7.7 Okhotsk Earthquake AGAIN at beginning of Earth, Venus,

reply to post by paradisepurple


Hi again ParadisePurple

Consider spending the time reading the paper itself, rather than unlearned and emotional responses to it. Might help.

Melyanna

Ok....I have to laugh out loud really hard at some of the comments in here.

I see people speculating that celestial and planetary alignments can cause effects here on Earth and I see people blowing up and telling them to take their opinions and theories elsewhere! I disagree with the idea that celestial alignments cause EQ's but....

This is a freaking conspiracy site for God's sake! Where they gonna take it and talk about it? It's those that "don't wanna hear it or see it anymore" that need to find a new place. There is Science Channel forums, NatGeo forums, Discovery Channel Forums, Skeptic.com forums, etc if you "don't wanna see the wild speculation anymore".

For crying out loud, I go to all the science and history sites when I want facts...I come here to be entertained and allow my imagination a little stretching room from time to time....

Getting p!ssy about conspiracy theories on a conspiracy forum....now that's funny!

reply to post by jdub297


Hi JDUB 297

Thanks for doing some actual thinking. Your math is the reason that the paper limits itself to quakes bigger than 6.2, and why the math I quoted limits to quakes 7.7 or greater. The math for those quakes is unarguable...

Melyanna

reply to post by MmmPie


Hello Mmmpie

The logic he gives is mistaken as it includes quakes that are not used in the research for the very reason he gives. Read the paper and do the math for yourself. Its worth it.

Melyanna

reply to post by OneisOne


Hi OneisOne

What do you think of the argument chain that supports that conclusion?

Melyanna

Originally posted by Melyanna
reply to post by paradisepurple

 

Hi again ParadisePurple

Consider spending the time reading the paper itself, rather than unlearned and emotional responses to it. Might help.

Melyanna

I did try Melyanna but unfortunately it went right over my head....

I'm worried about Mr Omerbashich's credentials (or should that be His Royal Highness The Grand Duke of Bosnia's credentials....)

I am aware that some of history's smartest people tended towards insanity but I won't ignore the facts as I see them....

reply to post by Melyanna


Wow@ some of the people coming after you. I was dumb-struck when I actually seen a comment from a guy that basically told you to watch your mouth because you're a newbie...Wtf? What does that have to do w/ the discussion or opinion at hand? Because your new and they're an older member it makes them somehow above you? I seen the discussion and you were in no way disrespectful to no- one. ( on the first page..I got sick of the crap after that)

The nerve I tell yea.

I will bet you a lot of money...that these older more smarter of the smart didn't even read the " facts " you out-lined in your post. Had they, they would have debated w/ facts of their own to debunk your theroy. What was said by these fine folks is what they've been saying for....who knows...it's what they believe and to hell w/ new evidence or a new way to possibly look at the facts. Again, or they would have been able to discuss certain areas of your post and show us the error of your ways. None of that was done by the early smarter posters w/ all their friend stars.

On another note....I am being convinced threw certain facts and evidence that the alignment of the planets may play a role in earthquakes. Let's keep the knowledge and the science moving... ;0)

reply to post by paradisepurple


Hi ParadisePurple

Thanks for admitting that the facts went over your head. There is no shame in that, and that is why I pulled the facts out and simplified them in my post. Surely, if you read the original post nothing in there will go over your head.

Please let me know what you think.

Melyanna

Originally posted by Melyanna
reply to post by paradisepurple

 

Hi ParadisePurple

Thanks for admitting that the facts went over your head. There is no shame in that, and that is why I pulled the facts out and simplified them in my post. Surely, if you read the original post nothing in there will go over your head.

Please let me know what you think.

Melyanna

Of course I've read your post, more than once I can assure you!

But you yourself said ''IF if have my statistics correct''.... So you're not actually sure yourself then?

reply to post by tracehd1


Thanks Tracehd1

I have to apologize for my attacking method at the beginning of the post. I just wanted to experiment with different ways of dealing with such criticism. By the way, I have noticed that quite a few of the open and thinking responses came from what appear to be women. (I am a man by the way.)

