|
Earthquake Predictions - My Biological Models versus Impact and other Tidal Models |
Dear Readers; Sorry for the amount of time to respond. It is a result of this being the first time I received a message other than “REMOVE”. It is also the first time I had to sit down and explain to myself the background of predicting what most consider impossible. So, what has resulted tries to fulfill the need to provide the best warnings for people at risk without losing proprietary information. The short answer is that I am not aware of Dr. Lowell Whiteside, but I have a successful track record. I use the Moon in the formation of the Earth but not in Tidal Models. The long answer is my biological predictions with natural disasters use the subtle tool of ecology with national and other ecosystems. For example, US has not signed Kyoto making it a distinct national ecosystem. Unfortunately for everyone concerned, I get all my limited, current geological and astronomical information from the general Internet to correlate with my biological events. My toxic encephalopathy tends to prevent me from reading technical material on paper and in libraries as well as visiting real geologists. Given the Whiteside Model description, polar regions should be similarly quaking on a regular basis and do not. I also noted that all the bombing we did in Afghanistan and other war zones have not produced extra earthquakes in active seismic regions. However, I realize that CMEs and other impacts to the Earth including tidal forces are in the class of tectonic producing energies like nuclear detonations and comets which I have had not much education beyond what the Art Bell Show (now coasttocoastam) presented on a regular basis. Using the bigger hammer of planetary impacts, I imagine that my $10 calculator is not up to the challenge along with my experience in ecology. Technically, I use the biological class of tectonic producing energies. My ecological predictions started with natural disasters, moved to encompass the Earth, and eventually spilled over into the world of Mars exploration, earthquakes, and then solar flares. Most importantly, starting with humans in Baton Rouge and working outward, the international predictions afforded through planetary ecology includes a margin of safety that has shown to be understandable by every person of a community at risk. The only nation reluctant to believe is the US. For example, the horrible monster quakes to China last week have killed less people than the wildfires currently burning in California. This would not have been the case several years ago. Last week, I was specific to China for a bad quake and did not specify the national or regional ecosystem for the explosive wildfire that hit California. Unfortunately, I have noticed that Americans have been taught through extremist Republicans on talk-radio and in our governments that any warnings with the “environment” are only liberal political lies and my predictions are considered pure environmental. I was the source of Rush Limbaugh’s Environmental Wacko Picks. Thus, there is a growing knot of stupid Americans who now keep tigers in apartments, build in flood plains, act like wildfires and tornadoes are a political mirage, and think only God can predict earthquakes. rr Follow Ups: ● where's the evidence? - John Vidale 06:15:41 - 10/27/2003 (19873) (2) ● Re: where's the evidence? - Cathryn 16:33:15 - 10/28/2003 (19898) (0) ● Re: the evidence is >5% correct predictions? - Robert Rhodes 22:34:01 - 10/27/2003 (19883) (2) ● concise evidence of >5% correctness? - John Vidale 17:21:21 - 10/28/2003 (19899) (1) ● How about ~10% correct for quakes last week? - Robert Rhodes 18:12:15 - 10/28/2003 (19900) (1) ● Re: How about ~10% correct for quakes last week? - Don in Hollister 18:52:35 - 10/28/2003 (19901) (1) ● You did not confirm or deny my successful earthquake predictions - Robert Rhodes 12:28:33 - 10/29/2003 (19910) (2) ● enough said - John Vidale 20:40:09 - 10/29/2003 (19916) (0) ● Re: You did not confirm or deny my successful earthquake predictions - Don in Hollister 14:03:49 - 10/29/2003 (19911) (0) ● Re: the evidence is >5% correct predictions? - Don in Hollister 23:24:38 - 10/27/2003 (19884) (0) |
|