Recent Alaska and Papua New Guinea Earthquakes – June 18, 2011

The chart below shows data from the latest Data.html Web page earthquake forecasting chart plus similar data for the following recent earthquakes.

2011/06/16 00:03:37 5.99S 151.09E 22 6.6 Papua New Guinea
2011/06/16 19:06:05 60.76N 151.04W 57 5.2 Kenai peninsula, Alaska
NEIS Data

Where there are line peak groups at some longitude on the chart’s Time Window or earthquake lines it means that the EM Signals associated with that Time Window or the listed earthquake had characteristics that matched those of past earthquakes that occurred at that longitude.

So, what the data are saying is that both of those earthquakes looked more like ones that occurred in the past at around 179 W longitude than ones that occurred at the actual earthquake locations.

However, the reason for posting this report is the following:

There was a strong line peak group around 179 W longitude for the past few months. And I have been wondering where that line peak might be pointing. I did not think that it was actually pointing to an approaching powerful earthquake for the 179 W area.

It is my present best determination that it was actually probably pointing to the approach of that recent widely felt 5.2 magnitude earthquake in Alaska. Even though it had a higher magnitude, the Papua New Guinea earthquake was probably too far away for such strong EM Signals to be detected.

Additionally, now that the Alaska earthquake has occurred, the half dozen low intensity EM Signals that have been detected just about every day lately have slowed to perhaps one or two signals per day.

The significance of this is that if those line peak groups were actually pointing to the approach of that Alaska earthquake it means that the earthquake was generating EM Signals for months or longer before it occurred. And if that is the case then I have to wonder why none of the other people around the world who are monitoring EM Signals and other earthquake precursors were not able to tell that it was on the way.

The line peak group was at 179 W and not 151 W where the earthquake actually occurred. That difference is likely due in part to the fact that my computer program location determination probability equations are not yet sophisticated enough to get the longitude right for every earthquake.

• Chart