Earthquake activity WARNING!!

Originally posted by Phage
The OP is using very incomplete statistics. From April 1, 2011 to April 12, 2011 there were 730 earthquakes worldwide of 3.1 and greater.
earthquake.usgs.gov...

As one of the most highly respected members of this web site your input is vitally important to proving or disproving the significance, if any, of this data. I believe there is a serious increase in seismic activity of late and when I compare single source data from a reliable and reputable web site it seems to indicate I am correct.
I don't think we have time for any BS so please, without distorting the data or selectively choosing which M6.2 should be deleted from the list, show me I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
those stats.....do they lie?
good eye , there

Are you crossed eye?

Where are any of these numbers adding up?
Nothing adds up to these 'totals'

Stop giving kudos before you scrutinize.

Stop looking for holes before you scrutinize. If you had taken the time to look at the data before you started tapping your fingers you would have figured out the gap was quakes M3.0 and below.

Originally posted by gigaherc
Many people here ready to bash the poor fellow seem not to be able to read his OP with understanding -


he compares both Aprils form the last and present year. Not years, not some strange number prophecies.

Moreover he presents his sources, however shrtly, but don't be lazy and check the both sources he mentions and it is correct.

Thank you OP and boy, some of you guys... just wow.

Thank you. I will offer a prayer that you are safely inside a fully inflated bounce house if the big quake occurs.

Originally posted by violet
Number of Earthquakes Worldwide for 2000 - 2012
USGS


7.0 to 7.9 in 2011 there were 19, it's at 4 right now ( 2012), was 14 in 2000

Note:

Starting in January 2009, the USGS National Earthquake Information Center no longer locates earthquakes smaller than magnitude 4.5 outside the United States, unless we receive specific information that the earthquake was felt or caused damage.

Why are looking left when I point to the right? The data you seek is already in front of you and from a far more reliable source than the USGS.
Please focus on two specific points in time, not ten years of assorted data because it just distorts the picture.

reply to post by Trublbrwing

I don't think we have time for any BS so please, without distorting the data or selectively choosing which M6.2 should be deleted from the list, show me I'm wrong.

What distortion of data?
What M6.2?
What are you talking about?

Originally posted by Human_Alien
I hardly ever do this so please forgive but I can't help but notice the other threads the OP has started.

Something seems wrong here, what do you think?

Better get your bug out bag ready.

This is getting VERY real now.

Earthquake activity WARNING!!
www.abovetopsecret.com...




So he posts this dire warning then, splits?
Thanks buddy

Appreciate your heartfelt concern

Indeed... I was trying not to put too sharp a point on things for the OP here but I would think back to the thread I had at the start of this funhouse we're calling 2012 and the noted need to keep our heads as the year progresses. I think we're seeing why more and more as things unfold. Earthquakes, Tornadoes and more and we're not even 6 months in....

SO much is yet to come and yet to happen.....in my opinion. Well... You put it far more directly than I was trying to..but you make the point better by it. Indeed.... The sky isn't falling and if we get excited now...we'll be all burned out by the time events really do demand we take almost instant action to reports we're reading.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Trublbrwing

 

I don't think we have time for any BS so please, without distorting the data or selectively choosing which M6.2 should be deleted from the list, show me I'm wrong.

What distortion of data?
What M6.2?
What are you talking about?

I'm talking about this post linking to distorted and selected data.............

Originally posted by Phage
The OP is using very incomplete statistics. From April 1, 2011 to April 12, 2011 there were 730 earthquakes worldwide of 3.1 and greater.
earthquake.usgs.gov...

Break that data down listing details from 2011 and from the same period in 2012. How many M5+ how many M6+ how many M7+ etc. All you've done here is blurt out a random stat that means absolutely nothing without something to compare it to.
"Exceptional my ass"

I certainly believe that there is unrest with the ring of fire.

I have found some animated visualization of 4300 earthquakes and aftershocks in Christchurch NZ . The time lapse runs From September 4, 2010 - the date of the the 7.1 magnitude Darfield quake - to the 6.3 magnitude February 21, 2011 Christchurch earthquake.



Below an animated map of the 1,000 aftershocks logged by the USGS since the magnitude 9.0 Japanese earthquake March 11, 2011. .



2011 World earthquake visualization map - quite interesting.

reply to post by Trublbrwing


I have decided that I don't like you. Your arrogance is astounding. You don't even give us a link to your data's source. You accuse someone of selective data mining right before you admit that your data set is incomplete and
selected. We find our own source in lieu of one provided by you and you say that the USGS is unreliable. You tell us not to poke holes before we scrutinize. What? I thought that poking holes is scrutinizing data.

You make my head hurt just a bit.

reply to post by Trublbrwing

It is not distorted or selected data. It is the USGS earthquake catalog. It includes all recorded earthquakes of 3.1 and greater.

4+: 585
5+: 64
6+: 7
7+: 1

reply to post by Phage


You forgot though Phage, the USGS cannot be trusted

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by Human_Alien
I hardly ever do this so please forgive but I can't help but notice the other threads the OP has started.

Something seems wrong here, what do you think?

Better get your bug out bag ready.

This is getting VERY real now.

Earthquake activity WARNING!!
www.abovetopsecret.com...




So he posts this dire warning then, splits?
Thanks buddy

Appreciate your heartfelt concern

Indeed... I was trying not to put too sharp a point on things for the OP here but I would think back to the thread I had at the start of this funhouse we're calling 2012 and the noted need to keep our heads as the year progresses. I think we're seeing why more and more as things unfold. Earthquakes, Tornadoes and more and we're not even 6 months in....

