188 day EQ cycle proven by today's 6.9 Alaskan quake?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


But the one today was a 6.4 so why count it?
edit on 9/26/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


There were at least two EQ's, one at about 10 km depth, the other at about 40 km depth.

It's funny, there are four EQ's showing, three are 6.9, and one is 6.4, and guess which one they decide to use.







edit on 26-9-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: addition




posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
There was also a 6.2 in the Gulf of California.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


you just proved my point, thanks, but I'm not sure what your point is.



What point of yours is that? You have picked an earthquake of 6.4 as being significant. There have been 37 such earthquakes this year. An average of about one a week.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Sooo.........

What about yesterday's quake in the Gulf of Mexico. I mean it was a 6.2, close enough to 6.4 right?

I just can't get behind this 188 day cycle stuff. ( Especially if Nibiru is involved.)

It all makes me want to, :bnghd:

And you guys will argue this for the next 188 days.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


It's funny, there are four EQ's showing, three are 6.9, and one is 6.4, and guess which one they decide to use.

It's not funny you didn't notice that the readings are from different seismic stations and that you don't understand how earthquake magnitudes are calculated.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   




ONLY ONE EARTHQUAKE

3 Feeds and one correction for USGS



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


But there were still nine 7.0+ quakes during the 188 day cycle. If there is any real cycle, I would think that finding those within the 188 day cycle would be easier but there really doesn't seem to be a simple pattern.

2011 has even more 7.0+ quakes and there isn't a 4 month gap between them. 3 months had no 7.0+ quakes but they all had at least one 6.8 so at least one large quake every month.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by taws6
 


If you notice the depth's it appears there were two separate earthquakes. I never said four.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
You literalists are freakin' funny. You have to come in and argue every thread if it ain't just right.

This is how rumors get started? What, are you guys like the keepers of the gate? If you don't come in every thread that you don't agree with and harass the OP millions of people are going to start spreading rumors and it will lead to mass panic? Really? Let the guy have his conspiracy. Like he said, how is this any different then all kinds of variations of threads on this friggin' website?

He is obviously getting at the fact that there is some type of celestial body that is in our solar system causing disturbances. It doesn't LITERALLY have to be 188 days, even though that's what they call the theory, for some reason - the 188 day theory - but if it's close, I think it's still significant. The earth is not always based on precision. There are so many variables involved, there would be differences, if this were actually true.

I'm not saying I agree with the Planet X premise at all but it is plausible enough. We don't need 20 different posters trying to save the world from rumors and panicking. Why don't you just go start your own thread about something you are interested in after you've said your piece? Seems like what a decent person would do.

OP - While I cannot say I agree with any type of Nibiru theory because I usually rely on empirical evidence and there has been none, I have heard many experts talk on the subject and I find it fascinating. I have been reading threads on the "188 cycle" theory, and although I thought it was pretty much debunked because on certain days nothing really happened, I think you may be right that it's possible it wouldn't fall on the exact day every time. We might need to revise the name of the theory, 'cause people will just attack it and discredit it through that. It may not be 188 days exactly every time, but there could be some sort of cyclical pattern we may be able to calculate. Based on the Earth's rotation and the tilt of it's axis, we need to take into account variables that could potentially make it a couple days off in some cases. Like you, or someone, mentioned.. there seems to be varying degrees of strength in the EQs depending on the season. There may be something to that. I'd get out your chart and some data and start mapping EQs from a couple years back, look at dates around where the 188 would fall, see if there is a correlation.
edit on 26-9-2012 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-9-2012 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by taws6
 


If you notice the depth's it appears there were two separate earthquakes. I never said four.





It's funny, there are four EQ's showing, three are 6.9, and one is 6.4, and guess which one they decide to use.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by PatriotGames2
 


It may not be 188 days exactly every time, but there could be some sort of cyclical pattern we may be able to calculate.

Yup. And not just 188 days. With enough data (like a lot of earthquakes) and enough of a "not exactly" you can pull cycles out of anywhere.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 9/26/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by taws6
 


If you notice the depth's it appears there were two separate earthquakes. I never said four.





It's funny, there are four EQ's showing, three are 6.9, and one is 6.4, and guess which one they decide to use.


I think you missed this part:



There were at least two EQ's, one at about 10 km depth, the other at about 40 km depth.


If you quote out of context and/or just bits and pieces you can pretty much make it so that anyone is saying almost anything!



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by taws6
 


If you notice the depth's it appears there were two separate earthquakes. I never said four.


Yes, the depth also gets adjusted, it got adjusted to 9.9, it was just one quake, people always get mixed up up with this site quakes.globalincidentmap.com...

here is the updated info
earthquake.usgs.gov...



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes, I 100% agree. And I still think the OP should do it.

I'm not condoning faulty researching. I'm talking about looking for an actual pattern.

Patterns are significant. That's how things are discovered. Such as the pattern of the light from a star blinking in and out from your perspective. If I'm not mistaken, that's how scientist were able to find other celestial bodies orbiting a star.

My original statement still stands, I will not repeat it in a dozen threads like those who urgently need to let everyone know everything is okay, nothing to see here.
edit on 26-9-2012 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by PatriotGames2
You literalists are freakin' funny. You have to come in and argue every damn thread.

This is how rumors get started? What, are you guys like the keepers of the gate? If you don't come in every thread that you don't agree with and harass the OP millions of people are going to start spreading rumors and it will lead to mass panic? Really? Let the guy have his conspiracy. Like he said, how is this any different then all kinds of variations of threads on this friggin' website?

