PDA

View Full Version : [first ever major earthquake to be predicted]



JhartleyKS
2011-Jul-09, 09:19 PM
Hello, new member 1st post on baut glad to come on board!

Despite Vasotech's lack of providing concrete data proof, answering of your previous questions, and overall lack of being able to withstand the fire from all of you I must point out one thing. The first ever major earthquake to be predicted has just occurred in the last few days. I, like the rest of you have been skeptical myself, extremely and at sometimes critically as I have seen done here. Yet I now have a question for this community and I ask it for my overall sanity so please do not view this post or this question in any offending way please. I have seen a scary comparison to how this topic has been handled here with how unsupported theories by the overall scientific community is handled. For example, the earth being round :) does the earth orbit around the sun? :) Is it possible to go to the moon?

If major earthquakes, not aftershocks, are occurring on alignment dates how do we disprove the theory that the Comet Elenin has anything to do with big quakes and the frequency?

This definition I have been guilty of several times over in my life. The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred then it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.[1]

pzkpfw
2011-Jul-09, 09:38 PM
Post above taken from here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/117890?p=1911834#post1911834 (as it seemed the claim needs focus).

It's a pretty bold claim, and as it's been made here in the CT forum will need to be backed up; please tell us about this earthquake and who predicted it and when. Please also show how it's not simply a chance happenign etc.

Also, please be very careful with claims made against "the Government"; we don't allow political discussion unless in very particular areas. (Please see the links in my sig.)

LaurelHS
2011-Jul-09, 09:40 PM
Is this a reference to the recent New Zealand earthquake?

Rhaedas
2011-Jul-09, 09:41 PM
The first ever major earthquake to be predicted has just occurred in the last few days.

Like which one? I see nothing in the last week or so that would be considered major (7.6 is large, but not compared to others we've had). Can you show anything backdated that's specific to a time and place? You aren't talking about that one a while back in France maybe, that missed the predicted Rome area?


If major earthquakes, not aftershocks, are occurring on alignment dates how do we disprove the theory that the Comet Elenin has anything to do with big quakes and the frequency?

As someone mentioned to vasotech before, what alignment with what? There's earthquakes quite often, so you can probably claim that such and such was aligned at the same time. Doesn't mean they have anything to do with each other.

So, go ahead and show some correlation. Hard to see how a comet would do such things, yet the much larger mass that orbits us every month doesn't set off one quake after another as it goes around.

LaurelHS
2011-Jul-09, 09:42 PM
Is it possible to go to the moon?

Given that there have been nine manned flights to the Moon and a much greater number of unmanned lunar flights, I'd say it's definitely possible.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jul-09, 10:09 PM
The first ever major earthquake to be predicted has just occurred in the last few days.
Could you please show a link to where it was predicted please?

Note that "In the middle of the year 11 a greate erthquake will occure as the days of the earth drawe nigh" is not a prediction.

"On <date>, between <time> and <time>, <city> will experience an earthquake measuring between <richter> and <richter>, people are advised to stay away from old buildings during that period" is a prediction,

Garrison
2011-Jul-09, 10:12 PM
Hello, new member 1st post on baut glad to come on board!

Yet I now have a question for this community and I ask it for my overall sanity so please do not view this post or this question in any offending way please. I have seen a scary comparison to how this topic has been handled here with how unsupported theories by the overall scientific community is handled. For example, the earth being round :) does the earth orbit around the sun? :) Is it possible to go to the moon?


All of those have solid scientific evidence behind them, you haven't even told us which earthquake you are referring to.

