On Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 5:57:50 PM UTC, Petra wrote:

Bob Officer wrote:

On 23 Jan 2006 13:45:24 -0800, in sci.geo.earthquakes, "Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:

John,

Thanks to your post I remembered something I wanted to ask Silver a
long time ago and I totally forgot. But I did send him an e-mail to
ask. I remembered that if one were to use the geyser as a predictive >tool then it has to perform in a certain way for it to be useful. Olga >Kolbek who owns it said that it changed its eruptive schedule prior to >these quakes 5.9 Oroville, 5.4 near Gilroy and 6.9 Loma Prieta. For
Loma Prieta the time interval changes for the eruptions changed from
10 minutes to 2.5 hours. But I don't know what the changes were prior
to the other earthquakes. If it were to be used as a predictive tool, >one would have to know that the geyser has a certain fluctuation change >prior to certain magnitude earthquakes and at a given distance. IE: a >20 minutes interval change would equal X magnitude earthquake at X
number of miles away in a more perfect world. I don't know if
anything happened before the 2002 Napa 5.2 quake, but there should have >been a change. If there was I am most curious to know what it might
have been and how many hours or days before it happened. If it did
not, then one has to think on that.

Then the question needs to be asked, were there or have there been any variations in timing of the geyser sequnces/schedual that didn't result in a quake?

Bob,

I agree. Olga Kolbek who owns the Calistoga Geyser kept daily logs for
25 years and then handed them over to Paul Silver in the 1990's, after
Loma Prieta. I don't know specifically if he computerized her reports
to gleam data from those years. And since this has been outside of the public eye and Olga is now to old to attend to guests visiting her
backyard buddy, I have been mostly in the dark about what has
happened. I like to see details, lots of them and papers don't always
afford those details. It just appears as though it doesn't look all
that promising. But if you don't have many earthquakes then the
experience is very limited and that's what we have had, a period of
quiet. Too much quiet. Though there have been I believe possibly 3 qualifing events from which to draw as to whether or not there was any fluctuation change. So better three, than none I suppose.

The greatest problem though is that the geyser is running out of water
for steam. Thirty or so years ago it was huge. You had to stand back
or you would be soaking wet, but today it is but something slightly
larger than a spray. Only if the wind is blowing would you chance
becoming sprayed by it. So, maybe in two years it will be gone. Or if
there is a local shift perhaps it could come back and be as vigorous as
it once was.

Only the forces of nature will determine its life or death.

Petra

I have not followed the thread. I came here looking for any infromation about JOB that I ccan use in my work.
The person you replied to seems to have (had?) no idea about tides on the Pacific coast. I only have a small amount of such knowledge myself but:

Jim Berkland From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James O. Berkland (July 31, 1930 – July 22, 2016) claimed to predict earthquakes, including the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and 1994 Northridge Earthquake[2] popularized people are earthquake sensitive. The Man Who Predicts Earthquakes includes a
chapter that notes "Many of Berkland's theories--based on tides, moons, disoriented pets, lost cats and dogs, and magnetic field changes--were factors in the great Indian Ocean quake-tsunami disaster on December 26, 2004."[3]

His methods and predictions have not been published in any scientific journals for peer review. His results have been disputed by peers, with other scientists going so far as calling him a crank[4] and a clown.[5]

The problem he faced was reflection engineered by the deep state, the people who run the dark satanic mills that are our colleges.

Jim studied geology at the University of California, Berkeley a veritable den of iniquity. But how would a simple man realise what Califonrnia was shortly to become? He worked for the United States Geological Survey while pursuing graduate study. In 1964,
he took a position at the United States Bureau of Reclamation.[6] After further graduate study, he taught for a year at Appalachian State University, 1972–1973, then returned to California to work as County Geologist for Santa Clara County from 1973
until he retired in 1994.[7]
Predictions

Berkland's predictions have been either self-published in his newsletter or website, or announced in various interviews or speaking engagements.[8] His notoriety arose from an interview published in the Gilroy Dispatch on October 13, 1989, where he
predicted that an earthquake with a magnitude between 3.5 and 6.0 would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between October 14 and October 21.[9] The 6.9-magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake occurred on October 17, just four days later.

Berkland claims that government officials told him not to make any more predictions, fearing mass panic, and he was suspended for two months from his Santa Clara County geology position in late October, 1989.[citation needed]

Interviewed on Fox News in March 2011, Berkland predicted a massive earthquake in California for sometime between March 19 and March 26, 2011. He cited as factors the highest tides in 18 years and the proximity of the Moon, suggesting that the quake will
most likely strike on Saturday, March 19, 2011.[10] No such quake occurred.[11]

An aerial view of tsunami damage in Tōhoku. Areas affected: Japan (shaking, tsunami) Pacific Rim (tsunami)
Total damage $360 billion USD
Max. intensity IX (Violent)
Shindo 7
Peak acceleration 2.99 g
Peak velocity 117.41 cm/s
Tsunami Up to 40.5 m (133 ft)
in Miyako, Iwate, Tōhoku
Landslides Yes
Foreshocks
Smoke from the Sendai Nippon Oil refinery
2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami is located in Japan Sendai
UTC time 2011-03-11 05:46:24
Duration 6 minutes
Magnitude 9.0–9.1 (Mw)
Depth 29 km (18 mi)
Epicenter 38.322°N 142.369°ECoordinates: 38.322°N 142.369°E
Type Megathrust
List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake
Aftershocks 13,386 (as of 6 March 2018)[1]
Casualties 15,899 deaths,[2] +2 (Overseas),
6,157 injured,[3]
2,529 people missing[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

The 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tōhoku (東北地方太平洋沖地震, Tōhoku-chihō Taiheiyō Oki Jishin) was a magnitude 9.0–9.1 (Mw) undersea megathrust earthquake off the coast of Japan that occurred at 14:46 JST (05:46 UTC) on
Friday 11 March 2011,[5][11][12] with the epicenter approximately 70 kilometers (43 mi) east of the Oshika Peninsula of Tōhoku and the hypocenter at an underwater depth of approximately 29 km (18 mi).[5][13]

I would have expected a time frame for the Fox News article but this was in the days of Bill Oreally? and Roger Isles so not enough clit available for indepth coverage.

He has also claimed to have predicted the 1980 M 7.2 Eureka earthquake just fourteen hours before it hit, but the tape-recording documenting this "had somehow been lost in the mail".[12]
These people were running Earthquakes Central using the Directed Energy Weapons that were used on 9/11.
I doubt those in control over Phi Beta Kappa and Kappa Beta Phi would have had any problem with intercepting the US Mail or, for that matter, the GPO.

