Coast & Oceanic territories of North America Prepare for imminent MEGAQUAKE

reply to post by Starchild23


Hi Starchild,

Premonitions, omens and impressions comming to me primarly in meditation trance, but also sometimes when i I am just resting of my daily duties or in a break. Since my intelligence is primarly visual those impressions comes in form mental images or projections that became really clear when I close my eyes.

I am a very religious person so my only possible interpretation is that they are the way of personal communication from the other world to me, allowed by God, but from the scientist point of view somebody could say from the collective unconcious to my subconcious mind.

In the language of buddhism this is usually called to read the akasic records, when the mind on meditation reach that level of the superconciuos. In the language of Christianism is called revelation or gifts of the Holy spirit.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

Originally posted by The angel of light

I am a serious person, a professional, a scientist ,

Scientist, prediction and GOD should never coexist in the same discussion.

They are in stark contrast - diametrically opposed - to one another.

So which is it, are you a scientist predicting this alleged quake by way of SCIENCE? Or, as you suggested earlier in your thread, are you Jeanne Dixon and a soothsayer trying to use the "light" to jam your beliefs down our throats?

Or, worse, are you simply bored?

reply to post by alphabetaone


Dr. Carl Jung was a psychiatrist that develop extensive research on these pheonomenon in Switzerland in 1920-30's, he practically founded an entire scientific discipline interested into this paranormal facts of the mind, analytical Psychology.

He was the one that invented the term Collective unconcious. Jung papers on dreams interpretation, archetypes, omens, premonitions, alchemy and particularly in oracles, like tarot and I ching are still considered seminal ones in that area.

Collective Unconcious is the term used by Jung to refer to what religions use to call God, Jung was a scientist that in distinction to Freud showed always a great respect to Religion and spiritual traditions.

No more comments from my side about this,

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

Albert Einstein

And from true lordship it follows that the true God is living, intelligent, and powerful; from the other perfections, that he is supreme, or supremely perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, he endures from eternity to eternity; and he is present from infinity to infinity; he rules all things, and he knows all things that happen or can happen.

Isaac Newton

reply to post by The angel of light


That doesnt detract from this simple premise: Scientific analysis and mind-borne prediction don't belong in the same realm. Soothsaying is NOT the same as science....if you presented me with historic seismic potential of an area, along with some model based math that suggested high probability, then I would take you seriously....

If you say "trust me, my imaginary friend told me" I certainly would not.

reply to post by alphabetaone

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Albert Einstein

Seriously, as I told before no more comments from side on this subject, sorry but I have a lot of very serious work to do, i am not into spend hours in cyber chating, I honesty can't do so.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

Originally posted by The angel of light

Seriously, as I told before no more comments from side on this subject, sorry but I have a lot of very serious work to do, i am not into spend hours in cyber chating.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

And far be it from me to keep you from your work, however I must point out that as one of the sites Administrators stated in one of his threads titled **ALL MEMBERS** The recent surge in Hatred, Racism, and Sheer Stupidity STOPS NOW, it may be worthwhile to pay attention to the part where he says and I quote:

"Is what I am about to post a genuine attempt at civil discourse/debate about the topic or, am I trying to scream at the world and force my personal beliefs down everyone else's throat?"

As such, if you "don't have time for cyber chatting" (which in some circles could be construed as Civil Discourse or debate providing it is, in fact, kept civil) then precisely why would you bother even starting the thread? This is all we DO here, is "cyber chat" and attempt to engage in civil discourse and debate?

So enlighten me? Will this prognostication be based upon "spiritual speculation" or scientifically sound principles that some facts can be derived from?

reply to post by alphabetaone


Hi, my humble opinion, trying to relate that with what is going here in this thread, is:

It is possible to disagree and even to be in a very different line of thinking without discrediting, without ridiculing, without mocking or referring to the counterpart with sarcasm, or cynicism.

