Hi folks, this post will be "bits and pieces" because several members have said interesting and important things and I'd like to add my comments if
I may.
Kattrax -- I recall that 3.5 Nevada quake you mentioned, and yes it has disappeared from the map. Even though by now I guess we have gotten used to
this kind of thing it doesn't make me feel any easier, so how you and others within that region feel about I can't imagine. I'll simply reassert
what I said some time back: the USGS appears to be systematically concealing scientific information and data, which should be freely available, and
hence are misusing the tax dollars being paid by you and other Americans. But it's not only the misuse of funds that is disturbing, it's the
"why". What is their agenda? It certainly isn't to provide unbiased and accurate data about seismic events.
Pynner, Damntheptb (and others) -- regarding the "get out now" feeling. I understand exactly what you mean and my own opinion is that it basically
falls into the category of precognition. Now, there are some skeptics who will mercilessly criticize anyone who speaks of "precognition" as a fact,
arguing that it is "impossible" for us to have any kind of forewarning of impending events that cannot be detected by "normal" means. My argument
against the skeptics is quite simple. Firstly, the perception of what is "normal" varies not only from place to place -- both culturally and
scientifically -- but also according to the times people are living in. "Normalcy" is entirely subjective and not valid as an argument against
precognition in any case; it matters not a whit to me if my own pre-cognitive abilities are "normal" or not, all that concerns me is their level of
effectiveness -- or accuracy, if you will. My predictions on this thread have all contained an element of precognition, but in respect of trying to
predict seismic activity that ability on its own will generally not be sufficient without gleaning some knowledge of the subject so that we can sort
the wheat from the chaff more effectively.
The second point is that just because we may not have solid, scientific explanations for precognition at the present time, that in itself is not a
valid argument for stating that precognition doesn't exist. It's my belief that much of what I perceive precognitively may well have a very simple
physical/physiological basis, but that as yet research (or even the right machines) are lacking to validate its existence and the causative
mechanisms. To give a practical example, just because I cannot hear sounds or see light outside of a certain range of frequencies or spectra doesn't
mean that they don't exist, but in these cases we have machines that are able to detect them and present them in a form that we can perceive. It
could well be, therefore, that we humans, like some animals like dogs, cats and even elephants, have other sensory capabilities that are detecting
forms of energy that are released pre-quake. I am not referring just to detecting sounds beyond the normal range of hearing, but (for example)
geo-magnetic "bursts" of energy that are known to be released before some seismic events. Long story short, there is nothing airy-fairy about all
this; it's pretty likely that if more people took more notice of how they really feel then the correlations would be plain to see and even
inarguable...
The "get away" feeling is possibly a natural response to a perceived threat. The same goes with the "something isn't right here" feeling, which I
have had on several occasions and which has proved quite valuable. It's not something that can be rationalized, because such feeling s function below
the level of conscious rationalization. The key thing is that when we get such feelings, we first need to consider if there are any obvious factors
that could have triggered them. When there are none, while we might not literally head for the hills, we should at least take note of them and keep
our awareness high.
Moving on... (And I hope my post isn't too obtuse.)
This spate of Vancouver Island quakes is of great concern. According to the USGS seismic hazard maps this region only averages about one mag 5 or
greater quake per annum. It seems to be running well in excess of that now. Okay, "lies damned lies and statistics" is one phrase that comes to
mind, as averages, quite frankly, are pretty meaningless when we are dealing with major, physical, energy-release events -- which is what earthquakes
are, after all. The earth will either shake or it won't, and the earth doesn't give two hoots about statistics. All the same, it is not good to see
that the seismic activity in that area is running above the long-term averages and we have to wonder what it might portend.
I can't help but repeat a comment I made a while back (either here or to Kat via email), that we perhaps should look at seismic activity in much the
same way as we do the weather. Averages are useful as a rough guide, but there is a "chaos" factor -- the "butterfly in Beijing" concept -- which
suggests to me that even a small change in one place can lead to massive changes elsewhere, but not necessarily through some logical
event-'A'-leads-to-event-'B'-leads-to-'C' kind of process. In the same way that throwing one snowball at a steep, snow-covered mountainside
might do no more than make a pretty little "crater" in the snow, but another snowball landing mere feet or even inches away from it could bring an
avalanche of several million tons of snow down on the (foolish) thrower, we might have to go beyond the scientific and purely logical left-brain
methods of prediction and look far more into the right-brain intuitive ones to find the answers that we seek. This is fundamentally what Charlotte has
done; hers is not a non-scientific approach, but it uses a very different kind of science, where intuition and self-discovery is of equal or even
greater importance than "conventional" scientific methodology.
To conclude... (Cheers from the crowd
)
The USGS and other organizations like it have access to an enormous amount of data and scientific equipment, yet for all that, they are not services
that are in the business of giving useful and timely warnings of possible seismic events. Yes, they give statistical probabilities and at least for
the US, you can find out within a decade or so when a large quake can be expected in your region. That's as far as they will go, because they assert
that it is not possible to make predictions within a limited time frame. That's their mindset and their official position. In other words, they are
an information-gathering service, collecting data about the most powerful energy-release events that affect our planet, but they insist that no-one
can predict these events and therefore they do not try. Well, if they are trying I have never heard about it. If anyone has seen the USGS or like
organizations release specific predictions, please let me know.
On the other hand, we who have almost no resources or equipment, but who do believe prediction is possible, have met with increasing levels of
obstruction in our efforts to at least access data that we need, and which should be freely available. I am not saying that the USGS's activities in
deleting earthquakes, withholding waveform data (which they must have) and so forth are aimed at thwarting
our efforts, but there has to be a
reason why they are doing these things and to date, no explanations have been forthcoming. So, we can only assume that they either have something to
hide, or they do not want anyone outside of their sainted circle to demonstrate that it is possible to do what they say cannot be done -- namely,
predict earthquakes.
That's my take on it. Thanks for suffering through such a long post.
Regards,
Mike
[edit on 28/8/08 by JustMike]