Up to June 2010 Berkland made many predictions in his newsletter and on his website, for which he has claimed a "75 percent accuracy rate".[13]

This average is considered good enough to predict the British Monsoon season (uk.sci.weather) http://weather.org.uk/resource/ukswxfaq.htm
http://weather.org.uk/resource/ukswxfaq.htm#2B.7

I apologise that I can't find the stuff I was after but it is already really late here.

Here is the stuff I got about the recent tornadoes sweeping the board: https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200318_rpts.html https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200319_rpts.html https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200320_rpts.html

I have the feeling that they are coming back again: https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200322 to 23?_rpts.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 4:24:47 AM UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 5:57:50 PM UTC, Petra wrote:

Bob Officer wrote:

On 23 Jan 2006 13:45:24 -0800, in sci.geo.earthquakes, "Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:

John,

Thanks to your post I remembered something I wanted to ask Silver a >long time ago and I totally forgot. But I did send him an e-mail to >ask. I remembered that if one were to use the geyser as a predictive >tool then it has to perform in a certain way for it to be useful. Olga >Kolbek who owns it said that it changed its eruptive schedule prior to >these quakes 5.9 Oroville, 5.4 near Gilroy and 6.9 Loma Prieta. For >Loma Prieta the time interval changes for the eruptions changed from >10 minutes to 2.5 hours. But I don't know what the changes were prior >to the other earthquakes. If it were to be used as a predictive tool, >one would have to know that the geyser has a certain fluctuation change >prior to certain magnitude earthquakes and at a given distance. IE: a >20 minutes interval change would equal X magnitude earthquake at X >number of miles away in a more perfect world. I don't know if >anything happened before the 2002 Napa 5.2 quake, but there should have >been a change. If there was I am most curious to know what it might >have been and how many hours or days before it happened. If it did >not, then one has to think on that.

Then the question needs to be asked, were there or have there been any variations in timing of the geyser sequnces/schedual that didn't result in
a quake?

Bob,

I agree. Olga Kolbek who owns the Calistoga Geyser kept daily logs for
25 years and then handed them over to Paul Silver in the 1990's, after
Loma Prieta. I don't know specifically if he computerized her reports
to gleam data from those years. And since this has been outside of the public eye and Olga is now to old to attend to guests visiting her
backyard buddy, I have been mostly in the dark about what has
happened. I like to see details, lots of them and papers don't always afford those details. It just appears as though it doesn't look all
that promising. But if you don't have many earthquakes then the
experience is very limited and that's what we have had, a period of
quiet. Too much quiet. Though there have been I believe possibly 3 qualifing events from which to draw as to whether or not there was any fluctuation change. So better three, than none I suppose.

The greatest problem though is that the geyser is running out of water
for steam. Thirty or so years ago it was huge. You had to stand back
or you would be soaking wet, but today it is but something slightly
larger than a spray. Only if the wind is blowing would you chance
becoming sprayed by it. So, maybe in two years it will be gone. Or if there is a local shift perhaps it could come back and be as vigorous as
it once was.

Only the forces of nature will determine its life or death.

Petra

I have not followed the thread. I came here looking for any infromation about JOB that I ccan use in my work.
The person you replied to seems to have (had?) no idea about tides on the Pacific coast. I only have a small amount of such knowledge myself but:

Jim Berkland From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James O. Berkland (July 31, 1930 – July 22, 2016) claimed to predict earthquakes, including the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and 1994 Northridge Earthquake[2] popularized people are earthquake sensitive. The Man Who Predicts Earthquakes includes a

chapter that notes "Many of Berkland's theories--based on tides, moons, disoriented pets, lost cats and dogs, and magnetic field changes--were factors in the great Indian Ocean quake-tsunami disaster on December 26, 2004."[3]

His methods and predictions have not been published in any scientific journals for peer review. His results have been disputed by peers, with other scientists going so far as calling him a crank[4] and a clown.[5]

The problem he faced was reflection engineered by the deep state, the people who run the dark satanic mills that are our colleges.

Jim studied geology at the University of California, Berkeley a veritable den of iniquity. But how would a simple man realise what Califonrnia was shortly to become? He worked for the United States Geological Survey while pursuing graduate study. In

1964, he took a position at the United States Bureau of Reclamation.[6] After further graduate study, he taught for a year at Appalachian State University, 1972–1973, then returned to California to work as County Geologist for Santa Clara County from
1973 until he retired in 1994.[7]

Predictions

Berkland's predictions have been either self-published in his newsletter or website, or announced in various interviews or speaking engagements.[8] His notoriety arose from an interview published in the Gilroy Dispatch on October 13, 1989, where he

predicted that an earthquake with a magnitude between 3.5 and 6.0 would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between October 14 and October 21.[9] The 6.9-magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake occurred on October 17, just four days later.

Berkland claims that government officials told him not to make any more predictions, fearing mass panic, and he was suspended for two months from his Santa Clara County geology position in late October, 1989.[citation needed]

Interviewed on Fox News in March 2011, Berkland predicted a massive earthquake in California for sometime between March 19 and March 26, 2011. He cited as factors the highest tides in 18 years and the proximity of the Moon, suggesting that the quake

will most likely strike on Saturday, March 19, 2011.[10] No such quake occurred.[11]

An aerial view of tsunami damage in Tōhoku. Areas affected: Japan (shaking, tsunami) Pacific Rim (tsunami)
Total damage $360 billion USD
Max. intensity IX (Violent)
Shindo 7
Peak acceleration 2.99 g
Peak velocity 117.41 cm/s
Tsunami Up to 40.5 m (133 ft)
in Miyako, Iwate, Tōhoku
Landslides Yes
Foreshocks
Smoke from the Sendai Nippon Oil refinery
2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami is located in Japan Sendai
UTC time 2011-03-11 05:46:24
Duration 6 minutes
Magnitude 9.0–9.1 (Mw)
Depth 29 km (18 mi)
Epicenter 38.322°N 142.369°ECoordinates: 38.322°N 142.369°E
Type Megathrust
List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake
Aftershocks 13,386 (as of 6 March 2018)[1]
Casualties 15,899 deaths,[2] +2 (Overseas),
6,157 injured,[3]
2,529 people missing[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

The 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tōhoku (東北地方太平洋沖地震, Tōhoku-chihō Taiheiyō Oki Jishin) was a magnitude 9.0–9.1 (Mw) undersea megathrust earthquake off the coast of Japan that occurred at 14:46 JST (05:46 UTC) on

Friday 11 March 2011,[5][11][12] with the epicenter approximately 70 kilometers (43 mi) east of the Oshika Peninsula of Tōhoku and the hypocenter at an underwater depth of approximately 29 km (18 mi).[5][13]

I would have expected a time frame for the Fox News article but this was in the days of Bill Oreally? and Roger Isles so not enough clit available for indepth coverage.

