Newsgroup sci.geo.earthquakes 6626

Directory

What if....in say Chaos, Tims Dew Hypothesis works because nature is
complex in its chaos. For instance...
Water is a great conductor of electricity. We have a wide spectrum of
frequencies to deal with. We have freqs between various belts in
atmosphere interacting with freqs coming from earth. If say in some
perhaps true Gaian mechanic, using Darwin Selective as an analogy, a
pattern of freqs act in concert conducted by water, with dew being one
part of the model and any other number of factors (rain...fog...etc) being
combined in a weblike fashion, which would appear to even one with most
technical receivers to be random, but deciphered by various rock to be the
very pattern it needs to cause stress/movement/fracture or whatever
mechanic it seeks in its own undiscovered code?
  There is a fine line between science and madness. Look at some
theoretical physics researchers. On the conservative side one has Bill
Wattenburg on ond the radical side we have Jack Sarfatti. Jacks ideas
borderline in nonsense, yet Jack has one of the most brilliant minds in
physics (an argueable point I am sure), yet if we stick strictly to Bills
ideas then we go slower than snails...Hubris can be blinding, 'specially
when a prof who is tenured, still owes student loans:->
  When looking at Tims ideas from an objective (scientifically) point, it
is a very interesting concept-- and I applaud Dennis for being so
tenacious in Tims defense. After all, it is the radical idea that captures
the imagination of the true educator!
Bob
--
Rev. Robert Shannon Sr. Hon. DD Theology
Pinpoint Newsletter
"The web existed before spiders. The web existed before the net...
 We are all a part of the web and whatever we do to part - we
 do to the whole"
------------------------------------------------------------------

In article  tar@ISI.EDU (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
 >From: tar@ISI.EDU (Thomas A. Russ)
 >Subject: Re: Why Science? (Was: Dew Point Theory Paper (nonsense? yes, it is))
 >Date: 22 Jan 1997 07:38:37 -0800
 >Why do non-scientists even care what scientists think?  Why do they seek
 >out confirmation by scientists?  Fundamentally, if you are right what
 >does it matter if a particular group of people acknowledge your
 >correctness?  If scientists are really so closed and narrow minded, what
 >possible advantage is there to having your Truth recognized by them --
 >they are (according to this argument) not capable of recognizing truth
 >anyway -- why bother?
 >OK, I will speculate.  The reason the recognition of scientists and the
 >blessing of "Science" is sought is because it lends a cachet of
 >credibility to the claim.  But why should it lend such credibility.  I
 >will submit that it is because of the rigorous testing and skepticism
 >with which any new ideas are tested.  The scientific method is one
 >philosophic approach to the search for the truth.  It does not claim to
 >be able to discover all truths, only ones that can be verified.  [In
 >fact, Goedel has a proof that not all mathematical truths (theorems) can
 >be proven, so in fact we have scientific proof that science cannot know
 >all truths -- but I digress.]
>It is because ideas are subjected to intense and sometimes antagonistic
>scrutiny that many people are inclined to believe what science
>discovers.  The problem that I often see is that although some amateurs
>wish to have the benefits of scientific recognition, they shy away from
>the very process that yields such recognition, namely the skeptical
>challenge that a hypothesis be supported by evidence and endure attacks
>on its explanatory power.  What is decried as uncaring or clannish
>scientists attacking the ideas of non-(professional) scientists is
>nothing of the sort.  In fact, it is the scientists engaging in true
>scientific dialog with the proposers of some theory.  This is exactly
>what science is about!  Ask any graduate student about oral exams and
>thesis defense.  If scientists were closed-minded the response would be
>more something like "You have no degree and must therefore be ignorant.
>Your idea is rubbish."  This must be contrasted with a proper scientific
>rebuttal: "Your hypothesis fails to explain phenomena which have been
>observed.  Furthermore, aspects of your hypothesis which should be
>observable could not be detected.  Therefore your idea is rubbish."
>As long as your are getting the latter response, you are being taken
>seriously by scientists.  Now the latter response is often condensed
>into a "that's been tried before and failed."  This indicates that the
>proposer has not done their homework and aren't (apparently) suggesting
>anything new.  Of course this presumption can also be rebutted, but it
>does require some argument about how the current hypothesis differs from
>previous unconvincing hypotheses.
This is very well put. 
There is an interesting little subject that tags on to seismology or any other 
science, and that is the social dynamics of the interaction between 
seismologists (or other scientists) and the world as a whole. I don't know if 
there is anyone in sociology or hist. & phil. of sci. who is actively studying 
this subject, but if there were, the above would make the nub of an 
interesting paper.
Roger Musson
r.musson@bgs.ac.uk