I am obviously worried that some people saw in me some sort of incarnation of ideas, points of view or archetypes, that they would want to eliminate forever of the world, only because they don't like them, because that is their pre-judgment, because they don't understand them, that is a very extreme position.

I feel honestly that I inherited all that hatred or rejection just for free, when I opened the thread, people that attacked me practically since the beginning, even without allowing me to explain nothing. I tried to disclose a complex prediction of sequence of events and some members of the public were already hermetically closed to it.

We cannot discharge the possibility that something can contain a portion of truth just only because that position has never been part of our own personal experience that is not enough strong reason to react with enmity or sarcasm.

Now, it is proven in education that nothing is more difficult than to try to learn something when you have already “learnt” it with some approximate method that seems to work, in some aspects, but is useless in others. That conditions the whole understanding in a negative way with respect to it.

The common people of the XV century in Europe, not the erudites, ridiculed and misunderstood completely Christopher Columbus theses for about 15 years just because the collective mentality of their epoch was trapped in a paradigms that they couldn't overcome, their minds were constrained to think in only one possible way to think, supported just in observation, and although this man had powerful logic arguments to show his point there was no way they could open their minds just a little to surpass that limitation.

We think on that at present as a case of stubbornness, but that that was not the way the people of that time felt it, they were absolutely convinced that a man claimed that a solid paradigm, well establish for centuries, was wrong, necessarily must be mad.

The same happened with Galileo trying to show that the Epicycles of Claudius Ptolomeus were perhaps efficient in practice to fix the location of the planets in their apparent orbits in the sky, but that didn't mean they were correct, the earth is not the center of the solar after all, since as Socrates used to say: The senses can deceive the mind, and that mistake was systematically accepted as science for more than 1000 years.

Albert Einstein was object too of a lot of mockery when he started his critics toward the Classic mechanics, a body of knowledge that remained intact, untouchable,as a dogma in Science for 3 centuries. Although this man was able to foresee mathematically that the matter was in some way also a wave, and that the time and space might be in the deep end the two sides of the same entity, as well as the Euclidean space just a particular case of a curve universe, it was impossible for many of his contemporaries to grasp those ideas just due to limitations imposed by the Newtonian paradigms of the Physics at that time.

This is the reason for which Einstein said Imagination is more powerful than Knowledge, because there are things that are true but the science or technology of the moment cannot even reach. The experimental method is powerful tool in many aspects, but the reason is sharper to penetrate in conundrums than our instruments, it was through it that the world of atom was really discovered decades before there were tools to observe anything at that level, many chemical elements were guessed by Mendeleev before we discovered them, the chromosomes or ADN were intuitively known by Mendel before we were able to see them.

We cannot say that it is not seriously, in scientific terms, to arrive to conclusions through the pure reason, without supporting our judgments just in what the senses or our instruments allow us to know of the world, without using the experimental method at all, that can be a fatal mistake. Only in XX century we were able to see from the space the earth orbiting around the sun, but Copernicus knew that, and Kepler suspect it, in XVI century without that technology.

To do so, is like to say that Aristotle would be the only man of science in his time, and Plato or Pythagoras would be fakes, to claim that Physics was a science since its birth, but mathematics was not, it was just a mere speculation of the mind since it arrived to conclusions without the constraints of a lab but playing with abstractions.

Thanks,

The Angel of lightness

I just got back from my vacation to the pacific northwest. We have a cabin on the coast and there are tsunami evacuation route signs along the major roads.

The reality is, that if the big quake happens most people won't have enough time to get to high ground.

I thoroughly enjoyed my vacation and didn't worry about your premonition.

Peace to you but try to envision a wonderful future, not dwell on the potential for calamity.

reply to post by The angel of light
Sorry, never thought you have to go through too many unpleasant mockeries, pointless criticism. Thanks for ATS to stop these.

