An Experiment in Alternative Methods of Earthquake Prediction

really weird feeling in my right ear all morning. Almost like the slight pressure that usually precedes a ring. Been going on for almost 2 hours now

For some reason the Sun today looks more brilliant..... I know it has been like this but today it looks really brilliant to me. Any one else see this???????

This post is to log some preliminary details of a possible upcoming quake in the west coast USA/Nth Mexico region. My preliminary analysis suggests the most likely region is along the fault line that runs up through the Gulf of California towards Mexicali -- and therefore not far from San Diego. I am expecting that if this event occurs it is most likely within 3 days from now, but the time window could be a little longer, say up to 5 days. The magnitude has to be high enough for the given region that it would rate as a relatively rare event (statistically speaking), otherwise I wouldn't bother to post. Therefore, any event below a mag 5.0 will not be claimed by me as a "hit" for this prediction. I actually expect the event to be well above a mag 5.0.

I will post more details during today once I have prepared a map or two that I can use to clarify the prediction, but I have to state that I may add more details of other possible regions. However, the region of highest likelihood is along that fault line/fault system.

Time of posting this prediction is 08:34 UTC, Wednesday Jan 19, 2011.

Mike

Don't know why, but all of the sudden, I feel strange.. like something is going to happen.. like I'm anticipating something that doesn't exist. lol... I don't know when this possible 'event' will happen--probably won't actually, but I'm posting it here, now, just in case.

I would make a window of....say.. 12 days... from today, the 19th of Jan, 2011.

thx...

reply to post by Pharyax

Thanks for posting, Pharyax. My own feeling is that in this case, you might be right. I give details in my next post.

The reason why I am keeping my prediction posts quite separate is that I don't wish to edit them. In the event my prediction is correct, this will obviate any argument that I made changes to my posts after an event actually occurs.

Mike

Okay, I can now post more details about the prediction mentioned in my post above.

This prediction is based on my "180 degrees" hypothesis, that I have previously outlined in some posts on this thread. The basic idea is that where there is a significant quake in one region (meaning at least a mag 5.0 but typically higher), it might, in some cases, trigger another quake event at very close to 180 degrees' longitude away and in roughly the same latitude. The proviso is that the region on the other side of the world needs to be one that has some level of seismicity. Typically, a "triggered" quake is more likely if there is a major fault line in that region.

Please note that this is all hypothetical and cannot be taken as a given! All the same, without hypotheses we wouldn't get very far in most fields of scientific study.

I think the easiest way to elaborate on this idea/hypothesis is to refer to previous posts I've made in this thread. Relevent posts include this one on page 11 from May 28, 2008, which is where I first gave some details of the idea. Then there was this post on page 16 from June 1, 2008, where I detailed an actual case of what appeared to be 180-degree "triggering". I also berated myself for not posting a prediction for this case..,

However, I did post a prediction based on the 180-degree idea here on page 83 on Dec 19, 2008 -- though in that post I don't actually state this is the basis for the prediction. After the quake occurred on Dec 22, 2008 -- within the stated location, time window and magnitude range (USGS data page and location maps posted here on page 85 -- I then explained the methodology employed in this follow-up post (also on page 85) on the same day.

So, that's some info for those who are interested. Now, referring to my prediction made a little earlier today, the relevant factors are these:

yesterday, there was a magnitude 7.2 quake in South-Western Pakistan:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/584ba7f5dbbd.jpg[/atsimg]

(Image of data page from USGS. Reproduced for educational purposes.]

As you can see, its coordinates were 28.838°N, 63.947°E. Rounding the longitude to 64°E, the 180 degrees of longitude position around the world from there is 116°W. (116 + 64 = 180)

As I noted in some of my posts cited above, latitude positions tend to vary more. However, the key thing is that triggering is more likely if the area is seismically active and a major fault line exists.

If we take a look at a map that covers the region of 116°W and some degrees of latitude either side (ie of about 29°N), we can see that there is indeed a significant fault line:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a36f32265f93.jpg[/atsimg]

(Map from USGS. Reproduced for educational purposes.)

