-
115 ptslesterJune 5, 2021 at 4:34 pm #10639
During my years as an “Amateur Seismic Researcher”, I had found opportunity to engage with the scientific community on many occasions. But despite my misgivings during the earlier period, that I may have discovered something significant towards the advancement of seismic science. I found myself being rebuffed at every turn by “Statistics”. My last engagement occurred in 2016, when I was host to an eminent physics professor. And unfortunately, the professor did not want to see my observatory, my equipment, or my recorded data… he was only interested in seeing my spreadsheet (statistics !). Naturally, not being familiar with scientific protocol, I could not produce this. And at this point, the professor categorised me as “Delusional”. The detrimental affect of this encounter, changed my opinion of scientists. But also taught me that, it doesn’t matter what method you employ to determine where the next event will occur, it is only “statistics” that will get you noticed !
On Sunday 16th May 2021, I decided to re-engage with the scientific community after five years, to see if attitudes towards amateurs like myself had changed. So, I composed a polite and “honest” email, and submitted this to the BGS in Edinborough, Scotland. I gave no theoretical details, and stated that I was only seeking advice on the best course of action, to advance my own seismic research. On Monday 17th May at 00:30 UTC, I posted a prediction for an event to occur in the Rat Islands, Aleutian Islands of Alaska. At 20:25:08 UTC of the same day, an M 5.4 event occurred at 16.6 miles from my prediction coordinates. By the evening of Tuesday 18th of May, I had not received an acknowledgement from the BGS. So, I decided to try the “Red Rag to a Bull” technique, and tagged my prediction onto the original email… on Wednesday 19th May, I received a reply !
After a courteous introduction, the message continued: “”Thank you for your enquiry with the BGS. You could submit a paper with a reputable journal, but your status as a “non-scientist” may count against you. I have analysed you included prediction, and the result is as follows; During the last 20 years, there have been 139 earthquakes in this region within your magnitude range. This equates to roughly one event every 7.5 weeks. This gives a success by chance result of 13%… which is not going to impress anyone. If you wish to pursue other avenues, I suggest that you contact the “Russian Institute of Sciences” as they are one of the few remaining facilities that continue practicing earthquake prediction at a professional level””. I was pleased to receive an acknowledgement, but again this representative was not interested in details relating to how I determined my prediction location. The “Red Rag” worked, but I was again rebuffed by statistics… like a defence mechanism that is used to put amateurs back in their place !
On 17th May after the M 5.4 Rat islands event had occurred. I posted the EMSC report related to this event, in my forecast thread… and included the following statement: “On 17th May at 20:25:08 UTC, the sun was located on longitude 127’10’W. At “12-hours” earlier 08:25:08 UTC, it was moonset on coordinates 127’10’W – 41’57’N”. On Friday 4th June, two M 5.9 events occurred off the coast of Oregon, within 50 miles of these coordinates. So, my question is; if seismic statistics equate to a definition meaning “chance”… then why would I include this statement if I thought it would only amount to a “chance” opportunity. I am a global forecaster, which means that on most days I have my fingers in many pies. The BGS representative was correct in the fact that this region of the Rat Island, is reputed to have frequent seismic activity, on a scale of say 20 years. I believe that if I employed my methodology solely on the Rat Islands for the next 12 months, my own odds would favour that I manage to predict every 5+ event during this period. As there have only been 3 events during the last 12 months, and I only attempted to predict one of them, it would be a pretty boring project to maintain. Then any successful outcome at the end of this period, would likely be deemed “success by Frequency”. Meaning, the more that events occur in a particular region over a given period, the more likely it is that you are going to get a hit !
In this thread I thought I would select occasional events, that would normally not be given a “second thought”. And present counter arguments that demonstrate the odds of a particular scenario occurring, could potentially out weigh statistics. And in turn, produce alternative calculable odds that no scientist would probably wish to analyse… or accept. Despite my occasional disappointing experiences, I do still maintain the greatest respect and high regard for the scientific community. But I think that at sometime in the future, an answer will be found to the Earthquake problem… but it will be from amateur seismic researchers. They are “more” open minded, don’t hide behind statistics… and don’t have a decades old institutionalised belief to protect !
Thank you
Score: 0115 ptslesterJune 5, 2021 at 10:14 pm #10640https://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=992277
On Thursday 3rd June at 17:17:32 UTC, an M 5.1 event occurred in the region of Lara, Venezuela on coordinates 70’05’W – 9’59’N. This was not a particularly significant magnitude. It did not reach a status of “Bold Black” or “Red” in the published quake lists. And it does not hold any statistical scientific significance or value, when “equally” compared to the many hundreds of 5+ events that occur during a 12 month period. However, upon checking with EMSC records for events in this region during the last 15 years (limit of EMSC records). The records show that only 4 events of 5+ occurred… the greatest being an M 5.4 event on 27th November 2009. This of course only applies to this region, and if we invoke statistics, this calculates as an average of one event every 1,368 days – 195.5 weeks – 3.76 years. This would be the result of “statistical analysis”, but in reality, these events actually occurred in 2009, 2014, 2020, and the one included here in 2021. If we take Venezuela as a whole, the record states that a total of 52 events of 5+ occurred during the last 15 years. This equates to an average of one event every 99.5 days, or every 14.2 weeks. This average also takes into account that these 52 events occurred in 14 separate regions of Venezuela. And again realistically speaking, no forecaster is going to predict one specific region. Therefore, there is no strategic value in pursuing Venezuela, in hopes of advancing ones status with interested parties… unless you can present an alternative contribution towards the causality of a particular event !
