John Moore Nibiru updates - can you afford to ignore this?

page: 52
43
<< 49  50  51    53 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


and a five to tenfold increase in EQ's this decade over the past century or so, please explain that one to me.

Sure. We've seen that stupid chart before. Here is the data source for it. It is not using a complete database.

Selected earthquakes of general historic interest

earthquake.usgs.gov...

There has been no tenfold increase in earthquakes.
Here is a complete graph showing all earthquakes of 7.0 and greater.

For data from 1973 to 2009 I used this (1973 is as early as it goes):
earthquake.usgs.gov...

For data from 1900 to 1972 I used this:
1900



edit on 10/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



There are billions of celestial objects in the universe that can only be seen with special IR instruments because the reflect and/or give off no visible light. True?


False. The only objects that don't reflect light are black holes. Sure not all objects have the same albedo but that doesn't mean they don't reflect light.
edit on 10/11/2012 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)


Someone had better tell Wikipedia they have it wrong:


IRAS was the first observatory to perform an all-sky survey at infrared wavelengths. It mapped 96% of the sky four times, at 12, 25, 60 and 100 micrometres wavelengths, with resolutions ranging from 30 arcseconds at wavelength 12 micrometers to 2 arcminutes at wavelength 100 micrometers. It discovered about 350,000 sources, many of which are still awaiting identification.



About 75,000 of those are believed to be starburst galaxies, still enduring their star-formation stage. Many other sources are normal stars with disks of dust around them, possibly the early stage of a planetary system formation.


This:


The observatory made headlines briefly with the announcement on December 10, 1983 of the discovery of an "unknown object" at first described as "possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter and possibly so close to Earth that it would be part of this solar system."


Here is the link to the Wikipedia entry on IRAS the 1st IR space telescope

edit on 11-10-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: deletion



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I think you can get a better picture of the effect Planet X is having on Earth by looking at all the EQ's as shown in this graph, and not just cherry picking data:




posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Someone had better tell Wikipedia they have it wrong:

I don't see anything in there about not reflecting light.


This:

However, further analysis revealed that, of several unidentified objects, nine were distant galaxies and the tenth was "intergalactic cirrus".[5] None were found to be Solar System bodies.[5][6][7]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


These were celestial objects not able to be seen by ordinary means, and needed to be detected with IR instruments - sorry - objects that emit a weensy amount of light - I didn't think you would be caught up in semantics.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I think you can get a better picture of the effect Planet X is having on Earth by looking at all the EQ's as shown in this graph, and not just cherry picking data:

As I explained, it is the data in your chart which is cherry picked. The data I show is complete.

Here is the source of your chart:
www.thehorizonproject.com...

Here is the source of the data:

Selected earthquakes of general historic interest.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Do you really believe that there were only 2 earthquakes between magnitude 6 and 8 in 1959?
edit on 10/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


These were celestial objects not able to be seen by ordinary means, and needed to be detected with IR instruments
Yes. And they were very far from the Solar System so the light from the Sun would not be bright enough to reflect off of them. The IRAS study is completed irrelevant to your argument.
edit on 10/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


In 2010 I actually did a statistical analysis for the past 20 years. As expected the results were not statistically significant.

Earthquakes Are Not Increasing In Frequency



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Those objects still reflect light. The reason IRAS/WISE/etc are needed to see them is because they are too far away from a star to reflect enough light to be seen from Earth.

I have to ask why you're bringing up the claims from 1983 again. You have been corrected on this in the past with links to the actual original article as well as the follow up articles. What were found were nine ultra-luminous, distant, young galaxies (which were one of the possibilities listed in the original article) and an infrared cirrus.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by Phage
 


I think you can get a better picture of the effect Planet X is having on Earth by looking at all the EQ's as shown in this graph, and not just cherry picking data:



I'm afraid that you are doing it wrong again, and in truth, it is you that is "cherry picking". You've taken a single graph, made from incomplete data and said basically that it proves that earthquake amounts are on the rise.

You are NOT taking into account the change of technology over the past 20 years. You are NOT taking into account the that also during that 20 years, geophysical institutions were able to share data much, much more effeceintly than before due to the internet, and satellite communications.

Take a look at the data that Phage provided for you. Look at it. Don't ignore it. Ignoring it will not get you the truth.

You are interested in the truth correct? If you really are, then you will NOT ignore data, and only use or pay attention to data that supports your cause.

You either use the scientific method and find the truth......or you can ignore proper research and choose only data sets that support you, in which case that means you are not after the truth, but are instead pursuing a path of sensationalism and pushing an agenda.