After reviewing these earthquake predictions, I would say it's still better Notre Damacus in term of expression, and I only agreed with some good feedbacks that predictor should provide more specific time and place as much as possible if you can, but it's not mandatory.

I maybe publish my eq forecast here. If that is the case, please join.

@thorforecaster Twitter.com/thorforecaster

reply to post by PurpleChiten
Agree.

reply to post by Darkblade71
Agree. Join my prediction coming soon.

@thorforecaster Twitter.com/thorforecaster

Originally posted by The angel of light
reply to post by The angel of light

 

I feel not really comfortable and I don't have time to deal with more mockery, ridicule,sarcasm or personal attacks directed against me, possibly there is people that think that is normal and perfectly acceptable, but under my own scale of values and principles that is not part of any civilized discussion.

I am a serious person, a professional, a scientist , and I am here just only to take part on an intelligent and respectful exchange of ideas about what I perceive coming in the future, and what other members also perceive specially on natural events.

The queu of posts here is the best record to see that this thread was started with enough respect and quality in the commnication from my side, that I did the best effort to maintain that line of dialog along many days and if something changed it was not through my initiative but externaly motivated.

I'm not going to respond more disturbing posts, that is a game In am not interested into play, but let the forum regulations to do their control action returning everything to the normality, and when that happen possibly I reconsider my interest to comeback.

By the way this is the only thread opened by me in which something like this has ever happened a long 7 years in ATS or BTS or any other site where I use to post my forecasts.

Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 5/21/2012 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

after receiving a message from you I felt compelled to return to set the record straight, I apologize if you feel I was attacking you that was not my intention my only goal was to provide data which you ignored. after reading all of your threads honestly there are too many inconsistencies about you and your threads to be considered credible at this time. again please don't think of this as an attack I am only offering constructive criticism.

Initially you claimed you were a statistician(among many other things) to which I pointed out as any statistician will tell you "if you make vague blanket predictions eventually you will end up being right"
ignoring that goes against your field of study does it not? all of your predictions have been incredibly vague and the ones that came close to coming true didn't quite come true so you twisted what was said to connect it to what actually happened just a small example here

(There is no democracy in Cuba, The 5.6 San Francisco quake was not felt with great intensity as you claim. it didn't really bother anyone here as everything has long been retrofitted to withstand much worse. predicting an earthquake of that low of a magnitude here in the bay area is like saying in the next 18 months the Oakland Raiders will fumble. it's one of those inevitabilities around here that we are more than capable of shrugging off because here a 5.6 wont even get you out of bed you'd be lucky if it sets off a car alarm or two due to our soil composition)

claiming that there will be an earthquake on either coast of the US is as vague as it gets. you have to avoid things like this if you wish to be taken seriously by anyone. especially those in active seismic zones

in the quote above you claim to be a scientist to which I have two problems with, the first being when presented with data,a theory, and me telling you I am from the bay area of California you ignored it yet again. secondly and for me this brings up a much larger question of your legitimacy, as a scientist how could you ignore the data or the theory? I could see ignoring my personal experience on the matter because that's not legitimate evidence from anyone but a seismologist but also wouldn't you know the difference between made up and misspelled simple words or that you regularly mess up the names of places as well as basic sentence structure?

everyone has spell check, including scientists. you can't tell me all those red underlines don't bug you

lastly if you are going to claim that you came here for a respectful discussion and exchange of ideas but ignore those that try to do so and only respond to those who attack you or fail to notice those discrepancies, wouldn't that suggest that there is some sort of an agenda to what you are doing here other than trying to inform people of what your predictions are? not trying to accuse here i'm legitimately asking because in general these type of vague predictions serve more as a way to generate fear rather than bestow a warning to your fellow man

reply to post by thorforecaster

Hi Dear Thorforecaster,

Well, I decided to day to return here just after many days of mandatory absence, due to my professional duties and checking the replies that were posted I found that yours is really an interesting one.

