Note To Canie Regarding Board Tone
Important Research Discovery
September 27, 2012

Hi Canie,

That last Earthquake Advisory that I circulated was sent to high level U.S. Policy Makers with the recommendation that it be given to the U.S. Military and government officials in Afghanistan. I don’t know if those people ever saw that information. But it is likely they did. And after that low intensity earthquake occurred I sent them an Update stating that I though that the potential danger had probably passed.

Roger’s and Penny’s notes posted in response to mine are generally harmless. Even their negative comments stay within reasonable bounds. But there are two other board posters who are in my opinion constantly posting attack notes in response to mine. Their notes have nothing to do with science but are in my opinion just attempts to get people whose research they don’t like to keep silent through a process of intimidation.

To keep the peace in this bulletin board I deliberately avoid posting any direct responses to their posts. And I would like them to do the same and avoid posting responses in threads that I have started.

Those attack posts are more than an inconvenience. My research is being evaluated by high level U.S. Policy Makers. And the earthquake forecasting part of it is just a very small part of that effort. Most of the information that I send those people has to do with the development of energy, advanced medical, and disaster mitigation systems. And they frequently act on my advice in those areas. I haven’t told those people about this bulletin board. But if they did visit it they would probably get upset when they saw those attack notes posted in response to mine.

I would appreciate it if you would try to get those two people to observe some bulletin board courtesy and not post notes in response to mine. Most of the people reading notes posted here probably have a high enough level of intelligence that they can make their own decisions regarding the accuracy of any information in my posts. They don’t need to have other people telling them what they can and cannot think. In my opinion that represents a type of censorship through intimidation.

IMPORTANT RESEARCH DISCOVERY

As my computer programs have been getting more sophisticated I have been able to discover more about what is taking place with the forecast data I am generating and how to better interpret it.

The last discovery had to do with the fact that EM Signals are probably much stronger for earthquake fault zones that are near the surface. And that is why they are often so strong for earthquakes that are destructive. The signals can be stronger for low magnitude earthquakes that are near the surface than they are for higher magnitude ones that are deep in the Earth.

Another discovery was just made. And I am trying to get some data from Pavel that might shed some additional light on this.

The first chart below is my 2012 Year Chart. On it you can see a purple circle that shows where the following powerful Indonesia area earthquake (93 E) occurred in that chart’s timeline.

2012/04/11 08:38:36 2.29N 93.08E 20 8.6 Off W Coast Of Northern Sumatera
NEIS Data

To the right of that earthquake on the chart at around 125 E there are some line peak structures that I believe were probably linked with that approaching earthquake. However, they should really be at 93 E rather than 125 E.

The next three charts below this one probably show why the line peaks are in the wrong location. And this is my latest forecasting discovery.

The chart below shows that Indonesia area earthquake on a continent map at 93 E. And a group of red plus signs can be seen at 125 E. They are the locations of earthquakes that were responsible for the line peak structure on the Year Chart above. The fact that they are there means that those earthquakes were good matches for EM Signals that were being generated around that time.

And the chart below this one will do an even better job of showing why those red plus sign earthquakes are in the wrong location.

The chart below is the same as the one above. But it shows the earthquakes on a tectonic plate background. And the reason for those earthquakes being at 125 E instead of 93 E should be obvious to any researcher. And this could be an important discovery for earthquake researchers around the world.

That very powerful earthquake occurred because one or two tectonic plates were jammed into a situation where one or both plates wanted to move but could not do that at the location of the earthquake. Eventually the stress built to the point where it overcame the resistance in that area and the energy stored in the fault zone rock layers was suddenly released in the form of a powerful earthquake.

However, while that strain building was taking place prior to the earthquake, some of it was transferred to the eastern side of the tectonic plate. And so, with the fault zones in that eastern area under stress they began to generate EM Signals. My computer programs then correctly pointed to the east side of that tectonic plate as the source of the signals. The earthquake then occurred on the west side of the plate and the signals stopped.

If this theory is correct it means that other earthquake researchers around the world need to be aware that at times, the locations they are identifying for possible seismic activity could be inaccurate because of that strain transfer process. It also means that by looking at where the signals that I myself am detecting are pointing to and then checking the tectonic plate structure in that area, it should be possible to propose that an expected earthquake will occur somewhere else along the edge of that tectonic plate or perhaps even an adjacent plate.

This last chart below is the same as the two above. But the background shows both continents and tectonic plates.

I should also point out that Roger has been quite helpful in the past with gathering data regarding continent and tectonic plate maps etc.

These are personal opinions.