Expected KYUSHU 6+M result arrived
Posted by R.Shanmugasundaram on June 11, 2006 at 20:58:33:

Hi all!

6.3 2006/06/11 20:01:29 33.290 131.182 154.8 KYUSHU, JAPAN

Finally I got my much anxious result over Kyushu, Japan which exceeded by 15 hours (apprx.)
from the time limit fixed but the location (274 KMs from the epi centre)and the magnitude
(6.3M) were well within the predicted level.

I believe that the earlier occurred Fiji and Tonga quakes delayed this process otherwise
this one could have been occurred well with in my time frame.

Hope no one has predicted the above quake. My personal opinion is instead of concentrating
on more methods which involves huge costs and man power, focusing on sun shadow method will
yield accurate results. Unfortunately my research is coming to an end in a couple of days due
to my transfer in my Banking service.

For ready reference my earlier messages are appended below:

http://www.earthwaves.org/wwwboard/messages/37646.html
--------------------------------------------------------
Magnitude: 6+M
From: 4.30 UTC 30th May 06 - To: 4.30 UTC 10th June 06
Location: KYUSHU, JAPAN
Lat: 31.0N - Long: 130.2E - Range: 330 km

Hi all!

The above prediction was made under very difficult sunshine days.
I suspect FIJI ISLANDS (18.4S 178.4W) and TONGA ISLANDS (19.4S 173.4W)
are also experienced quakes on the same time frame fixed and very close
to the magnitude as mentioned. Though these two locations were frequently
experienced quakes, I am concentrating on Kyushu, this time.

Let us watch.

Shan

http://www.earthwaves.org/wwwboard/messages/37742.html
------------------------------------------------------
Here are the closest results listed from USGS which is within my tolerance level
of prediction:

6.0 2006/06/02 07:31:37 -20.750 -178.741 592.4 FIJI REGION
5.1 2006/06/02 03:26:42 -21.217 -174.313 37.0 TONGA
5.1 2006/06/02 01:28:29 -20.030 -173.803 35.0 TONGA

Let us wait and see over Kyushu.

Once again proved the sun shadow method is working good.

Shan
-----

SHAN



Follow Ups:
     ● Sure you were not just lucky? - Glen  23:32:02 - 6/11/2006  (38209)  (1)
        ● Re: Sure you were not just lucky? - R.Shanmugasundaram  23:59:12 - 6/11/2006  (38210)  (1)
           ● OK. One more Q, if you don't mind - Glen  01:37:24 - 6/12/2006  (38213)  (2)
              ● Re: OK. One more Q, if you don't mind - Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande  06:04:57 - 6/12/2006  (38219)  (1)
                 ● Correction - Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande  06:10:59 - 6/12/2006  (38220)  (0)
              ● Re: OK. One more Q, if you don't mind - R.Shanmugasundaram  03:16:27 - 6/12/2006  (38216)  (1)
                 ● Shan, see if I understand correctly - Roger Hunter  07:10:42 - 6/12/2006  (38223)  (2)
                    ● Re: Shan, see if I understand correctly - Cathryn  14:09:14 - 6/12/2006  (38230)  (1)
                       ● Re: Shan, see if I understand correctly - Roger Hunter  16:09:08 - 6/12/2006  (38235)  (1)
                          ● Re: Shan, see if I understand correctly - Cathryn  16:22:37 - 6/12/2006  (38236)  (1)
                             ● Give the lady a cigar! - Roger Hunter  21:42:29 - 6/12/2006  (38244)  (1)
                                ● Re: Give the lady a cigar! - Cathryn  22:26:57 - 6/12/2006  (38245)  (2)
                                   ● Re: Give the lady a cigar! - Roger Hunter  00:17:18 - 6/13/2006  (38251)  (2)
                                      ● Re: Give the lady a cigar! - Glen  00:44:46 - 6/13/2006  (38254)  (1)
                                         ● Re: Give the lady a cigar! - Roger Hunter  07:02:11 - 6/13/2006  (38261)  (0)
                                      ● Re: Give the lady a cigar! - Roger Hunter  00:23:19 - 6/13/2006  (38252)  (1)
                                         ● Ah. (NT) - Cathryn  00:43:54 - 6/13/2006  (38253)  (0)
                                   ● Re: Give the lady a cigar! - Glen  00:07:06 - 6/13/2006  (38249)  (1)
                                      ● Re: Give the lady a cigar! - Cathryn  00:53:42 - 6/13/2006  (38256)  (1)
                                         ● Re: Give the lady a cigar! - Glen  01:12:06 - 6/13/2006  (38257)  (1)
                                            ● Re: Give the lady a cigar! - Cathryn  13:27:10 - 6/13/2006  (38275)  (0)
                    ● I understand correctly - R.Shanmugasundaram  09:27:41 - 6/12/2006  (38226)  (0)