NOTE: 5 or more maps will follow this post.
If you don't want to read them all the subjects include
the phrase "USGS Quake Map" for your killing convenience.
DISCLAIMER -- THIS IS NOT AN EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION OR WARNING!
  The commentary provided with these map(s) is for INFORMATIONAL
USE ONLY, and SHOULD NOT be construed as an earthquake prediction,
warning, or advisory.  Responsibility for such warnings rests with
the Office of Emergency Services of the State of California.
PLEASE REMEMBER -- THESE ARE PRELIMINARY DATA
  Releasing these summaries on a timely basis requires that the
data, analysis, and interpretations presented are PRELIMINARY. Of
necessity they can only reflect the views of the seismologists who
prepared them, and DO NOT carry the endorsement of the U.S.G.S.
Thus while every effort is made to ensure that the information is
accurate, nothing contained in this report is to be construed as
and earthquake prediction, warning, advisory, or official policy
statement of any kind, of the U.S. Geological Survey, or the
U.S. Government.
FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS REPORT
  Send e-mail to michael@andreas.wr.usgs.gov
  DO NOT SEND EMAIL TO weekly@garlock.wr.usgs.gov  It will not be read.
Seismicity Report for Northern California,
the Nation, and the World for the week of
January 16 - 22, 1997
 Stephen R. Walter
U.S. Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Rd.  MS-977, Menlo Park, CA  94025
San Francisco Bay Area        
  Activity remained light last week.  During the seven-day period ending
at midnight on Wednesday, January 22, 1997 the U.S. Geological Survey
office in Menlo Park recorded 15 earthquakes of magnitude one (M1) and
greater within the San Francisco Bay area shown in Figure 1.  Three were
as large as M2.  This total compares to 18 earthquakes during the prior
seven-day period (January 9 - 15, only one of which was as large as M2.
  The week began with a M1.9 on the central Concord fault early last
Thursday morning (#1/1).  The following morning a pair of M1's occurred on
the San Gregorio fault about eleven miles west of Santa Cruz (#2/1).  The
lone earthquake of note on the San Andreas was a M2.0 early Saturday
morning that was located about six miles northwest of San Juan Bautista
(#3/1).  Activity was similar on the Calaveras with a single M2 earthquake
on Sunday morning east of San Jose (#4/1).  Finally, a M2.0 occurred
Monday afternoon near the Quien Sabe fault about eleven miles southeast of
Hollister (#5/1). 
Northern & Central California
   Cape Mendocino was the most active area in the western U.S. during the
past week.  A M5.6 occurred Tuesday night along the Mendocino fracture
zone about seven miles west of Petrolia (#8/2).  Additional aftershocks
occurred along the fracture zone, the largest a M4.3 about 43 minutes
after the mainshock.  In addition a M4.3 occurred in the central Gorda
Plate early the next morning (#9/2).  The is the most active the region
has been since last August when M4 events occurred both along the fracture
zone and in the Gorda Plate.  The last earthquake as large as M5 was a
M6.6 in February 1995.  It occurred about 80 miles offshore but was felt
as mar away as San Francisco.  Activity onshore in the Cape Mendocino area
was limited to a 30-km-deep subduction event whose epicenter was located
about 15 miles south of Hayfork. Activity in the Coast Range to the south
was limited to a M3.1 in the Lake Pillsbury area about 20 miles northeast
of Willits.
   Central California remained relatively quiet.  A half dozen M2 events
occurred along the creeping segment of the San Andreas, the largest a 2.3
that was located about ten miles northwest of the Pinnacles National
Monument.  In addition, a M2.0 occurred five miles north of Avenal and a
M2.2 occurred about nine miles northeast of San Simeon.
  The eastern Sierra Nevada experienced a small cluster of earthquakes
nine miles southwest of Bishop, the first and largest a M3.1 just after
noon last Thursday (#3/2).  To the north a M3.0 event occurred east of
Markleeville (#6/2).  Two events occurred near Truckee, the first a M2.8
about 20 miles to the north (#4/2), the second a M2.5 just one mile to the
northwest of the town (#7/2).  
Long Valley Caldera
   There were no earthquakes as large as M1.5 in the caldera and none as
large as M2 in the Sierra Nevada terrane south of the caldera.
USA Seismicity (January 12 - 23)
   The National Earthquake Information Center reported a small cluster of
earthquakes in central Colorado on Saturday that were felt by residents in
the Woodland Park area (#5/4).  Other domestic quakes of note included a
M3.5 along the Blanco fracture zone west of the central Oregon coast
(#4/4), a M3.6 in the Coso region of southeastern California (#1/4), and a
pair of M3's in southern California that were felt in the Escondido area
(#3/4).  Other earthquakes of note include a M3.5 in southern British
Columbia that was felt in the towns of Kelowna, Princeton, and Penticton
(#2/4). 
The Planet Earth  (January 12 - 23)
   The hot spot on the planet during the past week was the eastern
Mediterranean.  On January 13 a M5.4 in the Cyprus region was felt
strongly at Limassol and Paphos and less strongly in Israel, Lebanon, and
Egypt (#1/5).  A M5.3 followed in southern Italy (#3/5) and a trio of M5's
near the coast of southern Turkey that were felt in southern Turkey,
Syria, and into Lebanon (#5/5).  The largest earthquake on the planet
during this period was a M6.4 in Andes along the Bolivia-Argentina border
(#6/5).   Slightly smaller was a M6.1 in the Flores region of southern
Indonesia (#2/5).  Though lacking in the size of most of the previous
earthquakes, by far the most damaging was a M5.3 in southern Xinjiang,
China that killed at least 12 people, injured 38, and caused extensive
damage in Jiashi County, Xinjiang (#4/5).
Table 1. Northern & Central California Seismicity (M>1.0)
--ORIGIN TIME (UT)-- -LAT N-- --LON W-- DEPTH  N N RMS ERH ERZ       DUR
YR MON DA HRMN  SEC  DEG MIN  DEG  MIN    KM  RD S SEC  KM  KM REMKS MAG
97 JAN 16  804 19.08 38 48.08 122 48.03  1.64  8   .03  .3  .4 GEY   1.4
97 JAN 16  840  0.51 36 31.92 120 50.99  6.41 27 2 .17  .3 2.3 CRV## 1.8
97 JAN 16  847 52.49 36 31.82 120 52.01  7.42 11 1 .06  .4 4.2 CRV   1.1
97 JAN 16  854 25.63 37 21.09 118 41.17  5.00 11 1 .08 1.9 9.5 KAI - 1.6
97 JAN 16  925  7.14 40 20.46 123 13.90 29.88 10   .07  .6  .9 KLA   2.2
97 JAN 16  956 52.43 36 32.31 120 52.10  6.00 17 1 .18  .5 7.1 CRV # 1.1
97 JAN 16  957 25.74 36 31.85 120 51.49  7.00 20   .19  .5 3.9 CRV## 1.5
97 JAN 16 1007  6.30 37 59.76 122  2.72 20.44 25   .11  .3  .4 CON   1.9
97 JAN 16 1156 55.11 36 23.86 120 55.89  4.77 32   .09  .2  .7 BIT   2.2
97 JAN 16 1202 15.89 37 20.05 118 41.33  5.02 10   .07 1.210.0 KAI - 1.6
97 JAN 16 1359  5.14 37 33.95 121 56.76  4.68  9 1 .03  .3  .6 HAY   1.0
97 JAN 16 1418 29.05 37 20.47 118 41.51  4.85 12 1 .08  .4 9.2 KAI - 1.7
97 JAN 16 1440  5.12 38 47.00 122 45.69  2.08 15   .04  .2  .5 GEY   1.5
97 JAN 16 1529 32.84 38 46.27 122 43.90  1.25 27   .07  .1  .4 GEY   2.0
97 JAN 16 1602 49.71 40 23.33 124 56.02 23.16 26   .24 4.321.5 MEN - 3.4
97 JAN 16 1649 39.07 36 31.16 121  6.13 10.37 44 1 .05  .1  .3 PIN   2.1
97 JAN 16 1758  1.44 36 23.51 120 56.03  5.86 16 1 .07  .2 1.0 BIT   1.5
97 JAN 16 2008 39.53 36 11.74 120 45.69  8.13 20   .09  .4  .4 BIT   1.9
97 JAN 16 2046 39.75 37 19.27 118 32.48 15.33 25   .12  .4 1.4 KAI   3.1
97 JAN 16 2047 14.68 37 18.49 118 34.15 16.71  9   .05 1.0  .7 KAI   1.2
97 JAN 16 2050 59.62 37 19.53 118 32.03 14.69 22   .07  .4  .9 KAI   2.4
97 JAN 16 2051 34.80 37 19.13 118 33.71  6.50 12   .12  .611.2 KAI - 1.4
97 JAN 16 2101  0.23 37 19.36 118 32.64 14.84 21   .13  .6  .9 KAI   2.3
97 JAN 16 2102 22.48 37 20.74 118 32.89 13.42 12   .05  .4  .7 KAI   2.0
97 JAN 16 2106 26.85 37 19.51 118 32.61 14.41 19   .14  .5  .9 KAI   2.0
97 JAN 16 2204 48.21 38 45.88 122 41.52  2.15 13   .03  .2  .6 GEY   1.5
97 JAN 16 2352 21.63 38 49.55 122 47.75  3.72  7   .02  .4  .7 GEY   1.2
97 JAN 17  147  1.77 35 55.90 120 28.65  4.71  8 1 .02  .6  .6 MID   1.3
97 JAN 17  518 40.58 37 25.59 121 46.40  8.01 40 2 .06  .2  .4 ALU   1.6
97 JAN 17  552  6.65 39 36.85 120  6.49  0.63 29   .23 1.1 3.4 WAK # 2.8
97 JAN 17  658  8.58 36 28.25 121  2.76  5.61 36   .04  .1  .3 BIT   2.1
97 JAN 17  743  2.47 35 56.59 120 29.26 13.62 14 1 .03  .8  .7 MID   1.2
97 JAN 17 1028  6.55 39 22.79 123 17.34  0.09 17 2 .21  .4 2.8 MAA # 1.3
97 JAN 17 1220 49.52 35 32.45 118 25.53  7.74 10   .04  .3 1.9 WWF   1.5
