Whats going on at yellowstone?

Originally posted by Anmarie96
reply to post by Trip3

 

Make one more comment about gender and I will declare war. You think your avitar gives you some kind better than all - I see you for what you are - I will battle you if you so choose.

And then go out to finish your post with regards to water and ice - the debated subject - so you know the game - are you working for the government or are you working for the frackign industry? There are a few of you here in the last few days - -

Check

EXCUSE ME, but where have i made ANY derogatory comment about GENDER? I was merely indicating my reference to "chick" was not intending to be insulting and I wasn't sure what gender "Robin" was. .I truly wanted to inquire about the intent and impliction of her experiment, and why she believed it was significant!

My avatar? It's a graphic - period!

Frankly, you've been so objectionable in your demands that I address your unspecified "anomaly" comment, that you never addressed to me, that I really couldn't give a tinker's damn if you declare a trombone, a snorkel.

And I hesitate to ask, working for what government or what industry? Am I to be part of some sort of conspiracy given the fact that I sincerely think that Yellowstone is an immediate hazard?

reply to post by SkipperJohn


Skipper ... the US government has my proof, several states have my proof. my published papers have my proof. If you imagine I'm going to provide my CV on ATS because someone says .. "otherwise you're a fraud", you're nuts. Seriously, REALLY?

reply to post by Trip3


yeah. that is what I thought, we have a fraud.

to the good people here, please ignore this fraud and open this thread back to the original topic I enjoy reading it but not like it has been.

/ignore


Oh maybe you want to provide A link to a " paper you wrote?" lol what a joke

Can we please Stop the Personal Sniping and Stay on Topic.



You are free to attack theories, explanations, posts, etc. but not fellow members.

Originally posted by Jbird

Can we please Stop the Personal Sniping and Stay on Topic.



You are free to attack theories, explanations, posts, etc. but not fellow members.

edit on Thu Feb 24 2011 by Jbird because: (no reason given)

thank you,.
I can understand the standings of the ATS gang wanting a more precise truth from our new
member,. but come on guys,. let it go,.
All things filter out through time,.
Peace

reply to post by Trip3


You know, you do have the option to disengage. Maybe you could find other forums that don't contain members that know a lot more than they are willing to, or can post on this subject because of privacy and other concerns. I highly advise you do so, or at least leave the issue alone, stick around, and contribute discussion that really is factual and solid. Also be advised that certain members here long ago got sick of the crap and have established dialog with expert sources. And I don't use that phrase expert loosely.

They are not HT's! I will say to the rest of the usual watchers of this forum that yes, that came from an inside source I trust. It's not just my opinion, even though in this case it didn't take the expert opinion to figure that out. To you that know me, I don't be jivin once I claim that.

The specs and individual tunings of seismometers, locations, quality of site, composition of site bedrock, and all sorts of other things play a major part in this discussion, beyond just the signatures themselves- and I have yet to see a single post addressing those issues. Maybe that's because there are very few people who could actually discuss those in detail relative to the signatures at YSB, to show you beyond a reasonable doubt, that those are not HT's?

For example, do you know the current frequency bandwidth tuning of YSB, and can you show why because of that current tuning, how it can and would (or wouldn't) pick up the microseisisms despite it being a short band station? All it takes is a portion of the frequency range of the event to fall into the currently tuned frequency range of the station, and filters set in such a way that don't completely wipe out the event in question.

True that broadband stations may display them better, but short bands can also register them if the current frequency range of the station even partly coincides with the event frequencies, and the amplitude is high enough. The filters would also have to be set to allow at least some of those frequencies to pass, and often short bands aren't set that way because they are set for a different particular purpose.

I suppose after reading an owner's manual to an actual instrument in use, one can understand these things better. But someone who really knows would likely have read most manuals to all available instruments in use, and their likely current tunings for an area and purpose. And to the readers of ATS, I can promise that came from someone just like that. No HT's at Yellowstone. As usual.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Trip3

 

You know, you do have the option to disengage. Maybe you could find other forums that don't contain members that know a lot more than they are willing to, or can post on this subject because of privacy and other concerns. I highly advise you do so, or at least leave the issue alone, stick around, and contribute discussion that really is factual and solid. Also be advised that certain members here long ago got sick of the crap and have established dialog with expert sources. And I don't use that phrase expert loosely.

They are not HT's! I will say to the rest of the usual watchers of this forum that yes, that came from an inside source I trust. It's not just my opinion, even though in this case it didn't take the expert opinion to figure that out. To you that know me, I don't be jivin once I claim that.

