|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
 Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:58 am
|
 |
|
POSTED BY LETXA 02-18-2004 10:35 PM
quote:
New 3.5 mag. EQ Hits Yellowstone Area on Sunday...02/17/04 by Mitch Battros (ECTV)
Just when I think we had made progress in our investigation regarding the 5.3 mg quake that was reported in the Yellowstone area on Feb. 6th....
So he still hasn't learned to read a map and realize that the last one didn't occur anywhere near Yellowstone either? He hasn't realized that his undercover quake is visible for all to see, just categorized as a mining blast rather than an earthquake?
quote:
I receive notice of a new 3.5 mg. quake which hit this past Sunday. This new quake just happens to be almost in the "exact" location as last weeks 5.3. Is this a coincidence?
Well, about 44 miles away. The last "quake" wasn't suspicious since it is was not covered-up, just moved to the "mining seismology" section. This quake is still there 3 days later.
quote:
So how can this be? First we have the USGS saying "it was not an earthquake, but a mine blast", then we have the Wyoming seismology center say "it was not a mine blast, because if it was, it was a nuclear explosion. There is no way it would measure that high". And now we have a brand new 3.5 mag. quake which occurred almost in the exact area. So what's it going to be! 1) A second mine blast? 2) A second earthquake? 3) First one mine blast, second one earthquake? Does this sound right to you? Or is it the smell of fish, this far inland!
Would someone please point this man to Stuart Sipkin's response which I posted in this thread earlier this afternoon. At the very least someone should tell him that these earthquakes aren't happening anywhere near Yellowstone. He's making a fool of himself in multiple ways.
What did you think of Stuart Sipkin's response, JRE?
Know-This: Why do you still think it was an earthquake?
[Edited 2 times, lastly by JerseyBluEyz on 04-20-2004] |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:07 am
|
|
|
POSTED BY JERSEY 02-18-2004 11:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
I wrote to the USGS myself regarding this seismic event and asked if they could clear up the misunderstanding regarding the magnitude, location, and cause of the cited event.
What do you mean “clear up the misunderstanding regarding the location” of the event? Since when was the location ever in question? FYI - Battros said “near Yellowstone” OR “Yellowstone area” AND “Wyoming” repeatedly. I do not recall his every saying IN Yellowstone.
Considering we’ve been observing bulging magma, higher water temperatures, dieing plants and animals, that whole area should be suspect when it comes to ANY geological activities. If I lived within 300 miles of that park, I’d sure like to know if anything geologically suspicious was going on.
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
MESSAGE FROM STUART SIPKIN AT NSGS:
Rather than stumbling onto a cover-up, Mitch Battros has demonstrated that he doesn't know how to read a map. The coordinates listed below, 43.5N 105.1W, are nowhere near Yellowstone. This location is in eastern Wyoming, approximately 270 miles from Yellowstone.
How pompous this man sounds! I am quite sure that Battros is knowledgeable in reading and plotting a map, especially since he’s been reporting seismic activities for at least the past 5 years. Even I know how to plot a map and know that there are various resources on the net to help do so! Sheesh! What could possibly have given Sipkin the idea that Battros couldn’t read a map? As stated above, he NEVER said the suspect activity was IN Yellowstone!
[Edited 1 times, lastly by JerseyBluEyz on 04-20-2004] |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:09 am
|
|
|
POSTED BY JERSEY 02-18-2004 11:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
Would someone please point this man to Stuart Sipkin's response which I posted in this thread earlier this afternoon. At the very least someone should tell him that these earthquakes aren't happening anywhere near Yellowstone. He's making a fool of himself in multiple ways.
I most certainly will not tell him he's making a fool of himself (I do not believe he is), but I will email him the response from Sipkin. I think that's a good idea.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by JerseyBluEyz on 04-20-2004] |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:13 am
|
|
|
POSTED BY LETXA 02-19-2004 03:35 AM
quote:
What do you mean “clear up the misunderstanding regarding the location” of the event? Since when was the location ever in question? FYI - Battros said “near Yellowstone” OR “Yellowstone area” AND “Wyoming” repeatedly. I do not recall his every saying IN Yellowstone.