He is obviously getting at the fact that there is some type of celestial body that is in our solar system causing disturbances. It doesn't LITERALLY have to be 188 days, even though that's what they call the theory, for some reason - the 188 day theory - but if it's close, I think it's still significant. The earth is not always based on precision. There are so many variables involved, there would be differences, if this were actually true.

I'm not saying I agree with the Planet X premise at all but it is plausible enough. We don't need 20 different posters trying to save the world from rumors and panicking. Why don't you just go start your own thread about something you are interested in after you've said your piece? Seems like what a decent person would do.

OP - While I cannot say I agree with any type of Nibiru theory because I usually rely on empirical evidence and there has been none, I have heard many experts talk on the subject and I find it fascinating. I have been reading threads on the "188 cycle" theory, and although I thought it was pretty much debunked because on certain days nothing really happened, I think you may be right that it's possible it wouldn't fall on the exact day every time. We might need to revise the name of the theory, 'cause people will just attack it and discredit it through that. It may not be 188 days exactly every time, but there could be some sort of cyclical pattern we may be able to calculate. Based on the Earth's rotation and the tilt of it's access, we need to take into account variables that could potentially make it a couple days off in some cases. Like you, or someone, mentioned.. there seems to be varying degrees of strength in the EQs depending on the season. There may be something to that. I'd get out your chart and some data and start mapping EQs from a couple years back, look at dates around where the 188 would fall, see if there is a correlation.


Thanks for calling out these people, some of them stalk most of my posts/threads (I don't mean Phage). One here has never even started a single thread, and I believe about 80% of this posters posts are just on my threads - and they are a total stranger. Did they sign up just to harass me? I think they are just doing their jobs - of which they are unaware of the karmic consequences.

Anyway, I have said also the jury is out for me on Planet X, but the 188 day EQ cycle was the first piece of evidence that got me thinking something strange was happening. I researched it further and found other anomalies which were hard to explain independently but fit into the Planet X theory:

- mass fish and bird die - offs (these creatures are sensitive to methane releases from tectonic activity)

- unprecedented volcanic activity eg. 7 volcanoes active in CR, usually it's 2-3, 3 volcanoes erupt in NZ on same day

- of the ten largest EQ's in the last 100 years, half have occurred in the last 8 years

- sharp increase in sinkholes worldwide due to rifting of faults, not karst topography

- increase in fireballs, we used to see 2-3 a decade, now it's weekly

- sharp increase in severe weather around the world, hail, drought, floods, sandstorms etc

- never before heard of red rivers and lakes

- Clinton recall of all US ambassador's in January 2011 - never happened before in US history

- FEMA camps

- NDAA

And many others, this is just off the top of my head.

Of course everyone or most everyone here experienced the warmest winter ever, hottest summer ever, most hailstorms etc - but those who have a job to do will just say these things are our imagination and we just hear it more now because of the internet.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


No problem, buddy. And yeah, Phage, I respect the hell out of you just like everyone else on here. Just putting my .02 cents in.

While I can't believe in something like Planet X for my stated reasons, mostly due to lack or empirical evidence which I rely on for most everything, I have always been curious and skeptical about the strong chance it could exist. If it did, it would make a lot of the puzzle pieces fit together almost perfectly - a lot of which you mentioned.

I just think it is critical to actually have discussions about these types of things, and that totally includes people who disagree with any evidence put forth. But just coming in over and over and saying NOPE, not real... Well, that doesn't add anything. Let's actually have an intelligent discussion about it. Let's get out the atlases and our telescopes and do some old fashion team work astronomy. Even just so we can say when someone brings it up, hey, I actually looked into that.. nothing to it, sorry dude.

That's why I joined this site. I enjoy, at first just reading, but now participating and I actually want to find out some of these things, either way. Not just say, "Yeahhh that can't be true, it didn't fall on 188 days EXACTLY every time. No more looking into that."

And that's weird about your stalker, I don't know the T&C like the back of my hand but maybe you should report him to a mod or something.
edit on 26-9-2012 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by PatriotGames2
 


If I'm not mistaken, that's how scientist were able to find other celestial bodies orbiting a star.


You're not mistaken about how it is done but you are mistaken in making a connection between that and this topic. The difference being threefold.

In the case of finding extrasolar planets:
1) The scientist expected to be able to see the fluctuations in light from the stars as orbiting bodies passed across them. It was predicted to be observable before it actually was observed.
2) There is an clearly established cause and effect between an orbiting body passing in front of a star and the level of light recieved from the star.
3) The cycle is not "almost exact."


In the case of the "188 day cycle":
1) A "cycle" is observed and a conclusion is reached about its cause. The fact that such cycles are bound to occur in any given database (including a randomly generated one) is ignored.
2) That conclusion is that a "heavy mass object" is causing earthquakes. Exactly how a distant object can do that is not well established.
3) The cycle is "almost exact."



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by PatriotGames2
It doesn't LITERALLY have to be 188 days, even though that's what they call the theory, for some reason - the 188 day theory - but if it's close, I think it's still significant. The earth is not always based on precision. There are so many variables involved, there would be differences, if this were actually true.

Not sure how man versions of the theory there are but, the one I have come across, has a ley line element which didn't include the spot where this quake hit.

At least in the images that I remember seeing, so the day, the magnitude and the location are wrong.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join