Based on what, exactly? Osmosis?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
The specs and individual tunings of seismometers, locations, quality of site, composition of site bedrock, and all sorts of other things play a major part in this discussion, beyond just the signatures themselves- and I have yet to see a single post addressing those issues. Maybe that's because there are very few people who could actually discuss those in detail relative to the signatures at YSB, to show you beyond a reasonable doubt, that those are not HT's?

For example, do you know the current frequency bandwidth tuning of YSB, and can you show why because of that current tuning, how it can and would (or wouldn't) pick up the microseisisms despite it being a short band station? All it takes is a portion of the frequency range of the event to fall into the currently tuned frequency range of the station, and filters set in such a way that don't completely wipe out the event in question.

Tell me, if most of the signature is absent, how are you going to recognize the signature? Microseisms don't exactly transmit to a given location regularly and even if there are north Atlantic storms present.

These are things that armchair geophysicists don't think about. There are a great many real interpretive implications involve here. I've not spent any a whole lot of time sitting on volcanos, but I'm damn sure I've spent a lot more than you. And I periodic harmonic tremors on Hawaii, which shouldn't be a surprise due to the fractures and lava tubes. I've also done a lot of seismic refraction work. Similarly GPR involves the same principles and filter processes.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I suppose after reading an owner's manual to an actual instrument in use, one can understand these things better. But someone who really knows would likely have read most manuals to all available instruments in use, and their likely current tunings for an area and purpose. And to the readers of ATS, I can promise that came from someone just like that. No HT's at Yellowstone. As usual.

G'luck with that owner's manual when you actually have to apply principles of geology in real-life conditions. That is why having a "box of rocks" does not make one a geologist.

And as far as the "No HT's" comment, your unbridled arrogance is writing checks that your ignorance cannot begin to cash. I wouldn't have gone with the HTs for absolute certainty if I had not myself gotten absolute, positive verification from an on-site PhD volcanologist. See, this, along with my own education and extensive background,are why your little forum posturings don't really make any sort of impression of me. You've got a great echo chamber going in this thread though. Hooo HAH!

Originally posted by Trip3
Tell me, if most of the signature is absent, how are you going to recognize the signature?

Maybe because once any portion of a signal of interest is received, they reset the filters to allow as much of the signal to pass as possible for the station capabilities if the event(s) are of interest- and THEN make something of it, combined with other data?

Ocean microseisisms would be just such a "perpetual" case to warrant a readjustment of filters to accomodate the best portion of the signal received- especially if you don't have the money to spend on broadbands and are invested and "stuck" with a fixed short band installation. Hell, they can't even get LKWY repaired quick when it goes down- so I applaud their discretion not to use precious funds for new installations to study ocean microseisisms- at Yellowstone? They might matter, but how much really when the station's primary purpose was to monitor the park?

They use what they have the best they can, like all of us try to do. And what scientist would rely on just a partial signal to base judgement? The USGS certainly doesn't, so your point is...well...pointless. And evasive- because you evaded the tougher technical question.

As to the rest of your post- I'm done. With you that is.

While neither of us is about to divulge sources, the readers can make up their own mind on whose source they trust more for accurate information.

reply to post by Anmarie96


You beat me to it Anmarie, these last half dozen or so pages have had a funny whiff about them. More natural gas than sulphur.

It seems odd that this guy came on while Robin was posting here and appeared to do everything he could to start an argument. He has failed to answer questions, obfuscated continuously and has caused faults to emerge among an otherwise (relatively) harmonious thread.

I believe that Robin et. al. are really onto something re: fracking. Robin I hope that this distraction is not taking too much energy away from your investigations and public awareness campaign elsewhere.

It wouldn't surprise me Robin that your ideas have arrested the attention of the the oil/gas companies. That's why they got one of their 'geologist' stooges to come here and 'trip' you up precisely while you were visiting this thread.

Just a theory. Either way, trip is a nuisance and I hope he disappears very soon.

Originally posted by Trip3

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Trip3

 

You know, you do have the option to disengage. Maybe you could find other forums that don't contain members that know a lot more than they are willing to, or can post on this subject because of privacy and other concerns. I highly advise you do so, or at least leave the issue alone, stick around, and contribute discussion that really is factual and solid. Also be advised that certain members here long ago got sick of the crap and have established dialog with expert sources. And I don't use that phrase expert loosely.

They are not HT's! I will say to the rest of the usual watchers of this forum that yes, that came from an inside source I trust. It's not just my opinion, even though in this case it didn't take the expert opinion to figure that out. To you that know me, I don't be jivin once I claim that.