His original story is titled "Large Yellowstone Area Quake Goes Unreported." 270 miles to the east isn't "Yellowstone area" any more than it is "Denver area." If this event occured within the "Yellowstone Area" then events happening in Boise ID, Salt Lake City UT, Grand Junction CO or near the border of Canada are also within the "Yellowstone Area." I said "clear up the misunderstanding regarding the location" because any rational person would agree that if the headline says "Yellowstone area" and plotting it on a map works out to "Eastern Wyoming" we must be talking about two different locations.
Eastern Wyoming is simply not in the "Yellowstone Area" to your average educated person.
quote:
Considering we’ve been observing bulging magma, higher water temperatures, dieing plants and animals, that whole area should be suspect when it comes to ANY geological activities. If I lived within 300 miles of that park, I’d sure like to know if anything geologically suspicious was going on.
You're clinging to an idea here awfully hard if you're trying to rationalize the use of "Yellowstone area" for an event 270 miles away on the other side of the state of Wyoming. Any normal person that hears "Yellowstone Area" is going to think within the park boundaries or in the immediately surrounding mountainous area. They're not going to think a stone throw from South Dakota on the wide open plains.
Plus, nothing geologically suspicious is going on. The original seismic event isn't being hidden, it's just been classified as a mining blast rather than a naturally occuring quake. If the conspiracy fervor has reached such a pitch that even a mine blast is now considered suspicious and the USGS wishing to separate man-made from natural events is the ingredients of a cover-up, things have really got out of hand.
quote:
How pompous this man sounds! I am quite sure that Battros is knowledgeable in reading and plotting a map, especially since he’s been reporting seismic activities for at least the past 5 years. Even I know how to plot a map and know that there are various resources on the net to help do so! Sheesh!
Well if Battros knows how to read a map then he is being outright disingenuous and alarmist regarding his headline. Reporting an earthquake in "Eastern Wyoming", where it is unpopulated, geologically uninteresting, and where there are lots of mines is a lot less interesting than saying "Yellowstone area" which is a national park, geologically active, and where there are decidedly fewer mines. But "Eastern Wyoming" would have certainly been a lot more useful in giving someone an idea of where the event occured. Not once did he use the far more accurate descriptor "Eastern Wyoming." If you weren't to break out a map and plot it yourself you're going to have an entirely different impression of the location of the event. I suspect that's exactly what he wanted in an effort to make it sound more interesting or suspicious.
quote:
What could possibly have given Sipkin the idea that Battros couldn’t read a map? As stated above, he NEVER said the suspect activity was IN Yellowstone!
At minimum of two educated people (Sipkin from the USGS and me) immediately found Battros' description of the location quite inaccurate when we plotted the coordinates on a map. Feel free to consider everything within a 300 mile radius of Yellowstone and encompasing 1/12th of the area of the continental United States to be "Yellowstone Area" if that makes you feel good, but it doesn't make it any more accurate and certainly appears as though you are desperately justifying a deliberate mischaracterization of the facts by Battros.
At any rate, we're splitting hairs here. Whether you want to consider Gillette WY in the "Yellowstone Area" is irrelevant. The fact remains that the seismic event was not covered up, is currently visible on the USGS web site here, had a revised magnitude of 3.3 (well within that of a mine blast), and basically there is nothing suspicious going on. It's all out in the open and has been fully explained.
When it comes to conspiracy theories it sure doesn't take much, does it...
|
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:15 am
|
|
|
POSTED BY MOHOROVICIC 02-19-2004 10:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
How pompous this man sounds! I am quite sure that Battros is knowledgeable in reading and plotting a map, especially since he’s been reporting seismic activities for at least the past 5 years. Even I know how to plot a map and know that there are various resources on the net to help do so! Sheesh! What could possibly have given Sipkin the idea that Battros couldn’t read a map?
Don't be silly. I doubt that anyone really thinks that Mitch Battros can't read a map. It's just that he apparently didn't bother.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by JerseyBluEyz on 04-20-2004] |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:26 am
|
|
|
POSTED BY JERSEY 02-19-2004 03:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
You're clinging to an idea here awfully hard if you're trying to rationalize the use of "Yellowstone area" for an event 270 miles away on the other side of the state of Wyoming.
I have read numerous times that anyone within a 600 mile radius should be prepared for a possible blast. But if you consider that clinging and rationalizing – whatever.
