7.7 Okhotsk Earthquake AGAIN at beginning of Earth, Venus,

reply to post by JohnVidale


Hi John

The analogy of soldiers walking on a bridge is not the best one for sure. Here is an analogy, not a theory, that might help.

Are you familiar with waterskiing? Imagine that the boat is the combined influence of the planets in alignment, and that they produce a 'wake'. Earth is like the water skiier, and just like a skiier experience the maximum turbulence when crossing the crest of the wake, so the planet experiences turbulence the same way. I can imagine that converting this analogy to a mechanism will not work for you, but as discussed earlier, the mechanism I have worked on for 30 years promises to do so quite accurately.

Regarding the 3d alignment, if you imagine that the water has swells on it, then you can image that the boat and the skiier could be at different heights above the water and still have an effect on one another.

reply to post by Melyanna


To be honest, I have little time, and hence restrict my exploratory research to within the realm that is consistent with physics that I can understand. I have no sensible idea how tiny distant planets and comets could conceivably "resonate" with Earth to influence earthquakes, and ONLY resonate when in a line, and hence this issue of alignment is not one in my crosshairs for further work.

So many trolls and yet very few bothered to read the work. They are shooting it down with the good ol, your just wrong because i'm right. Typical.

It's interesting to say the least. I wonder if this is one of the reasons why the ancients where so good at astrology. Even the Hindu's concept of age is disturbing close to the truth from their Vedas. Then you have the Mayan calender (which was so good that those that defeated them started using it).

A prediction model for the window of 6.0+ EQs. It could simply be coincidental however. Then again not. Hard to say because plate tectonics not to mention man made factors need to be factored in. Like when the chinese made that damn that created that ginormous lake.

reply to post by OneisOne


Hi One is One

The alignment for the sumatra quake are:

Mars and Neptune, 1 minute and 14 seconds off perfect, receeding, and
sun and Saturn, 4 minutes and 79 seconds off perfect, applying

I cannot post a source as I use a off line position calculator. those numbers are using the longitude and latitude of the quake epicenter, and the UTC time accurate to the minute.

As form Mar 21, 2012, there was a big one on the 20th in Oaxaca, Mexico. I posted a thread on that one.

As to why quakes do not occur on all alignments, for me we do not understand the mechanism well enough. I am working on a mechanism, and I can see it in outline, but am not there yet.

Surely you can agree that just because all alignment do correlate to earthquakes does not invalidate that all 12 of the largest quakes in the last 107 years occur on alignments?

Melyanna

reply to post by JohnVidale


Well, that is too bad, but thanks anyway for the input. Perhaps in the far distant future when I publish you will remember this discussionn and have a chuckle. There is a mechanism that does this.

Melyanna

reply to post by cenpuppie


There is a saying that there is absolutely nothing new under the sun. the mechanism that I am developing has clearly been know in the distant past, and was forgotten, and is now returning. soon we will have an understanding of the universe that will make our current models seem child like. many researchers are closing in on it.

Originally posted by NoExpert
Planetary alignments can not and do not cause earthquakes, take this from a geologist. There is no correlation between earthquakes and alignments.

Here are some figures to demonstrate just how little of an influence such events have on Earth relative to the Moon and even that doesn't cause earthquakes.

seismo.berkeley.edu...

edit on 14-8-2012 by NoExpert because: (no reason given)

What about changing our luck ? If one is to believe in Astrology I'm not a believer. I'm the skeptic.

Melyanna, you state in your opening post:

This mechanism cannot predict earthquakes, but it can identify ALL times of the year when a Mega Quake is possible and identify ALL times of the year when a MEGA quake is not possible. For anyone interested in Earthquake causes, mechanisms, and predictions, we can definitely state that we know at least one cause.

I read through the PDF by Omerbashich you linked on page 1, and found something curious.

Let's look at pages 21 and 22 of the linked PDF, showing his forecasts for magnitude 6+ earthquakes, and subsequent 100% accuracy.

Here is his graph of long "alignments" and associated earthquakes for March:

(click thumbnail to enlarge)

I notice that every day of the month was included as being capable of producing a magnitude 6 or higher quake.