He has also claimed to have predicted the 1980 M 7.2 Eureka earthquake just fourteen hours before it hit, but the tape-recording documenting this "had somehow been lost in the mail".[12]
These people were running Earthquakes Central using the Directed Energy Weapons that were used on 9/11.
I doubt those in control over Phi Beta Kappa and Kappa Beta Phi would have had any problem with intercepting the US Mail or, for that matter, the GPO.

Up to June 2010 Berkland made many predictions in his newsletter and on his website, for which he has claimed a "75 percent accuracy rate".[13]

This average is considered good enough to predict the British Monsoon season (uk.sci.weather) http://weather.org.uk/resource/ukswxfaq.htm
http://weather.org.uk/resource/ukswxfaq.htm#2B.7

I apologise that I can't find the stuff I was after but it is already really late here.

Here is the stuff I got about the recent tornadoes sweeping the board: https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200318_rpts.html https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200319_rpts.html https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200320_rpts.html

I have the feeling that they are coming back again: https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200322 to 23?_rpts.html

Here is the stuff I was going to write about:
English: Figure 1 from McNutt and Heaton, 1981, p. 12: Amplitude of the ocean tide at Golden Gate Bridge for five weeks in 1970. Brackets indicate seismic window periods.
Date 1 January 1981
Source ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/cg/1981/34_01.pdf
Author Marcia McNutt & Thomas H. Heaton (USGS)

The California tides are different to the ones we have in the UK. I already knew they were intermediate diurnal around Washington and the seattle area I had no idea the pacific tides were all the same type. (I thought it was due to a channel effect
lacking containment.)

Compare the UK tides for Southapton and the Isle of Wight

JOB seemed to have ignored the behaviour of pets inland. They are very much aggravated by tornadic weather as well as volcanic stuff and JOB did not seem to tally his stuff with either phenomena. Too late to ask him now I presume. Unless his papers
explained more.

Ah well, it's early, it's so late.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 4:37:51 AM UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 4:24:47 AM UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 5:57:50 PM UTC, Petra wrote:

Bob Officer wrote:

On 23 Jan 2006 13:45:24 -0800, in sci.geo.earthquakes, "Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:

John,

Thanks to your post I remembered something I wanted to ask Silver a >long time ago and I totally forgot. But I did send him an e-mail to >ask. I remembered that if one were to use the geyser as a predictive >tool then it has to perform in a certain way for it to be useful. Olga
Kolbek who owns it said that it changed its eruptive schedule prior to >these quakes 5.9 Oroville, 5.4 near Gilroy and 6.9 Loma Prieta. For >Loma Prieta the time interval changes for the eruptions changed from >10 minutes to 2.5 hours. But I don't know what the changes were prior >to the other earthquakes. If it were to be used as a predictive tool, >one would have to know that the geyser has a certain fluctuation change
prior to certain magnitude earthquakes and at a given distance. IE: a
20 minutes interval change would equal X magnitude earthquake at X >number of miles away in a more perfect world. I don't know if >anything happened before the 2002 Napa 5.2 quake, but there should have
been a change. If there was I am most curious to know what it might >have been and how many hours or days before it happened. If it did >not, then one has to think on that.

Then the question needs to be asked, were there or have there been any variations in timing of the geyser sequnces/schedual that didn't result in
a quake?

Bob,

I agree. Olga Kolbek who owns the Calistoga Geyser kept daily logs for 25 years and then handed them over to Paul Silver in the 1990's, after Loma Prieta. I don't know specifically if he computerized her reports
to gleam data from those years. And since this has been outside of the public eye and Olga is now to old to attend to guests visiting her backyard buddy, I have been mostly in the dark about what has
happened. I like to see details, lots of them and papers don't always afford those details. It just appears as though it doesn't look all
that promising. But if you don't have many earthquakes then the experience is very limited and that's what we have had, a period of quiet. Too much quiet. Though there have been I believe possibly 3 qualifing events from which to draw as to whether or not there was any fluctuation change. So better three, than none I suppose.

The greatest problem though is that the geyser is running out of water for steam. Thirty or so years ago it was huge. You had to stand back
or you would be soaking wet, but today it is but something slightly larger than a spray. Only if the wind is blowing would you chance becoming sprayed by it. So, maybe in two years it will be gone. Or if there is a local shift perhaps it could come back and be as vigorous as it once was.

Only the forces of nature will determine its life or death.

Petra

I have not followed the thread. I came here looking for any infromation about JOB that I ccan use in my work.
The person you replied to seems to have (had?) no idea about tides on the Pacific coast. I only have a small amount of such knowledge myself but:

Jim Berkland From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James O. Berkland (July 31, 1930 – July 22, 2016) claimed to predict earthquakes, including the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and 1994 Northridge Earthquake[2] popularized people are earthquake sensitive. The Man Who Predicts Earthquakes includes a

chapter that notes "Many of Berkland's theories--based on tides, moons, disoriented pets, lost cats and dogs, and magnetic field changes--were factors in the great Indian Ocean quake-tsunami disaster on December 26, 2004."[3]

His methods and predictions have not been published in any scientific journals for peer review. His results have been disputed by peers, with other scientists going so far as calling him a crank[4] and a clown.[5]

The problem he faced was reflection engineered by the deep state, the people who run the dark satanic mills that are our colleges.

Jim studied geology at the University of California, Berkeley a veritable den of iniquity. But how would a simple man realise what Califonrnia was shortly to become? He worked for the United States Geological Survey while pursuing graduate study. In

1964, he took a position at the United States Bureau of Reclamation.[6] After further graduate study, he taught for a year at Appalachian State University, 1972–1973, then returned to California to work as County Geologist for Santa Clara County from
1973 until he retired in 1994.[7]

Predictions

Berkland's predictions have been either self-published in his newsletter or website, or announced in various interviews or speaking engagements.[8] His notoriety arose from an interview published in the Gilroy Dispatch on October 13, 1989, where he

predicted that an earthquake with a magnitude between 3.5 and 6.0 would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between October 14 and October 21.[9] The 6.9-magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake occurred on October 17, just four days later.