I really don't care anymore about all those personal attacks, mockery or ridicule some people feel they need to promote when they listen the word prediction, omen, vision, or anything that is not related with observation due to electronic instruments, specially concerning natural events like earthquakes, that in spite of all the rhetoric that can be used to claim the contrary, still remain in our time as one of the non-solved challenges for the present technology based on left brain hemisphere knowledge.

There is no machine at all, no instrument at present that assure the occurrence of seismic motions with weeks, months or years in advance that only some few psychic people is able to foresee.

The best that the traditional seismology can do at present, is to predict volcanic eruptions and in very few occasions some other kind of seismic activity with hours in advance and that occurs only when there is already in process a very clear seismic activity.

So, I really feel not too much compelled to defend my position from comments that try to discredit alternative ways of forecasting of these natural events, since there is so few that the modern science or technology in this area can do that to be honest there is no moral or ethical authority at all to boost those kind of crusades against PSI, prophecies, dream visions of future and against seers working in this field.

I could accept that somebody that only knows about experimental sciences, and the technology that has been developed from them, can say I don’t found what is the logic in this or other prediction, but that is the most that person can argue, to claim that is not effective even in the presence of accomplished ones, of the past, is something that only can be called stubbornness or chronic skepticism, and that is closer to ignorance than to real knowledge.

I came here weeks ago, I offered my predictions and I clearly stated that was not referred to one only specific event but to a trend that might involve many in sequence, I also claimed that I was feeling clearly the occurrence of important seismic activity preceding a possible major catastrophic, that these events will occur in about a period of 2 years or a little more.

Anyone that can read my posts of weeks ago can see that I mentioned in various occasions places located in very high latitudes, with respect to the near future I saw at that time, that are located very to the north, in the oceans that surround North America and that is what precisely have been occurred after I released those predictions.

So, the evidence of my accuracy is already shown, so I don’t need to prove nothing, the facts are talking by themselves: important earthquakes in Andreonof islands, in Aleutian Islands, in Alaska, very to the north of the Pacific ocean, a little more than a week ago, and now in this week very important an unusual earthquakes in the north Atlantic in Greenland and in the north of Svalbard.

So, if there are readers that are shocked since they are quake phobic, omen phobic, that obsessed the idea that any clairvoyant is a person that only wants to scare the people with his insights, that prophecy is an evil activity, or have some personal difficulty to deal with seers is not my problem, is their issue and I’m not going to spent my time trying to cure those prejudges or remove psychological obstacles.

My interest here is now only on the facts, and that is something that is not matter of arguments, is just a very straight forward reality, there are seismic motions where I predicted were going to occur, in places with very cold waters, extremely cold as I described, in North America, and that is something that is now registered in very public statistics of seismology observatories around the world, this is objective, there is nothing of subjective on that.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

reply to post by AzraelBane


Dear Azreal,

Thank you to come back to the thread, and to express your feelings over this subject in a so open way, I appreciate that although we don't agree in many areas.

Now, let me post here, for the people that has more open mind and that is not too much affected or sensitive against premonitions or omens, especially if they are being accomplished in this epoch and that can be verified in a very pubic way of confirmation as it is the web, from the public statistics on seismic events what they are showing to be happened this last week:

Earthquake of 4.5 intensity on May 25th 2012 in the Greenland Sea :

earthquake.usgs.gov...

2 Seismic motions of 5 Intensity in Richter scale in the Norwegian sea, on May 25th 2012

earthquake.usgs.gov...
earthquake.usgs.gov...

Seismic motions of 4.7 and 5 in Richter Scale on May 27th 2012 occurred in NORTH OF SVALBARD, very to the north of the Atlantic in the boundaries of the Artic:

earthquake.usgs.gov...
earthquake.usgs.gov...

these are facts, so they are not matter of discussion, and if anybody feel that is not pleasant about them, well I am so sorry but my predictions are not directed to people that cannot resist the sensation or the impression to be walking in the twight light zone.