JhartleyKS
2011-Jul-09, 10:22 PM
I am sorry guys I had originally posted this in Vasotech's topic he started on the Comet Elenin and has been moved to start a new discussion. 7/7/11 was an alignment date with Mercury, the sun, and Comet Elenin. During this alignment we had a 7.6 earthquake. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usc0004pbm/

Elenin doomsdayer supporters hit the nail right on the head with this one. I was skeptical until now. For me at least we have our smoking gun.
Date Range Earthquakes 5.0> Alignment(s)

4/25/2011-5/1/2011 34 None
5/2/2011-5/9/2011 36 None
5/10/2011-5/17/2011 58 Sun, Venus and ELENIN
5/18/2011-5/25/2011 32 None
5/26/2011-6/1/2011 29 None
6/2/2011-6/8/2011 35 None
6/9/2011-6/15/2011 36 None
6/16/2011-6/22/2011 36 None
6/23/2011-6/29/2011 36 None
6/30/2011-7/6/2011 24 (7.8 on 7/6/11) Sun, Mercury,ELENIN

LaurelHS
2011-Jul-09, 10:28 PM
New Zealand is nicknamed the Shaky Isles because earthquakes are so frequent there. Where's the proof that this particular quake had anything to do with Elenin?

Rhaedas
2011-Jul-09, 10:32 PM
Alright. When was this predicted, and why that alignment, but not others? What makes the small bodies of Mercury and this comet so influential, yet we've had other planetary alignments (every solar eclipse should be significant), but no correlation.

Garrison
2011-Jul-09, 10:36 PM
I am sorry guys I had originally posted this in Vasotech's topic he started on the Comet Elenin and has been moved to start a new discussion. 7/7/11 was an alignment date with Mercury, the sun, and Comet Elenin. During this alignment we had a 7.6 earthquake. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usc0004pbm/

Elenin doomsdayer supporters hit the nail right on the head with this one. I was skeptical until now. For me at least we have our smoking gun.
Date Range Earthquakes 5.0> Alignment(s)

4/25/2011-5/1/2011 34 None
5/2/2011-5/9/2011 36 None
5/10/2011-5/17/2011 58 Sun, Venus and ELENIN
5/18/2011-5/25/2011 32 None
5/26/2011-6/1/2011 29 None
6/2/2011-6/8/2011 35 None
6/9/2011-6/15/2011 36 None
6/16/2011-6/22/2011 36 None
6/23/2011-6/29/2011 36 None
6/30/2011-7/6/2011 24 (7.8 on 7/6/11) Sun, Mercury,ELENIN

So you claim that these so-called alignments, and you give no information about the nature of them, caused one earthquake? Earthquakes happen all aroudn the world on a regular basis, many go unnoticed as they happen in uninhabited areas. Nothing shows a correlation with Elenin, and why this one comet? What about all the others? Not to mention NEOs, and other planets.

Rhaedas
2011-Jul-09, 10:45 PM
Remember the major alignment in 1988 that books were written about? You'd think if there was something to this idea of planetary bodies causing major events, that year would have been a really bad one. Looking back I see a few 7.x quakes, but nothing substantial, and this was when all the planets were in a reasonable line, with Jupiter and the Sun on the other side. A non-event. Not seeing a comet do anything.

R.A.F.
2011-Jul-09, 10:45 PM
What makes the small bodies of Mercury and this comet so influential...

Since there is no credible evidence for any such "influence", then your statement is without validity.

Rhaedas
2011-Jul-09, 10:48 PM
Since there is no credible evidence for any such "influence", then your statement is without validity.

And that was my point. Maybe I phrased that wrong?

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jul-09, 10:52 PM
I am sorry guys I had originally posted this in Vasotech's topic he started on the Comet Elenin and has been moved to start a new discussion. 7/7/11 was an alignment date with Mercury, the sun, and Comet Elenin. During this alignment we had a 7.6 earthquake. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usc0004pbm/

Elenin doomsdayer supporters hit the nail right on the head with this one. I was skeptical until now. For me at least we have our smoking gun.
Date Range Earthquakes 5.0> Alignment(s)

4/25/2011-5/1/2011 34 None
5/2/2011-5/9/2011 36 None
5/10/2011-5/17/2011 58 Sun, Venus and ELENIN
5/18/2011-5/25/2011 32 None
5/26/2011-6/1/2011 29 None
6/2/2011-6/8/2011 35 None
6/9/2011-6/15/2011 36 None
6/16/2011-6/22/2011 36 None
6/23/2011-6/29/2011 36 None
6/30/2011-7/6/2011 24 (7.8 on 7/6/11) Sun, Mercury,ELENIN
Did you notice that the period you call very special has the LEAST number of "major" earthquakes of your list?