This, then is the reason why I have posted the prediction. While a quake could occur somewhere around 26-29°N, I feel that it's more likely up around 32°N latitude, but still around 116°W longitude. That's the reason for specifically mentioning Mexicali. However the nature of this fault line/system is such that an event could occur even further north than that, towards L.A. Even in that case, I must emphasize that anything below around a mag 5.0 is not highly significant and while it would be of interest if it occurs within the stated time window, it would be hard to claim it as a "hit" for this particular prediction.

In conclusion, I'd like to state it's doubtful that the event in Pakistan would have much effect on the Cascadia fault zone. I suspect it would take a much more powerful event than a low-range mag 7 to trigger anything significant there. My reasoning is that although there have been several quakes in the mag 7 range in the Pakistan/Afghanistan region over the past few years, none of them have apparently had any major, observable effect on the "stuck" subduction zone where the Juan de Fuca plate meets the Nth America plate. I don't see why this one would be any different.

Time of posting this is 10:37 UTC on 19 Jan, 2011.

Regards,
Mike

reply to post by JustMike


I always enjoy reading your posts, and I think one of the reasons if that you seem to take the same approach on a lot of thing the same way I do.

I have said numerous times in various threads that I believe very much in the yin-yang of quakes on our earth. It is a closed environment and therefore I think any logical person would HAVE to agree that if there is a certain amout of force or movement on one side of the world, than there HAS to be some affect on the opposite.

I have tried to look at the anitpocal (sp?) maps which show the opposites, but now that you have shown how to do the simple math I am smacking myself.

While I think you are spot-on with your logic here, I am going to throw you a bit of a curve-ball. As I am sure you are well aware, I have been spouting for months now that I think we are building to a big event here in the PNW. Now, that in itself is really nothing, because ALL the scientists have pretty much been saying the same thing for years. We are WAY over-due. I take it a step further though and apply some other not so scientifically supported indicators. The indicators themself are scientific, but putting them all together for a hypothesis isn't.

The recent increasing deep-tremors, the magma chamber theory and our absolute lack of anything bigger than a 6.7 in decades. We are sitting on a time bomb here and I think all we need is the right event to trigger it.

I know you are familiar with my rumbling thread, and of course I personally add that to my list of indicators.

We have had some odd smaller quakes up my direction. In the far Northern region of my State:


MAP 2.9 2011/01/19 07:10:45 48.960 -120.688 6.6 66 km ( 41 mi) NW of Winthrop, WA
MAP 2.2 2011/01/16 07:18:41 48.671 -122.459 17.1 9 km ( 6 mi) S of Bellingham, WA
MAP 1.6 2011/01/16 06:40:44 48.676 -122.464 13.4 8 km ( 5 mi) S of Bellingham, WA

USGS source

These are kinda odd places. At least, I don't recall seeing ones is these regions...and in reviewing seismos they have an usuall way of showing up stronger than they should on siesmos that are further away rather than closer to their epicenter.

I just love THIS tremor map. If you haven't already looked at it, you should. You'll notice that they tend to go back and forth beween North Cali/Southern OR and The South end of Vanouver Island, in Puget Sound.

Anyways, to get to my point.

While I agree with your 180 degree theory, I would like to give an alternate possibility to the prediction area. I think that the Juan de Fuca fault has had several releases in the past year. Not in Central or Northern California, but certainly in Southern California and Mexico/Brazil. One could argue this might mean it is due a bit further north so it might work into your prediction, but I think not. I think that the earlier releases South, combined with the pakistan quake and 180 degree theory MIGHT indicate a more probable release on the Cascadia subduction zone.

I really hope that I am wrong, and your prediction area is accurate....but I think you have to factor in the releases in the past year and how that impacts the locked continents to the North, especially Cascadia.

Having said that, and given the location of the deep tremors and recent PNW quakes.....I would wager we might see something either on the Cali/OR border, or Puget Sound region.

I apologize for all my spelling/gramatical errors above. I hit the reply rather than the preview....ugh. I am on my laptap and the keyboard is shot.

I want to avoid editing the post for obvious reasons, so please try to look past it all....

Originally posted by westcoast
I have tried to look at the anitpocal (sp?) maps which show the opposites, but now that you have shown how to do the simple math I am smacking myself.

Do you mean antipodal?

For that, besides subtracting 180º we must change from north to south or vice-versa.

In the case of the Pakistan earthquake it would be 28.838º S 106.053º W, some 380 km south-east of Easter Island.