So, as it happened with the quakes in the very north Pacific, coast of Alaska and the archipelagos close to it, this is concrete and objective evidence that my forecasting is being accomplished in front of your eyes.

I would suggest respectfully and cautiously to my readers living in areas like coast of Alaska, British Columbia, Washington State, Oregon, new England, Nova Scotia, New found land, Greenland to be prepared, in the way they consider necessary, for more events like these or worst happening in the not so far future.

I am so sorry if this shocks anybody coming to this specific thread on this forum, but I cannot hide the facts just only to make feel in a better way the skeptics or omen phobics.

Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness

Re: quakes in the if the Far North Atlantic:



Historic Seismicity since 1990

Same area only this year:



Regards the quake in Alaska:



Historic Seismicity for 2012 near the Alaskan 5.0

Same area since 1990:



So in fact not so unusual after all...

reply to post by jadedANDcynical


Hi jandedAndCynical,

Thanks for the graphs, are very interesting as a record of all the shaking events, even the most tiny and soft, occured in these regions of the ocean since 1990, .

Now, the point here is not if the areas have seismicity in the past, the realy subject is when this is happening, and if somebody can predict when is going to happen again, in terms of smaller periods of time, since charts like these are showing activity along 12 years period, a very long time frame in which many things can occur.

If you pay a little attention your only chart of 2012 activity shows an entire different situation in which all the motions, soft, medium intensity and strong ones, could be counted with the fingers of anybody.

Apart of that the great majority of the dots that conform the clusters of historic events of these charts you generously posted correspond to quakes in the scale from 0.1 to 3.9 richter, not in the magnitude of seismic events around 5 richter or more as are the ones have recently occured and the ones that are pending to occur.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

reply to post by The angel of light

The Peace of God to all the belong to the light,
Dear Readers,

As I stated in my previous reply, the charts of seismic events on Svalbard, Greenland and Norway sea regions that were brought by Jadeandcynical are showing the performance along 22 years, also they are showing all the seismic events happened along that time frame, not only some, from the most tiny and soft to the strongest one, and that also occur with the only one he shown of the year 2012 activity.

Besides that if you check closely the charts, you can see that they are expressed in a discrete scale, not in a continuous one. There are no points representing non integer values, only integer ones of intensity in the Richter scale, ( there is no point representing a value like 1.5 or 2.4 or so), so the graphs are a rough approximation of the seismic profile of the regions, since the values over there represented are rounded and not in its actual value.

In this sense, any earthquake in between 0 and 1 appears drawn as it was of intensity 1, in between 1 and 2 Richter appear in that chart reported as 2, any in between 2 and 3 appears reported as just 3 and so on and so far.

The frequency of occurrence of earthquakes of intensity around 5 or more in those places is not as high as the critizesing post of this member look to suggest. Certainly this region has a very modest, in terms of intensity, not in terms of frequency, level of activity.

Lets analyze this again with more details:

1) in the case of Svalbard islands, the last earthquake above 5 was occurred in 2008 and before we must go back to 2003.
Please check: Svalvard strong earthquakes

2) in the case of Greenland, the situation is even several times more unusual: earthquakes reaching or overcoming 5 Richter are so rare that even can be counted with the fingers along a century:

1933 Greenland Earthquake

earthquake Greenland 1987

3) About the Norwegian Sea and the entire North Atlantic basin, in between Greenland and Norway, it is historically recognized that in human times only produced periodically and frequently soft earthquakes, as a study of the geophysics union clearly remarks:

Geophysics Union study on North Atlantic Basin Seismic activity

So, my readers, it is not correct and certainly extremely biased to affirm, as it was suggested by the post of the charts that the kind of seismic motions that occurred in that part of the world during the last week, and that match very well with the seismic activity I correctly predicted to happen along the first posts on this thread, are so common and part of the daily life on it. That claim is a huge misinterpretation of what the scientific monitoring of that region along many decades clearly shows.