Elenin doomsday supporters dropped this one squarely on the floor. With a big SPLAT!

Tedward
2011-Jul-09, 10:57 PM
I have been trying to make sense of the table. It does not look right for the claim as pointed out. What am I missing?

Nowhere Man
2011-Jul-09, 10:59 PM
Just trying to avoid some confusion...

Since there is no credible evidence for any such "influence", then your statement is without validity.
RAF, I think Rhaedas was asking a question, and left off the interrogation point. Plus, you've only quoted part of what he said:

What makes the small bodies of Mercury and this comet so influential, yet we've had other planetary alignments (every solar eclipse should be significant), but no correlation. making it appear that he supports this idea, rather than questions it.

Fred

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jul-09, 11:04 PM
I have been trying to make sense of the table. It does not look right for the claim as pointed out. What am I missing?
Nothing, the table doesn't support the claim.

chrlzs
2011-Jul-09, 11:40 PM
I think if you did the statistical analysis actually *required* to assess this claim, it would be rather indicative of the fact that not only is the claim unsupported, but also that such accurate predictions are in fact *less* common than should be expected, just from random chance. After all, not only can these budding Nostradamuses predict as many times as they like under different anonymous internet logins {cough}, they can also pick on a huge number of possible sources of data (not information, not wisdom..)

So why on earth haven't there been many more *decent* hits?

Could it be that these folk are onto something, but are deliberately holding back? :eek:

Ummm, no, I think there is another, simpler reason...

PetersCreek
2011-Jul-09, 11:45 PM
If major earthquakes, not aftershocks, are occurring on alignment dates how do we disprove the theory that the Comet Elenin has anything to do with big quakes and the frequency?

First off, it's not up to us to disprove the claim that CE has anything to do with "major earthquakes". That burden to prove that claim rests solely with the proponents.

Second, if one defines "major earthquakes" as those greater than 5.0M, then I'd say someone is trying to maximize the chance of a hit. They're not uncommon in my area and I don't bother getting out of my chair for a 5-to-5.4M quake.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Jul-10, 03:16 AM
And that was my point. Maybe I phrased that wrong?

I thought you phrased it very clearly.

Tedward
2011-Jul-10, 09:22 AM
Nothing, the table doesn't support the claim.

What I thought, maybe the OP can elaborate as to what bits back the claim up. It looks like a cut and paste from somewhere, other labels missing maybe?

pzkpfw
2011-Jul-10, 09:32 AM
What I thought, maybe the OP can elaborate as to what bits back the claim up. It looks like a cut and paste from somewhere, other labels missing maybe?

An exact (i.e. with quotes) google on "5/10/2011-5/17/2011 58 Sun, Venus and ELENIN" threw up 3 matches, two at ATS and one at GLP. (Purposely not provided full links as I really don't want to be "responsible" for people going there. Feel free to repeat the search.)

Tedward
2011-Jul-10, 09:45 AM
Ah, OK, thanks. Did not think to google it. Note noted about the sites, ta.


Edit. OK, I see. Or rather do not see. Nothing to see then I see.

shriram
2011-Jul-11, 08:03 AM
I am sorry guys I had originally posted this in Vasotech's topic he started on the Comet Elenin and has been moved to start a new discussion. 7/7/11 was an alignment date with Mercury, the sun, and Comet Elenin. During this alignment we had a 7.6 earthquake. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usc0004pbm/

Elenin doomsdayer supporters hit the nail right on the head with this one. I was skeptical until now. For me at least we have our smoking gun.
Date Range Earthquakes 5.0> Alignment(s)

4/25/2011-5/1/2011 34 None
5/2/2011-5/9/2011 36 None
5/10/2011-5/17/2011 58 Sun, Venus and ELENIN
5/18/2011-5/25/2011 32 None
5/26/2011-6/1/2011 29 None
6/2/2011-6/8/2011 35 None
6/9/2011-6/15/2011 36 None
6/16/2011-6/22/2011 36 None
6/23/2011-6/29/2011 36 None
6/30/2011-7/6/2011 24 (7.8 on 7/6/11) Sun, Mercury,ELENIN

This only shows (if at all) the alignment and the earthquakes occurred at same time, and not that one was cause by the other.
Given the number of celestial bodies, number of earthquakes that occur every year, this kind of coincidents are bound to happen. Does not mean they are necessarily related.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jul-11, 08:09 AM
It also shows that at one of the alignments there were far fewer earthquakes than the other times.

