Re: 4.3 a foreshock?no according to-
Posted by martin on January 14, 2001 at 16:10:24:

The mainstream media is saying there was a 4.1 mainshock and then a 4.3 aftershock at San Fernando. Proof in my opinion that media's sources (?)aren't allowed to mention the word foreshock which the 4.1 seconds before the 4.3m certainly was. To say foreshock implies something else coming or that both events could be foreshocks to something bigger. The public must not be told that foreshocks happen or every time there is an earthquake they'd panic. Why don't the seismologists beat down our doors for our prediction info? Because they CAN'T give weight to it...any pair of quakes must be shock and aftershock. That established, the 5.4m off Mendo was a good aftershock to the 3.6m and 4m mainshocks...mb. I'm looking into Palmdale for serious threat immed.


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: 4.3 a foreshock?no according to- - Canie  16:45:55 - 1/14/2001  (4572)  (2)
        ● Be Prepared - Michael  09:51:33 - 1/15/2001  (4581)  (1)
           ● Re: Be Prepared -wise words! - martin  19:09:51 - 1/15/2001  (4589)  (0)
        ● Re: 4.3 a foreshock?no according to- - Todd  18:06:39 - 1/14/2001  (4575)  (1)
           ● Re: 4.3 a foreshock?no according to- - Dennis Gentry of Santa Clarita  20:28:38 - 1/14/2001  (4576)  (1)
              ● Re: 4.3 a foreshock?no according to- - Todd  23:07:56 - 1/14/2001  (4578)  (1)
                 ● Re: 4.3 a foreshock?no according to- - Dennis Gentry of Santa Clarita  10:54:51 - 1/15/2001  (4582)  (0)