Holy bannana's Batman, my ears are ringing like never ever before, and have been going for hours now.

I hope it is just an ear infection, cause my ear things has been right about 30-50% of the time. It keeps going from one ear to the other, and I have found myself looking over my shoulder expecting something behind me. I have mentioned here before that I 100% believe in science, but now my dog is running around in circles and crying. He has never, ever done that and he is almost three.

Logically, there is nothing going to happen soon, but I have this feeling that something really, really big is going to happen here soon. And I really hope it does not.

reply to post by westcoast

I've done that a few times myself. And I agree: if we have a prediction of some kind in a post it's probably best to leave it unedited.

Okay, now I'll address your main post:

Originally posted by westcoast
reply to post by JustMike

 

I always enjoy reading your posts, and I think one of the reasons if that you seem to take the same approach on a lot of thing the same way I do.

Great minds think alike...

I have said numerous times in various threads that I believe very much in the yin-yang of quakes on our earth. It is a closed environment and therefore I think any logical person would HAVE to agree that if there is a certain amout of force or movement on one side of the world, than there HAS to be some affect on the opposite.

It sure makes sense to me. Sure, we don't know about all of the possible forces involved, but the whole process of seismic and volcanic activity is based on movement of energy: ground movement in quakes and volcanoes spewing magma and so forth are all simply functions of energy movement and transformation.

I have tried to look at the anitpocal (sp?) maps which show the opposites, but now that you have shown how to do the simple math I am smacking myself.

Antipodal maps. These are typically set up to give locations that are both laterally and hemispherically opposite, so that for example 30 deg N, 60 deg E has 30 deg S, 120 deg W as its antipodal point. However, what I've noticed is that while the lateral opposition seems to occur in some cases (of possible "triggering"), there is no hemisphere reversal, so the resultant point is not actually antipodal. I guess there might be some antipodal cases but it's not what I've observed.

While I think you are spot-on with your logic here, I am going to throw you a bit of a curve-ball. As I am sure you are well aware, I have been spouting for months now that I think we are building to a big event here in the PNW. Now, that in itself is really nothing, because ALL the scientists have pretty much been saying the same thing for years. We are WAY over-due. I take it a step further though and apply some other not so scientifically supported indicators. The indicators themself are scientific, but putting them all together for a hypothesis isn't.

That's the advantage of having an "experimental" approach. Even if the methodologies are not always based on hard-and-fast scientific principles, it doesn't render them invalid if consistent results are achieved that are significantly beyond pure chance. It's also the way that science sometimes develops and evolves.

Regarding "overdue", I agree that as the 13 events known to have occurred there in the past 6,000-odd years occurred at intervals ranging from as low as about 200 years to roughly 800 years -- and the last one was almost 311 years ago -- the next one could occur at any time. It could be today, or perhaps not for another century or more. Now, I know that you know this and that you're not using "overdue" as if quakes were like buses that run to some kind of precise timetable , but it seems out there in internetland some people with little knowledge of the realities take that "overdue" expression rather more literally. So, rather than "overdue", I prefer to think of it as "not unlikely" (or a phrase to that effect).

Put it another way: if someone were to tell me that such an event can't happen soon because of (insert any nonsense argument you've heard here ), my response would simply be that more than enough time has passed compared to some past, known quakes there, and so to deny the possibility is ignoring the scientifically supportable facts.

The recent increasing deep-tremors, the magma chamber theory and our absolute lack of anything bigger than a 6.7 in decades. We are sitting on a time bomb here and I think all we need is the right event to trigger it.

Agreed. If this piece of real estate needs a trigger to get it moving, then a major event somewhere else could be enough. I suppose even a relatively minor event could do it -- in which case it could also be argued that if the stresses have built up to near-breaking point already, then it could go all on its own without needing any triggering event. Problem is, we have so little data on what really sets off these megathrust events. So much is still just theory.

I know you are familiar with my rumbling thread, and of course I personally add that to my list of indicators.

We have had some odd smaller quakes up my direction. In the far Northern region of my State:

MAP 2.9 2011/01/19 07:10:45 48.960 -120.688 6.6 66 km ( 41 mi) NW of Winthrop, WA
MAP 2.2 2011/01/16 07:18:41 48.671 -122.459 17.1 9 km ( 6 mi) S of Bellingham, WA
MAP 1.6 2011/01/16 06:40:44 48.676 -122.464 13.4 8 km ( 5 mi) S of Bellingham, WA

USGS source

These are kinda odd places. At least, I don't recall seeing ones is these regions...and in reviewing seismos they have an usuall way of showing up stronger than they should on siesmos that are further away rather than closer to their epicenter.

