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 stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
\If I can show REGULAR usage of the term and/or by even one person in the field of science that deals with the study of seismology, then your premise is wrong.
And please show any other seismological source or any sources corroborating the link from usgs.
No. Please show that the term is a technical term used in a journal article.
earthquake.usgs.gov...
These scientists went outside of the range of megaquakes and used quakes down to M7.
www.newscientist.com... compensated for the rarity of megaquakes by widening their focus to events of magnitude 7 and higher.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
right... it was in the form of a mindless dead beat article.
Please point out anything at all wrong in the articles. Time for you to explain your position.
Please provide the 200 years of data you claim exists.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111=thats not being evasive. Thats challenging you to elaborate and clarify your statements etc so a response can be given.
Yes you are being evasive. You took that idiotic video hook, line and sinker.
You should have stated that the video made that claim.
You have avoided stating anything about the video. I have been assuming that the material in the video was so nebulous that you can't explain it. You've just assumed it was correct. That is the sign of a closed mind.
Turn on the filters and look at the claims.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
The video already offered several examples of the data proving a PATTERN
it also claims it will be presenting a 50 year cross-section of data FOR STARTERS.
But whether such data was even presented, if even 10% were presented, its evidence supporting the PATTERN
You misunderstand what prove means.
You made the claim of 200 years of data. Your inability to present that data is telling.
I stated the claim from the video.
Its not my claim... however I've already been researching the pattern and data, and so far, what the video claims has been correct. When I finish my own research, I'll be happy to post my findings if the video doesn't first as it claims it will.
Then the video lied. It is very clear for a number of reasons why it is not possible to go back 200 years.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
You actually think there was anything well done in your poorly constructed article that disproves anything presented in the videos?
The strong evidence in both articles shows that ley line concepts are wrong.
just shows you're too close-minded to know the difference.
You being unable to separate the ludicrous ideas from potential ideas is often due to being close minded and unable to accept the evidence.
waiting for you to answer a few previous questions before I respond further.
Just to clarify first... please define your idea of a JOURNAL article and what criterion constitutes being one... I'm curious as to your DEFINITION and scope.
KEY WORD: SCIENTISTS
hint hint
i rest my case.
I've asked you to explain how the article is right and disproves the ley lines rather than just posting a link to it and claiming it does when it doesn't. So once again, you claim the article disproves the ley lines... please show exactly how and where in CONTEXT of the videos, the article disproves the ley lines.
then you've ASSumed way too much that I haven't explained the material because it nebulous even though I've already explained why I haven't which has nothing to do with it not being correct which you erroneously claim.
Not at all... you haven't proven the ley lines are wrong or any of the evidence of the pattern is wrong... nor have you even addressed the evidence presented.
the video made the claim... I'm pointing out ONE of the claims for you which I thought you'd be happy about... but the fact the video has already presented several examples of data going back two hundred years and will be posting the first 50 years of that data in the upcoming video, that more than addresses the issue right now.
So once again, to clarify, your assertion and claim is that there is no quake data going back 200 years, correct?
there's 365 days a year... for a quake over 7 mag, especially those 7.3 to 8+ (which don't happen all the time), to hit on or around this cycle/pattern 5 times in a row let alone going back 200 years, contradicts your argument.
but unfortunately, your claim that its strong evidence the ley line concept is wrong, is nothing more than an opinion.
Originally posted by daskakik
posted by truthseekr1111
and your point is?
That the video is poorly made and that the guy is wrong.
that the creator has done an awful job at presenting the videos is nothing more than your OPINION which is in contrast to hundreds of comments from others who disagree with your opinion.
As to evidence and proof... the creator of the videos did provide evidence and proof... but then, unless you cite examples or show the claims and evidence presented is wrong, I don't see what your point proves or disproves.
Sure it is and that is why I'm sharing that opinion here so that others who may be following this thread and who might need more than 3 iffy pieces of evidence don't waste their time with the video.
The proof in the video may have satisfied you but it didn't convince me.
I already pointed out that the Oaxaca quake was not on the lay line
you even posted a graphic showing that it was a couple hundred kilometers off
and the reason I couldn't find the magnitude claimed was that the quake happened on the 20th and not the 21st but the guy in the vid uses a lame "it was the 21st somewhere on earth", excuse.
That may be fine for you but I find it to be a stretch.
the creator says he's going to post that evidence.
Until he does the claims of the video are unbacked which is what I and stereologist have been saying all along. I think it is the portion that matters the most because it would be proof positive.
and there's HUNDREDS of others that disagree and say the videos are extremely well made and present compelling evidence to support the theory and claims.
But then, that the video is poorly made is nothing more than your OPINION.. and since I've already PROVEN line by line how exactly your OPINIONS, commentary, and criticism are wrong and ignorant of the facts, your OPINION has no credibility in measuring the truth and accuracy of the videos.
but when someone using critical thinking skills actually watches the video and checks the FACTS, they'll realize how disingenuous, erroneous and deceptive your OPINION is which is becoming more and more obvious that it there must be more of an agenda to be so willfully ignorant of the facts aside from what appears to be an attempt to perpetuate disinformation.
I'm glad though, that I'm able to present the other side of the argument with facts for readers to make their own conclusions
show exactly where and how ANY of the data/evidence and arguments presented, are wrong with a counter-argument and perhaps your OPINION might mean something. But so far, ALL YOUR CLAIMS are false and you have ZERO evidence and facts other than opinions, to support them.
The graphic in 3D shows the quake was within 60 miles of the LINE.
Only a fool would try to argue that a rare and MAJOR quake hitting 1 day from the exact target date/window, is a miss, not accurate and nothing special. But then again, thats irrelevant anyways because the exact date predicted and explained for the quake, in fact appeared and happened.
I know its upsetting to skeptics to have to confront the shock that this quake not only hit the date warned of, but also hit directly on key line of a unique grid which was all explained and predicted in advance. Thats probably one reason why the video had over 100,000 hits in just a few days.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
Just to clarify first... please define your idea of a JOURNAL article and what criterion constitutes being one... I'm curious as to your DEFINITION and scope.
A peer reviewed article.
KEY WORD: SCIENTISTS
hint hint
i rest my case.
That's right. Scientists do NOT consider M7 to be mega-quakes. Thanks for agreeing that M7 are NOT mega-quakes.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by truthseekr1111
I've asked you to explain how the article is right and disproves the ley lines rather than just posting a link to it and claiming it does when it doesn't. So once again, you claim the article disproves the ley lines... please show exactly how and where in CONTEXT of the videos, the article disproves the ley lines.
I've explained several times that the article shows that ley line claims are indistinguishable from randomness. Each time you complain that the concept is over your head.
Please provide the 200 years of quake data. Without it your arguments are complete failures.
so please show me where the article from USGS is "peer" reviewed... what makes that article peer reviewed in the context we're discussing? and also as a side note, I always hear the "peer reviewed" argument which is essentially somewhat technically, a logical fallacy which I would also add depends on the context of the issue.
I don't interpret the context of what the article says to be saying M7's are not megaquakes. The context actually appears to simply agree that certain M7's can be classified in the category of a megaquake.
But then again, you still have yet to show any technical scale/definition for Quake Categories and sizes such as what a MAJOR quake is versus a LARGE QUAKE or GREAT QUAKE etc.
If you want to play semantics over vague terminology that hasn't even been fully defined and agreed upon by all "peers", then thats your prerogative, but it still doesn't change the essential point that the quake that struck was a quake that DOESN'T happen all the time and was in fact a RARE size and MAJOR quake which validated the warning and prediction.