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
Plus, nothing geologically suspicious is going on.
It first appeared something unexplained was going on.
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
If the conspiracy fervor has reached such a pitch that even a mine blast is now considered suspicious and the USGS wishing to separate man-made from natural events is the ingredients of a cover-up, things have really got out of hand.
I’m not sure who this comment is directed at, but I certainly can’t answer for others. If you are directing this comment at me, I’d like you to point out where I even ONCE gave an opinion in this thread that justifies your categorizing my thoughts this way.
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
Not once did he use the far more accurate descriptor "Eastern Wyoming." If you weren't to break out a map and plot it yourself you're going to have an entirely different impression of the location of the event. I suspect that's exactly what he wanted in an effort to make it sound more interesting or suspicious.
Now don’t fall over and have a heart attack, but I agree. A better term would have been Eastern Wyoming. And yes, Yellowstone Area would tend to make people take notice much quicker than Eastern Wyoming.
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
At minimum of two educated people (Sipkin from the USGS and me) immediately found Battros' description of the location quite inaccurate when we plotted the coordinates on a map.
You can add a third person to your limited list. I plotted it as well.
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
Feel free to consider everything within a 300 mile radius of Yellowstone and encompasing 1/12th of the area of the continental United States to be "Yellowstone Area" if that makes you feel good, but it doesn't make it any more accurate and certainly appears as though you are desperately justifying a deliberate mischaracterization of the facts by Battros.
Thank you for your permission to think as I so choose. I am neither desperate to prove anything nor am I deliberately altering any facts. But you can think so if it makes you feel good.
quote:
Originally posted by letxa2000:
When it comes to conspiracy theories it sure doesn't take much, does it...
You are assuming my position on this subject and I do not appreciate it! I want to spell something out for you – as I previously have done – in the hopes that you will grasp a simple concept this time! I provided the above AS INFORMATION ONLY! This is something we do here. When something is not prefaced with a personal opinion, it is provided AS INFORMATION ONLY. As always, everyone is free to pursue other avenues for additional information each and every time something is posted. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that concept?
I provided Battros' information in response to YOUR looking for confirmation of a seismic event. If you recall, I admitted to reading the information FOR DAYS but did not post it. I never once gave my opinion on the subject one way or the other except to provide another “possible” explanation for the event. I am not doing this back and forth with picking on words, phrases, etc. – I do not have the time! I am interested in reading and disclosing information that pertains to the subject at hand and will continue to post articles if and when anything becomes available. If you are looking for a debate, one does not exist here (with me) and you’d be better off finding someone that wants a word war. Sorry, but that is NOT my style - I am not interested!
[Edited 1 times, lastly by JerseyBluEyz on 04-20-2004] |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
|
Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:31 am
|
|
|
POSTED BY LETXA 02-19-2004 04:38 P
quote:
Letxa: If the conspiracy fervor has reached such a pitch that even a mine blast is now considered suspicious and the USGS wishing to separate man-made from natural events is the ingredients of a cover-up, things have really got out of hand.
JBE: I’m not sure who this comment is directed at, but I certainly can’t answer for others. If you are directing this comment at me, I’d like you to point out where I even ONCE gave an opinion in this thread that justifies your categorizing my thoughts this way.
It was a general observation of conspiracy theories in general. The fact that people echo and propagate poorly investigated material such as this is part of the problem. The fact that it was originally brought up as a reason why we should get our news from Art Bell rather than the mainstream media and the rhetorical question of "Why isn't the mainstream news reporting this?" just makes it that much more enjoyable. The mainstream news didn't report it because it was a non-event in the middle of nowhere.
It seems to me that a very large percentage of the material found on conspiracy sites (such as Rense and this time earthchangestv) is either just plain wrong or simply misinterpreted. It's becoming clear that most of what is reported on sites like these are non-events which is precisely why you don't see it reported in the mainstream media, not because the mainstream media is hiding something.
quote:
Now don’t fall over and have a heart attack, but I agree. A better term would have been Eastern Wyoming. And yes, Yellowstone Area would tend to make people take notice much quicker than Eastern Wyoming... You can add a third person to your limited list. I plotted it as well.
I'm glad we can agree on those points.
quote:
Letxa: When it comes to conspiracy theories it sure doesn't take much, does it...