I had your "rumbling" reports and those of others in your region noted down as indicators of possible, upcoming events pretty well as soon as your thread got going. I just makes sense to me, because even if it's not necessarily rock-solid from a scientific standpoint it's still a reasonable basis for developing a hypothetical argument.

That quake near Winthrop: I noticed that one and it immediately struck me as odd because I don't recall seeing one right there before -- at least, not in recent times. And as USGS doesn't provide much data by way of historic seismicity for that one, it'll mean having to dig through NEIC data to find out much more.

Not too sure what to make of the seismo reading anomalies you've mentioned. Are they all set to the same levels of sensitivity? Any variation there will affect the perceived traces.

I just love THIS tremor map. If you haven't already looked at it, you should. You'll notice that they tend to go back and forth beween North Cali/Southern OR and The South end of Vanouver Island, in Puget Sound.

Yes, that's a great resource and I've spent quite some time with it, setting up the calendar there and using it to look at patterns of events over various time intervals. It's almost like watching a "sloshing" effect in some ways.

Anyways, to get to my point.

While I agree with your 180 degree theory, I would like to give an alternate possibility to the prediction area. I think that the Juan de Fuca fault has had several releases in the past year. Not in Central or Northern California, but certainly in Southern California and Mexico/Brazil.

Not sure if I follow you here... As the Cascadia fault doesn't actualy run through SoCal and down into Mexico, do you mean that energy release along other faults south of the Cascadia is, in effect, causing release in the Cascadia fault itself? Or, alternatively, is the Cascadia fault somehow transmitting energy down into the more southern faults and this energy is then being released there?

I concede that our understanding of how all these faults interact is still so limited that almost anything within the bounds of possibility needs to be considered, so I'd like to hear more of your opinions or conjecture on this.

One could argue this might mean it is due a bit further north so it might work into your prediction, but I think not. I think that the earlier releases South, combined with the pakistan quake and 180 degree theory MIGHT indicate a more probable release on the Cascadia subduction zone.

I really hope that I am wrong, and your prediction area is accurate....but I think you have to factor in the releases in the past year and how that impacts the locked continents to the North, especially Cascadia.

I follow you here. As I said, my own opinion given at the end of my earlier long post today was based on observation of past events. So, it was purely assumptive. There is always the possibility that sooner or later, there could be a "straw that broke the camel's back" event that triggers the Cascadia.

My main reason for choosing the area I did was simply that this is the region where a known, main fault lies at almost exactly 180 deg longitude away from yesterday's Pakistan quake. But yes, it doesn't have to be there. If we are lucky then the event (if it occurs) will be minor enough that it won't cause any serious harm. I'd be relieved to see nothing over a mid-range mag 5, but my feeling is a stronger event is possible.

Having said that, and given the location of the deep tremors and recent PNW quakes.....I would wager we might see something either on the Cali/OR border, or Puget Sound region.

Especially offshore, the Cal/OR border is a very significant region because of the (assumed) plate junctions there. I'd be much happier to see even a medium-sized event there than in Puget Sound. I guess we'd all prefer that, really.

I'll be honest with you and say that doing these predictions churns my guts. Generally speaking, I don't post predictions unless I am reasonably sure I'm right. Especially with more significant predictions like this one (and the ones for Greece and Japan), I lie awake at night and worry about them -- not because I might be wrong, but because if I'm right, then it means some people could quite literally be badly shaken and in the worst cases, people could even lose their lives.

You live in a region that one day, will probably experience one of the largest megthrust quake and tsunami events of modern times. You know it and somehow you deal with it; you're even able to discuss the possibilities in a reasonably detached way. It's worrying that there are doubtless many people in your part of the world who either aren't aware of those possibilities or barely give them a second thought.

It also concerns me that considering the potential for loss of life, especially in low-lying coastal regions, the Powers That Be (TPTB) in your part of the world seem to rate this potential disaster as such a low priority, when frankly so much more could be done (and should be done), both in terms of at least investigating this fault system and trying to pre-guess its next move and also in improving disaster preparedness.