Berkland claims that government officials told him not to make any more predictions, fearing mass panic, and he was suspended for two months from his Santa Clara County geology position in late October, 1989.[citation needed]

Interviewed on Fox News in March 2011, Berkland predicted a massive earthquake in California for sometime between March 19 and March 26, 2011. He cited as factors the highest tides in 18 years and the proximity of the Moon, suggesting that the quake

will most likely strike on Saturday, March 19, 2011.[10] No such quake occurred.[11]

An aerial view of tsunami damage in Tōhoku. Areas affected: Japan (shaking, tsunami) Pacific Rim (tsunami)
Total damage $360 billion USD
Max. intensity IX (Violent)
Shindo 7
Peak acceleration 2.99 g
Peak velocity 117.41 cm/s
Tsunami Up to 40.5 m (133 ft)
in Miyako, Iwate, Tōhoku
Landslides Yes
Foreshocks
Smoke from the Sendai Nippon Oil refinery
2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami is located in Japan Sendai
UTC time 2011-03-11 05:46:24
Duration 6 minutes
Magnitude 9.0–9.1 (Mw)
Depth 29 km (18 mi)
Epicenter 38.322°N 142.369°ECoordinates: 38.322°N 142.369°E
Type Megathrust
List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake Aftershocks 13,386 (as of 6 March 2018)[1]
Casualties 15,899 deaths,[2] +2 (Overseas),
6,157 injured,[3]
2,529 people missing[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

The 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tōhoku (東北地方太平洋沖地震, Tōhoku-chihō Taiheiyō Oki Jishin) was a magnitude 9.0–9.1 (Mw) undersea megathrust earthquake off the coast of Japan that occurred at 14:46 JST (05:46 UTC) on

Friday 11 March 2011,[5][11][12] with the epicenter approximately 70 kilometers (43 mi) east of the Oshika Peninsula of Tōhoku and the hypocenter at an underwater depth of approximately 29 km (18 mi).[5][13]

I would have expected a time frame for the Fox News article but this was in the days of Bill Oreally? and Roger Isles so not enough clit available for indepth coverage.

He has also claimed to have predicted the 1980 M 7.2 Eureka earthquake just fourteen hours before it hit, but the tape-recording documenting this "had somehow been lost in the mail".[12]
These people were running Earthquakes Central using the Directed Energy Weapons that were used on 9/11.
I doubt those in control over Phi Beta Kappa and Kappa Beta Phi would have had any problem with intercepting the US Mail or, for that matter, the GPO.

Up to June 2010 Berkland made many predictions in his newsletter and on his website, for which he has claimed a "75 percent accuracy rate".[13]

This average is considered good enough to predict the British Monsoon season (uk.sci.weather) http://weather.org.uk/resource/ukswxfaq.htm
http://weather.org.uk/resource/ukswxfaq.htm#2B.7

I apologise that I can't find the stuff I was after but it is already really late here.

Here is the stuff I got about the recent tornadoes sweeping the board: https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200318_rpts.html https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200319_rpts.html https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200320_rpts.html

I have the feeling that they are coming back again: https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200322 to 23?_rpts.html

Here is the stuff I was going to write about:
English: Figure 1 from McNutt and Heaton, 1981, p. 12: Amplitude of the ocean tide at Golden Gate Bridge for five weeks in 1970. Brackets indicate seismic window periods.
Date 1 January 1981
Source ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/cg/1981/34_01.pdf
Author Marcia McNutt & Thomas H. Heaton (USGS)

The California tides are different to the ones we have in the UK. I already knew they were intermediate diurnal around Washington and the seattle area I had no idea the pacific tides were all the same type. (I thought it was due to a channel effect

lacking containment.)

Compare the UK tides for Southapton and the Isle of Wight

JOB seemed to have ignored the behaviour of pets inland. They are very much aggravated by tornadic weather as well as volcanic stuff and JOB did not seem to tally his stuff with either phenomena.

Berkland starts with two lunar syzygies each month where the Sun, Moon, and Earth are aligned (corresponding to the new Moon and full Moon). He then sets a "seismic window" eight days long, beginning from one to three days before each syzygy. The one
nearest perigee, that raises the highest tides, he terms primary, the other secondary. The greatest tides happen when syzygy and perigee are less than 25 hours apart (from two to five times a year). On that basis he then predicts one or more earthquakes
of a specified magnitude within each of three regions on the U.S. West Coast, and one or more earthquakes globally.

This stuff sound exactly what Ken Ring states in his stuff. I consider something like this does happen and it does appear on the North Atlantic weather charts. When the cyclones reach the end point of the track across the North Atlantic, they tend to
reach the coast of Europe at the same time that the lunar phase changes.

There is no known reason why that occurs, the amount of light the moon reflect to the earth controls the descriptions of the phase. The amount of matter moving around the world doesn't change nor does the power ratio.

As for the apsides, perigee and apogee seems to apply to volcanic eruptions. This unlike the phases also occurs with a rate of change in the angle of incidence with the Lagrangian Points involved. The times of dwell. More so when there is a large time
lapse between the apse and the phase.

Magnetic fluctuations, these are perfectly coincident to volcanic eruptions.

Seismic quiet periods, these are related to volcanic eruptions in the Beaufort Scale. You draw the time-scale out to several days between quakes as large as 5.5 Magnitude or larger... This will give you some idea of the likely scale of volcanic events.

I am a seismic sensitive. I am also sensitive to tornadoes as well as volcanic eruptions. "How Berkland evaluated his success rate prior to 1999 is unknown."

"Berkland's method of predicting earthquakes is based primarily on the idea that where tectonic forces have brought rock to the brink of failure earthquakes can be triggered by the tidal forces induced by the Sun and Moon."

This is nonsense but the imaginary science that discredits it is worse. They are guilty of denying a suspicion. If it were more than a suspicion Mr Berkland would have published the relevant papers he is condemned for not writing.

"While this seems plausible, attempts to identify any such effect generally have been equivocal, possibly because various factors might not have been properly accounted for."

Who wrote this?
A troll?[

"An evaluation specifically of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay area (done by the USGS in 1980 at Berkland's request) showed a slight deficiency of earthquakes during Berkland's "seismic windows". Although that deficiency was considered statistically
insignificant, the overall conclusion was that "the seismic window theory fails as a reliable method of earthquake prediction."

Some cyclones are larger than many continets. Is it even probable that an epicente might one day be pinpointed with the foregoing accuracy?
Speaking of cyclones, they are capable of being heard hundreds of miles away. Has anyone considered that the noise they make might contribute to earthquakes?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 11:55:22 PM UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 7:04:02 AM UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 4:37:51 AM UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 4:24:47 AM UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 5:57:50 PM UTC, Petra wrote:

Bob Officer wrote:

On 23 Jan 2006 13:45:24 -0800, in sci.geo.earthquakes, "Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:

John,

Thanks to your post I remembered something I wanted to ask Silver a
long time ago and I totally forgot. But I did send him an e-mail to
ask. I remembered that if one were to use the geyser as a predictive
tool then it has to perform in a certain way for it to be useful. Olga
Kolbek who owns it said that it changed its eruptive schedule prior to
these quakes 5.9 Oroville, 5.4 near Gilroy and 6.9 Loma Prieta. For
Loma Prieta the time interval changes for the eruptions changed from
10 minutes to 2.5 hours. But I don't know what the changes were prior
to the other earthquakes. If it were to be used as a predictive tool,
one would have to know that the geyser has a certain fluctuation change
prior to certain magnitude earthquakes and at a given distance. IE: a
20 minutes interval change would equal X magnitude earthquake at X >number of miles away in a more perfect world. I don't know if >anything happened before the 2002 Napa 5.2 quake, but there should have
been a change. If there was I am most curious to know what it might
have been and how many hours or days before it happened. If it did
not, then one has to think on that.

