My experience with Honshu Japan quake
Posted by R.Shanmugasundaram on September 06, 2004 at 15:01:08:

Hi all!

It was Sunday 5th of Sept. 04 were every one looking for the expected CA quake.The other side of
the earth, Bay of Bengal was covered with clouds upto Southern India and parts of Tamilnadu get
rain here and there. In Coimbatore, I have with sad mood since unable to register sunshadow due
to very diffused sunlight. I sit in my observatory and red newspaper. My eyes are frequently
looking between the wall and the news paper and no hope of sunshine. Suddenly I have noticed some
clouds are cleared and sun shines over the wall and made shadow for a little while. Looking into
the time and the wall I was surprised since the shadow movement was stand still for couple of
seconds and it strikes me that the dip pertains to a quite strong quake. I was very curious to
note down further earthmovement, to move to closer to the location as well as the magnitude, but
I unable to do because the total observation period covered with thick clouds which stops the
sunlight into my observatory. Yes.. I registered only less than a minute observation but with
stunning precursor. Immediately I have decoded and posted my prediction though I am unable to
sure about the exact magnitude, as:

Total diffused sunlight day - But get less than one minute sunshine

From which, if the registered readings were correct
around 5 to 6+M quake over

TAIWAN (23.39N 121.62E)
MARIANA ISLANDS (17.88N 146.98E) - EASTERN SEA OF JAPAN(43.99N 137.10E)

may occur within 48 to 180 hours from 10 AM IST on 5th Sept. 2004


But the results are as follows:

2004/09/05 14:57:18 33.15N 137.04E 10.0 7.1 NEAR S. COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN (i.e 20.27 IST)
2004/09/05 10:07:09 33.09N 136.63E 19.8 7.0 NEAR S. COAST OF WESTERN HONSHU (i.e 15.37 IST)

Do you all feel it is a failure? No it is success if you are connecting a line between my
observatory to Taiwan where my first location fixed and if you extended the line it touched
the location at 33N 137E where the quake occurred. So I have to do little more to claim my
success.


Shan


Follow Ups:
     ● That's silly, Shan - Roger Hunter  15:56:59 - 9/6/2004  (22769)  (1)
        ● Silly.. but not fully... - R.Shanmugasundaram  11:00:46 - 9/7/2004  (22782)  (1)
           ● Re: Silly.. but not fully... - Cathryn  13:32:46 - 9/8/2004  (22798)  (1)
              ● Re: Silly.. but not fully... - R.Shanmugasundaram  07:52:34 - 9/9/2004  (22806)  (1)
                 ● Re: Silly.. but not fully... - Cathryn  14:45:20 - 9/11/2004  (22832)  (1)
                    ● Re: Silly.. but not fully... - R.Shanmugasundaram  21:26:13 - 9/11/2004  (22842)  (0)