On Tuesday 1st June at 10:18:16 UTC, it was sunrise on coordinates 70’05’W – 9’59’N, the pre seismic location of the M 5.1 epicentre in Lara, Venezuela… and the moon was located on longitude 70’05’W at the same time. So, it could be speculated that this sunrise / moon alignment may have contributed towards this seismic event 55 hours later. So, the question is: when was the last time this particular alignment occurred on this region ?… Statistically speaking, how often does this happen in this region ?… how many times has it happened in this region during the last 15 years ??. Anyone familiar with the motions of the moon, would certainly know that answering these questions would be possible, but also extremely labour intensive. It is a question of odds verses statistics, and the odds of this alignment happening more than once during the last 20 years, favours a causal contribution towards this event. However, the transit of this alignment continued from the West indies and Trinidad & Tobago, transiting most of Venezuela before reaching the region of Lara… so why did something occur at this particular location, and not at any of the previously covered ground ?
At the same time this sunrise / moon alignment was occurring on Lara at 10:18:16 UTC, the RLT (Rising Lunar Threshold) was located on coordinates 155’13’W – 18’51’N off the coast of Pahala, Hawaii. The RLT and SLT (Setting) are elements that I have orchestrated to give clarity to aspects of my observations, which currently lack a credible scientific explanation. Something I am unlikely to obtain due to the “closed mindedness” of the scientific community. However, the RLT / SLT represent a “4 minute” ephemeral point before moonrise or moonset, and I liken it to the first or last influential points, when bringing together or separating two magnets. What I observe relates to either gravitational or electromagnetic influences, and are incorporated in many of my seismic calculations… which speak for themselves. Also at this time (10:18:16 UTC) the sun was located on longitude 24’55’E… the opposite longitude calculates as 155’05’W. Therefore, a sunrise / moon alignment on Lara, Venezuela, was also joined by the RLT off the coast of Hawaii, whilst an opposite “Solar Noon” was taking place.
On Thursday 3rd June at 04:44:32 UTC, an M 4.0 event occurred off the coast of Pahala, Hawaii on coordinates 155’13’W – 18’51’N. This happened on the same day as the Lara, Venezuela event. And seasoned forecasters will know that any 4’s occurring in Hawaii, are always a “notable” occasion !
These correlations indicate that one particular influencing element resides in the fact that the Island of Hawaii is basically one big volcano. And if you were to visualise these event times in the Moon Map generated by “Time & Date”, the RLT is represented by the moonlight threshold connecting to Hawaii. However, visualising this map would also give cause for another argument. At 09:44 UTC 1st June (34 minutes earlier), it was moonrise on Mt Etna volcano in Sicily, Italy on coordinates 14’59’E – 37’45’N. At this same time, it was sunrise in the Gulf of Paria, Venezuela on coordinates 61’48’W – 10’25’N… and the moon was located on the same longitude of 61’48’W. Mt Etna volcano is currently stealing the global show at this time… so, why did an earthquake not occur in the Gulf of Paria, when this correlation is obviously more influential ?. If you go back in time by “12-hours to 21:44 UTC 31st May, none of the solar / lunar thresholds, or the sun and moon, correlate (contact) to any volcanoes currently on the “active” list. Going back “12-hours” from 10:18:16 UTC 1st June, and it is “true” Solar Noon on the pre seismic M 4.0 epicentre in Hawaii !
How many times did this alignment, plus related correlations occur during the last 15 years ??
A small contribution to put an M 5.1 event in Lara, Venezuela back on the “Relevant” list !
http://www.timeanddate.com
Score: 0
http://www.sunrisesunsetmap.com
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth115 ptslesterJune 11, 2021 at 8:29 pm #10654https://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=996050
On Thursday 10th June at 23:27:02 UTC, an M 5.7 event occurred off the south coast of Costa Rica on coordinates 85’25’W – 8’57’N. Now, this is by no means a “quake of little relevance”, but is in fact an event of significance for this region. Events of 5.5+ do occur in this region, but it is not a place that is high on the list when looking for potential pre seismic locations. I have included this event here, because it has something in common with the previously posted event in Venezuela !
On Tuesday 1st June at 11:21:43 UTC, the moon was located on longitude 85’25’W Costa Rica. Also at this time, it was sunrise on this pre seismic epicentre. At “12-hours” earlier 23:21 UTC 31st May, the SLT (Setting Lunar Threshold) was located on Mt Ebeko volcano in the northern Kuril Islands, Russia. Therefore, another moon / sunrise combination, with a potentially instigating volcanic correlation !
On Thursday 10th June at 11:22 UTC, sunrise was joined by the RLT (Rising Lunar Threshold) on the pre seismic M 5.7 Costa Rica epicentre, 18 minutes after “New Moon” occurred , complete with “Annular solar eclipse” !
Score: 0115 ptslesterJune 12, 2021 at 10:07 pm #10659https://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=996953
On Saturday 12th June at 06:18:28 UTC, an M 5.0 event occurred in Sucre, Venezuela on coordinates 62’45’W – 10’28’N. On Tuesday 1st June at 09:48:09 UTC, it was sunrise on this pre seismic M 5.0 epicentre, and the moon was located on longitude 62’45’W !
This is a similar scenario to the two previous events posted in this thread. On each occasion, the moon had combined with the sunrise threshold on these pre seismic locations, within a period of two hours on the same day. At the same time this solar / lunar combination was taking place on Sucre, the SLT (Setting Lunar Threshold) was located on Mt Etna volcano in Sicily on coordinates 14’59’E – 37’45’N. At “12-hours” earlier 21:48 UTC 31st May, the ATB threshold was located on Mt krakatoa volcano in the Sunda strait, Indonesia, on coordinates 105’25’E – 6’06’S !
On 10th June at 09:49 UTC it was both sunrise and moonrise on the pre seismic M 5.0 epicentre… a similar correlation to the M 5.7 Costa Rica event in the previous post !
Score: 0 -
|
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.