SO much is yet to come and yet to happen.....in my opinion. Well... You put it far more directly than I was trying to..but you make the point better by it. Indeed.... The sky isn't falling and if we get excited now...we'll be all burned out by the time events really do demand we take almost instant action to reports we're reading.

I had not seen that post by Human Alien so I'm not sure which thread it's from, nor do I care. Whatever genetic flaw made you think it was relevant to this thread is in need of study.
Threads go cold and since I don't have time to monitor 24/7 or post thirty times an hour like HA they sometimes drop off the current lists.
The implication that I am posting to incite panic or fear is evidence of your own agenda to turn a current events forum into a kindergarten class. I have posted information about events that concern me without concern for praise, fame or fortune. My sole motive is to give others a "heads up" so they can make an informed decision.

reply to post by Trublbrwing



Just some advice and recommendations for your next thread:

1) ALWAYS provide links to the source of your data that people can click on.
2) If providing a matrix of numbers, be careful how you present the numbers. The way you had this data tabulated, I too thought you were speaking for a whole year from 2011 to 2012, and the number total of quakes did not add up for me either. It wasn't until I went back and carefully read what you posted that I was what you were trying to post (a lot of us skim when reading, to just get the idea of the thread).

3) Avoid using these words: Absolute, Proof, No Denying, Can Not Debunk, etc, etc. Those words will just invite attacks on your thread.

Your information was interesting to me, and I'd never visited the RSOE site before, so thanks for that.

And remember:

Be polite.
Be efficient.
And always have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Trublbrwing

 

It is not distorted or selected data. It is the USGS earthquake catalog. It includes all recorded earthquakes of 3.1 and greater.

4+: 585
5+: 64
6+: 7
7+: 1

Once again, compared to what?

reply to post by Trublbrwing

As I said in my first post, these are the numbers for April 2011. You can compare them to your numbers for 2012 or, if you wish, run your own database search.

reply to post by Trublbrwing


I appreciate your reply. I'd just say check your U2U for the proper response. For the thread.. Well.. I started reading your thread with interest and, sadly, turned to disgust as it was obviously another thread to prove the OP is right...everyone else is wrong..and many messages have gone to attempt proving that.

Phage is a well respected member as others have noted. I've disagreed with him myself...but on this, as with most things he deems worth the time to get involved with, he did the homework and is 100% dead on accurate here. Unless someone distrusts USGS directly...and I'd LOVE to know who that person *IS* getting seismic data from then.....Phage is simply repeating and relaying USGS data sheets that as accepted as accurate and authoritative.

I came on the thread thinking it would be another place to discuss the rather disturbing events of late. I didn't anticipate a soapbox thread to talk AT those who came, not with. Oh well... times, they are a changin'.

Added Note: After a short chat in U2U with the OP..I felt it my responsibility to drop back by here and mention that while I don't regret anything I've said...I DO regret the sharp tone it was said in. I misread the OPs approach and frame of mind...then added to it. My bad. I'd snip the post..but on principle, I just don't do that when it's been up for more than a matter of seconds or a minute tops. Take my note for what it's worth.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Trublbrwing

 

As I said in my first post, these are the numbers for April 2011. You can compare them to your numbers for 2012 or, if you wish, run your own database search.

What?
Why the hell would I run numbers to verify YOUR figures or data?

Originally posted by Trublbrwing

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Trublbrwing

 

As I said in my first post, these are the numbers for April 2011. You can compare them to your numbers for 2012 or, if you wish, run your own database search.

What?
Why the hell would I run numbers to verify YOUR figures or data?

LOL AWESOME! u have a point and made it super clear!!

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by Trublbrwing

 

Just some advice and recommendations for your next thread:

1) ALWAYS provide links to the source of your data that people can click on.
2) If providing a matrix of numbers, be careful how you present the numbers. The way you had this data tabulated, I too thought you were speaking for a whole year from 2011 to 2012, and the number total of quakes did not add up for me either. It wasn't until I went back and carefully read what you posted that I was what you were trying to post (a lot of us skim when reading, to just get the idea of the thread).

3) Avoid using these words: Absolute, Proof, No Denying, Can Not Debunk, etc, etc. Those words will just invite attacks on your thread.

Your information was interesting to me, and I'd never visited the RSOE site before, so thanks for that.

And remember:

Be polite.
Be efficient.
And always have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

Thank you for the feedback, and thank you for presenting it in a polite and courteous manner.
I agree the method of delivery for my message was flawed but there are a number of reasons for this, the fault is mine, not those who were confused by the data. Unfortunately there were several members who attacked and disputed the facts before they even reviewed them.
I will continue to post information I think is important or unusual no matter how many obstacles are put in my path, but always I will keep in the back of my mind one thought............
"PEARLS BEFORE SWINE"

Originally posted by Mkoll
reply to post by Trublbrwing

 

I have decided that I don't like you. Your arrogance is astounding. You don't even give us a link to your data's source. You accuse someone of selective data mining right before you admit that your data set is incomplete and
selected. We find our own source in lieu of one provided by you and you say that the USGS is unreliable. You tell us not to poke holes before we scrutinize. What? I thought that poking holes is scrutinizing data.

You make my head hurt just a bit.

I have decided that I don't care whether you like me or not. You inability to read is astounding as I have revealed the source numerous times in this thread.

You didn't make my head hurt, I have a three year old nephew so I'm used to this kind of stuff.