 days from the last one).
So the true probability should be 8/188 to the power of 4. The exact calculations come out at 0.000003388 or 0.0003388%. In other words, it would seem that the chance of hitting the target 4 times in a row is 1 in 295,159. Please correct me if my calculations are wrong, but they seem correct.edit on 21-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)edit on 21-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)