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

Okay, so we have an obvious increase in Mag 5+ quakes, and total EQ strength has doubled since 1999.

One poster offered that this was due to more EQ stations. Can you show an increase in seismograph stations since 1999? Anyway, as I mentioned, P and S waves can travel the globe, and many countries are paranoid about nuclear blasts by rogue nations or any nations, so the whole world has had saturated coverage to detect nuclear size seismic waves, 4+ Mag for decades.

Anyone else like to give it a shot at why we have the massive EQ 5+ and total strength increases?

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

Anyone else like to give it a shot at why we have the massive EQ 5+ and total strength increases?

Corn syrup. They put corn syrup in everything now, leading to an increase in obesity. The earthquakes are caused by all those fat children jumping up and down on playgrounds all over the world. Prove me wrong.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

so the whole world has had saturated coverage to detect nuclear size seismic waves, 4+ Mag for decades.

"Saturated coverage"? Not really. But it's strange that dlinquist shows such low numbers for earthquakes. There are actually an average of of more than 1,500 earthquakes of 5.0 and greater each year.



But there are more seismometers in more places and their numbers continue to increase. The database records located earthquakes. It takes at least three seismometers to locate an earthquake.



We have had the technology for a long time to locate a 7.0 earthquake anywhere on the planet. A 6.0 earthquake is far less powerful and not as easy to locate. A 6.0 earthquake far from any seismometers would not be locateable. The ability for data to be gathered from different locations has also increased dramatically since the 1990s.

At best we can say we have insufficient data to determine if there actually has been an increase in lower magnitude earthquakes.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


And I bet you're going to say that the 4.6 that hit New England last night was indicative of Planet X as well, when in fact it's quite normal for these parts, so I'm going to step in and state that we get these from time to time, and that Hartford CT up to about Bangor ME is one of the most active faults in the country, normally they are very small tremors though, not bigger ones, but they do happen, which is why Hartford buildings must be built to withstand what... wait for it........ Earthquakes...........

reply to post by Phage

But there are more seismometers in more places and their numbers continue to increase. The database records located earthquakes. It takes at least three seismometers to locate an earthquake.

How close in proximity must these seismometers be in order to register an earthquake, and does the depth or terrain have anything to do with the reading?

I have heard of some earthquakes registering off one seismometer so I am curious where you came up with the 3 seismometer theory. My only guess is that you mean triangulation which would help for a more accurate reading, which assists in locating the exact location but 3 seismometers should not be necessary just to locate the area of a quake no?

One seismometer should provide a general location even if it is not exact.

Please correct me if I am wrong

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


You've asked a number of very good questions.

Consider this. Suppose you hear a sound. You can determine the direction of the sound because you have two ears that hear the sound at slightly different times. If you had only 1 ear you would not be able to do anything other than detect the sound. Direction would not be possible.

What about distance to the sound. A quiet close sound might be the same as a distant loud sound. If you know the type of sound then you might be able to estimate the distance.

Seismic information is like sound in many ways. Can a single detector determine the direction of the arriving wave? How far away is the epicenter? Hard to tell. Was it a big quake far away or a small quake that was closer? The bed rock is also not uniform. The geology between the epicenter of the quake and the detector affects the signal. That is the way the underlying geology is revealed.

A located quake is one that has been determined in 3 dimensions. There is the spot on the surface above the quake, but a quake also can happen at different depths.

With over a million quakes a year it becomes hard to separate out all of the signals into the responsible quakes. The more detectors there are the easier it is to determine what is happening.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


I have a rather open mind, I try to give everything the benefit of the doubt. I've given "Nibiru" more benefit of the doubt then it deserves. As I've read various posts, threads and links provided on ATS and other places, I come to the same conclusion: People want to believe because they're scared.

Not scared of Nibiru, but rather personal problems. They have the need to believe something, and in this instance it's a killer planet. Why that is, I have no clue. Most believers are trying to do good by spreading the information, there's nothing mean about their intentions. However, it just causes a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Nibiru isn't real. Could it have existed at one point of time? Maybe, however it's long gone. I tend to believe that if it did exist, it crashed into the sun or was simply a large meteor that passed us by spooking ancient man.

But this is me, what I've come to believe. I thank the OP to take his time and warn us of something he personally believes in. Thank you though, I do appreciate it even if I don't believe in it.

reply to post by Auricom


They believe in it because they feel the world is in need of great change. This is the same for any 2012 theory. They feel the world is screwed up and needs a giant, cosmic reset button to be pressed. By believing in such theories they recognize there are problems that need fixing but at the same time absolve themselves of actually having to do anything.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


As stereologist pointed out, you need more than one to pinpoint the epicenter of the quake, and not just the Lat and Long of it, but the depth too.

That's normally how passive devices work: 1 will tell you that something happened, it might even give you a basic direction. 2 will give you a better sense of direction and a better estimate of distance (and in these cases, depth). 3 detectors however, will allow you to triangulate with much more accuracy the Lat and Long and the depth.

It can also help determine magnitude better.

Another good example, besides the one that Stereologist used, is Electronic Warfare, in which passive devices (those that listen only, not transmit) are used to detect electromagnetic energy (such as a enemy's radar system). The display used by the EW's in the CIC shows a bearing line only from the ship. RF energy from a radar is detected in a certain direction.
If other ships in the fleet also use their equipment to detect that RF energy, they also will only have bearing lines. But when the tactical data system uses the position of each ship, and the bearing line of each for that enemy radar, where all 3 lines intersect is a good indication of the actual range of the enemy radar system.