I May Have Detected Volcanic Tremor at LA PALMA- not El Hierro- Yes- at Mr. Mega Tsunami!

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 11:00 PM
reply to post by Phage

I did not say that, the OP did.
I quoted him/her. Not my words.

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
Accuracy like this? (Note that these predictions were made prior to July 2008, when the blog post was posted... and he still got the 2007 ones wrong...)

Remember Nineveh?

Don't make the same mistake that Jonah made and blame God when repentance halts judgement.

This is the very reason that God always warns people ahead of time.

Do you actually BELIEVE those scriptures in your signature?

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 11:24 PM
I am a big fan. I very much appreciate the genuine concern that goes into your very well intended posts on seismology. I never get the feeling you are intentionally trying to fear monger. I understand that you are very interested in this subject, and I'd say you put more concerned thought in your research than those "experts".

Please don't forget that there is more to learn than we all collectively know on the subject. I commend you.

Detractors of knowledge are just that. Mod, scientist, or annonymous posters'........ no difference.

I have always been very interested in this region. I will be following this closely.

And like you hoping for the best.

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 11:28 PM
reply to post by azureskys

Sorry. I missed that.
The "quote" tags make it easier to tell.

In any case, the Instituto Geographico Nacional shows no activity in the region at all on March 3 so what the OP found is likely to be something else. There was some activity near El Hierro before and after though.

1194887 01/03/2013 17:50:57 27.7003 -18.0212 15 0.9 4 W EL PINAR.IHI [+] info
1195079 02/03/2013 12:56:58 27.7028 -18.0764 18 1.8 4 W EL PINAR.IHI [+] info
1195137 02/03/2013 17:25:13 27.7131 -18.1075 21 1.6 4 SW FRONTERA.IHI [+] info
1195323 04/03/2013 07:58:34 27.7410 -18.0256 14 2.2 4 SW FRONTERA.IHI [+] info

edit on 3/25/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 11:29 PM
reply to post by Murgatroid

So people being repentant is why there was no cure for cancer or AIDS found? Were all the bad things he predicted prevented by people being repentant, but the good things were prevented by people not being repentant? Really? Show me a single prediction from that list from 2007 onwards that came true. Just one.

And yes, I do believe 2 Timothy. People are lovers of themselves rather than lovers of the truth. That's why there are so many false prophets; they want to feel important, so they make up sensationalized crap. They are conceited and boastful and proud.

Tell me; is it your position, then, that all the prophecies of Revelation can be prevented by everyone being repentant? If you say "Yes," then you're saying God can't predict the future. If you say "No," you're saying Jucelino can't predict the future. Choose.

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Phage
In any case, the Instituto Geographico Nacional shows no activity in the region at all on March 3 so what the OP found is likely to be something else. There was some activity near El Hierro before and after though.

Keep talking out of your element, dearest skeptic.

Star to the first person that shows why Phage's comment does not make sense, relative to the OP, and its particular subject matter of volcanic tremor.

If no takers after a while, I will have to bury the hatchet myself.
Not that I really want to, mind you. But darnit Phage, just...no. Let's see- Olivine probably could. Puterman most definitely could. westcoast, and maybe a few others might know why.

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 12:00 AM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

I know I'm out of my element. Please do bury the hatchet and let me know why no located earthquakes are noted on the 3rd.

Maybe you could explain why that activity which shows from La Palma beginning on the third continues unabated for days, with some intermittent oddity on the fifth. Could it be a problem with the instrument? Possibly a satellite communication problem?

Maybe you could also explain why the El Hierro instrument does show the activity on the 2nd and fourth.
edit on 3/26/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

Did you catch on the Quake watch thread MamaJ just posting or discussing the EQs at El Hierro? I mean to say that I do find it interesting after having read this thread earlier in its entirety. Why would the geologists have missed something so blatant as you suggest or are they simply lying?


posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 12:18 AM

Originally posted by antar
Why would the geologists have missed something so blatant as you suggest or are they simply lying?

Because "Science" has become a Religion.

Because of the stealth agenda, "Religion" must hide the truth... ALWAYS.

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 02:08 AM


posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 03:04 AM
Okay, I'll bite.

The micro quakes, and certainly volcanic tremor are not going to register high enough on their 'scales' to be listed on those quake lists.

The kind of signals TA is talking about will only being noticed under the type of close, scientific scrutiny as in the OP. Sure, there are many things that get mistaken for tremor and I am not educated enough to always be right (in fact, I am usually wrong when I get excited about this type of thing), but TA has some good programs running and is making a pretty good case for it.

So while Phage may be correct that there was no recordable activity on those days that showed up on the automated list, it by no means rules out tremor.

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 04:39 AM
Hey TA, it does appear that the mega tsunami risk was massively over played by only a couple of geologists and most since have steadfastly debunked that theory.

For example, The Tsunami Risk, La Palma Island (this one isn't a scientific link but it does point out some rather huge flaws in the giant landslide theory).

