|
|
B1BLancer
Joined: 11 Jul 2003
Posts: 92
Location: SC |
 Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:55 am
|
 |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Swamp Gas
I have to smile Lance. You begrudgingly admit these technologies can exist for other purposes than what the government is admitting. Earthquake triggering was experimented with by Tesla 100 years ago. I remember the entire Maverick's crew making fun of the people at CTC saying HAARP Cannot be used for over the horizon communication.
Anyway, thanks for being the skeptic, but I do believe the government is NOT out for the people's good will.
Uh, no, I didn't say they exist. There you go again putting words in my mouth, just like you did in the other thread recently when you said I was comfortable with a "Big Brother" society.
I don't see whjat the big deal is about over the hoizon communication. It's only been around since Marconi.
Yeah, I've read narratives of the alleged Telsa earthquake experiments. What a bunch of baloney! No. Sorry. Ain't buyin' it.
Don't look now, guys, but big earthquakes have been happening for a very. very long time. So now that you're alive and able to blame the gov't for them, every big quake that happens is sudddenly the fault of the government or HAARP or whatever? Nope...ain't buyin' that either. Has it occcured to you that the Pakistan and Sumatra earcchquakes just might be natural events? Hmmmm? |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:30 pm
|
|
|
Nobody has to put any words in your mouth Lance. You do a good enough job yourself.
Lower frequency longitudinal waves are much easiar to bounce off of the ionosphere than FM or EMF.
You simply do not want "to buy" Tesla's technonlogy because you only believe government sponsered sources of information.
What everyone is saying here is that it is a possibility that the earthquakes are "triggered", or hurricanes "steered".
The technology exists, but it comes down to whether one thinks humans, and in particular, Amercians would use such technology against other humans.
Native American slaughter, Black Slaves, Woman with no voting rights, legislation against gays, the radiation experiments during the 40s and 50s, numerous fabricated wars, and the Shredding of the US Constitution. I could go on, but the US government is a treacherous organization.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:50 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Don't look now, guys, but big earthquakes have been happening for a very. very long time.
*I've tried to be as objective as possible when writing this*
Of course they have, earthquakes are a naturally occurring process. But that's not the point at all, the point is that earthquakes have recently been increasing in magnitude and frequency at a rate unprecedented. Just because they are inevitable, natural events, doesn't mean that man cannot potentially effect or influence their behaviors along the way. I know that many people from the right end of the political spectrum don't want to confront the consequences of the actions of big industry because of the great lobbyist pressuring from those that fund their campaigns. That to me though is not a legitimate reason to sit back and pretend that there isn't an effect to go along with every cause. In fact it's a kind of tortured logic to believe otherwise. If you smoke cigarettes consistently for thirty years your lungs are probably going to be black and you might even develop cancer. The environment we live in is susceptible to the very same kinds of manmade damages and believe it or not there's a very delicate balance in nature that cannot be artificially displaced without leveling drastic outcomes.
I do believe that people and their collective choices are effecting the weather and behaviors exhibited by the surface of the earth but not necessarily in the way others might believe. As far as control on a more individual level with secretive technologies, who knows? It's ridiculous to believe that the large militaries of the world (including our own) haven't considered the possibility and therefore they've certainly tried. How successful have they been? Therein lies the controversy, we may never know for sure as these kinds of operations are always going to be classified. Yes, for that reason, much speculation is involved but it's quite warranted in my opinion (considering the circumstances) to ask the types of questions that we're asking here. Either way you look at, the earth, our environment and the weather systems of the world are acting out in an unusually aggressive manner and it needs to be looked in to. Lancer, don't let your ideology get in the way getting of getting to the bottom of all of this.
Now to get in to what I feel is either directly, or indirectly related to the increasing earthquake phenomenon. I've explained some of my feelings about this already in this thread so I won't bother to reiterate.
1) Oil drilling-
quote:
Induced seismicity is another situation caused by oil removal. In
other words, the removal of oil can cause earthquakes, even in regions
normally quiet when it comes to seismic activity, such as parts of
southern Texas. This from the NORSAR website: - "From oil and gas
fields the problems relating to induced seismicity have been known
since the 1920, and were 30 years later thoroughly studied at an oil
field near Wilmington, California, where the oil production triggered
a series of damaging earthquakes. In the last decade a number of
examples of earthquake activity related to oil and gas production as
well as injection of liquids under high pressure have been observed,
although not with as serious consequences as for Wilmington."
http://www.norsar.no/seismology/induced/
THE CAUSE OF MOST EARTHQUAKES AND BAD WEATHER
quote:
What appears to be a pattern or trend shows very distinctly in this time span– it is obvious that there is a dramatic increase in the number of these deadly quakes around the world and the Middle Eastern countries of Turkey (with 4 quakes) and Iran (with 5) are being shaken about every 2 years by these very destructive forces beginning in 1957. It should be noted that Iran and Turkey are neighboring countries and they have an earthquake fault line running through them (see chart 1). Iran is also one of the largest oil producing nations in the world! This should be remembered as we try to figure out what is happening to the planet.