So which is it? If the Truth is what you are really after, then show us. Show that you are not ignoring all the data, and refusing to acknowledge things that detract from what it is you are questing for. Show us that you can be objective in your studies.

Not subjective.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Okay, do you want to offer me a subjective or objective explanation for the clear rise in 5+ Mag quakes over the last three decades or the 100% increase of EQ total strength over the same time?






posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 

Can you show me your links that said Shoemaker's Lab burned down right after he died?

edit on 13-10-2012 by nancyliedersdeaddog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I will offer you a objective opinion on it:

1) Glad to see you are looking at more than one source. Okay, it's someone's private project, but they do refer back to where they got their data from. So you're starting down the right path.

2) There is still the problem with the graphs in again: the amount of earthquake detection devices and their sensitivity has increased over the years. That increase, will of course make the total amounts and even the averages increase.

It's basic math: if you have a class that has 20 students in it, and you are keeping track of their grades each year. However, if the number of students increase, it will change your numbers. If the testing materials and teaching materials get better, the grades of the students will appear to increase also.

If you TRULY want to see if there is an increasing trend in earthquakes, here is what I suggest you do:

Go back to 1973 and look at the data for that year. Find the TOTAL amount of reporting stations, and which ones there are.
Now, from that point all the way up to 2012, ONLY use the data from those reporting stations. Even if the amount of stations has tripled, you do not use any of the new stations data.
Next, again, look at 1973 data. Find the least magnitude quake, and the deepest depth from any of those stations. That sets the bounds. From that point on, you must ignore any quakes that are lower in magnitude or deeper in depth (because as we get closer to 2012, the equipment becomes better and more sensitive, which will skew the numbers).

So there you have it: use only the same amount and same reporting stations that were in 1973, and make sure you do NOT include any quakes smaller than the smallest listed in 1973, or deeper than any listed in 1973.
Once you have all those numbers up to this year, you can then plot a graph and see if there is an increase in earthquake activity.

THAT would be a truly objective way to see if there is an increasing trend.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

2) There is still the problem with the graphs in again: the amount of earthquake detection devices and their sensitivity has increased over the years. That increase, will of course make the total amounts and even the averages increase.



I see where you could think this could be the case, and it may be for much smaller quakes.

However, if you do the research, you will see of the three seismic waves; P, S and L waves, P and S waves have the ability to travel through the middle of the planet to the other side. This is definitely true for 5+ Mag quakes, which we are discussing.

Seismographs can meaure seismic waves from thousands of miles away, and in fact three are needed to triangulate and pinpoint the epicenter if the seismograph is not located on or very close to the fault.

So sure there have been more seismograph stations added in the last three decades, but these have only caught smaller ones or allowed finer measurement of smaller ones, a 5 Mag or over that occurs today would have been measured 30 years ago due to the fact these waves can travel through the whole planet.

Also, I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the determination of both sides of the cold war and other countries to record underground nuclear tests anywhere in the world - which were all recorded if the test didn't fizzle - all in the 4-5 Mag range - up until the end of the cold war. This could mean there are even less seismograpsh today than there were 30 years ago.

You yourself pointed out the number of 5-6 Mag quakes had steadily risen just over the last decade to about a 100% increase.
edit on 13-10-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: addition



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Then prove it.

No, seriously. You've just made a theory: there are more 5M quakes than before, and that even taking into account more seismographs there would still show an increase.

Use the method I said in my last post, and prove it. You will either be able to prove that your theory is correct.....or it will show that you are wrong, and the graphs are misleading.

If you are able to show that there is an increase in that magnitude of quakes.......then you'll need to find out why. But be careful in trying to say this proves that another gravitational body is influencing the Earth. If that were true, the increase in quakes would NOT be limited to only one magnitude. There would be an increase across the whole spectrum.

edit on 13-10-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
But an increase in M5 earthquakes is surely caused by an increased number of people wearing red t-shirts ..... Or, nore, likely, due to the presence of a mutant star goat. Prove it's not!

Not so daft: you need to eliminate all other possible causes before you can say that an imaginary invisible planet is the only possible cause!



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Well from my own research/analysis M6+ earthquakes have not significantly increased over the past 20 years. We have also not seen an increase in total earthquakes for the past 10 years. With this information I'd say we probably haven't seen a significant increase in M5+ earthquakes. If you want I can do a statistical analysis tomorrow.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


what about the shades of grey. no i dont mean the book lol
grey both absorbs and reflects light



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
or a black and white anything

eg. a chess board



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
maybe nubiru is a soccer ball???/





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 49  50  51    53 >>

log in

join