Hi John,

I don't believe we've "spoken" before, but I've enjoyed your "Devil's Advocative" posts.

I trust your first paragraph is a given. But now, I have to ask you an embarrassing plebian question:

You once, on this board, maintained that gravity is a constant. How then to you account for the gravitational distortions in the area of W. Washington and Montana? Clearly, that is an anomaly. It took years for instrumentation to be developed to actually record this strange occurance. (I am sure I don't need to tell you this.)

What I think you're driving at in your next paragraph is that Earth's various layers of crust, consisting of many differentials, could not possibly put out spherical or ovoid rings.

Is that what you are saying?

If so, how can you account for one anomaly and not another?

And if seismic waves have to dive under water, and traverse all different types of sedimentation, does that not also distort the shape of the ring?

Clearly there are variables, but despite them, I have found since Canie first started posting them on Earthwaves that there may indeed be a measureable answer to the ring theory, as quite often large earthquakes (generally a magnitude lower depending on distance, mostly) do seem to correspond to the rings.

Could a missing link tie all this together to meet scientific standards?

I hope I've made some sense, and not a flaming azimuth of myself.

Cathryn