Notice that apart of the fact that these strong quakes are relatively rare to occur in any of the three places mentioned, also they occurred all together in the same week, so this is statistically a very improbable event to take place by chance.

I suggest to the wise people to see to whom are you willing to pay attention, to people that has a very superficial knowledge in this subject or to a person like me with years successfully predicting seismic events publically with and with a very high rate of accuracy.

I am not earning any benefit to release this warning, think also in that, even my real name is not linked with these forecasts, my intention here is merely philanthropic, to help to prevent human tragedies due to natural events.


Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

reply to post by The angel of light

The Peace of God to all that belong to the light,
Dear Readers,

To just only give you an idea of the very real risk that these kind of submarine earthquakes represent and its potential power to cause a major catastrophe, here let me refer to the Tsunami in Greenland of 1995, that harassed with anything in its course causing not only great material loses but also of human lives.

Pls check actual footage of this terrible event:

Tsunami Greenland 1995

This is extremely look like the situation I am foreseen can occur in the coast of New England, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, New Foundland that could be literally harassed by a giant tsunami released by a powerful earthquake with epicenter somewhere in the middle of the North Atlantic.

This is far to be an ordinary or frequent event, but a major one of even mega destructive scale, it does not matter that the destruction might be caused by the water impelled by the quake, and not by the seismic event itself.

The same level of risk might represent a similar situation occured in Alaska, that can literally destroy cities located in the coast of British Columbia, Washington State and even Oregon or North California. The two north regions are now experiencing a critical reactivation in a strong seismic trend as the one I predicted it was going to emerge.


Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness

reply to post by The angel of light


Regards tsunami in Greenland:

1995 Greenland Tsunami:
Filmed by a local resident, this footage shows a small tsunami wave that was generated by the calving of an iceberg into the sea.

emphasis mine

Source is link in replied to post.

Regards Earthquakes North of Svalbard:

Your search parameters are:
catalog=ANSS
start_time=1898/01/01,00:00:00
end_time=2012/05/29,05:51:29
minimum_latitude=83
maximum_latitude=86
minimum_longitude=-5
maximum_longitude=6
minimum_magnitude=4.5
maximum_magnitude=10
event_type=E
Date Time Lat Lon Depth Mag Magt Nst Gap Clo RMS SRC Event ID
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1977/10/06 03:02:07.50 83.1820 -4.7420 33.00 4.50 Mb 16 0.00 NEI 197710064004
1985/07/25 17:42:17.22 83.9480 -2.6970 10.00 4.90 Mb 11 1.35 NEI 198507254021
1985/07/25 17:45:05.34 84.0350 -0.9150 10.00 4.80 Mb 101 0.97 NEI 198507254022
1985/07/25 17:48:01.97 83.7410 -1.8820 10.00 4.50 Mb 16 0.51 NEI 198507254023
1987/12/20 15:06:49.50 83.9530 -1.5800 10.00 4.50 Mb 58 0.90 NEI 198712204019
1992/09/14 17:23:17.46 84.2370 1.0480 10.00 4.50 Mb 27 1.39 NEI 199209144032
1994/03/14 13:34:24.46 84.6120 0.5400 10.00 4.50 Mb 25 1.02 NEI 199403144020
1994/09/10 01:24:09.43 83.6880 -2.2750 10.00 5.00 Mb 103 1.25 NEI 199409104006
1995/05/16 01:42:46.96 84.1270 -0.1350 10.00 4.80 Mb 111 1.04 NEI 199505164003
1996/01/31 17:02:23.14 84.0410 -0.9140 10.00 4.60 Mb 63 1.14 NEI 199601314038
1997/01/30 14:36:20.73 84.9740 5.9650 10.00 4.50 Mb 12 0.92 NEI 199701301025
1998/02/01 05:12:45.04 83.8820 -2.0450 10.00 4.60 Mb 65 0.84 NEI 199802011016
1999/03/28 08:28:08.47 83.9510 -1.4770 10.00 4.60 Mb 100 0.90 NEI 199903281026
1999/03/28 08:28:27.25 83.8820 -1.2230 10.00 5.10 Mw 41 0.87 NEI 199903281027
1999/03/28 08:39:33.16 84.0400 -2.3020 10.00 4.70 Ms 51 1.27 NEI 199903281028
1999/11/30 09:24:01.46 84.3750 1.2090 10.00 4.60 Mb 85 0.86 NEI 199911302013
2000/09/06 01:37:25.04 84.7620 4.2290 10.00 4.60 Mb 13 1.21 NEI 200009064006
2003/09/26 04:35:16.06 83.6300 -4.0430 10.00 4.80 Mb 82 0.95 NEI 200309264035
2004/09/25 23:04:04.95 83.7420 -2.4330 10.00 4.70 Mb 28 1.09 NEI 200409254058
2005/12/17 01:14:55.43 84.1410 -1.2300 10.00 4.80 Mw 90 0.83 NEI 200512174005
2006/02/14 00:39:49.59 84.2530 0.4080 10.00 5.40 Mw 158 0.96 NEI 200602144003
2006/07/29 00:19:40.34 83.0540 -4.5310 10.00 4.50 Mb 69 1.25 NEI 200607294002
2008/06/25 07:19:21.04 84.2000 1.1500 10.00 4.50 Mb 67 1.14 NEI 200806254027
2012/04/19 01:41:33.20 83.9880 -0.8760 10.00 4.80 Mb 181 0.94 NEI 201204191010
2012/04/29 11:29:52.97 83.9740 -0.2850 10.00 4.60 Mb 142 1.03 NEI 201204291032
2012/04/29 16:29:56.17 84.0060 0.1750 10.00 4.60 Mb 110 1.00 NEI 201204291042
2012/04/30 08:25:52.50 84.1420 0.4000 10.00 4.50 Mb 65 0.67 NEI 201204301010
2012/05/17 06:28:57.46 84.9580 -2.7720 10.00 4.50 Mb 37 1.25 NEI 201205171009

The above list is Mag 4.5 and Higher.

Regards Earthquakes near Greenland:

Your search parameters are:
catalog=ANSS
start_time=1898/01/01,00:00:00
end_time=2012/05/29,05:45:58
minimum_latitude=71
maximum_latitude=74
minimum_longitude=2
maximum_longitude=6
minimum_magnitude=5
maximum_magnitude=10
event_type=E
Date Time Lat Lon Depth Mag Magt Nst Gap Clo RMS SRC Event ID
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1965/02/14 17:55:42.40 72.8000 5.4000 19.00 5.10 Mb 13 0.00 NEI 196502144021
1976/07/13 15:25:35.60 72.6100 3.5440 33.00 5.30 Ms 94 0.00 NEI 197607134013
1976/07/13 16:59:52.60 72.6840 3.7180 33.00 5.00 Mb 52 0.00 NEI 197607134015
1983/01/15 06:43:58.08 73.1680 5.7230 10.00 5.30 Mb 155 1.06 NEI 198301154012
1995/12/08 07:41:12.75 72.6440 3.4880 10.00 5.50 Mw 246 1.27 NEI 199512084032
1999/06/07 16:10:33.63 73.0170 5.1870 10.00 5.50 Mw 247 1.11 NEI 199906074048
1999/06/07 16:35:46.70 73.0770 5.4530 10.00 5.50 Mw 211 1.01 NEI 199906074053
2011/08/24 08:08:15.69 72.5860 3.6680 10.00 5.40 Mw 380 0.93 NEI 201108242017
2012/05/25 00:25:56.16 72.9520 5.4820 10.30 5.00 Mb 288 0.89 NEI 201205251001
2012/05/25 04:01:36.59 72.8680 5.4290 10.00 5.00 Mb 195 0.99 NEI 201205251004

Results can be duplicated with this search page

The above list is for Mag 5.0 and Higher, as you can see, they are not as rare as you would like to think and can even occur in close proximity temporally as indicated by the emphasized quakes in the above list. So quakes in that area of the magnitude experienced recently are not out of the ordinary, if your attention span is long enough.