97 JAN 17 1327 56.44 36 59.03 122 13.01  8.92 33   .07  .5  .5 MON   1.9
97 JAN 17 1329  0.23 36 58.82 122 13.31  7.26 24   .06  .9  .6 MON   1.5
97 JAN 17 1910 20.25 38 49.36 122 48.06  3.81  7   .01  .4  .6 GEY   1.2
97 JAN 17 2025 47.57 37  7.37 118  6.46  0.20 18   .18 3.0 7.7 DEV   2.5
97 JAN 17 2032 55.94 35 38.51 118 24.92  6.56  9   .03  .4 1.4 WWF   1.9
97 JAN 18    7 33.33 36 39.10 121 14.04  7.34 25 1 .06  .2  .6 STN   1.6
97 JAN 18  153  6.48 37 37.65 118 52.34  8.16  7   .02  .8 1.5 SMO   1.2
97 JAN 18 1122 52.00 36 53.38 121 37.92  9.10 63   .12  .2  .3 SJB   2.0
97 JAN 18 1128 13.62 36 33.11 121  7.36  5.02 39 1 .06  .1  .4 PIN   2.1
97 JAN 18 1144 58.40 37 20.58 118 41.07 15.00 18 1 .07  .6 1.1 KAI   1.7
97 JAN 18 1238 17.47 36 33.05 121  7.34  5.23 18 2 .03  .2  .7 PIN   1.2
--ORIGIN TIME (UT)-- -LAT N-- --LON W-- DEPTH  N N RMS ERH ERZ       DUR
YR MON DA HRMN  SEC  DEG MIN  DEG  MIN    KM  RD S SEC  KM  KM REMKS MAG
97 JAN 18 1413  0.15 36 33.00 121  7.59  5.70 10 1 .04  .3 1.1 PIN   1.0
97 JAN 18 1516 22.02 39 13.22 123  8.61  3.53  7   .04  .6 6.6 MAA - 1.3
97 JAN 18 1533 26.87 37 22.71 118 48.05  9.78 20 1 .09  .6 2.2 KAI   1.9
97 JAN 18 1647 14.85 38 38.59 119 32.74  2.10 16   .06 1.0 7.0 WAK - 2.5
97 JAN 18 1854 52.43 38 49.66 122 48.23  3.73  8   .03  .3  .9 GEY   1.0
97 JAN 18 2229 57.07 39 15.52 123  4.18  8.41 11   .03  .4 1.5 MAA   1.6
97 JAN 19  330 45.57 36 48.95 121 12.23  6.61 37   .06  .2  .7 PAN   1.8
97 JAN 19  332 46.54 37 20.79 118 32.56 12.44 23 1 .06  .6  .9 KAI   2.5
97 JAN 19  415  4.22 38 49.45 122 46.56  2.73  9   .04  .3  .7 GEY   1.6
97 JAN 19  625 50.44 36 42.71 121 21.25  3.93  8   .02  .4  .8 STN   1.1
97 JAN 19  926 17.01 39 21.43 122 53.24  7.93  9   .03  .3 2.2 BAR   1.6
97 JAN 19 1038 51.74 37 34.38 118 51.47  7.61 11   .05  .7 1.3 MOR   1.3
97 JAN 19 1056  3.92 39 20.37 120 11.67 12.92 15 1 .14 2.6 3.3 WAK   2.5
97 JAN 19 1109  0.40 37 37.02 118 52.25  7.57 12 2 .05  .4  .5 SMO   1.1
97 JAN 19 1211  0.75 37 28.44 118 46.42 17.25 22 1 .12  .4 1.0 WCN#  1.8
97 JAN 19 1605 44.92 37 21.11 121 43.02  8.07 74 4 .06  .1  .3 ALU   2.4
97 JAN 19 2036  2.38 36 28.14 121  2.71  5.95 11   .02  .5  .7 BIT    .9
97 JAN 19 2041  4.32 36  0.34 120 33.46  5.70  9 2 .02  .5 1.1 SLA   1.3
97 JAN 20   50  0.19 37 44.42 121 55.98  9.99 14 1 .05  .3 1.3 DAN   1.2
97 JAN 20  335 57.54 37 37.96 118 57.93  8.10  9   .01  .6 1.4 SMO   1.1
97 JAN 20  340 53.79 39 14.70 122 45.54  2.90 20   .07  .2 2.0 BAR   2.0
97 JAN 20  616 20.35 39 39.03 119 35.05 27.35 15   .24 2.621.5 NEV - 3.0
97 JAN 20  814 12.32 37 38.60 118 56.01  6.24  7   .01  .6 1.5 SMO   1.1
97 JAN 20  833 40.75 37  8.91 121  9.25  4.42 14 1 .06  .6 2.0 ORT   1.4
97 JAN 20  843 56.92 38 49.62 122 47.74  4.14 21 1 .04  .2  .5 GEY   1.8
97 JAN 20 1038 20.01 38 46.93 122 45.79  2.39 17   .03  .2  .5 GEY   1.6
97 JAN 20 1359 29.67 37 26.30 121 47.45  7.19 10 2 .02  .3  .5 ALU   1.1
97 JAN 20 1555 38.90 36  4.25 120  8.38  5.48 18   .06  .6  .6 COA   2.0
97 JAN 20 2321 59.40 36 49.00 121 12.18  6.66 44 1 .07  .1  .7 PAN   2.0
97 JAN 21  135 31.99 38 40.05 119 31.49  0.32 27   .09  .7 1.8 WAK   3.0
97 JAN 21  734 28.29 39 21.22 122 53.24  0.23  8   .05  .3 8.3 BAR - 1.5
97 JAN 21 1007 27.38 38 49.19 122 47.67  3.63  8   .03  .3  .6 GEY   1.0
97 JAN 21 1215 17.00 39 39.20 122  3.32 13.65  7   .44 9.510.0 SAC # 1.8
97 JAN 21 1226 23.02 35 41.08 121  2.00  2.95 31 1 .05  .1  .5 SSM   2.2
97 JAN 21 1416 16.67 36 38.74 121 15.41  4.97 40 1 .07  .1  .4 STN   2.3
97 JAN 21 1527 16.32 37 31.68 121 49.19  8.68 29 2 .05  .2  .4 SUN   1.5
97 JAN 21 1615 58.30 38 47.53 122 45.38  2.19 14   .03  .2  .5 GEY   1.5
97 JAN 21 1620  4.45 36 38.64 121 15.56  4.85 18   .06  .3  .8 STN   2.0
97 JAN 21 1731 11.68 39 28.24 122 59.25  8.41 31   .14  .3  .9 BAR   3.1
97 JAN 21 1746 51.80 39 28.25 122 59.45  7.93  9   .03  .9 1.0 BAR   1.4
97 JAN 21 1803 14.62 37 29.84 118 49.95  6.92  7   .03 2.6 5.3 MOR   1.2
97 JAN 21 2247 42.68 38 49.26 122 48.08  3.65  7   .03  .4  .7 GEY   1.2
97 JAN 21 2343 41.45 39 20.88 122 53.84  6.99 12   .02  .3 2.2 BAR   1.7
97 JAN 22   12  1.33 37 27.63 118 50.54  3.87  9 3 .05 1.5 2.9 MOR   1.4
97 JAN 22  101 58.99 36 29.91 121  4.46  4.62 28 1 .06  .2  .4 BIT   1.7
--ORIGIN TIME (UT)-- -LAT N-- --LON W-- DEPTH  N N RMS ERH ERZ       DUR
YR MON DA HRMN  SEC  DEG MIN  DEG  MIN    KM  RD S SEC  KM  KM REMKS MAG
97 JAN 22  446 51.47 36  1.56 120 35.16  1.14 12 1 .27 1.0 2.5 SLA## 1.7
97 JAN 22  516 12.76 37 20.40 118 41.19 15.64 24   .08  .4 1.1 KAI   2.6
97 JAN 22  717 16.69 40 16.30 124 23.66 23.79 22   .12 1.2  .6 MEN   5.6
97 JAN 22  724 23.25 40 20.31 124 42.84 21.92 14 1 .05 1.7  .7 MEN   2.2
97 JAN 22  725 17.71 40 18.12 124 30.49 20.59 22 1 .06  .9  .2 MEN   2.7
97 JAN 22  759 49.65 40 20.69 124 12.13  5.01  7   .58 2.5 7.2 MEN # 1.7
97 JAN 22  800 43.15 40 19.59 124 38.56 20.77 28   .12 1.1  .4 MEN   4.3
97 JAN 22  820 49.44 40 18.17 124 30.92 21.03 11 1 .06 1.9  .3 MEN   2.8
97 JAN 22  836 11.10 37 28.69 121 49.86  7.32 52 3 .08  .1  .3 MIS   1.9
97 JAN 22  857 33.10 40 17.16 124 24.32 22.72 25 1 .08 1.0  .3 MEN   2.8
97 JAN 22  919 58.43 36 35.20 121 11.12  3.25 13   .06  .3  .4 PIN    .9
97 JAN 22 1040 47.12 36  0.18 120 33.33  4.71 12   .04  .5  .7 SLA   1.3
97 JAN 22 1044 39.32 36 50.75 121 34.41  8.99 12   .11  .6  .9 SJB   1.3
97 JAN 22 1121 14.48 40 13.54 124 11.29  5.00  7   .22 2.1 5.0 MEN # 1.8
97 JAN 22 1148  1.82 41  7.00 126  6.61 14.13 56 1 .17 3.1 8.9 PON   4.3
97 JAN 22 1515 32.67 40 15.05 124  9.96  5.01  9 1 .55 2.7 7.2 MEN # 1.6
97 JAN 22 1821 26.12 40 20.06 124 39.62 18.79 24 1 .10 1.1  .5 MEN   3.0
97 JAN 22 1908 42.43 41  1.90 121 22.85  5.00  8   .42 4.535.6 MOD - 1.6
97 JAN 22 1925 24.89 36 31.84 120 51.62 10.50 10   .07  .5 1.4 CRV   1.7
97 JAN 22 2333  1.87 36 29.89 121  4.63  5.51 18   .05  .3  .5 BIT   2.0
97 JAN 23  110 16.05 38 46.91 122 45.83  2.49  7   .01  .4  .8 GEY   1.0
TABLE 2.
Data from National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC)
UTC TIME    LAT     LONG    DEP GS MAGS  SD STA  REGION AND COMMENTS
HRMNSEC                         MB  Msz     USED
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAN 12
000033.8* 11.123N 125.793E  33N 4.3     0.7  13 SAMAR, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
000149.0  35.976N 117.631W   5G         1.0  30 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA. ML 3.6 (GS).
000455.8* 51.562N 178.412W  33N 3.4     0.6  17 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS.
001028.0? 18.38 N 102.49 W  33N 3.8     1.9  13 MICHOACAN, MEXICO
012359.1  46.522N   1.041W  10G         1.3  44 FRANCE. ML 4.2 (LDG).
012828.1? 18.41 N 102.19 W  33N 4.9     1.1  20 MICHOACAN, MEXICO
032850.0* 16.238S 175.980E  33N 4.7 4.7 1.1  15 FIJI ISLANDS REGION
060106.8& 49.668N 120.397W  10               17 BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA. ML 3.5
        Felt at Kelowna, Oliver, Peachland, Penticton, Princeton and Vernon.
083138.4% 32.784S  70.531W  33N         0.9  10 CHILE-ARGENTINA BORDER.MD 4.4
083256.5  37.383N   2.109W  10G         0.9  18 SPAIN. mbLg 3.4 (MDD). Felt (IV)
                                                in the epicentral area.
104830.1  35.908N  28.678E  60* 4.1     1.1  52 EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN SEA
120130.4*  8.913N  83.126W  40G 6.2     0.8  10 COSTA RICA
133132.5% 34.088S  70.493W 100G         0.2  11 CHILE-ARGENTINA BORDER. MD 4.1
150042.1% 33.356S  70.436W 100G         0.3  11 CHILE-ARGENTINA BORDER. MD 3.9
154658.5?  3.57 S 145.81 E  33N 4.1     1.6  13 NEAR N COAST OF NEW GUINEA, PNG.
173722.0  35.516N  23.046E  33N 4.1     1.1  45 CRETE
174341.9% 32.263S  70.487W 100G         0.5  11 CHILE-ARGENTINA BORDER. MD 4.1
200443.1* 35.346N  77.875E  33N 3.9     1.2  16 EASTERN KASHMIR
202100.1  35.954N  25.465E 100G 4.1     1.5  44 CRETE
JAN 13
000122.1* 56.277S  24.344W  45D 4.9     0.6   9 SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS REGION
013859.8? 18.44 S 174.71 W  33N 4.6     1.0  13 TONGA ISLANDS
014720.7? 34.36 N  37.28 W  10G 3.4     1.1  10 NORTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
022405.3? 28.57 N  55.98 E  10G 3.5     1.6  10 SOUTHERN IRAN
064351.8? 18.23 N 106.30 W  33N 3.8     0.5  10 OFF COAST OF JALISCO, MEXICO
101926.1  34.302N  32.311E  33N 5.3 5.4 1.2 208 CYPRUS REGION. Mw 5.6  ML 6.2
        Felt strongly at Limassol and Paphos. Felt in Israel and Lebanon.
        Also felt at Cairo, Egypt. 
112936.7  33.414N 116.901W  15G         0.5  19 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. MD 3.8
        (PAS). Felt in the Escondido area.