This is his graph for May 2012:


Again, every day of the month is included as being capable of producing a mag 6+ quake.

If you look at every graph from January through June 2012, (pages 21-22 of referenced PDF) there are only 6 days NOT capable of producing a large earthquake. 174/180 days were. According to Mr. Omerbashich's hypothesis 96.67% of the days during the first half of this year were.
And guess what? He nailed it!

I'm not sure how this shows that these "long alignments" cause earthquakes. He could just as easily say that these "long alignments" will cause a random spot on the globe to experience cloud cover, and have the same 100% accuracy.

***I have "alignments" in quotations because Mr. Omerbashich uses several "alignments" that (according to his paper page 22) are 'proximal'. He states

Note that proximal long alignments, marked with an *, occur when heavenly bodies are non-strictly aligned: when bodies never align themselves or they do on occasion, all while staying aligned to within the +/- 5 arc degrees.

IMO, he seems to be playing loose with his alignments to keep his 100% accuracy intact.

If you cast a wide enough net, you're certain to catch fish...

If I extrapolate out to a full year, there are 12 days that should be worry free concerning a large quake. I'm failing to see the usefulness of his hypothesis, let alone a causal mechanism.

reply to post by Olivine


I agree with you on the 6+ quakes. That is why all of my date are on larger quakes 7.7 plus, to eliminate the exact problem. There are a great many problems with Omerbashich's work. But as I said, throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't make sense either.

Melyanna

Thank you for replying.

Originally posted by Melyanna
reply to post by OneisOne

 

Hi One is One

The alignment for the sumatra quake are:

Mars and Neptune, 1 minute and 14 seconds off perfect, receeding, and
sun and Saturn, 4 minutes and 79 seconds off perfect, applying

I cannot post a source as I use a off line position calculator. those numbers are using the longitude and latitude of the quake epicenter, and the UTC time accurate to the minute.

So just for clarification. Do those alignments involve the Earth? I did find JPL's website and plugged in the date and honestly I could not draw a straight line for an "alignment". (but then again I have problems with straight lines, they're so boring )

As form Mar 21, 2012, there was a big one on the 20th in Oaxaca, Mexico. I posted a thread on that one.

I did find your thread. You specifically spoke of March 21 & 22, nothing about the 20th. (as you stated in the thread you rescheduled a trip because of the data you presented, yet you never mention the March 20 EQ within the thread)

As to why quakes do not occur on all alignments, for me we do not understand the mechanism well enough. I am working on a mechanism, and I can see it in outline, but am not there yet.

Why EQs do not happen every time would go a long way to making this theory more palatable.

Surely you can agree that just because all alignment do correlate to earthquakes does not invalidate that all 12 of the largest quakes in the last 107 years occur on alignments?

Nope, I can not agree with that. I find it curious, but not conclusive.

Most of his math/mechanism is there on georesonance - reference 2, just below the Nature article cited for tectonics, which the pdf is here for fulltext billt4.com/Documents/PhysicsHandouts/NatureEarthEvolution.pdf (pg 264 in article, 4 of 5 in pdf reader)

Surprising to see as if Omerbashich didn't detail them.

It was published when the journal was by French Lavoisier SAS, now under Taylor and Francis.

Omerbashich, M. (2007) Magnification of mantle resonance as a cause of tectonics.Geodinamica Acta 20 (6):369-383

www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3166/ga.20.369-383

arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612177

sites.google.com...

reply to post by OneisOne


Hello there

I can't make the JPL thing work either, so don't feel bad. If you want to do this, the easiest and cheapest way is to download a free program calles Astrolog. Lays it out all nice and clean and very accurate. Have checked it with ephemeris many times and alwasy spot on.

I didn't mention the quake on the 20th in the previous post because I was just beginning to study this stuff. One of the things I have learned since then is that virtually all of the big quakes occur at the beginning of the alignment. to be clearer, if we consider that 3 degrees before and after the exact alignment counts, then almost all of the quakes occur at or near the point where the planets just enter the 3 degree zone. If you think about the waterskiing analogy I posted, that makes sense.

The earthquake on the 20th of march is a perfect example, happening right at the beginning fo the alignment.

