Someone is predicting quakes........

page: 6
52
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Well your mate said in his April 15 video that the next few days will be quiet...

Wait, what's that? A 7.8 in Iran?

Blimey!




posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Well your mate said in his April 15 video that the next few days will be quiet...

Wait, what's that? A 7.8 in Iran?

Blimey!


You need to review your basic statistics. One event does not make or break a theory. You should know that, so are you just trolling? Do you know trolling is prohibited by ATS's T&C's?


Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE


His prediction for the rest of the month is here, we should get a downtick after Monday of this week, until the 19th when we have more conjunctions. Of course a single large quake during this time will not refute his observations, as anyone familiar with stats knows you do not need 100% correlation to prove a theory, just as you do not need 0% correlation to disprove a theory.




posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Make sure if you are keeping track that you do keep this date and the EQ in mind however.

As you said, this event doesn't disprove a theory. However the flip side is true too: an event that does happen when things are aligned does not prove the theory either.

Have you looked today? I've been too busy with other things. But it would be interesting to see if there were any alignments (and it could come down to hours to, hours just before the quake, etc).

I'm not poking fun at you. I think this is a lot more credible to research, and at the very least I do find it interesting, so I'm sure others on here do too.


***** In any case it's nice to read something other than North Korea, Gun control, etc.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Yeah a convenient out huh.

So what happens if we get another 6.0+?



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Make sure if you are keeping track that you do keep this date and the EQ in mind however.

As you said, this event doesn't disprove a theory. However the flip side is true too: an event that does happen when things are aligned does not prove the theory either.

Have you looked today? I've been too busy with other things. But it would be interesting to see if there were any alignments (and it could come down to hours to, hours just before the quake, etc).

I'm not poking fun at you. I think this is a lot more credible to research, and at the very least I do find it interesting, so I'm sure others on here do too.


***** In any case it's nice to read something other than North Korea, Gun control, etc.



Good point Erik, and don't worry you're far from what I consider a troll. I'm kind of busy over the next day or two, I will watch his video and see what he has to say in terms of whether this large quake did indeed catch the tail end or overlap with any of the factors he is/we are watching.

And of course with such a large quake one would not be surprised to see one or more 6.0 aftershocks within the next couple of days.



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


A 6.8 in Papua New Guinea...

Lucky we're in a "quiet spell"




posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


A 6.8 in Papua New Guinea...

Lucky we're in a "quiet spell"



That is interesting, but if you think it is so much bunk why do you spend so much time on this thread?



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Yes genius, if every single quake fell within his watch period, and none fell without, we would not be having this conversation as everyone would know that the correlation was valid. And as well, even though there does appear to be a strong correlation, the occasional EQ falling outside the watch means - surprise - there may be other factors involved as well.



edit on 24-5-2013 by PlanetXisHERE because: epiphany



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   
The large EQ's yesterday including the massive 8.2 Mag fall into the watch parameters:




posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Suspicious0bservers in today's daily video reviews the large 8+ Mag earthquakes and quake swarms of the past six years and shows how they have corresponded to coronal holes with umbral openings. At about 3 mins in:




posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Just wanted to up date this thread, Suspicious0bservers has elevated his earthquake watch to A- for the next day or so due to the combination of planetary conjunctions and an earth facing coronal hole (on the Sun).

Also to remind everyone that absence of quakes during these times or presence of quakes during lull periods is not proof the theory has no value; in fact if you go over the record you can obviously see that the predictions are statistically significant, with many more and greater magnitude quakes occurring during watch periods and fewer and mostly less magnitude quakes occurring during non-watch periods.

Discussion of this occurs at 6:50 in the video below, and has been usually noted in the other videos on this thread:

edit on 1-1-2014 by PlanetXisHERE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   

PlanetXisHERE
Also to remind everyone that absence of quakes during these times or presence of quakes during lull periods is not proof the theory has no value


Best caveat ever. Earthquakes, you win. No earthquakes, you win. Well done.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

oxbow

PlanetXisHERE
Also to remind everyone that absence of quakes during these times or presence of quakes during lull periods is not proof the theory has no value


Best caveat ever. Earthquakes, you win. No earthquakes, you win. Well done.


Are you familiar with the term statistically significant?


The likelihood that a result or relationship is caused by something other than mere random chance. Statistical hypothesis testing is traditionally employed to determine if a result is statistically significant or not.


Source

For example, as outlined in the OP, for one period, the watch period had 30 large quakes, and a non-watch period had 7 large quakes, percentages of 81.1% and 18.9% respectively. Not absolute proof but statistically significant and crying out for further study.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
So far we have one quake today that is significant in size and fits into the prediction window, right on time, just a few hours after the prediction was made, I hope there were no injuries and that damage was minimal:




edit on 1-1-2014 by PlanetXisHERE because: epiphany



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Been a fan of SuspiciousObserver for a while now.
He is a No crap news guy,. doesnt attempt to hype stuff up
or make it doom porn..



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Lil Drummerboy
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Been a fan of SuspiciousObserver for a while now.
He is a No crap news guy,. doesnt attempt to hype stuff up
or make it doom porn..


Yes, he doesn't seem to have any agenda, just trying to educate people on mother nature, and what we might want to think about being concerned about vs where concerns may be unfounded, like Agenda 21 or pseudo-global warming.





new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join