113719.6  34.364N 141.156E  33N 5.1     0.9  45 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
134243.0? 16.95 N 147.14 E  46? 4.0     1.0  20 MARIANA ISLANDS REGION
151905.0* 71.061N   7.399W  10G 4.4 3.7 0.5  25 JAN MAYEN ISLAND REGION
161420.6? 36.91 N  71.37 E 142? 3.2     0.3   8 AFGHANISTAN-TAJIKISTAN BORD REG.
163245.8* 43.668N 128.293W  10G 3.5     0.3  30 OFF COAST OF OREGON
164358.9  33.355N 116.965W   5G         0.9  21 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. MD 2.9
        (PAS). Felt slightly in the Escondido area.
185804.6  37.024N 143.148E  31D 3.9     1.1  25 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
210410.4* 14.974S  75.948W  33N 4.1     1.1  11 NEAR COAST OF PERU
233315.8* 16.971N 147.191E  33N 3.9     1.0  16 MARIANA ISLANDS REGION
235717.3* 45.100N 151.893E  33N 4.6     1.2  18 KURIL ISLANDS
JAN 14
005554.1* 31.663S  67.547W  33N 4.4     1.4  12 SAN JUAN PROV., ARGENTINA. MD
4.3
033036.2? 34.55 N  32.46 E  33N 3.9     1.2  22 CYPRUS REGION
062057.8  34.308N 141.294E  27  5.0     0.9  57 OFF EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
072139.7?  8.95 N  82.96 W  10G         0.1   6 PANAMA-COSTA RICA BORDER. MD 4.1
091526.4* 22.357S 171.545E  33N 5.0 4.6 1.1  21 LOYALTY ISLANDS REGION
114449.1% 34.040S  70.069W  10G         0.2  11 CHILE-ARGENTINA BORDER. MD 4.0
114756.3* 37.422N 141.228E  62* 3.3     1.1  15 NEAR EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
180334.7  17.347N  61.643W  60  4.8     0.8  84 LEEWARD ISLANDS. MD 5.4 (TRN).
      Felt (IV) on Antigua and Guadeloupe, (II) on Montserrat. Also on St. Kitts.
180522.9  21.571N 143.012E 300G 4.7     1.0  52 MARIANA ISLANDS REGION
193911.2* 24.809N 127.671E  37D 3.9     1.1  13 SOUTHEAST OF RYUKYU ISLANDS
195318.9* 14.254N  89.557W  33N 4.0     1.5  14 GUATEMALA
200604.0* 24.600N 122.622E 100G 3.2     0.8  11 TAIWAN REGION
211118.4* 12.667N 143.846E  51* 4.4 5.4 1.0  21 SOUTH OF MARIANA ISLANDS
225820.6  40.877N  20.462E  10G         1.4  33 GREECE-ALBANIA BORDER. ML 3.8
JAN 15
010337.8*  8.907N  83.135W  33N 3.9     1.2  13 COSTA RICA
012628.7*  2.872N  84.274W  33N 3.8     1.0  17 OFF COAST OF CENTRAL AMERICA
012920.8?  3.48 N  84.11 W  33N 3.5     0.8   6 OFF COAST OF CENTRAL AMERICA
024702.3  52.320N 173.973W 100G 4.9     0.8  22 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS.
043725.7% 10.521N  61.837W  10G         0.5   6 TRINIDAD. MD 3.5 (TRN).
050052.2  34.341N  32.343E  33N         0.6  25 CYPRUS REGION. ML 4.2 (JER).
053510.5  47.718N   7.128E   5G         0.7  19 SWITZERLAND. ML 2.9 (VIE), 3.4
074919.9? 13.83 N  87.23 W 200G 3.7     1.7   9 HONDURAS
081424.0* 51.653N  16.375E  10G         0.1   5 POLAND. ML 2.6 (MOX).
110641.6  34.305N  32.273E  33N         0.3  13 CYPRUS REGION. ML 4.0 (JER).
125320.8* 21.631S  68.303W 120D 4.6     1.2  23 CHILE-BOLIVIA BORDER
152809.6* 28.725N  51.792E  33N 3.9     0.7  14 SOUTHERN IRAN
161718.5  33.826N 116.992W  10G         0.5  23 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. ML 3.1
                                                (GS). Felt at Hemet.
180635.0& 59.850N 151.740W  54  3.1          27 KENAI PENINSULA, ALASKA. ML 4.0
                 Felt at Anchor Point, Clam Gulch, Homer, Ninilchik and Seldovia.
204238.9* 15.106S  75.775W  33N 4.4     0.8  13 NEAR COAST OF PERU
221052.4   2.307S  85.090E  10G 4.8     0.7  26 SOUTH INDIAN OCEAN
JAN 16
010720.2  21.869N 121.482E  33N 5.2 3.9 1.1  78 TAIWAN REGION. Felt on Lan Yu.
073656.4  37.401N 118.665W   5G         1.2  20 CALIFORNIA-NEVADA BORDER. ML 3.1
214108.5* 18.237N 102.563W  33N 5.4 4.8 1.1  71 MICHOACAN, MEXICO
JAN 17
055204.7  39.640N 120.027W   5G         0.6  18 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. ML 3.0
112022.1   8.853S 123.698E 111D 6.1     0.8  31 FLORES REGION, INDONESIA MW 6.2
153707.1  28.730N 130.095E  33N 5.3     1.0  31 RYUKYU ISLANDS
155313.9  28.947N 129.990E  33N 6.1 5.7 0.8  81 RYUKYU ISLANDS. Mw 6.3 (HRV).
211041.0*  1.024N  27.645W  10G 4.9     1.0  20 CENTRAL MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
211416.1*  0.932N  27.704W  10G 4.8     0.9  14 CENTRAL MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
223211.9* 24.325S  67.081W 170* 4.5     0.5   8 CHILE-ARGENTINA BORDER
232408.9* 47.284S  13.399W  10G 5.2 5.7 1.0  14 SOUTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE. 
JAN 18
001130.4  34.143N 116.363W   5G         1.2  19 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. ML 3.1 Felt
004407.5  34.338N 118.725W  10G         0.9  33 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. ML 3.0
040632.4*  6.370N 126.368E  33N 4.7     1.3  10 MINDANAO, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
041112.1  34.333N  32.410E  33N 4.1     1.0  19 CYPRUS REGION. ML 4.3 (JER).
080409.8*  4.324N 126.672E  33N 4.8     1.4  14 TALAUD ISLANDS, INDONESIA
171349.4* 23.929N 122.762E  58* 4.6     1.0  10 TAIWAN REGION. Felt along the
                                                northeast coast of Taiwan.
220439.0& 39.100N 105.100W   5G               4 COLORADO. . ML 2.8 (GS).
                                                Felt in the Woodland Park area.
225437.0* 42.351N 142.192E 143* 3.9     1.1  10 HOKKAIDO, JAPAN  REGION
JAN 19
022712.8*  5.124S 108.401E 647  5.3     1.2  29 JAVA SEA
035656.3& 39.100N 105.100W   5G               4 COLORADO. . ML 2.6 (GS).
                                                Felt in the Woodland Park area.
043322.5  20.045N 121.432E  33N 5.7 5.3 0.9  88 PHILIPPINE ISLANDS REGION. 
043615.0& 39.100N 105.100W   5G               4 COLORADO. . ML 2.7 (GS).
                                                Felt in the Woodland Park area.
053212.2  51.453N 178.175W  33N 5.1 5.0 1.1  68 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS.
                                                ML 5.7 (GS). Felt on Adak.
194229.2* 39.206N  18.658E  10G 5.3     1.5  30 SOUTHERN ITALY
212946.9* 23.223S  66.357W 217* 4.3     0.7   8 JUJUY PROVINCE, ARGENTINA
JAN 20
083354.9* 10.010N 126.217E  33N 4.9     1.4  11 PHILIPPINE ISLANDS REGION
131635.5  56.386N 153.290W  33N 4.7     0.9  18 KODIAK ISLAND REGION
165832.9* 55.989N 152.740W  33N 4.5     1.3  16 SOUTH OF ALASKA. ML 3.9 (PMR).
170246.2* 56.286N 152.986W  33N 4.3     1.2  15 KODIAK ISLAND REGION. ML 4.7
JAN 21
014714.0? 39.42 N  77.29 E  33N 4.7     0.8  23 SOUTHERN XINJIANG, CHINA
014828.9* 39.312N  77.073E  33N 5.3 5.8 1.3  19 SOUTHERN XINJIANG, CHINA. Mw 5.9
        (HRV). At least 12 people killed, 38 injured, and extensive damage in
        Jiashi County, Xinjiang.
173111.5  39.472N 122.955W   5G         0.7  24 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. ML 3.1
204750.7  38.104N  28.793E  33N 5.2 4.3 0.9  57 TURKEY
211958.5* 16.341N  98.116W  33N 5.0 4.9 0.9  21 NEAR COAST OF GUERRERO, MEXICO.
        Felt in Oaxaca and Guerrero. Also felt at Mexico City.
JAN 22
175722  Q 36.2  N  35.9  E  33N 5.5     0.9  57 TURKEY
182453  Q 36.2  N  36.0  E  33N 5.4     0.9  27 TURKEY
182733  Q 36.3  N  35.9  E  33N 5.5     0.6  23 TURKEY
JAN 23
021522  Q 22.0  S  65.7  W 280  6.4     0.9  99 JUJUY PROVINCE, ARGENTINA
Note:  Computer users can get faster access to the Weekly Seismicity      
 Reports in any of three ways:
       1. World-Wide-Web (WWW) access:    http://quake.wr.usgs.gov
       2. Anonymous FTP access:           quake.wr.usgs.gov 
                                          (in pub/www/QUAKES/WEEKREPS)
       3. Email Access:    (send email to michael@andreas.wr.usgs.gov)
Notes for Table 1:
       Origin time in the list is in GMT, in the text and on maps
       it is in local time.
       N RD: is the number of readings used to locate the event.
       N S: is the number of S waves in N RD.
       RMS SEC: is the root mean squared residual misfit for the
                location is seconds, the lower the better, over 0.3
                to 0.5 seconds is getting bad, but this is machine,
                not hand timed, data.
       ERH: is the estimated horizontal error in kilometers.
       ERZ: is the estimated vertical error in kilometers.
       N FM: is the number of readings used to compute the magnitude.
       REMKS: obtuse region codes that denote the velocity model
              used to locate the event.
       DUR MAG: is the magnitude as determined from the duration of
                the seismograms, not the amplitude.  Sort of like
                going to echo canyon and measuring how loud your
                yell is by counting echos.
       FIG: denotes the figure/event number in the maps posted separately.