1977 to 1985 (about 8 years) 9 countries are shaken by 8 earthquakes and about 50,000 killed. Not included in the list is the Armenian quake of Dec. 1988 which killed over 20,000 and the 7.3 quake in India in August of 1988. It should be noted that Armenia is also a neighbor of both Turkey and Iran (see chart 3).
It is obvious from all this that a trend started, at the turn of the century, where the earthquake numbers were doubling every 20 years. After 1985, however, the number skyrockets. In 1990 alone 68 major earthquakes (over 6.5 on the Richter scale) were recorded and, between 1977 to 1991, a total of 136 major earthquakes shook the world. This represents a number many times over the previous 70 years!
The Middle East, from 1953 and on, has been suffering great loss of life and extreme property damage from these powerful forces. Until now this is something unheard of for that region in all its recorded history.
quote:
THE CURSE OF PUMPING TOO MUCH OIL
Man over the years has not considered the danger of throwing the earth out of balance by pumping billions of gallons of oil out of the ground and mining billions of tons of coal and then converting these liquids and solids into gasses which are then made a part of our atmosphere. The adding of so much heat and gas to the air around us has to affect the barometric pressure and this in turn is (according to T. Marshall Eubanks, a researcher in the British journal NATURE) causing the earth to wobble like an out of balance washing machine. It already has a two foot wobble at the poles and if it continues to get worse it could cause the ocean tides to get very dangerous or even worse create a worldwide earthquake!
According to the records I have seen published:
In the 100 year period (1868 to 1968) 200 billion barrels of oil were produced around the world. But what I found most shocking was the use of 400 billion barrels of oil in only 20 years (1968 to 1988) and the fact that a lot of this oil came from Iran. When you consider that each of these barrels contains 42 gallons and weighs about 306 pounds you begin to get some idea of the tremendous amount of weight this totals up to. simply multiply 600 billion by 306. If you want to know the heat factor multiply each barrel by 5.8 million BTUs. 8,000,000,000 barrels equals 1 quadrillion BTUs (1 Quad) which is enough to run 10 million cars for one year. Also, for each gallon burned, 23 pounds of carbon dioxide is produced!
A chart (#4) constructed using information taken out of a chart published by the Energy Information Administration shows how we went from wood burning to nuclear power and how many Quads (Quadrillion BTUs) of energy will have been used between 1850 and the year 2000 and also how these factors create earthquakes. Another chart (#5) shows another sad fact. In 1979 45 Quads of energy out of the 79 Quads used in the USA were lost because of poor efficiency in gasoline engines and steam turbines used to produce electrical energy. Some of this energy was also lost in the power transmission lines. This means that over 50% of our energy went out the window– enough to run 450 million cars for one year!
In essence we can also picture a Quad as a measure of the amount of gas that has been released into the atmosphere and this doesn't present a very pretty picture either from a weather effects point of view.
quote:
Research carried out by UTIG scientists suggests that earthquakes in some parts of Texas may be induced by the pumping of fluids at oil and gas fields, or by the injection of fluids to dispose of chemical wastes. The earthquakes in the Fashing-Pleasanton area southeast of San Antonio are almost certainly caused by or triggered by pumping; such earthquakes also seem to occur in the Texas Panhandle near Snyder, Texas.
2) Arcitc melting, global warming and the Earth's wobble-
quote:
Still another problem man has not considered (which I feel is even more dangerous) is the melting of the polar ice caps.
Scientists, who believe in man made global warming, feel that one of the most damaging results of this ice pack melting will be the flooding of coastal regions as well as the submerging of low lying islands. These scientists have failed to consider that earthquakes could also be triggered by the melt off– but how can the melting of this Antarctic ice cap cause earthquakes?
In order to understand why this could already be happening, we must examine the composition of Antarctica. According to certain published figures, Antarctica at the time had seven and one-half million CUBIC MILES of ice. The tremendous weight of this ice has caused the land mass to sink down 2000 feet. The displacement of this enormous land mass (5 ½ million square miles) has forced other parts of the earth to rise up because of the "hydraulic" effects brought about by pressure on the inner molten interior of the planet.
