An Experiment in Alternative Methods of Earthquake Prediction

Mike I located the area you are speaking of and did you know that in "that 'general area" there is high ufo activity and maybe a underwater base nearby.

My location I saw was a little lower..... the black 5 pointed star with the black circle I saw was at approx. 33W 7S the red circle was inland (give or take) to 37W All the way out to the Central Mid Atlantic Ridge where it connected like the Oplympic circles and continued out toward Africa I believe.

Like I said I am glad to be wrong because the word for this occurance is dread.

I agree with you guys about Yellowstone and think if anything happens it will be mild compared to what could be.

If what I am talking about happens you won't have to ask you will instantly know.

reply to post by soma_pills


Log everything in as much detail as you can. I found it's helpful for me to log concurrent precursors in individual "groups". For example, 10 a.m., headache across the eyes, moderate left ear pains; 2 p.m., right mid back pain, ears plugged, left heart area pressure. The precursors that come at the same time seem to point to a specific region. Otherwise, I get confused. The next day or so, I try to match up the EQ's that occur with the correct precursor group.

2.5 Markleeville, Cal. 22:20:06

4.9 Mariana Island Region 22:24:12

2.7 Unimak Island Region Alaska 22:27:12

reply to post by kattraxx


Yeah, I am starting to do a 'running log' so to speak as opposed to just marking down ear tones as they occur.


Another 3.6 in Nevada just popped off...let's see if it stays on the map.

Magnitude 3.6 - NEVADA
2009 January 04 23:36:04 UTC

41.514°N, 116.159°W
Depth 16 km (9.9 miles) set by location program
Region NEVADA
Distances 23 km (14 miles) NNE (13°) from Tuscarora, NV
29 km (18 miles) W (277°) from North Fork, NV
46 km (29 miles) WSW (241°) from Williams Cabin, NV
48 km (30 miles) S (182°) from Owyhee, NV
82 km (51 miles) NNW (337°) from Elko, NV

external image

Before it gets deleted.

[edit on 1/4/09 by kattraxx]

It is 340am, I am having major pain in my calf area of my left leg. I am still having heart palpitations, and have in the last hour gotten a headache in my temples. Ear tones are currently two at once, both shrill, one is a pulsing tone, one is constant.

5.6 Gulf of Mexico

Things look quiet this morning so far.

DELETED: Event NN 00270807

== EVENT DELETED NOTIFICATION ==

***This event has been deleted after review by a seismologist.***

Geographic coordinates: 41.514N, 116.159W
Magnitude: 3.6
Universal Time (UTC): 4 Jan 2009 23:36:04
Time near the Epicenter: 4 Jan 2009 15:36:04

Location with respect to nearby cities:
23 km (14 miles) NNE (13 degrees) of Tuscarora, NV
29 km (18 miles) W (277 degrees) of North Fork, NV
46 km (29 miles) WSW (241 degrees) of Williams Cabin, NV
82 km (51 miles) NNW (337 degrees) of Elko, NV
367 km (228 miles) WNW (285 degrees) of Salt Lake City, UT

Now this one never happened either. But it's still on the maps.

Magnitude 5.5 - CENTRAL MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
2009 January 02 20:14:30 UTC

reply to post by kattraxx


It disappeared from the map for a bit (I couldn't see it this morning) and now it's back as a 3.7. The exact coordinates changed a bit but it's in the same area and marked as having occurred yesterday.

Magnitude 3.7
Date-Time

* Sunday, January 04, 2009 at 23:36:02 UTC
* Sunday, January 04, 2009 at 03:36:02 PM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 41.553°N, 115.876°W
Depth 2.4 km (1.5 miles) set by location program
Region NEVADA
Distances

* 9 km (6 miles) NNW (328°) from North Fork, NV
* 25 km (16 miles) SW (223°) from Williams Cabin, NV
* 39 km (24 miles) NE (47°) from Tuscarora, NV
* 49 km (30 miles) SSE (154°) from Owyhee, NV
* 80 km (50 miles) N (353°) from Elko, NV
* 345 km (214 miles) WNW (286°) from Salt Lake City, UT

[edit on 5-1-2009 by soma_pills]

reply to post by soma_pills

Hi soma_pills,

this is an interesting development. Over the past several months, we have logged a number of instances where USGS has deleted quakes, and after deletion that was the end of it. They were simply gone. This has been especially noticeable in certain regions, such as Nevada and Utah. (For readers: the most recent Utah examples are just a few pages back in this thread.) Now in just the past couple of days we've had two cases (both in Nevada) where quakes have been deleted and have then "re-appeared", with magnitude and location slightly modified and with a time difference of just a few seconds. (Eight seconds in the first instance, two seconds with this latest one.) It's also interesting to note that their depths have also been changed, the first from 0 km to 10 (which is actually one of their most common "default" depths), the second from 16 km to 2.4 km.