Based on what, exactly? Osmosis?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
The specs and individual tunings of seismometers, locations, quality of site, composition of site bedrock, and all sorts of other things play a major part in this discussion, beyond just the signatures themselves- and I have yet to see a single post addressing those issues. Maybe that's because there are very few people who could actually discuss those in detail relative to the signatures at YSB, to show you beyond a reasonable doubt, that those are not HT's?

For example, do you know the current frequency bandwidth tuning of YSB, and can you show why because of that current tuning, how it can and would (or wouldn't) pick up the microseisisms despite it being a short band station? All it takes is a portion of the frequency range of the event to fall into the currently tuned frequency range of the station, and filters set in such a way that don't completely wipe out the event in question.

Tell me, if most of the signature is absent, how are you going to recognize the signature? Microseisms don't exactly transmit to a given location regularly and even if there are north Atlantic storms present.

These are things that armchair geophysicists don't think about. There are a great many real interpretive implications involve here. I've not spent any a whole lot of time sitting on volcanos, but I'm damn sure I've spent a lot more than you. And I periodic harmonic tremors on Hawaii, which shouldn't be a surprise due to the fractures and lava tubes. I've also done a lot of seismic refraction work. Similarly GPR involves the same principles and filter processes.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I suppose after reading an owner's manual to an actual instrument in use, one can understand these things better. But someone who really knows would likely have read most manuals to all available instruments in use, and their likely current tunings for an area and purpose. And to the readers of ATS, I can promise that came from someone just like that. No HT's at Yellowstone. As usual.

G'luck with that owner's manual when you actually have to apply principles of geology in real-life conditions. That is why having a "box of rocks" does not make one a geologist.

And as far as the "No HT's" comment, your unbridled arrogance is writing checks that your ignorance cannot begin to cash. I wouldn't have gone with the HTs for absolute certainty if I had not myself gotten absolute, positive verification from an on-site PhD volcanologist. See, this, along with my own education and extensive background,are why your little forum posturings don't really make any sort of impression of me. You've got a great echo chamber going in this thread though. Hooo HAH!

edit on 25-2-2011 by Trip3 because: (no reason given)

“Hooo HAH” you say? Hooo HAH? Well that’s just great. This is people’s lives and livelihoods, their families, their children, and their homes we are talking about! If I had information that affected whether or not several million people live or die, I would sure as hell not be throwing Hooo HAHs around! Utterly cavalier! I know that the east coast is far away from Yellowstone in relative safety, but I am sitting here about 200 miles from the damn thing! I have a few friends who live much closer to it.

Today, a very dear friend of mine told me she will be spending a few days next week on a short vacation with her husband and her two year old son in Jackson, WY. She is 8 months pregnant with a girl. I am attending her baby shower tomorrow. What the hell am I supposed to say to her? Should I try to stop them from going to Jackson? And if so, on whose authority?

I am pleading with you here. If there is as much imminent danger as you say, why are you spending so much time fooling around with barbs and insults on a conspiracy website instead of trying to do something about it? Talking about it on a couple of conspiracy websites and news forums is frankly NOT the way to save lives. I’m sorry, but you have a moral imperative to sound some kind of alarm about this. I can tell you for damn sure, if it were me, I would be screeching it from the rooftops, the government “info lockdown” be damned!! My conscience would force me to do something about it!

Anyone know how to get equake to work w/ the latest version of firefox?

Any help is greatly appreciated

reply to post by dalloway


Uh huh dalloway - I think you're on to something.
Just look when Trip3 joined the site 23 -2 -2011.....

I was following this thread from the beginning then stopped when the tit-for-tat started. Just checked in yesterday and darned if it isn't still going on! Nothing worse than bickering. It's juvenile and just shows up each persons insecurities.A healthy discussion when you disagree is one thing - plain nastiness, quite another.
CAN WE PLEASE JUST STICK TO THE THREAD? Very important issue here!

D'jesus.
Such drama queens. ;-)

About YMR.
It doesn't show everything that is going on. Activity, especially quakes, on the eastern and north-eastern edge of the park don't show up on YMR. Take my word for it.
I also believe that if there was magma rising on the eastern edge of the caldera you wouldn't see HT on YMR.

Anway.

@Puterman
I am going to disagree (doesn't happen often) with the link to the graph you posted being the same stuff as what we see on the eastern and north-eastern graphs of YS for the 24th and 25th of January 2011.
e.g.
theinterveners.org...