It has taken millions of years for the ice pack to grow and gradually increase these earth moving pressures on the rest of the planet but, now, the ice pack is melting at what some consider to be an alarming rate which is causing an average of 212 square miles of ice to slip into the West Antarctic sea each year. In 1987 about 4,500 miles of ice broke off (in two pieces which were 1,500 and 3,000 square miles) and in 1998 another 3,000 square miles broke off in one big piece and floated away. This weight change has to affect the pressure on the tectonic plates and this undoubtedly is one of the causes of some of our earthquake problems.
Seismologists say that a sudden earth displacement of ten to twenty feet can trigger a catastrophic earthquake. What would happen if the sunken earth of the Antarctic region were to spring back up (even a few hundred feet) after enough ice melts away? Could this trigger a worldwide earthquake? I believe it can and this will happen sooner than people expect.
Professor discovers why the Earth ‘wobbles’
quote:
“The theory, which my colleagues and I have proven using GPS observations of the Earth, is that it’s likely to be caused by the surface matter being redistributed,”
quote:
To make the Earth wobble, large amounts of mass need to be moved from one place to another so that the Earth is “off balance,” according to NASA-funded researcher Blewitt, who said the North Pole then adjusts to a new position to compensate. Large amounts of water are displaced seasonally when glaciers and ice sheets melt in spring, for example. The mass shifts back when they refreeze in winter.
“We measured the earth’s shape directly,” he said. “It agrees with the wobble. What our measurements are showing is that everything is consistent -- the earth is wobbling while it’s changing its shape,” he said.
“The Earth isn’t a perfect sphere,” Blewitt noted. “It bulges at the equator because it’s spinning. If the position and height of that bulge changes slightly -- even a few millimeters -- we can pick it up.”
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
B1BLancer
Joined: 11 Jul 2003
Posts: 92
Location: SC |
|
Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:05 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Swamp Gas
Nobody has to put any words in your mouth Lance. You do a good enough job yourself.
Lower frequency longitudinal waves are much easiar to bounce off of the ionosphere than FM or EMF.
I'm not sure what you mean by EMF, unless you're talking about electro-motive force, aka voltage. Commercial FM, which is in the 100 MHz range won't bounce off of the ionosphere. That's true. It goes through it. HF, however, bounces off of the ionosphere quite well. Longitudinal waves are sound waves, swamp. That's an entirely different animal. |
| |
|
|
B1BLancer
Joined: 11 Jul 2003
Posts: 92
Location: SC |
|
Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:21 pm
|
|
|
Double-post. Sorry about that!
Last edited by B1BLancer on Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
| |
|
|
B1BLancer
Joined: 11 Jul 2003
Posts: 92
Location: SC |
|
Tue Oct 11, 2005 11:44 pm
|
|
|
[quote="B1BLancer"] quote:
Originally posted by KNOW-THIS
quote:
*I've tried to be as objective as possible when writing this*
Of course they have, earthquakes are a naturally occurring process. But that's not the point at all, the point is that earthquakes have recently been increasing in magnitude and frequency at a rate unprecedented. Just because they are inevitable, natural events, doesn't mean that man cannot potentially effect or influence their behaviors along the way. I know that many people from the right end of the political spectrum don't want to confront the consequences of the actions of big industry because of the great lobbyist pressuring from those that fund their campaigns. That to me though is not a legitimate reason to sit back and pretend that there isn't an effect to go along with every cause. In fact it's a kind of tortured logic to believe otherwise. If you smoke cigarettes consistently for thirty years your lungs are probably going to be black and you might even develop cancer. The environment we live in is susceptible to the very same kinds of manmade damages and believe it or not there's a very delicate balance in nature that cannot be artificially displaced without leveling drastic outcomes.
I do believe that people and their collective choices are effecting the weather and behaviors exhibited by the surface of the earth but not necessarily in the way others might believe. As far as control on a more individual level with secretive technologies, who knows? It's ridiculous to believe that the large militaries of the world (including our own) haven't considered the possibility and therefore they've certainly tried. How successful have they been? Therein lies the controversy, we may never know for sure as these kinds of operations are always going to be classified. Yes, for that reason, much speculation is involved but it's quite warranted in my opinion (considering the circumstances) to ask the types of questions that we're asking here. Either way you look at, the earth, our environment and the weather systems of the world are acting out in an unusually aggressive manner and it needs to be looked in to. Lancer, don't let your ideology get in the way getting of getting to the bottom of all of this.