This makes me wonder if the USGS' ptb are becoming more aware that they are being monitored closely -- and not only by us -- and that where quakes "disappear" the details are being published and discussed. The fact that we have stated quite openly that we expect certain quakes to get deleted, so we post details before it happens, is not likely to have passed entirely unnoticed by those who are paid to monitor sites like this one...

Perhaps there has been some kind of policy shift within USGS? In the past, they have sometimes acted with what seemed to be complete disregard for the public's right to know, deleting events with no explanation whatsoever -- not even with the aforementioned Utah case where they deleted five on the day that the Yellowstone swarm began to intensify. They have also delayed posting quakes in certain regions like offshore Cal/PNW, sometimes over-riding the automatic computer-posting system so that quakes showed up in blue or even yellow, and, in at least one example actually logged in this thread, posted a quake so late that it dropped off the maps within hours of being shown. Again, no explanations have been forthcoming. They have failed to provide wave-form data for the majority of offshore West Coast quakes, long since stopped giving this data for Nevada quakes, yet provide it for others which are of even smaller magnitudes. Again, this is all documented in this thread.

While we have said several times that it's understandable that some quakes will get deleted, we've also said it is suspicious (to say the least) that certain regions are very prone to deletions. As for posting quakes late on the maps, there is no good reason for doing so if they have the public's right to know at heart. The same goes for not releasing waveform data (which they must have). I've said that in the event of a future inquiry into the methods of USGS, which I feel might be needful one day, it is good that we have a body of evidence collected on this thread and in other, more secure places.

Our main concern is that without good, reliable data that is provided in a consistent, non-selective manner, it very difficult for anyone who is researching quake activity, whether they are involved in prediction experiments or theory, or they are simply gathering data for further study. We do both, and the number of times our efforts have been frustrated by this obfuscation is practically incalculable. It does not matter if we are not "experts" with a string of degrees in geology and similar disciplines, because this information should be freely available on an equal basis to all who wish to see it, and that has not been happening.

And now, just a couple of weeks before the new Obama Administration takes office, we are seeing changes in the way that USGS operates. Is this purely coincidental?

Comments, anyone?


Mike

[edit on 6/1/09 by JustMike]

Hello everyone,

The next couple weeks should be interesting in many ways I would think.

I notice this morning there are three quakes small on the San Andreas Fault hitting Southern, Central and Northern Ca.

The 20th is coming and I hope it all goes off safely with the change over for all eyes will be on Washington D.C.

I will be making a Birthday cake and cupcakes for one of my grandsons on the 20th, yummmmmmmmy.

Near Soufriere Hills volcano on the island of Monserrat in the Virgin Islands.

MAP 3.1 2009/01/06 08:56:40 18.920 -64.208 52.5 24 km ( 15 mi) NNE of Settlement, British Virgin Islands
MAP 3.0 2009/01/06 06:27:14 19.207 -64.824 34.1 75 km ( 47 mi) NW of Settlement, British Virgin Islands
MAP 3.4 2009/01/06 04:48:08 19.245 -64.168 35.9 59 km ( 37 mi) NNE of Settlement, British Virgin Islands
MAP 3.0 2009/01/06 02:40:24 18.794 -64.362 17.9 8 km ( 5 mi) NNW of Settlement, British Virgin Islands

external image

Geyser activity at Pyramid Lake, north of Reno, Nevada. I'll do some checking, but this is the first I've heard about geysers there... and I've been there hundreds of times, however, not to the far north end of the lake. I just read recently that there are hot springs on the pyramid shaped island in the center of the lake.

More info.

www.nevadaappeal.com...

Magnitude 2.0 - NEVADA
2009 January 04 14:03:13 UTC
in the ne part of Pyramid Lake

[edit on 1/6/09 by kattraxx]

reply to post by JustMike


Hi Mike.

It's interesting you should mention the depth issue, especially the now common 10 km/6.2 mi depth. I've done a little bit of research on this subject in the last few months. I will summarize as best I can below although it will be a little lengthy. Hopefully this hasn't already been covered in this thread.

As I'm sure you're aware, the USGS has a database with all sorts of ways to download and map historical EQ data. I decided to look at the detailed records going back to 1973. I pulled all the data available into a .csv file and looked for three data points:

1. Total number of EQs per year.
2. The Mode of depths for the year (i.e. what depth, out of the hundreds of different values recorded each year, occurred most often).
3. The distribution of all depth values per year (I just graphed them and then eyeballed it to see if there were any large spikes for certain depths).

The first thing I noticed was steady increase in the number of EQs per year. In 1973 there were 5175 recorded quakes. In 2007 there were 29,685! This is partially explained per the USGS FAQ where they talk about the number of sensors in place today versus the past. Not sure if that really explains it all but I am not going to delve into this any further as I'm sure it has has been discussed here at some point.