I'm not saying they're not doing anything: I know they are. But the potential losses are so horrendous that surely it would be worth investing more time, money and resources into this. One of the latest studies (from 2009) indicates the area that could potentially be devastated on land is much greater than originally thought:

The most important aspect for northern Cascadia is that stronger coupling between 15 and 25 km implies greater coseismic slip near major population centers, and provides an estimate of future coseismic slip along this region. 50% coupling suggests 9 meters of slip should be expected directly up-dip of 25 km. This lies well inland of the coast, directly west of the greater Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan basin. For the 300 km-long Washington State segment of Cascadia constrained by this study, this constitutes an Mw=8.9 earthquake.

(Italics mine.)

In spite of this, the official line is still that a megathrust event on the Cascadia fault would be less damaging and result in lower losses than a major quake somewhere on the San Andreas fault system -- a system that is not even capable of producing a quake of such magnitude.

As for the fact that a Cascadia megathrust event would likely produce a huge tsunami, whereas a San Andreas fault system quake would not -- well, this is also not being sufficiently taken into account by TPTB.

I just hope and pray that those who have the power to make major decisions will sit up and take notice of the more recent studies -- and what they imply -- before it's too late.

Best regards and apologies for such a long reply,

Mike

Just after midnight, this morning, an oscillating tone started in my right ear. It lasted about 40 seconds. When I got up at 5 this morning, I staggered for a couple of minutes. The tone has never happened before. The reeling hardly ever happens. It has only happened a couple of times before when I've had to get up after taking prescription strenght meds for a migraine.

reply to post by JustMike


Wow, no need for an apology! Another great post.

In answer to your question, I just meant that since there was energy released further south this past year, that I think it may work it's way north. Since it is all inter-locked up my way, I think that any movement south of us could have the potential of affecting it, and if there is going to be an affect from the 7.2 Pakistan quake...than it will give at the weakest spot...or where there is the most pent-up energy.

Watch the Area around the Philippines and India/Pakistan in the next few Days. Something big maybe. Im going to give a Link to the Source if it happens.

reply to post by westcoast

Hi and sorry for the delay in responding to your post.

I follow what you're saying and yes, there's certainly a good dose of sense in considering it that way. Frankly I'll be relieved if nothing major happens within the prediction window (and I'm sure you will be too), but we know that sooner or later there will be a big one. As the prediction holds valid until Jan 24 (that being the five-day limit I've given), I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

If nothing occurs by Jan 24, I'll post a "no hit" statement as I've done in the past for cases where a prediction I've made didn't come about.

reply to post by Shenon

Hi Shenon and thanks for posting. If you have a specific source that indicates/predicts any possible major quake events for India/Pakistan and/or the Philippines in the next few days, it would actually be helpful if you could give us a link to it as soon as possible. It vastly improves any prediction's credibility if the details are logged prior to the event. Otherwise, there is always the chance that some critics might suggest the source didn't put up details on the internet until after the event and then claimed they predicted it. On some sites, it would be very easy to fake a posting date.

Here on ATS, because we only have a very limited time to even edit a post and we can't fake post dates, it makes it harder for people to use the "fake dating" argument.

I'm not saying this as any criticism of yourself. I am just explaining why it's so important to have predictions logged in a way that cannot be argued against by anyone.

Best regards,

Mike

reply to post by JustMike


True. I´m not sure myself if those predictions are accurate,since i dont have the Time to research.

The Source is on another Prophecie-Site where they use "Gamma Ray Bursts" to predict Earthquakes. Maybe a good read for someone who knows what they are talking about.

reply to post by Shenon

Okay. Many thanks for the link. I've had a quick read but lack time now, so I've bookmarked it and will go through it more thoroughly to see if it makes any sense. I'm curious about it already because some energy levels of gamma rays are extremely harmful and in fact are sometimes used to sterilize equipment in medical applications. So, I hope the "gamma ray bursts" they're talking about are not of that type... It also beats me how gamma rays could trigger quakes as the energies required would be quite massive, but all the same I'll see what they have to say.

I'm also puzzled as to how the people on that site seem to be able to identify gamma ray bursts as hitting only certain regions (like India) and not others.

But anyway... It's more reading to do over the weekend.