I wonder if that comes from a more intuitive approach and less need to prove 'manhood' and traditional knowledge of the old paradigms...

Melyanna

reply to post by paradisepurple


Hi ParadisPurple

No, I am not unsure of myself, just leaving it open to discussion.... Omerbashich's work is on a new paradigm, and has a lot of open questions. Discussion is the life blood of learning...

Melyanna

reply to post by Melyanna


Masterful parody!

Perhaps people recognize that the original paper is a joke, starting from the very first reference to Stevenson (2008), which says nothing like what is claimed.

Earth resonating with passing comets, but only when they align with the planets!! Accuracy to 39 decimal places! Even the existence of a modern Bosnian Royal family has been fabricated.

I particularly like the conclusion of the Omerbashich's scale invariability paper - "The levitation equitation enables propulsionless Space travel via gravity sailing: Space vehicle hull ought to be engineered so as to automatically adjust its grave mode, to the vehicle instant gravitational surroundings, akin to trout up swimming."

Bravo, keep up the good work!

Many people are talking about EQ's and alignment theories these days.

If the moon can pull the oceans, you don't think other planets could affect tectonic plates, which float on semi-liquid mantle in the lower mantle?

Many geologists are pondering this theory.

Geology wants people to believe in slow earth changes, this is usually the case but certainly not always.

Here is a great video on EQ's vs planetary alignments and solar flares:

reply to post by JohnVidale


Hello JohnVidale

I notice that you avoided all reference to the facts or the mathematical proofs. Any reason why? Other than the simpleton's answer that 'This evidence isn't eveidence because there is no evidence' or something like that?

Melyanna

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


Hello PlanetXisHere

Great Find

The Mars Saturn alignment also qualifies as long, lasting for at least five days, and again the 7.7 quake, (no more 'sensational' Mega label! happened during the lead up to the exact alignment.

Quite of few of the biggest quakes in the last century had more than one long alignment active at the time of the quake.

Thanks again.

I assume you are a Canadian from the Great White North location. Must be something in the air up here. he he he

Melyanna

reply to post by Melyanna


Facts about the "King of Bosnia"? About planets resonating through their gravity waves in ways that are invisible to strain meters yet powerful enough to trigger large earthquakes? That these resonances permit specific predictions? The one can sail on the resonances like a trout swims in a stream? That all the relevant parameters are known to 39 decimal places?

Please, post more!

reply to post by JohnVidale


JohnVidale

No, I mean the facts that as has been repeatedly stated, this does NOT allow specific predictions, or the mathematical facts which I note again that you ignore, preferring to spout a bunch of crap.

Check the math, and put up or shut up. Maybe you are mathematically illiterate. Is that it?

Melyanna

reply to post by Melyanna



Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I think that's the quote you were looking for.

Keep going, Mellyanna, I'm following your track.
I'm remaining a lurker on this one. As an astrological scientist who enjoys debates with other researchers with open minds, I've learned that ATS is not a good forum for open discussion about planetary effects on Earth and Earthlings, so I abstain!

reply to post by Starling


Hi Starling

Thanks for the encouragement. I am not engaging in debate for the oh so much fun of it. Rather, I am researching how to introduce a new scientific paradigm to the world.

Lots of fun.

Melyanna

Originally posted by Melyanna
reply to post by jdub297

 

Hi JDUB 297

Thanks for doing some actual thinking. Your math is the reason that the paper limits itself to quakes bigger than 6.2, and why the math I quoted limits to quakes 7.7 or greater. The math for those quakes is unarguable...

Melyanna

The problem is that the aiuthor relied upon mag 6 and greater. His hypothesis fails to account for chance; therefore it fails.,

If you want to create your own hypothesis, it cannot be based upon his work.
Even if you limit your opinion to mag 7.7+, it doesn't hold up.
Of the 32 such events just since 2005, you miss 1/3.
And, do you really want to rely upon Elenin?
Eliminate those, and your stats drop to less than 50%l again, no better than chance.

jw