Then the question needs to be asked, were there or have there been any
variations in timing of the geyser sequnces/schedual that didn't result in
a quake?

Bob,

I agree. Olga Kolbek who owns the Calistoga Geyser kept daily logs for
25 years and then handed them over to Paul Silver in the 1990's, after
Loma Prieta. I don't know specifically if he computerized her reports
to gleam data from those years. And since this has been outside of the
public eye and Olga is now to old to attend to guests visiting her backyard buddy, I have been mostly in the dark about what has happened. I like to see details, lots of them and papers don't always
afford those details. It just appears as though it doesn't look all that promising. But if you don't have many earthquakes then the experience is very limited and that's what we have had, a period of quiet. Too much quiet. Though there have been I believe possibly 3 qualifing events from which to draw as to whether or not there was any
fluctuation change. So better three, than none I suppose.

The greatest problem though is that the geyser is running out of water
for steam. Thirty or so years ago it was huge. You had to stand back
or you would be soaking wet, but today it is but something slightly larger than a spray. Only if the wind is blowing would you chance becoming sprayed by it. So, maybe in two years it will be gone. Or if
there is a local shift perhaps it could come back and be as vigorous as
it once was.

Only the forces of nature will determine its life or death.

Petra

I have not followed the thread. I came here looking for any infromation about JOB that I ccan use in my work.
The person you replied to seems to have (had?) no idea about tides on the Pacific coast. I only have a small amount of such knowledge myself but:

Jim Berkland From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James O. Berkland (July 31, 1930 – July 22, 2016) claimed to predict earthquakes, including the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and 1994 Northridge Earthquake[2] popularized people are earthquake sensitive. The Man Who Predicts Earthquakes includes

a chapter that notes "Many of Berkland's theories--based on tides, moons, disoriented pets, lost cats and dogs, and magnetic field changes--were factors in the great Indian Ocean quake-tsunami disaster on December 26, 2004."[3]

His methods and predictions have not been published in any scientific journals for peer review. His results have been disputed by peers, with other scientists going so far as calling him a crank[4] and a clown.[5]

The problem he faced was reflection engineered by the deep state, the people who run the dark satanic mills that are our colleges.

Jim studied geology at the University of California, Berkeley a veritable den of iniquity. But how would a simple man realise what Califonrnia was shortly to become? He worked for the United States Geological Survey while pursuing graduate study.

In 1964, he took a position at the United States Bureau of Reclamation.[6] After further graduate study, he taught for a year at Appalachian State University, 1972–1973, then returned to California to work as County Geologist for Santa Clara County
from 1973 until he retired in 1994.[7]

Predictions

Berkland's predictions have been either self-published in his newsletter or website, or announced in various interviews or speaking engagements.[8] His notoriety arose from an interview published in the Gilroy Dispatch on October 13, 1989, where

he predicted that an earthquake with a magnitude between 3.5 and 6.0 would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between October 14 and October 21.[9] The 6.9-magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake occurred on October 17, just four days later.

Berkland claims that government officials told him not to make any more predictions, fearing mass panic, and he was suspended for two months from his Santa Clara County geology position in late October, 1989.[citation needed]

Interviewed on Fox News in March 2011, Berkland predicted a massive earthquake in California for sometime between March 19 and March 26, 2011. He cited as factors the highest tides in 18 years and the proximity of the Moon, suggesting that the

quake will most likely strike on Saturday, March 19, 2011.[10] No such quake occurred.[11]

An aerial view of tsunami damage in Tōhoku. Areas affected: Japan (shaking, tsunami) Pacific Rim (tsunami)
Total damage $360 billion USD
Max. intensity IX (Violent)
Shindo 7
Peak acceleration 2.99 g
Peak velocity 117.41 cm/s
Tsunami Up to 40.5 m (133 ft)
in Miyako, Iwate, Tōhoku
Landslides Yes
Foreshocks
Smoke from the Sendai Nippon Oil refinery
2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami is located in Japan Sendai
UTC time 2011-03-11 05:46:24
Duration 6 minutes
Magnitude 9.0–9.1 (Mw)
Depth 29 km (18 mi)
Epicenter 38.322°N 142.369°ECoordinates: 38.322°N 142.369°E Type Megathrust
List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake Aftershocks 13,386 (as of 6 March 2018)[1]
Casualties 15,899 deaths,[2] +2 (Overseas),
6,157 injured,[3]
2,529 people missing[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

The 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tōhoku (東北地方太平洋沖地震, Tōhoku-chihō Taiheiyō Oki Jishin) was a magnitude 9.0–9.1 (Mw) undersea megathrust earthquake off the coast of Japan that occurred at 14:46 JST (05:46 UTC)

on Friday 11 March 2011,[5][11][12] with the epicenter approximately 70 kilometers (43 mi) east of the Oshika Peninsula of Tōhoku and the hypocenter at an underwater depth of approximately 29 km (18 mi).[5][13]

I would have expected a time frame for the Fox News article but this was in the days of Bill Oreally? and Roger Isles so not enough clit available for indepth coverage.

He has also claimed to have predicted the 1980 M 7.2 Eureka earthquake just fourteen hours before it hit, but the tape-recording documenting this "had somehow been lost in the mail".[12]
These people were running Earthquakes Central using the Directed Energy Weapons that were used on 9/11.
I doubt those in control over Phi Beta Kappa and Kappa Beta Phi would have had any problem with intercepting the US Mail or, for that matter, the GPO.

Up to June 2010 Berkland made many predictions in his newsletter and on his website, for which he has claimed a "75 percent accuracy rate".[13]

This average is considered good enough to predict the British Monsoon season (uk.sci.weather) http://weather.org.uk/resource/ukswxfaq.htm
http://weather.org.uk/resource/ukswxfaq.htm#2B.7

I apologise that I can't find the stuff I was after but it is already really late here.