Alan G. Archer
2011-Jul-11, 08:21 AM
If major earthquakes, not aftershocks, are occurring on alignment dates how do we disprove the theory that the Comet Elenin has anything to do with big quakes and the frequency?

Welcome to BAUT, JhartleyKS.

Do you agree with astronomer Leonid Elenin (http://spaceobs.org/en/asteroids-comets/faq/) that comet C/2010 X1 (Elenin) is a comet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet)? And do you disagree with Elenin's estimation that comet Elenin has a nucleus that is about 3 or 4 kilometers in diameter?

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jul-11, 09:07 AM
If major earthquakes, not aftershocks, are occurring on alignment dates how do we disprove the theory that the Comet Elenin has anything to do with big quakes and the frequency?
By noting that the correlation is false, and that there's no mechanism.

Since the Moon is 6 billion times heavier than Elenin and since at the time Elenin gets at its very closest to earth it will still be 84 times farther away than the Moon, so even when Elenin gets to the very closest point the moon's influence will still be fourty trillion times stronger.
As no one's been able to show a correlation between earthquakes and the Moon's phases yet, to think that Elenin is able to influence the Earth enough to cause earthquakes requires a mind which is a suspicious looking sandwich and several thousand ants short of a picnic.

R.A.F.
2011-Jul-11, 04:27 PM
Just trying to avoid some confusion...

Well, the only one confused is me...Nowhere man is correct and I completely misread that post...

My apologies to Rhaedas.

Rhaedas
2011-Jul-11, 06:31 PM
Well, the only one confused is me...Nowhere man is correct and I completely misread that post...

My apologies to Rhaedas.

No biggies, it wouldn't be a first time if I had typed one thing while meaning another. Even after reading it once over before hitting submit.

dgavin
2011-Jul-11, 06:42 PM
First, there are any number of astronical allinments that occur at roughly the same time as earthquakes. Additionaly earth quakes occur at the following annual frequency

Mag Annual Avg
8> 1
7 - 7.9 15
6 - 6.9 134
5 - 5.9 1319
4 - 4.9 >13,000
3 - 3.9 >130,000
2 - 2.9 >1,300,000

Figures taken from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php

So basicly on any given day I could predict a >5.0 quake and be correct. I could predict a > 6.0 quake ever day and be right about half the time.

Because there are on average 2 to 3 >5.0 Mag quakes in any given day, it is scientifically impossible to relate quake activity to any normal astronomical allignment. Therefore they did not sucesfully predict anything.

Shaula
2011-Jul-12, 06:37 PM
... Because there are on average 2 to 3 >5.0 Mag quakes in any given day, it is scientifically impossible to relate quake activity to any normal astronomical allignment. Therefore they did not sucesfully predict anything.
Not strictly true. There are very good statistical techniques that can be used to pull out weak correlations. But they would require a huge amount of background work to be usable - and would have to be applied to massive data sets. It could be done but so far as I know no such pattern has been found. And those who propose such a pattern have never done this level of validation or analysis. They tend to be more of a "Look - coincident dates! It must be causation!"

dgavin
2011-Jul-12, 07:14 PM
Not strictly true. There are very good statistical techniques that can be used to pull out weak correlations. But they would require a huge amount of background work to be usable - and would have to be applied to massive data sets. It could be done but so far as I know no such pattern has been found. And those who propose such a pattern have never done this level of validation or analysis. They tend to be more of a "Look - coincident dates! It must be causation!"

It's 'practically' True however, as you said it would require massive dataset spanning a few mellenia of various astronomical allignments to make any good determination one way or the other.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jul-13, 01:18 AM
And all the alignments these people are wooing about are one-offs, so no statistical analysis is possible anyway.

AGN Fuel
2011-Jul-13, 03:13 AM
And all the alignments these people are wooing about are one-offs, so no statistical analysis is possible anyway.