Hope they put in piles now with those megabucks, rather than stilts on
sand. (I can't imagine anybody dumb enough to insure this!)
*********
A Santa Monica couple living in a hotel since the Northridge earthquake
rocked their beach house in 1994 was awarded more than $5 million
Wednesday in a lawsuit filed against their insurance company.
It is one of the biggest earthquake awards in the state and one of the
first verdicts to come out of the hundreds of claims languishing in the
wake of the devastating tremor.
The Meyers sued Chubb after the company refused to pay the $2.5 million
the Meyers said was needed to repair or rebuild their 6,000-square-foot
home on the edge of the Pacific Ocean. The Meyers said the entire
foundation needed to be replaced, but their insurance company disagreed,
offering $880,000.
Shernoff said the method of repair Chubb proposed--injecting chemicals
underneath the property to stabilize the foundation--was unsafe and did
not meet building code requirements. In an interview last week, Spell
said Chubb stood by the proposed method as an effective and legal
repair.
-- 
Harold W. Asmis        harold.w.asmis@hydro.on.ca
tel 416.592.7379  fax 416.592.5322
Standard Disclaimers Apply

Richard Ottolini  wrote in article
<5c00ju$khs@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
> There is a long history of published studies on the subject.
> The last paper I saw last year found a faint positive correlation
between
> the two.  It also broke down quakes into typ of source fault,
> with one type correlating better.
>
Richard, can you recall the reference ? 
As a newcomer to this NG  I am a little confused about the subject of
this thread. I missed the beginning of it and I can't work out whether
it is about earth tides or ocean tides or both.
If it is proposed that earth tides are involved, wouldn't a correlation
with low tides be just as likely as high tides -same amount of strain
but opposite direction?
Or perhaps mid-tide, at time of peak strain *rate*?
If both types of tides are involved, could there be a differential
effect due to the lag between the two, which would be more pronounced
in some geographic locations?
And if that were so, how could the data be windowed in looking for a
statistical correlation?
Just a few idle speculations.....
Cheers
John.