Here is the stuff I got about the recent tornadoes sweeping the board: https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200318_rpts.html https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200319_rpts.html https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200320_rpts.html

I have the feeling that they are coming back again: https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200322 to 23?_rpts.html

Here is the stuff I was going to write about:
English: Figure 1 from McNutt and Heaton, 1981, p. 12: Amplitude of the ocean tide at Golden Gate Bridge for five weeks in 1970. Brackets indicate seismic window periods.
Date 1 January 1981
Source ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/cg/1981/34_01.pdf
Author Marcia McNutt & Thomas H. Heaton (USGS)

The California tides are different to the ones we have in the UK. I already knew they were intermediate diurnal around Washington and the seattle area I had no idea the pacific tides were all the same type. (I thought it was due to a channel effect

lacking containment.)

Compare the UK tides for Southapton and the Isle of Wight

JOB seemed to have ignored the behaviour of pets inland. They are very much aggravated by tornadic weather as well as volcanic stuff and JOB did not seem to tally his stuff with either phenomena.

Berkland starts with two lunar syzygies each month where the Sun, Moon, and Earth are aligned (corresponding to the new Moon and full Moon). He then sets a "seismic window" eight days long, beginning from one to three days before each syzygy. The one

nearest perigee, that raises the highest tides, he terms primary, the other secondary. The greatest tides happen when syzygy and perigee are less than 25 hours apart (from two to five times a year). On that basis he then predicts one or more earthquakes
of a specified magnitude within each of three regions on the U.S. West Coast, and one or more earthquakes globally.

This stuff sound exactly what Ken Ring states in his stuff. I consider something like this does happen and it does appear on the North Atlantic weather charts. When the cyclones reach the end point of the track across the North Atlantic, they tend to

reach the coast of Europe at the same time that the lunar phase changes.

There is no known reason why that occurs, the amount of light the moon reflect to the earth controls the descriptions of the phase. The amount of matter moving around the world doesn't change nor does the power ratio.

As for the apsides, perigee and apogee seems to apply to volcanic eruptions. This unlike the phases also occurs with a rate of change in the angle of incidence with the Lagrangian Points involved. The times of dwell. More so when there is a large

time lapse between the apse and the phase.

Magnetic fluctuations, these are perfectly coincident to volcanic eruptions.

Seismic quiet periods, these are related to volcanic eruptions in the Beaufort Scale. You draw the time-scale out to several days between quakes as large as 5.5 Magnitude or larger... This will give you some idea of the likely scale of volcanic

events.

I am a seismic sensitive. I am also sensitive to tornadoes as well as volcanic eruptions. "How Berkland evaluated his success rate prior to 1999 is unknown."

"Berkland's method of predicting earthquakes is based primarily on the idea that where tectonic forces have brought rock to the brink of failure earthquakes can be triggered by the tidal forces induced by the Sun and Moon."

This is nonsense but the imaginary science that discredits it is worse. They are guilty of denying a suspicion. If it were more than a suspicion Mr Berkland would have published the relevant papers he is condemned for not writing.

"While this seems plausible, attempts to identify any such effect generally have been equivocal, possibly because various factors might not have been properly accounted for."

Who wrote this?
A troll?[

"An evaluation specifically of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay area (done by the USGS in 1980 at Berkland's request) showed a slight deficiency of earthquakes during Berkland's "seismic windows". Although that deficiency was considered

statistically insignificant, the overall conclusion was that "the seismic window theory fails as a reliable method of earthquake prediction."

Some cyclones are larger than many continets. Is it even probable that an epicente might one day be pinpointed with the foregoing accuracy?
Speaking of cyclones, they are capable of being heard hundreds of miles away. Has anyone considered that the noise they make might contribute to earthquakes?

As well as the tolls that used to live under the bridge on sci.earthquakes until I ate them all, Mr Berkland was beset by a problem he knew no what of:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 10:05:09 PM UTC, dawlish@talktalk.losernet wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 9:37:19 AM UTC, Spike wrote:snipped

The world continues to be very, very, warm.

As part of the Ice-Age/Desert planetary cycles. Nothing new there.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

--
Spike

I was wondering if Mr silly would oblige me with an opportunity to have another go at him. Thanks for keeping the nit warm for me.

Steve Hemphill: Concerning the alleged cause of the apparent global cooling which occurred according to the surface temperature record between 1940 and 1976...
http://www.john-daly.com/bigbangs.htm

1976
PEACEFUL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS TREATY - U.S. President Gerald Ford and Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev sign the Treaty on Underground Nuclear Explosions for Peaceful Purposes

1980
LAST ATMOSPHERIC TEST - China conducts the last atmospheric nuclear test to date.

https://fas.org/nuke/control/ctbt/chron1.htm
You might like to compare the records for a couple of years following the SSWs caused by nuclear warfare. For example the long winter following the Tzara Bomba was 1962/3 was it not?

The USA stopped atmosphere testing in 1963 leading to the SALT Talks: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOENTSAtmospheric.pdf

Immediately after a nuclear test there is a resultant earthquake I think is almost natural. It consists of a way to tell that a county is, or has been, meddling with the weather. Fortunately the dead knots on here will pay no attention, leaving me time

enough to do some more research -if I can be bothered.

SSWs are Sudden Stratospheric Warming events of the sort that in nature accompany volcanic eruptions. WTH the Smithsonian don't pull up their kecks and sort out a reliable method of reporting them, I can't even imagine.

Well... Yes I can and it has to do with the lamentable Bill Gates.

The semi-natural earthquake is likely of a lesser magnitude than the air weapon. I have not checked this out but it must surely be dampened by god and the fact that an air weapon expends its energy skyward. Hence the severity of the following weather.

his would indicate that underground tests would have been capable of creating larger quakes.

http://www.dragonprojecttrust.org/research/primary-sensing Pity there was no sharing with these people.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 7:04:02 AM UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 4:37:51 AM UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 4:24:47 AM UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 5:57:50 PM UTC, Petra wrote:

Bob Officer wrote:

On 23 Jan 2006 13:45:24 -0800, in sci.geo.earthquakes, "Petra" <petrasrcf@hotmail.com> wrote:

John,

Thanks to your post I remembered something I wanted to ask Silver a >long time ago and I totally forgot. But I did send him an e-mail to >ask. I remembered that if one were to use the geyser as a predictive
tool then it has to perform in a certain way for it to be useful. Olga
Kolbek who owns it said that it changed its eruptive schedule prior to
these quakes 5.9 Oroville, 5.4 near Gilroy and 6.9 Loma Prieta. For >Loma Prieta the time interval changes for the eruptions changed from
10 minutes to 2.5 hours. But I don't know what the changes were prior
to the other earthquakes. If it were to be used as a predictive tool,
one would have to know that the geyser has a certain fluctuation change
prior to certain magnitude earthquakes and at a given distance. IE: a
20 minutes interval change would equal X magnitude earthquake at X >number of miles away in a more perfect world. I don't know if >anything happened before the 2002 Napa 5.2 quake, but there should have
been a change. If there was I am most curious to know what it might >have been and how many hours or days before it happened. If it did >not, then one has to think on that.