This one is a link to a Dutch Scientific paper published in 2006. Technical University Report, Delft

If, like me, your Dutch isn't upto scratch,
then here is the link to the English translation of a couple of doozies from the report...... English Translation

In short, definitely not something to be worrying about. However, it is geology in action and therefore highly interesting.

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 07:43 AM
Thanks TA for this.
I had mainly my eyes on El Hierro and didn't check La Palma graphs prior to the start of the recent activity at El Hierro.

So from 3-5 we did have stuff going on at or around La Palma, not linked to any activity at El Hierro. It also looks quite Harmonic after the event on the third at 18:00.

What I think happened there
Some magma has found a way to break through a "layer", that's what the activity at around 18:00 on the third seems to point out (small event that wasn't even register as a quake) and from there on magma was on the rise up to the 5th. This also happened quite deep and I don't think there's any reason to worry about for the moment.

I'm not sure about the 22nd activity although and if it has something to do with the activity from the 3-5.

You can also clearly see the two different kinds of activity with what's going actually on since a couple of days at El Hierro.

El Hierro quake swarms, probably from volcanic activity but still no Harmonic events meaning the magma isn't rising yet.
La Palma (3-5 March) event and a continue Harmonic activity between 0/2 -> 3/4 Hz. Typical volcanic HT's are in between 2 and 5Hz if I remember well but on these graphs the show up form 0 -> 5.

edit on 26-3-2013 by Nidwin because: typos

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 07:44 AM
double post
edit on 26-3-2013 by Nidwin because: double post after quote while I wanted to edit

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:28 AM

It totally depends 100% on how much of the rock face collapses, all at once. And there is considerable debate and disagreement on exactly what would happen. Some say 800 feet walls of water if the entire cliff goes, others say we might only get a 30 foot wave, if any wave at all.

Totally depends on the volume of rock that hits the water- and/or the volume of rock that slides, that's already BELOW the water. Remember, the most substantial part of La Palma actually is below the water. So if a side of that cliff goes, even more of it could collapse underneath the water, virtually unseen- until the wave from it emerges, that is.

That's the bit I've never understood. I can appreciate that a cliff of exposed rock sliding into the sea could cause a tsunami, but why or how does a landslip of rock from UNDER the water cause a wave?

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 09:15 AM
Earthquake 4.1 at El Hiero a moment ago.

news story re: earthquake

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 09:18 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
And can you believe it, look at the thanks I get from a mod who has to accuse me of posting for stars and flags, when I clearly explained why I am sick of the arrogance of seismologists.

I didn't accuse you of anything, what I meant was that someone that cares more for people than for stars and flags shouldn't let the arrogance of those that had previously answered their emails to interfere with their actions, specially the altruistic ones.

Also, if you look at my posts in all these years you can see that I have never accused anyone of wanting stars and flags.

Ahhh, maybe that's cause I have dealt with PLENTY of them, and might have a clue?

That doesn't mean that all seismologists are like that, right? Have you talked to the Spanish seismologists?

I dunno folks, that's just staff abuse right there, is what that is. :shk:

No, no staff abuse, just a wrong interpretation of my post.

Fricken sad.
I am going to alert that sorry ass post, which offered no contribution whatsoever to this thread.

It did, but I guess nobody noticed what I said about the Alaska event in which most (if not all) of the simulations I have seen are based.

I guess when you can't argue from intelligence on the matter at hand, then hey, attack the OP- even if you are ATS staff.

I guess you should take a deep breath.

PS: It's possible that I didn't use the best words or the best sentence on my post, as usual.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 09:28 AM
reply to post by curiouswa

This was posted 26 of March 2013 but it infact states Monday in the article.
Unless, it is Monday in the Canarry Islands?

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 09:49 AM
reply to post by lacrimoniousfinale

It's about the displacement of water.

The bigger the land movement, the bigger the tsunami.

The Great Tohoku Earthquake was an underwater movement of a lot of land.

To generate this tsunami which resulted from The Great Tohoku Earthquake of 2011 approximately 125 cubic kilometers of water had to be displaced within a few minutes.

An older article has a good bit of information also:

When a large volume of rock detaches and slides downhill, water is dragged in behind it from all sides and collides in the middle. This then sends a great wave radiating out.

While the resulting wave may not have enough power to reach across the ocean as waves generated by mid-ocean quakes do, the local effects can be devastating.
emphasis mine.

That energy propagates outward and dissipates but if the initial surge is strong enough there could be serious damage caused nearby.

posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 10:29 AM

It's about the displacement of water.

The bigger the land movement, the bigger the tsunami.

Thanks for the reply. I still don't understand why a landslide that happens wholly underwater causes a displacement, but that probably explains why I am not a geologist or oceanographer. Next time I'm in the bath, I'll take a brick and not my usual rubber duck, and conduct a few experiments.

new topics
top topics
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in