Bob Shannon (rshannon@comtch.iea.com) wrote:
: What if....in say Chaos, Tims Dew Hypothesis works because nature is
: complex in its chaos. For instance...
: Water is a great conductor of electricity.
Do you make this up as you go along?
:   There is a fine line between science and madness.
Maybe so.
: Hubris can be blinding, 'specially
: when a prof who is tenured, still owes student loans:->
Or when a self-proclaimed cleric ....
: ... I applaud Dennis for being so tenacious in Tims defense.
Which he seems to be doing without any understanding of the physical
processes that Tim has included in his theory.  Neither of them
is any Wegener.
: After all, it is the radical idea that captures
: the imagination of the true educator!
I suppose you would have us discard all of conventional science
and go along with your belief that you can predict earthquakes 
and volcanic eruptions by when you get migranes.
: Rev. Robert Shannon Sr. Hon. DD Theology
Bob
No Phony Titles

A Geological Society of America Penrose Conference, "Faults and Subsurface
Fluid Flow: Fundamentals and Applications to Hydrogeology and Petroleum
Geology", will be held September 10-15, 1997 in Albuquerque and Taos, New
Mexico.  A complete hypertext version of the conference announcement,
including application instructions, is linked to the New Mexico Tech
Faults and Fluids Group home page
(http://www.nmt.edu/~haneberg/Fluids.html).
Application deadline is March 1, 1997.
-- 
William C. Haneberg, Ph.D., P.G.                 
http://nmt.edu/~haneberg/
New Mexico Tech / NM Bureau of Mines & Mineral Resources   

