New Madrid Fault and interesting research in the similar events of 1811 to 2011 preceeding the major

Fantastic research and thread OP. I am fascinated by all of the info you provided, and I too believe history tends to repeat itself to a point. Look forward to reading more of your posts and any new research you find. S+F to you.
Peace

Originally posted by adigregorio
Correlation does not equal causation, it looks fancy though!

1) Earthquakes can not be predicted, regardless of rainfall.
Saucy Source

Here are some other links you should check out, from the USGS site. (Folks who make EQ's their living.)
Bibbdy Bobbedy Boring

(Technical reading is technical.)

EDIT

Found some more relevance:

Predictions.


Predictions usually occur as a result of some event supposed to be indicative of an earthquake occurring in the near future. Such an event may be a swarm of small earthquakes, increasing amounts of radon in local water, unusual behavior of animals, increasing size of magnitudes in moderate size events, or a moderate-magnitude event rare enough to suggest that it may be a foreshock.


Unfortunately, most such precursors frequently occur without being followed by an earthquake. This means that the forecast must be made in probabilistic terms. Estimates of such the probabilities seem to be no greater than one in three, to one in ten and hence the forecasts have low reliability. A succession of unreliable forecasts is likely to do more harm than good.


One might hope that before a major earthquake several such precursor would occur. This might increase the reliability of a forecast. An earthquake forecast was made in China several decades ago, based on small earthquakes and unusual animal activity. People were able to sleep outside of their homes and thus were spared when the main quake struck and caused widespread destruction.


However, unfortunately, many earthquakes are preceded by no precursory events whatsoever. The next large Chinese event was entirely unheralded and scores of thousands of Chinese died.

Source

*Note how they never mention water, other than radon levels.

(Take a look into plate tectonics, that will explain why rain has little (or nothing) to do with EQs.)

Also, take note that "past quakes" do effect. Which brings me to my point:

"Not saying you are wrong, or thread is. Just the rain part."
/EDIT

edit on 7/3/2011 by adigregorio because: external quote and linky

I agree. Earthquakes cant be predicted, and wasnt predicting one. And was using all factors to the comparisons, not just rain, nor just a comet. The heavy rain part causing earthquakes was an article by a scientist, not me. I am a far cry from a scientist lol

reply to post by sdebunker


I understand, though it is faulty reasoning
(EDIT: "It"= The false claims of your source.)

There is NO proof to show that the two are related, even your source uses the weasle words.

"It is known that..." (Of course omitting where it is known from)

Rain causes mudslides, not quakes.

(Really, you should take that out of the OP it is a myth. Take a look at the USGS site, and the other links I provided, it will explain it all. Hell you may find better connections!)

Or, leave it up there for the sensational awesomeness. And the fact that it "fits the puzzle", though remember if a piece of the puzzle is fake, the puzzle is not complete.

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by sdebunker

 

I understand, though it is faulty reasoning
(EDIT: "It"= The false claims of your source.)

There is NO proof to show that the two are related, even your source uses the weasle words.

"It is known that..." (Of course omitting where it is known from)

Rain causes mudslides, not quakes.

(Really, you should take that out of the OP it is a myth. Take a look at the USGS site, and the other links I provided, it will explain it all. Hell you may find better connections!)

Or, leave it up there for the sensational awesomeness. And the fact that it "fits the puzzle", though remember if a piece of the puzzle is fake, the puzzle is not complete.

edit on 7/3/2011 by adigregorio because: Clarification

edit on 7/3/2011 by adigregorio because: Stupid IE

Thank you for your opinion, I will take it into consideration. For years NOAA was a well respected and trusted agency, where their research and information was taken as gospel, until the leaked emails and outed of fudging the numbers for an agenda. So, I will keep that in consideration as well. I dont see how the word research in a title is considered sensationalism, but maybe you see it that way. I could see if the words, prediction, beware, warning, words of that type. I would agree with you, but I wouldnt put those in there because that is not what I am trying to do. I would think the content is the heart of the thread not mainly the title.

And thank you for the post, one side from a scientist and another from a USGS scientist. Different points of view, I dont discount either at this point, for I am not a scientist, so how am I to claim to "know" one is always right and the other is dead wrong. I cant. So, I accept both their points of view and study. Threads can seem to drift "off course" it appears.

But back to the task at hand. For no puzzle can be completed, if you dont try to put it together to begin with.

reply to post by sdebunker


It isn't really my opinion, that source is faulty.

For instance:

It was already known that rainfall could cause tremors...

This is a clear cut example of "Weasle Words"

A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term[1] for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.

en.wikipedia.org...

Furthermore, it is specifically noted further down that this exact phrase (From your source.) is a weasle phrase!
(To the right, under "examples")

"It is known that..." (By whom and by what method is it known?)

That source has no sources to back up its claims. I, on the other hand, have provided sources that back up their claims. That alone trumps your "scientist", because my "scientistS" did their homework, and showed the math.

Some more examples:

Some experts have suggested that although the rainfall was heavy...

A 2009 study of Wikipedia found that most weasel words in it could be divided into three categories:[12]
1.Numerically vague expressions (e.g. "some people", "experts", "many")
2.Use of the passive voice to avoid specifying an authority (e.g. "it is said")
3.Adverbs that detensify (e.g. "often", "probably")

(Take note of number 1)

Some people? How many, what kind? (My "scientistS" let you know those answers.)

Other geologists studying rain-triggered earthquakes did note that they occurred in karst geology, but they did not delve into the possible implications.

(Take note of number 1 from above)

Other geologist? Which ones? Even the UFO documentaries let you know the skeptics names!

The rest of your "source" seems to be claims with no source to back them up. Again, my "scientistS" have the sources to back up their claims. I do not have the desire to check to see if the claims made in your source are false, though I assume you did...right?

Maybe not, or you would have seen that the first parts of the source are faulty. And, using this post, I have shown it is NOT my opinion, it IS fact.

Please, I am not saying your idea is wrong. Just that particular section, and it seems that it is a pretty big section. Do you think it makes the rest of your post "broken" if you remove the false information?

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by sdebunker

 

It isn't really my opinion, that source is faulty.

For instance:

It was already known that rainfall could cause tremors...

This is a clear cut example of "Weasle Words"

A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term[1] for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.

en.wikipedia.org...

Furthermore, it is specifically noted further down that this exact phrase (From your source.) is a weasle phrase!
(To the right, under "examples")

"It is known that..." (By whom and by what method is it known?)

That source has no sources to back up its claims. I, on the other hand, have provided sources that back up their claims. That alone trumps your "scientist", because my "scientistS" did their homework, and showed the math.

Some more examples:

Some experts have suggested that although the rainfall was heavy...

A 2009 study of Wikipedia found that most weasel words in it could be divided into three categories:[12]
1.Numerically vague expressions (e.g. "some people", "experts", "many")
2.Use of the passive voice to avoid specifying an authority (e.g. "it is said")
3.Adverbs that detensify (e.g. "often", "probably")

(Take note of number 1)

Some people? How many, what kind? (My "scientistS" let you know those answers.)

Other geologists studying rain-triggered earthquakes did note that they occurred in karst geology, but they did not delve into the possible implications.

(Take note of number 1 from above)

Other geologist? Which ones? Even the UFO documentaries let you know the skeptics names!

The rest of your "source" seems to be claims with no source to back them up. Again, my "scientistS" have the sources to back up their claims. I do not have the desire to check to see if the claims made in your source are false, though I assume you did...right?

Maybe not, or you would have seen that the first parts of the source are faulty. And, using this post, I have shown it is NOT my opinion, it IS fact.

Please, I am not saying your idea is wrong. Just that particular section, and it seems that it is a pretty big section. Do you think it makes the rest of your post "broken" if you remove the false information?

Ok, thanks I guess. But earthquakes and flooding isnt even what the whole thread is about, do I have to say it again How do I know the "other geologist", didnt want their names in the article. I cant assume I know that as fact, because I dont know. How do I know the name of the people on the UFO shows arent made up? I dont know. I think most people know what the meaning of the thread is, and I wish to leave it as it is.
Thank you for your participation, it helps to see all sides of a topic

And I was sceptical of 1811 comparisons unitl I read this.....

2) 1811 was the 11th session of Congress and 2011 started as the 111th session of Congress.."


I mean wow! if that doesn't prove there will be an earthquake nothing will.

Originally posted by daggyz
And I was sceptical of 1811 comparisons unitl I read this.....

2) 1811 was the 11th session of Congress and 2011 started as the 111th session of Congress.."


I mean wow! if that doesn't prove there will be an earthquake nothing will.

Depends on how you define earthquake in that line, doesnt it? I actually meant it tongue and cheek but financial collapse? Civil unrest? Political turmoil? And I believe it is actually the 112th session of Congress now, it only started the 111th because the new elected folks hadnt taken office yet. So that wouldnt apply anyway.

Wonderful read and plenty of food for thought! I am going to look into this some more since you put this idea in my head no I'm gonna run with it!

Originally posted by Tachalka
Wonderful read and plenty of food for thought! I am going to look into this some more since you put this idea in my head no I'm gonna run with it!

If you find anything, let us know. A couple things I havent looked completely into yet at the comparisons was how there were several countries in 1811 declaring their independence and having revolutions and uprisings. Napoleon was gearing up. War of 1812. The economy was terrible and we had a trade debt. In 1811, they tried to form a the start of a "United State Bank", the first Federal Reserve, if you will. But failed, but ended up passing it a couple years later I believe. They were pushing for a "spread the wealth" type of plan. Banks were failing and were basically wanting a bailout and stimulus type plan and stemmed from a court case from 1811 carr v carr, I believe.

Also, I hadnt checked this at all, but if you know about Antipodal maps. I havent checked this yet with 1811. I have had a thought for some time, that if something happens at a point on Earth, something similar will happen on the same exact spot on the exact point on the opposite side. For example, there is 2 small islands southwest of Australia and north of Antartica. Called McDonald and Heard Island. They have been dormant for 75,000 or 750,000 years, I dont remember which, with there volcanoes. Anyway, they have start to become somewhat active again. If you use the Antipodal (Antipode) method or maps. Those two small islands come out to Eastern Colorado, near or in the Yellowstone area. You can google it and it explains better. Or just go with the flow and see what you come up with. I got to water the garden and eat some grub, well supper, not the actual grubs

Just some other things to go on and links can be found for all. Happy hunting and be looking forward to any future posts. And thanks

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by sdebunker

 

So why no big quake in 1823?

quake is child of tension between lithospheric plates, massive body of water can increase existed tension & as result to trigger tremor. in short, if tension was too weak or no fault existed -- earth shaking wouldn't be.

That's a very good piece of well researched high quality writing. S & F. History repeats itself in most cases in different forms. There seems to be a lot of coincidences between 1811 and 2011. I must say, you have done lot of work in researching and finding out the information. Thanks for presenting it in an open forum for all to read and forget or be prepared. Great Job!!

Hi - nice post. didnt have time to read all the replies, so forgive me if what i suggest has already been postulated!
You had me when you were talking about physical similarities between the two time frmaes. I understood, and think basic scientific channels would sya there is nothing odd about thinking along your lines. But then you mentioned the coincidences between the social unrest, political similarities, climate, etc. Those things i think fall outside the norm of what people would think of as an indicator of an earthquake like madrid. It made me think more along the lines of that fella - what's his name. the timeline guy. You know - oh cant remember it. Ugh - hang on i will have to go google, BRB......


(trying to google someone when you dont know either their name or the name of their theory is frustrating...)


there it is. Terence mckenna, and his timewave theory. Google is awesome when in a pinch. So he says that time is sort of fractal, with segments that echo each other, repeat, get infinately smaller/larger. Very interesting stuff, though if you dont know what a fractal is you may not be ready for the challenge. So basically, while physical similarities might account for an EQ, having similarities across the board in all areas would be more indicitive of a timewave scenario. There have been a few threads around ATS about it, though i havent had time to read through them yet.

I think OP is just trying to state that the chance for history to repeat itself my happen this year, even if its by only coincidence. Its not a perdiction, its only an assumption with facts from the past to use as a reference point to compare with whats happening this year.

Similarities are definately apparent from then untill now, but it doesn't really mean anything or that anything will happen. Just that history may be repeating itself.

In this case of history repeating itself an earthquake will be the end result if in fact history is repeating itself.

At least I think thats what OP is trying to get across. If I'm heading towards the right direction let me know.

Which leads me to wonder if that does happen then history did a repeat, cool coincidence. BUT...........................

What if 200 years from now the same exact thing happens again??? MInd blower!!!

Then what.

Originally posted by chrissiel123
Hi - nice post. didnt have time to read all the replies, so forgive me if what i suggest has already been postulated!
You had me when you were talking about physical similarities between the two time frmaes. I understood, and think basic scientific channels would sya there is nothing odd about thinking along your lines. But then you mentioned the coincidences between the social unrest, political similarities, climate, etc. Those things i think fall outside the norm of what people would think of as an indicator of an earthquake like madrid. It made me think more along the lines of that fella - what's his name. the timeline guy. You know - oh cant remember it. Ugh - hang on i will have to go google, BRB......


(trying to google someone when you dont know either their name or the name of their theory is frustrating...)


there it is. Terence mckenna, and his timewave theory. Google is awesome when in a pinch. So he says that time is sort of fractal, with segments that echo each other, repeat, get infinately smaller/larger. Very interesting stuff, though if you dont know what a fractal is you may not be ready for the challenge. So basically, while physical similarities might account for an EQ, having similarities across the board in all areas would be more indicitive of a timewave scenario. There have been a few threads around ATS about it, though i havent had time to read through them yet.

Thank you. Yes I am familar with it, but I am also one that is not completely sold on 2012 galatic alignment moving into a new age and Nibiru passing us by. Yet. But that is just me. I guess it depends on if one believes if the timeline is finite or infinite? Heck, I have yet to visibly see any concrete proof of Elenin yet and here it is July.
Its just not physical similarities, but human behavior similarities as well. But his theory may very well be correct, mine isnt a theory, just sharing some information. Now if any of this plays out to come true in the Oct time frame? Then I will apply it as a theory. Thank you for the post and compliment. Being up to the challenge? I will save that for another thread where we can get into detail of fractals, timewave theory, string theory, time space-continum, the 4 dimensions (10 or 11 if your a string theory believer), and how time travel is possible using the before mentioned but only accurately can go back, but cant accurately go into the future. Plus, you cant time travel physically. Discussion wise anyway.

Originally posted by Idotwhat
I think OP is just trying to state that the chance for history to repeat itself my happen this year, even if its by only coincidence. Its not a perdiction, its only an assumption with facts from the past to use as a reference point to compare with whats happening this year.

Similarities are definately apparent from then untill now, but it doesn't really mean anything or that anything will happen. Just that history may be repeating itself.

In this case of history repeating itself an earthquake will be the end result if in fact history is repeating itself.

At least I think thats what OP is trying to get across. If I'm heading towards the right direction let me know.

Which leads me to wonder if that does happen then history did a repeat, cool coincidence. BUT...........................

What if 200 years from now the same exact thing happens again??? MInd blower!!!

Then what.

Thats what I am saying, Hit the nail on the head. Sometimes I know what I want to say, it just comes out more complicated than it needs to be. Plus, its hard to get a context meaning on typed words. Can be taken 10 different ways. Thanks

Ok this is interesting...I recently made a thread about a possible prediction regarding October 2011 found in a Final Fantasy game...
Well I've recently been playing the very first one, I'm not very far into it, but the plot so far involves a shrine being opened 200 years ago, and another shrine having just been opened in present day. That 200 year thing is kinda weird...
The plot's a little more complex than how I describe, but the 200 year part is the part I thought I'd mention.

I was enjoying this until the comet stuff started to come out. The info on the water seeping into crevices, causing ground pressure is grounded in science, but any notion of a comet having anything to do with earthquakes or any other seismic event other than the damned thing hitting the earth, is pure fantasy.

So, it you want to make a fantasy out of this, after quoting some real science, that is sad. There is room for discussion in the water situation at the junction of the Mississippi, but unless you are gravity challenged, you must know that any comet we have seen so , and has come so close to this earth, has not even been able to swing your balls a few mm, let alone affect a tectonic plate. Get grounded in reality.

Obviously this isnt the NM Fault but another scientific study on flooding and earthquake correlation and the number every 200 years came up. Thought I would post it considering the last few posts mentioning the 200 years.

Floods linked to San Andreas quakes

"We found quakes happened about every 100 to 200 years and were correlated with floods," says Brothers. "The Colorado River spills, loads the crust and then there is a rupture." He says the team is "very confident" in its evidence for the existence of three flood-derived quakes, of roughly magnitude 6, which happened about 600 years ago, 1,100 years ago and 1,200–1,900 years ago. "Sediments don't lie," he says.
(D. S. Brothers et al. Nature Geosci. 2, 581–584; 2009).

You can read the rest at :
Link

Originally posted by charlyv
I was enjoying this until the comet stuff started to come out. The info on the water seeping into crevices, causing ground pressure is grounded in science, but any notion of a comet having anything to do with earthquakes or any other seismic event other than the damned thing hitting the earth, is pure fantasy.

So, it you want to make a fantasy out of this, after quoting some real science, that is sad. There is room for discussion in the water situation at the junction of the Mississippi, but unless you are gravity challenged, you must know that any comet we have seen so , and has come so close to this earth, has not even been able to swing your balls a few mm, let alone affect a tectonic plate. Get grounded in reality.

If you would be so kind as to go back and re read the post. I never said that any comet was going to hit the Earth or affect the Earth. I only pointed out there was a bright comet in the sky in mid October in 1811, and again forecasted by NASA to have one in 2011 at the same time, as one of the similarities. In fact, I even mentioned the fact, here it is July and I havent even seen any concrete proof of comet Elenin yet. But I appreciate your input and skimming thru my posts. Thank you.