Regarding the second point, here are the most frequently occurring depths for each year (the Mode of all depth values per year):

Year - Depth in km


1973 33
1974 33
1975 33
1976 33
1977 33
1978 33
1979 33
1980 33
1981 33
1982 33
1983 10
1984 10
1985 10
1986 10
1987 10
1988 10
1989 10
1990 10
1991 10
1992 10
1993 10
1994 10
1995 10
1996 33
1997 33
1998 33
1999 33
2000 33
2001 33
2002 33
2003 10
2004 10
2005 10
2006 10
2007 10

The first thing that struck me was the fact that, out of hundreds of possible depths recorded each year, only 2 appear (one being the infamous 10km/6.2 mi), and in a rather strange pattern. In some years, these 2 values both occur in large numbers. I decided to look at both depths for each year and see what percentage of the total they represented. Here is a link to a spreadsheet I created that includes this data.

EQ depths spreadsheet

Basically, the the percentage that each of these depths accounts for in relation to the yearly quake totals is statistically improbable.

For example, in 1987, 31% of all quakes recorded were at a depth of 10 km, and 24% at a depth of 33 km. So 55% of all quakes recorded in 1987 occurred at one of these 2 depths, while the remaining 45% were (more or less) evenly distributed across a depth range of 0 to 600+ km. Here is a quick and dirty graph of that year, sorting each depth recorded into a bucket.



Guess which 2 depths the big spikes represent...

Statistically this makes no sense to me. I would expect the distribution of depths to be fairly even, barring some external factor or geological explanation that I am not aware of. No other depth values come anywhere close to the percentages that 10 and 33 km represent over the life of the data. Anyone can pull the data from the USGS and verify this.

I'm running up on the post limit so I will stop here but there is a lot more to say. Hint: try mapping these depths for various years/groups of years and look at the patterns and 'gaps'.

Hopefully this isn't well covered already. Open for discussion!

I should also mention that I emailed the USGS about all this and have not yet received a reply. This is what I sent them:

---

Sent 12/19/08

Hi,

I have a question regarding earthquake depths. I was poking around the 'USGS/NEIC(PDE) 1973 - Present' database and came across something interesting (at least to me).

I took the Mode of the depth values for each year and noticed that there was a pattern of only 2 values, 10 and 33 km.

-From 1973 to 1982 the most frequent depth was 33 km.
-Then from 83 to 95 is was 10 km.
-From 96 to 02 it went back to 33.
-Finally from 03 to 07 it was 10 again.

I decided to look at the distribution of all depths for each year and was surprised to see that both 10 and 33 km depth quakes were almost always grossly out of proportion to the distribution of other quake depths.

For example, in 1987, 31% of all quakes were recorded with a depth of 10 km, and 24% with a depth of 33 km. So 55% of all quakes in 1987 occurred at one of these 2 depths, while the remaining 45% were (more or less) evenly distributed across a depth range of 0 to 600+ km.

Statistically this makes no sense to me as I would expect the distribution of depths to be fairly even. In fact, this patterns extends across all years of data with either 10 km, 33 km, or both depths accounting for a statistically improbable percentage of all quakes recorded.

So my question is, why? Is there a scientific explanation as to why more quakes occur at these 2 depths? Has anyone else noticed this or looked into it?

I just thought this was interesting and wanted to ask the experts. I appreciate your time and response.

Thank you,

reply to post by soma_pills


Wow, Soma_Pills, you have done some impressive research. While reading your post, I realized that I've noticed in the past the 33 km depth popping up very often, but it never clicked until you analyzed all the data.

How long ago was it that you emailed USGS? If I have time, I'll do some research on the 33 km depth to see if there's a geological reason, as you mentioned. It's very curious.

Well done.

That didn't take long. Apparently, USGS uses 33 km as another default depth. Here is their statement on this:

For example, 33 km is often used as a default depth for earthquakes determined to be shallow, but whose depth is not satisfactorily determined by the data, whereas default depths of 5 or 10 km are often used in mid-continental areas and on mid-ocean ridges since earthquakes in these areas are usually shallower than 33 km.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Originally posted by kattraxx
That didn't take long. Apparently, USGS uses 33 km as another default depth. Here is their statement on this:

For example, 33 km is often used as a default depth for earthquakes determined to be shallow, but whose depth is not satisfactorily determined by the data, whereas default depths of 5 or 10 km are often used in mid-continental areas and on mid-ocean ridges since earthquakes in these areas are usually shallower than 33 km.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

Well, I guess that explains that! I thought I had read through all the relevant FAQs on the site but I missed that one.

Well, the EDIS site is showing a 3.3 in NV, and the little firefox earthquake widget I have was showing it as well, but it's not on the USGS site as of right now?

Quick, look surprised.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by soma_pills]

reply to post by soma_pills


Do you remember where the Nevada EQ/3.3 was located? I didn't see that one; not around the computer much today.