Now to get in to what I feel is either directly, or indirectly related to the increasing earthquake phenomenon. I've explained some of my feelings about this already in this thread so I won't bother to reiterate.
Wow! Lot's of stuff here, and I don't have time to respond line-by-line. But, let me address a few points.
I won't argue that pumping out oil or creating a resevoir can cause seismic activity. I understand that. However, there's a huge difference between that and creating earthquakes by some kind of electromagnetic device like HAARP, which is what the original point was.
It may indeed be true that there have been more big earthquakes in recent years, but there's no proven connection between that and man's activities. If every time I wear a red shirt somebody in Los Angeles gets murdered, is my wearing a red shirt the cause? Besides, earthquakes induced by oil production of resevoir construction are going to be at the local level and not on a worldwide scale, and especially not deep down in subduction faults like the one that generated the Sumatra earthquake.
To prove to me that the recent increase in earthquake frequency is man-induced, you're going to have to show me that such an incident has never happened in the recent past. I'll cut you a break, though. A million years or so will suffice. That is, after all, a very short span of time compared to the 4 billion-plus year age of the Earth. Things move in cycles. The sun has its cycles. So does the climate. Eaarthquakes and volcanos probably do as well. Some may be thousands, even millions of years long. Just because man hasn't been around long enough to see them doesn't mean they don't exist.
I did see a rather glaring error in one of the articles.
"In order to show the dramatic change in barometer readings over the years, in 1987 when hurricane "Hugo" came ashore on the east coast, the lowest barometer reading ever seen was recorded."
That's not true. The lowest recorded barometric pressure was recorded in the eye of hurricane Gilbert in 1988, with a minimum central pressure of 888 mb. Hugo come in at around #10, with the lowest minimum central pressure recorded at 934 mb. The second lowest was the 1935 Fl. Keys hurricane at 892 mb.
|
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:33 pm
|
|
|
quote:
However, there's a huge difference between that and creating earthquakes by some kind of electromagnetic device like HAARP, which is what the original point was.
And that's exactly why I said this:
quote:
I do believe that people and their collective choices are effecting the weather and behaviors exhibited by the surface of the earth but not necessarily in the way others might believe.
It may not have been the original point, but it was my point and it seems to me to be a valid one. And that doesn't mean that I don't believe in the strong possibility of a more nefarious underlying government scheme. I just don't have proof. The government does a whole lot of things that we don't have proof of though. To assume that we must first witness something firsthand in order for it to be true, is just false. You didn't see or hear about me going to the movies last night. Does that mean I didn't go?
quote:
If every time I wear a red shirt somebody in Los Angeles gets murdered, is my wearing a red shirt the cause?
To begin with that's a poor analogy. I've done much more than just pick two seemingly dissimilar events and attempt to connect them together haphazardly as your comparison does. But to use your example, if each time you travel through a particular part of the city wearing a red shirt a bullet whizzes past your head, a logical mind should start posing some serious questions. You just might find that although the color of your shirt may appear meaningless to you, it may matter a whole lot to opposing gangs of that area who are firing at you because their gang color is blue and to wear red in their area is considered a threat and an insult. The point is, sometimes failing to look a bit deeper than the surface to connect the dots can be a fatal mistake. There may not be absolute proof of the theories I've presented but hey, that's science. There are definitely however enough connections to seriously raise a few red flags. Better to be safe than sorry as portrayed in your analogy because sometimes your initial assumptions can be wrong. And I could be wrong as well, but which option creates the greatest chance of ending in dire consequences? Walking blindly in to the situation with an assumed sense of security (possibly false) or erring on the side of caution? What harm comes from playing it safe? I don't see any.
quote:
Besides, earthquakes induced by oil production of resevoir construction are going to be at the local level and not on a worldwide scale,
And that's precisely why I presented more than one argument, you only addressed one. If we're going to discuss the idea of man induced earthquakes it only makes sense to discuss every factor you can think of whether it be considered minor or major, right?
I don't know the exact numbers for how much oil drilling happens worldwide but I wouldn't underestimate the amount. Enough localized drilling can add up pretty fast and in a hurry. I was surprised to see just how many oil rigs there were in the Gulf alone. Can you imagine if this amount of drilling were to occur in an already quake prone area?
http://gom.rigzone.com/rita.asp
I'd really love to know just how much drilling goes on in and around the surrounding coastlines of California for example?
quote:
To prove to me that the recent increase in earthquake frequency is man-induced, you're going to have to show me that such an incident has never happened in the recent past. I'll cut you a break, though. A million years or so will suffice.