Dennis Gentry (gentryd@pipeline.com) wrote:
: In my opinion, I believe that what Tim experienced that started
: his research was due to an increased magnetic field being generated by
: a quake that's close to its breaking point.  As water is a diamagnetic
: substance which is repelled by a magnetic field, it follows that the
: areas with a high enough increased magnetic field would be dry.
You're kidding, right?  If not, please get help with this sort of thing.
: Sure the earths normal magnetic field is only about .00005 Tesla,
: but who knows how high it can get.  But then again, it isn't known
: if it preceeds all quakes or only a subset of quakes in certain
: areas.
You seem to have been making this sort of mistake ever since you
misquoted the field anomalies associated with Loma Prieta.  I'm willing
to bet that the ambient magnetic field averaged over a square kilometer
has never been observed to vary by more than 10%.  .000055 Tesla is
a long way from 5.0.  Do you have any references to more significant
changes?
Bob 

Tim Kelly (kellyt@PEAK.ORG) wrote:
: The materials are already in place to verify what I've been saying. Go to 
: a library that has the LA Times on microfiche. Find the yearbooks for the 
: microfiche. Look up earthquakes.
Why don't you just list the data that you claim support your theory?
Most people here are convinced you're just a crack pot and have no
interest in humoring you.  If you actually present them with a data set
that is both complete and accurate, you will be harder to ignore.
Bob

The tides at any given point are determined not just by the interaction
of lunar and solar "pull" with the earth's rotation but also by the
oscillatory properties of the basin containing the water that is being
affected (in places where tides are noticeable, their strength usually
changes cyclically because of some very long-term modes of oscillation).
There are nodes where there are essentially no tides and there are
places where one of the two "areas of high tide" is so much stronger
than the other one that the tide never does drop between them (slowing
down or speeding up instead) -- in essence resulting in just one high
tide each day.  Check tide charts from all over the world; you will find
some with only one tide per day.
	/Al Cooperband
On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, timberwoof wrote:
......
> There are no "coastal areas that have only one high tide each day"
> because there are two areas of high tide roaming around the earth,
> one facing the moon and the other on the other side. (At half moons
> the lobes flatten out an we get wimpy tides. [What's the nautical
> term?])
......

