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)
|