Then the question needs to be asked, were there or have there been any
variations in timing of the geyser sequnces/schedual that didn't result in
a quake?

Bob,

I agree. Olga Kolbek who owns the Calistoga Geyser kept daily logs for 25 years and then handed them over to Paul Silver in the 1990's, after Loma Prieta. I don't know specifically if he computerized her reports to gleam data from those years. And since this has been outside of the public eye and Olga is now to old to attend to guests visiting her backyard buddy, I have been mostly in the dark about what has happened. I like to see details, lots of them and papers don't always afford those details. It just appears as though it doesn't look all that promising. But if you don't have many earthquakes then the experience is very limited and that's what we have had, a period of quiet. Too much quiet. Though there have been I believe possibly 3 qualifing events from which to draw as to whether or not there was any fluctuation change. So better three, than none I suppose.

The greatest problem though is that the geyser is running out of water for steam. Thirty or so years ago it was huge. You had to stand back or you would be soaking wet, but today it is but something slightly larger than a spray. Only if the wind is blowing would you chance becoming sprayed by it. So, maybe in two years it will be gone. Or if there is a local shift perhaps it could come back and be as vigorous as it once was.

Only the forces of nature will determine its life or death.

Petra

I have not followed the thread. I came here looking for any infromation about JOB that I ccan use in my work.
The person you replied to seems to have (had?) no idea about tides on the Pacific coast. I only have a small amount of such knowledge myself but:

Jim Berkland From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James O. Berkland (July 31, 1930 – July 22, 2016) claimed to predict earthquakes, including the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and 1994 Northridge Earthquake[2] popularized people are earthquake sensitive. The Man Who Predicts Earthquakes includes a

chapter that notes "Many of Berkland's theories--based on tides, moons, disoriented pets, lost cats and dogs, and magnetic field changes--were factors in the great Indian Ocean quake-tsunami disaster on December 26, 2004."[3]

His methods and predictions have not been published in any scientific journals for peer review. His results have been disputed by peers, with other scientists going so far as calling him a crank[4] and a clown.[5]

The problem he faced was reflection engineered by the deep state, the people who run the dark satanic mills that are our colleges.

Jim studied geology at the University of California, Berkeley a veritable den of iniquity. But how would a simple man realise what Califonrnia was shortly to become? He worked for the United States Geological Survey while pursuing graduate study.

In 1964, he took a position at the United States Bureau of Reclamation.[6] After further graduate study, he taught for a year at Appalachian State University, 1972–1973, then returned to California to work as County Geologist for Santa Clara County
from 1973 until he retired in 1994.[7]

Predictions

Berkland's predictions have been either self-published in his newsletter or website, or announced in various interviews or speaking engagements.[8] His notoriety arose from an interview published in the Gilroy Dispatch on October 13, 1989, where he

predicted that an earthquake with a magnitude between 3.5 and 6.0 would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between October 14 and October 21.[9] The 6.9-magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake occurred on October 17, just four days later.

Berkland claims that government officials told him not to make any more predictions, fearing mass panic, and he was suspended for two months from his Santa Clara County geology position in late October, 1989.[citation needed]

Interviewed on Fox News in March 2011, Berkland predicted a massive earthquake in California for sometime between March 19 and March 26, 2011. He cited as factors the highest tides in 18 years and the proximity of the Moon, suggesting that the

quake will most likely strike on Saturday, March 19, 2011.[10] No such quake occurred.[11]

An aerial view of tsunami damage in Tōhoku. Areas affected: Japan (shaking, tsunami) Pacific Rim (tsunami)
Total damage $360 billion USD
Max. intensity IX (Violent)
Shindo 7
Peak acceleration 2.99 g
Peak velocity 117.41 cm/s
Tsunami Up to 40.5 m (133 ft)
in Miyako, Iwate, Tōhoku
Landslides Yes
Foreshocks
Smoke from the Sendai Nippon Oil refinery
2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami is located in Japan Sendai
UTC time 2011-03-11 05:46:24
Duration 6 minutes
Magnitude 9.0–9.1 (Mw)
Depth 29 km (18 mi)
Epicenter 38.322°N 142.369°ECoordinates: 38.322°N 142.369°E
Type Megathrust
List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake Aftershocks 13,386 (as of 6 March 2018)[1]
Casualties 15,899 deaths,[2] +2 (Overseas),
6,157 injured,[3]
2,529 people missing[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

The 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tōhoku (東北地方太平洋沖地震, Tōhoku-chihō Taiheiyō Oki Jishin) was a magnitude 9.0–9.1 (Mw) undersea megathrust earthquake off the coast of Japan that occurred at 14:46 JST (05:46 UTC)

on Friday 11 March 2011,[5][11][12] with the epicenter approximately 70 kilometers (43 mi) east of the Oshika Peninsula of Tōhoku and the hypocenter at an underwater depth of approximately 29 km (18 mi).[5][13]

I would have expected a time frame for the Fox News article but this was in the days of Bill Oreally? and Roger Isles so not enough clit available for indepth coverage.

He has also claimed to have predicted the 1980 M 7.2 Eureka earthquake just fourteen hours before it hit, but the tape-recording documenting this "had somehow been lost in the mail".[12]
These people were running Earthquakes Central using the Directed Energy Weapons that were used on 9/11.
I doubt those in control over Phi Beta Kappa and Kappa Beta Phi would have had any problem with intercepting the US Mail or, for that matter, the GPO.

Up to June 2010 Berkland made many predictions in his newsletter and on his website, for which he has claimed a "75 percent accuracy rate".[13]

This average is considered good enough to predict the British Monsoon season (uk.sci.weather) http://weather.org.uk/resource/ukswxfaq.htm
http://weather.org.uk/resource/ukswxfaq.htm#2B.7

I apologise that I can't find the stuff I was after but it is already really late here.

Here is the stuff I got about the recent tornadoes sweeping the board: https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200318_rpts.html https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200319_rpts.html https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200320_rpts.html

I have the feeling that they are coming back again: https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200322 to 23?_rpts.html

Here is the stuff I was going to write about:
English: Figure 1 from McNutt and Heaton, 1981, p. 12: Amplitude of the ocean tide at Golden Gate Bridge for five weeks in 1970. Brackets indicate seismic window periods.
Date 1 January 1981
Source ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/cg/1981/34_01.pdf
Author Marcia McNutt & Thomas H. Heaton (USGS)

The California tides are different to the ones we have in the UK. I already knew they were intermediate diurnal around Washington and the seattle area I had no idea the pacific tides were all the same type. (I thought it was due to a channel effect

lacking containment.)