And that's assuming you can get a consistent definition on what they mean by "alignment" in the first place. With some proponents of these ideas, pretty much anything anywhere in the sky seems to qualify as being aligned.

Tensor
2011-Jul-14, 05:45 AM
And that's assuming you can get a consistent definition on what they mean by "alignment" in the first place.

Within the local group?

RenoNV
2011-Sep-06, 11:48 AM
"The first ever major earthquake to be predicted has just occurred in the last few days."

Actually it's been done already, some time ago. Not surprisingly, it was covered up since governments like to remain popular with their subjects. You can find the details in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Sichuan_earthquake#Predictions.2C_precursors. 2C_and_postmortems
For fun, try to read one of the references,
http://gist.fas.harvard.edu/CEGRP/content/precursor-analysis-wenchuan-earthquake

Peter B
2011-Sep-06, 12:46 PM
"The first ever major earthquake to be predicted has just occurred in the last few days."

Actually it's been done already, some time ago. Not surprisingly, it was covered up since governments like to remain popular with their subjects. You can find the details in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Sichuan_earthquake#Predictions.2C_precursors. 2C_and_postmortems
How covered up can it be if the details are in Wikipedia?


For fun, try to read one of the references,
http://gist.fas.harvard.edu/CEGRP/content/precursor-analysis-wenchuan-earthquake
Why? Can you summarise?

Strange
2011-Sep-06, 12:58 PM
Actually it's been done already, some time ago. Not surprisingly, it was covered up since governments like to remain popular with their subjects. You can find the details in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Si...nd_postmortems

Why is it we never hear about predictions until after the event...


For fun, try to read one of the references,
http://gist.fas.harvard.edu/CEGRP/content/precursor-analysis-wenchuan-earthquake

That link doesn't work. Oh, hang on. You're not suggesting that the fact a web address has changed is evidence of a cover up, are you? That would be silly.

The article is here: http://cegrp.cga.harvard.edu/content/precursor-analysis-wenchuan-earthquake

HenrikOlsen
2011-Sep-06, 01:26 PM
It's a post-mortem analysis of data gathered before the earthquake which makes them say after the earthquake that they could have predicted it.

Let's see this again: after the earthquake they come out and say it could have been predicted.

That's not a predicted earthquake, that's mediumism wearing a lab coat.

dgavin
2011-Sep-06, 07:03 PM
"The first ever major earthquake to be predicted has just occurred in the last few days."

Actually it's been done already, some time ago. Not surprisingly, it was covered up since governments like to remain popular with their subjects. You can find the details in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Sichuan_earthquake#Predictions.2C_precursors. 2C_and_postmortems
For fun, try to read one of the references,
http://gist.fas.harvard.edu/CEGRP/content/precursor-analysis-wenchuan-earthquake

When you get to the corrected link mentioned after your post, you find that the precursor-analysis-wenchuan-earthquake at harvard is an extract from Macadonia Univerisity, that is charting Goemagnetic Properties, not siesmic properties. In otherwards a new area (relatively) of study.

Further USGS clearly states that isolated instances of precursor magnetic activity, is not a basis for claiming successful method of prediction.


Taken from From http://geomag.usgs.gov/faqs.php#qthirteen

13. Are variations in the geomagnetic field somehow associated with earthquakes or vice versa?

The USGS supports an important National Earthquake Hazards Program. As a small part of that effort there have been studies attempting to correlate magnetic variations, or more precisely, electro-magnetic variations, with earthquakes. Electromagnetic variations have been observed after earthquakes for many years now, but What is less clear is whether or not there are detectable electro-magnetic precursors to earthquakes. It is worth acknowledging that geophysicists would actually dearly love to demonstrate the reality of such precursors, especially if they could be used for reliably predicting earthquakes! Unfortunately, no convincing evidence of electro-magnetic precursors to earthquakes has been found, despite decades of work. And it should be emphasized that isolated coincidences are not sufficient to demonstrate a relationship. What is needed to confirm an extraordinary claim is, of course, an extraordinary amount of evidence, which in this case would mean many repeated correlations of earthquakes with specific and identifiable precusory field variations. Such evidence simply doesn't exist.