YPK vertical drawing at 1600 microvolts while your link at 100. And you have to be blind if you can't see we are looking at two totaly different things.
Actually YPK is for me the reference, the best graph to prove something did happen and it's not something usual. YPK is normally the first graph I check as my link points to it. After that I navigate back to check the others.
I regularly check YPK(daily to at least once a week) and it's the first time I see this occuring on it. It's also well mirrored on 5 other graphs. Although I didn't check on the 24 or 25 or 26 and missed this stuff at that time.

Look at the graph of yesterday for YPK 25-02-2011 and that's a normal, what I always see, day. Look at the one of the 25th of January 2011, especially between UTC 00:00 and 11:00 ans trust me when I say this is not normal.

I don't buy weather, Pacific microseisms as I would and should have seen it in the past too. Nada, nothing I can remember off on any of the eastern and north-eastern graph.

So,
Can we please stop bickering and try to explain now?

reply to post by Nidwin


No problem Nidwin I was not saying that WAS the same, but asking IS it the same, so i am quite happy that you should disagree.

Actually I am wondering if this microvolt setting is a red herring. I am going to try and chack out the workings of that and will get back to you.

Originally posted by Trip3

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Trip3

 

So you think that 'clever' answer is funny perhaps? I would suggest that maligning Mr Lowenstern is not going to endear you to anyone on this thread. How dare you belittle another professional in that manner?

That is not the sort of behaviour that I would expect from someone who is supposedly a scientist in the field, or from a gentleman. In addition you say you were at Hawaii University in 1983 therefore I would have thought that not being exactly wet behind the ears you would have learnt some manners.

As usual I note, you failed to answer the question.

To the person that gave that post a star you should be ashamed of yourself.

It was both amusing and an accurate characterization of the individual's position at Yellowstone.

I answered the question, as far as I saw one. Save your 'tude for someone else who doesn't know the difference.

You know something if you think that it is amusing to malign a very much respected scientist such as Dr Lowenstern, you who until proven otherwise are a nobody then I suggest that you might be better off peddling your wares in a forum like GLP or the one you came from.

I do not have an attitude other than a respect for Dr Lowenstern. The person who needs to save their attitude is you. By the way congratulations, you managed to use exactly the same phraseology as on the other forum. Not able to be original again?

And surprise surprise. Yet again you failed to answer the original question. May I enquire just how many times you have to be asked something before you deign to answer?

Apparently i didnt miss much other then a huge fight......

MR newbie to the site i suggest that you read the T N C s of the site before you post anything more as for the infamus YS thread its too large for full quotes of other posters please keep it to a min . unless its breaking YS news like a decent size quake or a new swarm.......

and no im not reading the last 10 pages ...

Yale Scientists predict volcanic explosions using sound waves

You can now get a whole one minute warning!

About YMR not always showing everything, especially not what is happening on the eastern part of the park.

Here on the 16th of March 2010
UTC 12:22-12:23 (red line)

theinterveners.org...
theinterveners.org...

and YMR now
theinterveners.org...

on YPK and YJC show clearly a quake, my guess a sub 1.00 quake on the eastern part of the park (could be 0.9 or 0.8 although)
This quake is not coming up on the YMR.


The quake at 20:25 (red line again) who clearly is more westish than the earlier one (a 1.x on YJC) shows "faintly" up on YMR. Actually if you didn't know or check on the other graphs you could think it's just local noise on the YMR graph and not a quake.

And now the real part. ;-)

I've checked all the graphs for 2010 till today for YPK. Let us forget about the first part of January 2010 as you can't see anything reliable on those graphs. (166.67 microvolts)
I wanted to see if I could find more or less the same readings, or something close to it, as what we saw on the graphs of the 24th and 25th of January 2011.

Till September nothing, absolutely nothing.

September 21 and 22 year 2010
theinterveners.org...
theinterveners.org...

November 21 and 22 year 2010
theinterveners.org...
theinterveners.org...

We also have smaller reading but looking more or less the same between mid September and now.
e.g.
theinterveners.org...
theinterveners.org...

So,
We can clearly see it's not the first time we are having these kind of readings on those graphs but only starting, let's say mid-September.

reply to post by Nidwin


Form my other post I would appreciate it if you would look at these two as well and give me your opinion.

WY.YSB for ordinal day 2004.15
WY.YSB for ordinal day 2004.17

These seem to demonstrate the same signal. I found others but a long list is boring and pointless in addition to being VERY time consuming.

By the way that is Jan 15 and 17 or 2004.