I am surprised about your comment on the fact that all 7.7 and greater occur during alignments not being proof. Proof is fundamentally in the eye of the beholder, and the change in paradigm that this points to is huge, so I am content to accept your caution.

Regards,

Melyanna

reply to post by OneisOne


Oh yeah, all of those alignments involve earth. Since they ALL involve earth I don't bother to write it out each time.

Melyanna

Originally posted by NoExpert
Planetary alignments can not and do not cause earthquakes, take this from a geologist. There is no correlation between earthquakes and alignments.

Here are some figures to demonstrate just how little of an influence such events have on Earth relative to the Moon and even that doesn't cause earthquakes.

seismo.berkeley.edu...

edit on 14-8-2012 by NoExpert because: (no reason given)

The combined influence of the rest of the objects in the solar system is less than 10 billionths of the influence if the moon.

From the link in the quote.

The planetary alignment mythology is a holdover from the time when comets were considered harbingers of evil and Astrology was taken seriously. It's just another Bogey Man to scare the kiddies.

There is nothing even remotely unusual in the level or number of earthquakes this year.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Except Omerbashich's proposed mechanism in this thread isn't astrology.

No one has to date dissected and attempted to refute his paper.

reply to post by Blaine91555


I am going through and vetting each alignment used in 7.7 or greater quakes, and right now it is 1 in 640,000,000,000,000 that these alignments are chance. That number may change, even a lot, but in no way will it be anything other than an act of adherence to a dogma to say it is chance.

Originally posted by OneisOne

Originally posted by ttimez

Originally posted by OneisOne
So I have a few questions.....

What was the alignment on April 11, 2012? There was an 8.6 off the west coast of northern Sumatra. Once you come up with what alignment happened, can you please post a link to the source.

Why was there not a major quake around March 21st (2012)? And with that if these alignments happen about 40 times a year why isn't there more major quakes?

If these alignments do cause these major quakes why didn't we have a major quake when all the planets aligned on May 5, 2000?

Sure, we can continue as soon as you address the serious concerns about your credibility, misleading us about Stevenson paper, or 2d-3d, and so on.

I'm going to check personally everything you say here from now on. You seem one of those authoritarian guys who can't be trusted even in most trivial things.

Wow ttimez.

You are so caught up in your digital ego you are swinging in the dark.

Take a breath, walk outside.

Wow, a paratrooper. Now that you've landed, could you tell us what's your interest in defending a big-shot government guy who pulls authority argument in a conspiracy internet forum? Not to mention he lied twice.

Hard timez, when Feds are afraid of this scientist Omerbashich so much they feel they must come here to try steer the discussion and flex muscle at uneducated conspiracy theorists.

Originally posted by JohnVidale
reply to post by ttimez

 

"submit your stuff to Nature and have their reviewers acknowledge your claim"

I've written 10-15 papers published in Nature, many on this very topic. And you?

OMG you just don't get it, do you. No one here cares if you have ten Nobel prizes! The fact you've published in Nature is only worsening your case, the point being you're flexing muscle in a conspiracy internet forum for heaven's sake! Now how weird is that?! And the more you flex it (by telling us how great you are on unrelated topics) the more bizarre the whole thing gets.

Not to mention that Omerbashich didn't reference any of your papers. If your Nature paper opposes Stevenson's then post it here to enlighten us, instead of pulling authority argument.

Is the government that afraid of this scientist Omerbashich? Obviously a big Yes.

Wow, this thread smells like history in the making. Government openly attacking a scientist for putting his theory out. Just when you thought our scum government couldn't get any lower than TSA and kill lists.

reply to post by ttimez


FYI, he did cite one of Vidale's papers.

[56] Cochran, E.S.,Vidale, J.E., Tanaka, S. Earth Tides Can Trigger Shallow Thrust Fault Earthquakes, Science 306, 5699 (2004) 1164-1166

Reference no 56 on paper quoted above, on post at 52 minute mark.(www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread871399/pg6#pid14776390)

(...)


Omerbashich, M. (2007) Magnification of mantle resonance as a cause of tectonics.Geodinamica Acta 20 (6):369-383

www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3166/ga.20.369-383

arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612177

sites.google.com...

Click here for more information.