John Harper wrote:
> Harold Asmis   wrote:
> >You used to be able to say "Building earthquake-resistant structures
> >ain't rocket science."  Now it is!
> 
> Rockets are of course more likely to explode before doing anything
> useful than anything else that engineers design :-)
Yes, the concept of 'bleeding edge' bridges leaves me cold.  :)
Harold Asmis (at home)

In article ,
gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
> With each new hypothesis, some pieces of a hypothesis may not be
> possible based on currently known laws, etc.  Because of this, a large
> flurry of objections would be voiced.  Then, depending on the
> backbone of the originator and depending on how much time that person
> wanted to spend on seeing it thru, it may get dropped all together.
> And if that hypothesis was true, then we all lose out.
But if a hypothesis is true, then it would not have those kinds of holes
in it to begin with. And if the objections were answered in a 
convincing way, then the hypothesis would eventually be accepted. 
Can you name any hypothesis that went through the kind of 
process you described? 
> Another viewpoint would be that some pieces of a rejected hypothesis
> put together with other pieces of other hypothesis could be the key
> to new doors.  Hopefully, some people do keep some of the points of
> various rejected hypothesis for further research.
Systems of ideas tend to work together in nicely interlinked ways. 
I don't believe the idea that you can mix and match bits and pieces
of hypotheses to come up with meaningful new ideas. Can you name
any instances where this has occurred? (If there are any, I'd surely
like to know about them!)
-- 
timberwoof*@themall.net
(Take the * out to email me. It's for the benefit of spammers.)
1989 Honda CB400f CB-1; 1991 Honda Civic Si; Macintosh Centris 610

I just saw something on Beyond 2000 (TV -and I'm not a troll!) that said
that a french agency (NES?) was studying satelite images from ERS1 &
ERS2 and using interferograms - they could see earth movement and
predict earthquakes.  
Is there any advancement on this subject? Are they having any success?
Does anyone know anything about this?
Canie Brooks

In article , jewett@netcom.com (Bob Jewett) wrote:
>Tim Kelly (kellyt@PEAK.ORG) wrote:
>
>: The materials are already in place to verify what I've been saying. Go to 
>: a library that has the LA Times on microfiche. Find the yearbooks for the 
>: microfiche. Look up earthquakes.
>
>Why don't you just list the data that you claim support your theory?
>Most people here are convinced you're just a crack pot and have no
>interest in humoring you.  If you actually present them with a data set
>that is both complete and accurate, you will be harder to ignore.
And while you're at it, check the climate records for Dallas for a few
months of summer weather.  You should be able to find out what the dew
point is typically in Dallas.  You will find that Dallas often goes for
WEEKS without dew or rain during the summer.  You will also find that
Dallas does not experience noticeable earthquakes.  If you want a REAL
challenge, try the summer of 1980.  Dallas had a very long stretch of
hot weather, with almost no rain all that summer, but I guarantee you
there was plenty of humidity to meet your theoretical conditions.
You need to establish that there is a correlation between dew conditions
and earthquakes, not just in Los Angeles, but more broadly.  It won't
take you very long looking at the records for Dallas to discover that
there simply is no correlation at all.  Your hypothesis as it stands
(not as Dennis would conjecture that it might be modified) has been
thoroughly disproven.  You need to, at the least, modify your hypothesis
to account for the fact that it predicts enormous quakes that do not
happen.  That is how science works -- you check your predictions and
modify the hypothesis if the predictions don't work.  Your predictions
DON'T WORK, but you continue to maintain that your hypothesis is valid.
You suggest checking the weather for three days prior to each quake.
I suggest checking the weather to find all the periods when there were
three consecutive days without dewfall, and seeing how many of those
did NOT correlate to a felt earthquake.  You have to demonstrate not
merely that your dew conditions existed before quakes that happened,
but also that your method doesn't produce "false positives."
Now what was that you were saying about your method working anywhere
on earth?
-- 
** Any unsolicited commercial e-mail will be subject to a $1500 **
** processing charge.  Sending e-mail to this address, whether  **
** automatically or manually, signifies consent to these terms. **
Linc Madison  *  San Francisco, CA  * LincMad@Eureka.vip.best. com
>>  NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com".  <<

In article ,
gentryd@pipeline.com (Dennis Gentry) wrote:
>With each new hypothesis, some pieces of a hypothesis may not be
>possible based on currently known laws, etc.  Because of this, a large
>flurry of objections would be voiced.  Then, depending on the
>backbone of the originator and depending on how much time that person
>wanted to spend on seeing it thru, it may get dropped all together.
>And if that hypothesis was true, then we all lose out.
No, the key question is, does this new hypothesis reliably and accurately
predict observable phenomena?  If a new hypothesis contradicts current
theory, its proponent will need to demonstrate not only that it predicts
the observed phenomena, but also that it does so *better* than existing
theory.  However, the objections to the "heresy" will be silenced by the
simple act of presenting data which supports the hypothesis.
The point I have repeatedly made, and which both you and Tim have
consistently ignored, is that Tim's hypothesis, as it is currently
formulated -- not as you might speculate that he could conceivably
modify it -- fails miserably to predict observed phenomena.  If 3 days
without dew is sufficient to produce a 3.5 quake, what would you get
from 3 weeks without dew?  You should at least rattle a few windows,
but those quakes just don't happen in places where Tim predicts that
they should.
>Another viewpoint would be that some pieces of a rejected hypothesis
>put together with other pieces of other hypothesis could be the key
>to new doors.  Hopefully, some people do keep some of the points of
>various rejected hypothesis for further research.
Tim has not presented any evidence that any PART of his hypothesis has
any merit.  Dewless nights simply don't correlate with earthquakes, and
that is the core of his hypothesis.  If there were, as Tim claims (without
presenting the data to substantiate the claim), a correlation in the
Los Angeles area between dewless nights and earthquakes, then Tim's
hypothesis would be completely inadequate to explain it.
-- 
** Any unsolicited commercial e-mail will be subject to a $1500 **
** processing charge.  Sending e-mail to this address, whether  **
** automatically or manually, signifies consent to these terms. **
Linc Madison  *  San Francisco, CA  * LincMad@Eureka.vip.best. com
>>  NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com".  <<

Canie Brooks wrote:
> 
> I just saw something on Beyond 2000 (TV -and I'm not a troll!) that said
> that a french agency (NES?) was studying satelite images from ERS1 &
> ERS2 and using interferograms - they could see earth movement and
> predict earthquakes.
> 
> Is there any advancement on this subject? Are they having any success?
> Does anyone know anything about this?
> 
> Canie Brooks
Check this months(Feb 1997) Scientific American for a full article on
this research.
Paul Oberlander
-- 
"There are only two races on earth: the decent and the indecent"  Viktor
Frankl