Now as for the possibility of a large quake on the west coast, this is not only expected, but also has historical precedent.



Damaging Earthquakes in the US (1750 - 1996)

Another good page is:

Magnitude 8 and Greater Earthquakes Since 1900

Which shows all Mag 8+ quakes world wide since 1900. Any of these which occur offshore could produce a devastating tsunami if it is of the correct mechanism. as we saw earlier this year, you can have 2 M8+ quakes in very close proximity temporally and spatially and NOT have a tsunami. I am referring to the two on 04/11/2012, in case you are unfamiliar with them.

So, while it is entirely possible that a major quake qcould strike in the northern Pacific and generate a tsunami which could indeed cause serious destruction along the west coast, it is not out of the realm of possibility, as it would be for the east coast as the mechanism just isn't present in that area of the world.

U.S. East Coast Tsunami Risk Investigated with Sonar A sonar mapping cruise taken in June to the Baltimore, Washington and Norfolk Canyons and selected regions of the continental shelf revealed steep escarpments that probably pose no tsunami hazard (Article in Scientific American)

reply to post by jadedANDcynical

Hi,

First at all here the discussion is not about what I like or not to think, you are trying to push this discussion into to the realm of subjectivism, and that is not the case, your own statistics of earthquakes are showing how unfrequent is the occurence of all these events altogether:

- Only three earthquakes ( 1994, 1999, 2006) of your list reached or surpassed the magnitude of 5.0 in the sea to the north of Svalbard in the time frame you have mentioned from 1977 to 2012, that is, in about 35 years!

- Only in 7 years from all the time frame you have provided, since 1965 to 2012 there were earthquakes in Greenland sea of magnitude 5.0 or more. ( 1965, 1976, 1983, 1995, 1999, 2011 and 2012), and this is a period of 47 years!

- Only in countable occasions (14) Alaska has also experienced stronger earthquakes of more than 5 in the past 108 years: ( Fairbanks ( 1904), Aleutian Is(1906), Salcha( 1937), Shumagin Is (1938), Unimak Is ( 1946), Fairbanks (1947), Andreonof(1957), Huslia (1958), Fairweather(1958), Prince William sound (1964), Rat Is (1965), Rampart (1968),Andreonof Is (1986), Gulf of Alaska (1987).

- In Norwegian sea we have had earthquakes of 5.0 magnitude or more in recent years on Aug 2011, Aug 2009, Feb 2008, May 2006, Jan 2005. There is no precedent at all in all the History of Norway of an earthquake of 6.2 Magnitude apart of the one of February 2008, that was the highest before to these one we have seen in the last week in the its sea. You can see that by clicking in the link here below.

Pls check:
Strongest Earthquake in Norway along History

If you cross references among these Alaskan seismic events data with the one of Greenland sea, Svalbard, and Norway sea, since 1977 , anybody can see that along all that long time frame only in 1999 there is a coincidence just in between Greenland and north of Svalbard but not with respect to Alaska or any other part of the norwegian sea.

So this is really a very unlikely event to occur, we have seen in a frame time of just 8 or 9 days occuring earthquakes in between 5.0 to 6.2 in four different areas of the very extensive north latitudes around North America, on which the occurrence of just one of those events take years to happen.

Take in account you are discussing with a Statistician, before to try to use Data to try to deviate the attention on the subject, that this was indeed a remarkable accomplishment of my forecasts on seismic activity, and this is just only the begining, there is a lot more to come.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness