New ATS Member Claiming To Have Important Warning/Information. You Be The Judge...

Hello all just letting you all know about the recent 6.8 quake in India about 20 mins ago.12:40 UTC. I looked up the area for the corresponding area and it landed in the Gulf of Mexico just off the shore of Louisiana. Like I said putting it in here so you all are aware. Be safe and keep up the great work all.
Also want to throw in the antipode area for this which is right off the coast of Chile.

reply to post by relyt


If I can dare and guess at this I will say

reply to post by Doodle19815

and also
reply to post by Doodle19815

and while I'm at it, also
reply to post by relyt

Hi Doodle and relyt,
that mag 6.8 in Sikkim is a worry because it occurred right along the same subduction zone boundary that actually runs up NW into the Hindu Kush region of Afghanistan. So, while I was expecting more activity in Hindu Kush itself (as I posted the other day), this quake is not a great surprise as it's occurred within the same greater system. It was strong, but fortunately for people there it wasn't bigger.

There has just been another one there in Sikkim -- a mag 4.8 -- which is fair to class as an aftershock.

For the record the details of the larger quake are:

Magnitude 6.8
Date-Time

* Sunday, September 18, 2011 at 12:40:48 UTC
* Sunday, September 18, 2011 at 06:10:48 PM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 27.730°N, 88.082°E
Depth 20.7 km (12.9 miles)
Region SIKKIM, INDIA
Distances 68 km (42 miles) NW of Gangtok, Sikkim, India
119 km (73 miles) NNW of Shiliguri, West Bengal, India
272 km (169 miles) E of KATHMANDU, Nepal
572 km (355 miles) N of Kolkata (Calcutta), West Bengal, India
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 14.4 km (8.9 miles); depth +/- 7.4 km (4.6 miles)
Parameters NST=258, Nph=258, Dmin=369.6 km, Rmss=1.17 sec, Gp= 29°,
M-type=regional moment magnitude (Mw), Version=9
Source

* Magnitude: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)
Location: USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)

Event ID usc0005wg6

SOURCE: USGS

I'd agree that this might have some form of triggering effect within the continental US around the currently-worrying NM seismic region, or in nearby GOM regions. It's also possible that it could do likewise further to the west.

Doodle, your comment on precisely how we can make a crystal glass ring is an excellent insight and I appreciate it very much. It's certainly something worth considering.

Okay, I have some other stuff I need to write up so I'll be back a bit later.

Mike

Just Mike, thanks for the inclusion on your list. I read alot of threads but don't contribute to many and it has been very rewarding doing research on this topic. Even if TM is hoakum, we've all learned so much from it.

Anywho, hope you didn't take offense at my antipodes in regard to your Afghanistan prediction. However, I noticed this morning there was a 4.6 mag in the Mozambique Channel which is in between Madagascar and Mainland Africa. When I did the antipode for Los Angeles it came close to this area although it was further south in the Indian ocean and to the SE of Madagascar. I just found it odd that I'd been watching for activity near Madagascar and it actually happened.

And off topic, where are you orginally from? You speak English like a native and I found that odd considering where you're located.

Thanks again for all the great work.

Link:earthquake.usgs.gov...

Wow......you guys are awesome....still catching up. If you see anything around Louisiana today, it will just be the crowds at the Superdome stompin while the Saints whip the Bears Sorry, couldn't resist. What's this about the GOM? The India quake could cause something here? I have MUCH reading to do......and still nothing from Middleton on Cali?....*sigh*....oh well....you all are doing fine without him!

reply to post by megabogie

Thank you for your kind comments and believe me, no offense taken over your antipodean research. I'm glad you also considered that as it's also very possibly part of the whole picture. My remarks re Afghanistan and regions close to it were only in repsect of one possible causative process and there are likely to be a multitude of them at work.

I also have been wondering about that quake off Madagascar. They get very few there and in fact according to the historical seismicity maps on USGS, that's the first one in that region this year.

Where am I from? A long story, but in short, born in the UK but grew up in Australia. I've been in Prague for quite a few years, though.

Mike

Just posting another observation that I just made pertaining to Mikes theory. There was a 5.1 eq in SOUTHERN XINJIANG here Magnitude 5.1 - SOUTHERN XINJIANG, CHINA on the 15th. Then looked for the opposite and that ended up in Virginia. Well 2 says later yesterday Virginia had another 2.6 Magnitude 2.6 - VIRGINIA. Just trying to tie all these things together and add when I possibly can. Otherwise I am mainly a reader and try to absorb all that has been researched.

reply to post by jadedANDcynical

Thank for a very detailed and fascinating post. Lots in it so I'll respond in bits.

About the harmonics: yes, I'm aware of them in respect of musical instruments. On guitar I can manage them quite easily but they're much harder to play on my violin. One has to wonder what the fundamental harmonics or our planet are, and what multiples are available unwhat conditions. I think it's a major concept and really needs more study as it could be vital.

As the next part of your post took me a while to puzzle out as I'm a bit thick in some ways, I'll post what you said and see if I've got it. First, you said:

I took a look at the post you linked regarding the link between the Kuril Island and North Atlantic eatthquakes and my mind immediately pictured rotating the globe 90 degrees until the earthquakes are now on tangent to the edge of the globe and with the the pole running perpendicular to the equator (I hope this makes sense).

It took me a while to work it out but I think I get it. Do you mean like this?

Now using the intersection of the axis and the equator as a center point and the globe as a circle rather than the surface of a sphere, we describe and arc between the two earthquakes that runs through approximately 90 degrees. The same can be done wry any other "180 degree" earthquake paring.

Sooo... This?:

(To show the arc.)

If I've followed you right, that's pretty impressive stuff. It shows more clearly that in this case, the arc runs mainly over land for most of its length. Hmmm... Food for thought...

By the way, if anyone wants to view the USGS world quake map from various cool angles, just click on one of the poles then use the little blue arrows to rotate the planet as you wish. (Nice piece of software. ) To get back to the standard map, just click on the "real time -- worldwide" tag on the left and there it is.

Mike

Originally posted by StealthyKat
[...] What's this about the GOM? The India quake could cause something here? I have MUCH reading to do......and still nothing from Middleton on Cali?....*sigh*....oh well....you all are doing fine without him!

Hi StealthyKat,

just an observation that the GOM is 180 degrees around the world laterally from the mag 6.8 quake in India. It doesn't have to follow that anything will happen in the GOM or the states that are close to it but as there is the tenuous possibility we're looking at it.

Here's a map to illustrate:

Best regards,

Mike

reply to post by relyt

Now, that is interesting! Thanks for spotting it...

I'm wondering... You know, folks, the northern hemisphere has much more land mass above water than the southern. Could it be that this lack of deep, ocean waters to "deaden" some energy effects may be a factor? Or, to put it another way, this relative preponderence of solid land might allow certain types of energy to travel better? Okay, I haven't put that well but do you all follow what I mean?

Mike

Yeah makes sense Mike. I have another thought here and am just throwing it out. When the 9.0 eq happened in Japan a few weeks later scientists where miffed about giant whirlpools that showed up off the coast of South America. Well guess what is the anitpode? Coincidence?
Giant whirlpools in Atlantic Ocean puzzle scientists

reply to post by JustMike


Thank you Mike...Appreciate the reply! I am still catching up here....

reply to post by JustMike


Thanks for the reply Mike. I didn't meant to pry but I have several friends with English as a second language and they could not converse as freely as you do, especially using such technical terms. I'm glad you're concerned about the Madagascar quake...just seemed odd and I failed to look into the seismic history of that area so thanks for that too. I better go before I thank you for the nice weather we have today too!

reply to post by JustMike


Yes, that's it precisely Mike!

I play the violin also and have always thought that the bowed harmonic was much more difficult to affect than the plucked one. Another vagary of the violin vs guitars or even wood winds is that since there are no frets, you can play a note bwetween flat or sharp, and believe me when you do it sounds sour. That's one of the things that make it such a difficult instrument to learn.

Anyway, back to seismo-geodetic harmonics. Remember that the shortest distance between two points on a sphere is a curve on most flattened projections and would follow the route over the pole between the Kuril and Mid-Alantic ridge as shown in your map in which you demonstrate the 180 degrees laterally here:

To find the degree of arc that any two points would have in this arrangement (180 laterally) all you have to do is add their latitudes together:

48.9 N (Kuril Island)
+47.0 N (mid-Atlantic ridge area)
95.9 degrees of total arc.

Ok, so it's not as close to 90 as I had originally thought, But as we all know the composition of the earth varies greatly (and is indeed hotly debated, going to get to kdog's idea in a subsequent post) thus there will be differening amounts of attenuation of the seismic energy.

Some randomness that passed through my head when I was considering the geometric harmonics:

30 degrees is 1/12 of a circle
60 is 1/6
90 is 1/4
180 is 1/2
360 is 1/1

1x1=1
1x2=2
2x2=4
2x3=6
3x4=12

This demonstrates some numerical aspects to harmonics and even music, which is very mathematical in nature.

So considering that we are talking about these vibrations oscillating in resonant frequencies, and we've seen that there are some in the hallowed halls of science who are pursuing acoustic research and are finding resonant connections between celestial objects in the solar system, are we back to The Music of the Spheres?

It seems as though the more advanced science becomes, the closer to mysticism it sounds. We've talked about interconnections on the earth, it seems a logical extension that there are interconnections between the earth, those inhabiting it (us) and the objects in our solar neighborhood is there a scientific and measurable component to astrology?

Well, while I am out here "in the wilderness" as a very logically and literally minded friend of mine puts it, I may as well:

reply to post by kdog1982

There's a plug in for firefox (probably other browsers by now) called StumbleUpon. It's a great way to waste pass some time when you don't have anything specific occupying your curiosity.

Anyway, once (stumbled)upon a time I was randomly browsing sites the app would show me when I saw this video:


Needless to say, I was apoplectic at first. I literally didn't know what to say but I was absolutely absorbed, for a bit then life, as it tends to do, intruded into my solitary introspection and eventually drove the idea pretty deeply into the sea that is my mind.

This the idea that had been tickling my brain a couple of days ago that I mentioned as having possibility of overturning all of geology, and indeed a LOT of modern (popular) science. It would mean that 150 years of theory treated as established fact was wrong.

All you have to do is look at Gallelio's relationship with the church to understand how going against established order will be treated.

A closer look at the expansionist theory yields roots deeper than plate tectonics, but:

While suggested historically, since the recognition of plate tectonics in the 1970s, scientific consensus has rejected any expansion of the Earth.

Well, nuts. Science says it cannot be, so I suppose we can all go home on this subject since the matter is settled then, right?

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

emphasis mine

To be continued...

Slightly off topic here, but kind of relevant - thought this may focus the minds of the er... paid geophysicists that may be popping into this thread!

Dated 16 September 2011

Next week six scientists and an official go on trial in Italy for manslaughter over the earthquake in L'Aquila that killed 309 people two years ago.

This extraordinary case has attracted international attention because science itself seemed to be on trial, with the seven defendants apparently charged for failing to predict the magnitude 6.3 earthquake that struck on the night of 6 April 2009.

BBC Newsnight

Apparently the seismic signs were ignored and no warnings issued to the local population. 'Tis a fine line between issuing timely warnings and causing panic, eh?!

reply to post by jadedANDcynicalpart 2 (this is getting really annoying)

In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.

Collective or professional opinions are defined as meeting a higher standard to substantiate the opinion. (see below)

emphasis mine

Yes, I acknowledge that the opinion of scientists is scrutinized much more closely than general opinion, but the fact remains that a variety of incorrect conclusions can still be drawn from data, supported by evidence no less.

The critical point in this is that:

A scientific opinion which represents the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. "The scientific opinion" (or scientific consensus) can be compared to "the public opinion" and generally refers to the collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field.

emphasis mine

Scientific bodies or establishments receive funding from outside sources and are often beholden to produce the results that source requires. What strength of character does it take to stand up to the source of your money and tell them that the idea they want proven (or result desired) is in fact the opposite of what reality is?

All one has to do is look at the relationship Galileo had with the church to understand how going against established order will be treated.

Yes, it happens. But not as often as it should, in my humble opinion (see, I have one too) and that is one of the elephants in the room.

Preposterous, you say? Nothing like that would happen in this day and age!

Take a look at the news article Bugglesby just linked to see that perhaps governments, realizing how advanced their scientists are becoming, are starting to think that they (governments) should be let in on the secrets of the ivory towers (advanced scientific discoveries) and that perhaps the scientists are further along than even those providing the funding are allowed to think.

Ok, back to the absurd idea of an Expanding Earth.

As I mentioned, StumbleUpon fished out the video embedded in my previous post and it's also this app that eventually lead me to ATS where I've found no shortage of people who are willing to entertain off the wall notions.

Now, I'm still reading through Neal's page (linked above) and need to ruminate a bit more before I will have anything relevant to say specifically regarding what is presented there. Even so I've thought a bit about what the process of expansion would entail and have collected a few questions along the way, I'm sure many of these have already been asked, but I present them here in this arena for discussion

What sort of physical phenomena would accompany any sort of growth? Does it happen gradually over time, or does it possess a cyclic nature like every other observable natural phenomena has? How would this reality be treated if it could be proven? How long would any sort of reaction (or preventative/protective action) take in light of the resistance it (the idea itself) would face?

Taking all of this into account I have the following very brief passage to share:

What if...

Expansion phases come in waves and happen suddenly. Large quakes would precede such an expansion and numerous smaller quakes would also be scattered amongst the larger ones as the "plates" that rest atop the expanding surface rupture and spread.

I imagine that sonic disturbances would accompany any such spreading/stretching of the floating plates that would be heard all over the world prior to and during any such expansion.

(part three to follow)

reply to post by jadedANDcynical (final part, for now)

Now, keeping the tin hat firmly in place and looking at TM's original first posting with the notion that this (expanding earth is true)

My comments are added in [bolded brackets]

Subject: Re: M8

Just got here. Heading to (XXXX) office now. Current calcs in hand... hope it's not on the larger end.
Meet me in there. [a range of the amounts the upcoming expansion phase would encompass is presented with the hope that it is a smaller expansion rather than a larger one as that would have a correspondingly larger impact on the surface of the earth damage-wise]
-----------------------
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:07 PM, xxxxxxx wrote:
Absolutely. I'm concerned that we may be jumping the gun? do we NOT say anything and let it play out for another week or two?

We knew this was a possibility..[yeah, since the mid 1800's]

We're for sure, right? [really? I mean, are we really being asked to consider this?]
------------------------
On Aug 25, 2011, at 4:55 PM, xxxxxx wrote:

Ugh. None really. We have to think this thru and make sure to not send alarm bells. [since this goes against all established geology, no protocol would exist for dealing with it. Not to mention how the general public would respond to “oh by the way, Geology has all been based upon a false assumption and we're about to get a VERY obvious demonstration of just how wrong we were”]
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
------------------------
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:54 PM,xxxxxxxx wrote:
Is the plan to send an alert or something? What protocol do we have for this anyway?
------------------------
Afraid so. Just spoke to (XXXX), we’re gathering shortly to discuss. On my way in now.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T [yeah, really really]
------------------------
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:53 PM, xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Hi A(XXXX),
Did we really just get this report?? [incredulity that someone “upstairs” says we have to think about the earth expanding]

The only thing that doesn't make any sense is how “M8” might relate.

I'm positive I'm dead wrong in all of this, but as a Gedankenexperiment this sure is interesting to say the very least, no?

From User Connman on the Quake Watch Thread. So sorry to paste in from another thread but I found this very relevant! You estimated GOM and here you have proof??!!

posted on 18-9-2011 @ 02:57 PM
TextNow this is strange. The bird we have here in a cage freaked out squawking for 15 minutes and the birds outside all started carrieng on as well. I was outside and decided better check the stuff out. When I checked the Earthquake info there seems to have been one many many miles away. Like Type: Earthquake 17 minutes ago Magnitude: 3.8 DateTime: Sunday September 18 2011, 19:19:12 UTC Region: Ontario-Quebec border region, Canada Depth: 5 km from this site quakes.globalincidentmap.com... now all is normal here again just an occasional bird singing. Was very freaky and rather annoying.

I should also mention this user is in Florida. They think it may be from a quake in Canada but I think it is the 180 effect. Thoughts?

Whew, I have my foil hat on again and am more calmed down. That just caught me off guard. Umm....hey Stealthykay, you wanna help me research the places they are hearing those noises and see if there is any 180 degree effect happening at these places?

JustMike you are gonna have to name this theory so I know what to call it.

reply to post by jadedANDcynical


Speaking of harmonics....many years ago I read a book entitled, The Scientific Basis of Astrology: Tuning to the Music of the Planets which was written by an astronomer and Astrophysicists who had originally set out to disprove astrology, but found something much more interesting.

I read this some years ago (& it's very dry reading...but the implications are amazing) so here are a couple of editorial reviews to give a summary of the book:

From Library Journal
Seymour brings cosmology and astrology together to determine the relationship between living organisms and their physical environment. He discusses the effects of seasonal weather changes and the resulting temperature responses in animals and humans. Early humans, he posits, may have used planetary movement as well as the geomagnetic field of the earth for navigational purposes on land and sea. As people moved from living in small bands to larger groups, mechanical means of time-keeping such as calendars and clocks became necessary. Later, transportation developments also caused a need for the uniformity of time. Seymour also debates the theories of Michel Gauquelin and Suitbert Ertel, both of whom studied the effects of planetary positions at the time of an individual's birth and their correlation to human behavior. This is an intriguing if inconclusive book by a prominent British astronomer. An optional purchase.
- Lisa Wise, Three Rivers Lib. Sys., Glenwood Springs, Col.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Kirkus Reviews
Not, as many will expect from the title, a sheaf of blank pages, but rather a farrago of information about navigation, calendars, magnetism, and other subjects bearing on schedules and cycles; astrology lurks in the wings until the last few chapters. Perhaps this is because Seymour is a professional astronomer (Plymouth Polytechnic Institute, England) who's aware that he tiptoes on professional quicksand, edging into a region toward which most scientists demonstrate ``an appalling lapse in...understanding.'' He circles his goal warily, by laying down what is known about bio-cycles and the environment; most of this is schoolbook primer, although Seymour slips in some zingers--for instance, that early humans knew how to use earth's magnetic field for navigation, or that the Star of Bethlehem was actually a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. Finally, he leaves his astronomical colleagues in the dust, outlining his theory of extraterrestrial influence--in a nutshell, that planets affect solar cycles, which in turn affect earth's geomagnetic fields, which in turn affect human fetal development. A neat theory, currently unprovable (although the recent discovery of micromagnets in the human brain gives it credence). The spirit of Michel Gauquelin, pioneer of the ``scientific'' defense of astrology, hovers over this book (which is dedicated to him, contains an afterword about him, and has the same title as Gauquelin's classic). As such, it's as down-to-earth as such starry-eyed productions get. (Diagrams throughout.) -- Copyright ©1992, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

An interesting note to add with Astrology. It uses geometric angles as well.

When planets are 120 degrees from each other in a chart, it is called a Trine and is an easy flow between the planets and is something that is very beneficial. They are joining together for a bigger cause in a harmonious way. When 3 planets are 120 degrees from each other in a triangle formation, it is called a Grand Trine - and is one of the most favored angles to see in a chart.

When planets are 90 degrees from each other it is called a Square and is the most difficult angle. Then energy doesn't flow between the two in a harmonious manor...in fact it hits in such a way that causes great discordance and creates challenges abound. 4 planets 90 degrees apart is called a Grand Square...and well...nothing fun is coming out of that scenario.

60 degrees from each other is called a Sextile, and is more harmonious like the Trine but to a lesser degree.

When they are 180 degrees from each other, it is an opposition which creates struggles. The energy fights between the two things, one trying to win over the other. A balance must be found, but not before each has had their turn showing their side.

There is even a specialty in Astrology called Harmonics, where you study the 5th harmonics of a chart, 7th harmonic, etc. It's fascinating as it is on the exact same basis as music & math.

I'll limit this information to this post unless further information is requested. It was only to contribute additional information to the harmonic, resonance conversation - but I don't want to veer to far off the beaten path.