Best regards,

Mike

reply to post by JustMike


I can understand a little bit after reading trough the whole Thread,but its still pretty complicated (and i cant open the Link to the Real Time Data for whatever Reason) without the know how.

Maybe it deserves its own Thread from someone who understands this.

reply to post by Shenon

Okay, I've also just finished reading through the entire thread on that site we've been discussing. I noticed that several times, members posted requests asking "Garfield" (the key member of the thread) for some kind of explanation as to how he could determine where these gamma ray bursts (GRBs) were supposed to hit the Earth. I did not find any posts from him that replied to them and addressed these queries, so I still have no idea how he does it and I guess they don't either. I hope he's not using the coordinates given in the technical reports he quotes from, because those are astronomical coordinates and not earth coordinates.

Also, I doubt very much that such GRBs would actually "hit" only certain, well-defined areas of the planet and miss others entirely (on the exposed side of the planet, that is). However, I could be wrong on that. All the same, given the nature of gamma rays, I cannot see any way that at the obviously low-ish levels of energy being detected, they could actually cause earthquakes.

Here's why: even if GRBs hit some regions of the Earth with sufficient masses of energy to cause quakes, there's no way they can do this without also causing great harm to living things in the region at the same time. Namely, everything in the surrounding area will probably get irradiated to death. (Meaning "fried".) At lower energies that will not noticeably harm living things, the GRBs will not be able to affect seismic fault lines after passing through miles of rock first -- and often through very deep sea water as well.

So, I'm very dubious on those counts.

I also noticed that (based on statements from "Garfield") some areas of the Earth seem to get hit by GRBs quite often, while others almost never do. Namely, places like Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and the surrounding islands, New Zealand, the west coast of the USA, Hawaii and also Alaska -- all of which are known as seismically very active -- get a lot of "hits" from GRBs. Indonesia and regions around it seem to get more GRB "hits" than anywhere else in the world. On the other hand, if I recall aright, not once in 18 pages did he mention any GRB hits on central or eastern USA, the UK, western or central Europe. He mentioned Australia and Africa, but only once each I think. But then, those places are not all that seismically active, compared to the places he tends to mention.

I don't even recall any "hits" for Greece or Italy, but I might be wrong and perhaps they got mentioned. But if so, it sure wasn't often! I find that curious, because they do actually get a fair number of quakes. Mostly small ones, admittedly, but it's quite active there. On the other hand, most of what happens there never makes it onto the USGS maps. You have to use the EMSC maps to follow European and Mediterranean region seismicity in any detail and it seems that "Garfield" doesn't use those.

There is also the matter of probabilities. As I've mentioned a few times in this long thread, here we have something like a system of rating regions when it comes to predictions. Like, you don't predict a mag 2-range quake for Southern California as it's not a prediciton, it's a given. They happen pretty well every day. And so when "Garfield" says something like "there'll be a quake in Indonesia soon", it's actually pretty meaningless, because they get plenty of quakes every day, and typically at least one magnitude 5-range quake every week. (Not unusual to get more.) But there are examples in that thread where he actually claims magnitude 5 quakes in Indonesia as "hits"!

I'll put it this way: it'll be surprising if there isn't a mag 5 quake or bigger somewhere in or around Indonesia in the next week or so, or any other week or so in the future. Me or "Garfield" or whoever claiming one as a predicted "hit" has no value whatsoever.

Many of the other claimed "hits" for predicted quakes are based on "predictions" that are frankly so vague or broad that just like the "Indonesia" ones, the odds of getting a hit are pretty high. One that I recall well was for a quake from a GRB that "looks like it will impact near the equator". A few days later there was a quake in Guatemala at about 13 deg N. from the equator -- so that got claimed as a "hit". However, seeing as a fair chunk of Indonesia, PNG and Malaysia also sits on or around the equator, I guess if there'd been a quake in any of those regions first, that would have been claimed as the "hit". After all, the equator goes all around the world...

In summary, unless I can find or someone can offer something to corroborate the idea that GRBs can actually hit specific areas and possibly cause quakes, I personally won't be taking this line of enquiry much further.

Best regards,

Mike

reply to post by JustMike


Hm,good Explanation,was sceptical about that myself. Maybe the only way they could cause Quakes is by beeing reflected from the Inner Core?