JBE: You are assuming my position on this subject and I do not appreciate it!
As I said above, it was a general observation of conspiracy theories in general. I never said you came up with this theory.
quote:
I want to spell something out for you – as I previously have done – in the hopes that you will grasp a simple concept this time! I provided the above AS INFORMATION ONLY! This is something we do here. When something is not prefaced with a personal opinion, it is provided AS INFORMATION ONLY. As always, everyone is free to pursue other avenues for additional information each and every time something is posted. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that concept?
I don't have a hard time understanding the concept. The problem (in my opinion) is that too much unresearched, inaccurate, and sometimes outright false information is provided "as information only" and that leads to even more such bogus information. It's exponential. It feeds on itself and, in some cases, on the paranoia created by it.
quote:
I provided Battros' information in response to YOUR looking for confirmation of a seismic event. If you recall, I admitted to reading the information FOR DAYS but did not post it.
Point taken. You are right.
quote:
I never once gave my opinion on the subject one way or the other except to provide another “possible” explanation for the event.
I misinterpreted your previous post as defending Battros which led me to believe that you thought he was right despite the explanation from the USGS. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by JerseyBluEyz on 04-20-2004] |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:44 pm
|
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WEATHER/07/20/weather.ap/index.html
Mudslide closes Yellowstone entrance
Buries vehicles, no one injured
Tuesday, July 20, 2004 Posted: 12:58 PM EDT (1658 GMT)
A vehicle is trapped Monday in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, after thunderstorms Sunday.
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, Wyoming (AP) -- Mudslides from an area stripped of vegetation by forest fires engulfed three vehicles and indefinitely closed the eastern entrance to Yellowstone National Park.
Park rangers helped free 16 people after the mud started flowing Sunday night following thunderstorms. Mud sloshed up to the hoods of cars, and some people had to be pulled out through car windows.
"I was told there was enough mud that you couldn't even read the license plates to see what state they were from," Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash said Monday.
No one was injured.
The slides, up to 10 feet deep and 90 yards long, blocked about three-quarters of a mile of the park's East Entrance Road at Silvan Pass.
There was no indication when the east entrance, seven miles east of the mudslide zone, might reopen. An estimated 10,000 cubic feet of debris will have to be removed, and the slides wiped out guardrails and undercut part of the roadbed, Nash said.
Park staff were scanning the debris for unexploded artillery shells that might have been carried onto the highway. In the winter, shells are fired to trigger avalanches above Sylvan Pass to reduce the chances of larger, unexpected slides.
Drought-stoked fires charred 23,500 acres in the area last summer and closed the east entrance for about two weeks. A fire in 2001 closed the gate for 11 days. |
| |
|
|
JerseyBluEyz
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast |
| Mudslide
Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:28 am
|
|
|
Oh Boy! Thanks for reminding me of what a slacker I became in this thread! LOL! Maybe I should finish updating it so we can move on huh?
Anyway, here are some images from the mudslide cleanup:
 |
| |
|
|
skizz
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 281
Location: usa |
|
Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:25 pm
|
|
|
don't know if this is anything but found it looking into the thread.
http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/
Recent Earthquakes in the Intermountain West
There are 30 earthquakes on this map.
Click on an earthquake on the above map for a zoomed-in view,
or click here to by-pass the clickable maps and go straight to the finger quake list of recent earthquake activity.
Special maps:
Earthquake lists: big earthquakes || all earthquakes
Black lines creating a box around the Utah Region and the outline of
Yellowstone National Park indicate the University of Utah Seismograph
Stations' monitoring area. For earthquakes that occur outside our
monitoring area, but inside the area covered by the index map, please
see Other sites for Intermountain West
Earthquake Information.
During routine business hours, maps are typically updated within two hours of
a significant or felt earthquake, after human processing.
Map need updating? Try reloading the page to your browser.
Brown lines are known hazardous faults and fault zones.
Data Sources:
Utah Region + Yellowstone National Park Region = University of Utah Seismograph Stations
a member of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS)
Other Information:
Earthquakes elsewhere in the U.S. and around the world
How do earthquakes get on these maps? || FAQ's
Top page || Other sites for Intermountain West earthquake information || Credits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please email suggestions and comments to webmaster@seis.utah.edu. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 1:42 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