That's an unreasonable burden of proof. Your position on this matter suggests that if not man-made, the present increase of earthquakes and their strength must simply be the result of a natural cycle. Show me then documentation that you have from a million years ago proving that to be true. We have no choice but to work with the records that we have available to us and that's what I've done here. I believe the science of seismology didn't begin until the 1800's anyway.
Besides, you're a Christian right? I thought that the earth was only 6,000 years old? 
quote:
Things move in cycles.
When was the last time we had a cycle with such intensity as is occurring now? According to the records that we have, the current situation seems very anomalous and not cyclical at all.
Can you name a few factors that have been occurring since the advent of man's industrial age that certainly wasn't playing a role a million years ago that might very well be effecting all of this? I know that I can. Do you understand that every cause has an effect? How can you ignore that much with such a broad swipe?
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
B1BLancer
Joined: 11 Jul 2003
Posts: 92
Location: SC |
|
Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:28 am
|
|
|
[quote="KNOW-THIS"]
quote:
To assume that we must first witness something firsthand in order for it to be true, is just false. You didn't see or hear about me going to the movies last night. Does that mean I didn't go?
Neither does it mean that you did.
quote:
There may not be absolute proof of the theories I've presented but hey, that's science. There are definitely however enough connections to seriously raise a few red flags. Better to be safe than sorry as portrayed in your analogy because sometimes your initial assumptions can be wrong. And I could be wrong as well, but which option creates the greatest chance of ending in dire consequences? Walking blindly in to the situation with an assumed sense of security (possibly false) or erring on the side of caution? What harm comes from playing it safe? I don't see any.
Okay, let's look at a couple of the most recent severe Earthquakes, that being Sumatra and Pakistan. Sumatra was a subduction fault and deep down. Was there any oil drilling in the area? I may be wrong, but I don't think so. So what about Pakistan? That was a thrust fault rupture. Granted, it was shallow, at only a little over 6 miles down. But, is there any oil drilling there? Again, I may be wrong, but I don't think so.
So, here are two big quakes that, on the surface (horrible pun fully intended), don't appear to be related to oil drilling.
quote:
And that's precisely why I presented more than one argument, you only addressed one. If we're going to discuss the idea of man induced earthquakes it only makes sense to discuss every factor you can think of whether it be considered minor or major, right?
Agreed.
quote:
I don't know the exact numbers for how much oil drilling happens worldwide but I wouldn't underestimate the amount. Enough localized drilling can add up pretty fast and in a hurry. I was surprised to see just how many oil rigs there were in the Gulf alone. Can you imagine if this amount of drilling were to occur in an already quake prone area?
Maybe a lot, or maybe none! It would depend on a lot of things. I do know this. Oil reserves, deep as they are, are relatively shallow in the Earth's crust. Earthquake faults are much deeper down.
quote:
I'd really love to know just how much drilling goes on in and around the surrounding coastlines of California for example
On the surface (okay, okay, I'll stop), it looks like quite a bit!
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dog/maps/goto_welllocation.htm
quote:
That's an unreasonable burden of proof. Your position on this matter suggests that if not man-made, the present increase of earthquakes and their strength must simply be the result of a natural cycle. Show me then documentation that you have from a million years ago proving that to be true. We have no choice but to work with the records that we have available to us and that's what I've done here. I believe the science of seismology didn't begin until the 1800's anyway.
Well, if it's not man-made, which I believe, then what is left BUT nature?? In that case, it has to be nature by default! I know that the million year thing is unreasonable, and that's actually my point. Yes, we've only been taking data for what is a relatively very, very short time. That being the case, I don't see how anybody can say for sure that whatever we're seeing hasn't happened before, or for that matter, happened for 500,000 times before.
quote:
Besides, you're a Christian right? I thought that the earth was only 6,000 years old?
Yes, I'm most definitely a Christian, but I don't believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.
quote:
When was the last time we had a cycle with such intensity as is occurring now? According to the records that we have, the current situation seems very anomalous and not cyclical at all.
But you just said we only have a couple of hundred years worth of records! I don't know when the last time was, but then again, neither do you. 
quote:
Can you name a few factors that have been occurring since the advent of man's industrial age that certainly wasn't playing a role a million years ago that might very well be effecting all of this? I know that I can. Do you understand that every cause has an effect? How can you ignore that much with such a broad swipe?
Sure, I can think of some things. However, I can also think of some natural factors. Tectonic plates are in different locations than a million years ago, maybe moving at different rates now... |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 7:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