Compare the UK tides for Southapton and the Isle of Wight

JOB seemed to have ignored the behaviour of pets inland. They are very much aggravated by tornadic weather as well as volcanic stuff and JOB did not seem to tally his stuff with either phenomena.

Berkland starts with two lunar syzygies each month where the Sun, Moon, and Earth are aligned (corresponding to the new Moon and full Moon). He then sets a "seismic window" eight days long, beginning from one to three days before each syzygy. The one

nearest perigee, that raises the highest tides, he terms primary, the other secondary. The greatest tides happen when syzygy and perigee are less than 25 hours apart (from two to five times a year). On that basis he then predicts one or more earthquakes
of a specified magnitude within each of three regions on the U.S. West Coast, and one or more earthquakes globally.

This stuff sound exactly what Ken Ring states in his stuff. I consider something like this does happen and it does appear on the North Atlantic weather charts. When the cyclones reach the end point of the track across the North Atlantic, they tend to

reach the coast of Europe at the same time that the lunar phase changes.

There is no known reason why that occurs, the amount of light the moon reflect to the earth controls the descriptions of the phase. The amount of matter moving around the world doesn't change nor does the power ratio.

As for the apsides, perigee and apogee seems to apply to volcanic eruptions. This unlike the phases also occurs with a rate of change in the angle of incidence with the Lagrangian Points involved. The times of dwell. More so when there is a large time

lapse between the apse and the phase.

Magnetic fluctuations, these are perfectly coincident to volcanic eruptions.

Seismic quiet periods, these are related to volcanic eruptions in the Beaufort Scale. You draw the time-scale out to several days between quakes as large as 5.5 Magnitude or larger... This will give you some idea of the likely scale of volcanic events.

I am a seismic sensitive. I am also sensitive to tornadoes as well as volcanic eruptions. "How Berkland evaluated his success rate prior to 1999 is unknown."

"Berkland's method of predicting earthquakes is based primarily on the idea that where tectonic forces have brought rock to the brink of failure earthquakes can be triggered by the tidal forces induced by the Sun and Moon."

This is nonsense but the imaginary science that discredits it is worse. They are guilty of denying a suspicion. If it were more than a suspicion Mr Berkland would have published the relevant papers he is condemned for not writing.

"While this seems plausible, attempts to identify any such effect generally have been equivocal, possibly because various factors might not have been properly accounted for."

Who wrote this?
A troll?[

"An evaluation specifically of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay area (done by the USGS in 1980 at Berkland's request) showed a slight deficiency of earthquakes during Berkland's "seismic windows". Although that deficiency was considered

statistically insignificant, the overall conclusion was that "the seismic window theory fails as a reliable method of earthquake prediction."

Some cyclones are larger than many continets. Is it even probable that an epicente might one day be pinpointed with the foregoing accuracy?
Speaking of cyclones, they are capable of being heard hundreds of miles away. Has anyone considered that the noise they make might contribute to earthquakes?

As well as the tolls that used to live under the bridge on sci.earthquakes until I ate them all, Mr Berkland was beset by a problem he knew no what of:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 10:05:09 PM UTC, dawlish@talktalk.losernet wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 9:37:19 AM UTC, Spike wrote:snipped

The world continues to be very, very, warm.

As part of the Ice-Age/Desert planetary cycles. Nothing new there.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

--
Spike

I was wondering if Mr silly would oblige me with an opportunity to have another go at him. Thanks for keeping the nit warm for me.

Steve Hemphill: Concerning the alleged cause of the apparent global cooling which occurred according to the surface temperature record between 1940 and 1976...
http://www.john-daly.com/bigbangs.htm

1976
PEACEFUL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS TREATY - U.S. President Gerald Ford and Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev sign the Treaty on Underground Nuclear Explosions for Peaceful Purposes

1980
LAST ATMOSPHERIC TEST - China conducts the last atmospheric nuclear test to date.

https://fas.org/nuke/control/ctbt/chron1.htm
You might like to compare the records for a couple of years following the SSWs caused by nuclear warfare. For example the long winter following the Tzara Bomba was 1962/3 was it not?

The USA stopped atmosphere testing in 1963 leading to the SALT Talks: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOENTSAtmospheric.pdf

Immediately after a nuclear test there is a resultant earthquake I think is almost natural. It consists of a way to tell that a county is, or has been, meddling with the weather. Fortunately the dead knots on here will pay no attention, leaving me time
enough to do some more research -if I can be bothered.

SSWs are Sudden Stratospheric Warming events of the sort that in nature accompany volcanic eruptions. WTH the Smithsonian don't pull up their kecks and sort out a reliable method of reporting them, I can't even imagine.

Well... Yes I can and it has to do with the lamentable Bill Gates.

The semi-natural earthquake is likely of a lesser magnitude than the air weapon. I have not checked this out but it must surely be dampened by god and the fact that an air weapon expends its energy skyward. Hence the severity of the following weather.

his would indicate that underground tests would have been capable of creating larger quakes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 21 January 2006 at 05:30:08 UTC, Susan wrote:

John Krempasky wrote:

Upon close examination his claims of predicting Loma Prieta are essentially a crock.

And he demonstrates no particular skill in predicting quakes of any kind. He
has a 1/4th chance of predicting basically any remotely noticeable quake in California with his monthly week-long windows. His sets of monthly predictions are set up to produce a 100% chance of a hit for at least one of
them somewhere in the world.

I could care less what kind of person he is. His forecasts are of no value and he is misleading the public.

It's truly disturbing that the critical thinking skills of the public are so
poor this guy has an enormous, clueless, almost cult-like fan base.

A quote on would-be earthquake predictors: "A few such persons are
mentally unbalanced; but most of them are sane - at least in the
clinical or legal sense, since they are not dangerous, and are not
running around with bombs or guns. What ails them is exaggerated ego
plus imperfect or ineffective education, so that they have not absorbed
one of the fundamental rules of science - self-criticism. Their wish
for attention distorts their perception of facts, and sometimes leads
them on into actual lying."
This was Charles Richter, speaking 30 years ago in the wake of the
Palmdale Bulge debacle. (Everyone knows the "fools and charlatans"
quote, but this one, from a private memo, is my personal favorite.)
It is amazing--truly uncanny, not to mention depressing--how much his
words from 30+ years ago still rings true to the modern ear.
Susan

Sadly for them they had no internet with which to work, this may explain why there are no posters here now except for this one, who does not need the internet except to publish his findings since he does not know how to write a scientific paper. Here is
his latest offering:

Thank you.
Allow me to return the favour: http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/viewer/index.shtml?type=mslp-precip&tz=AEDT&area=G&model=G&chartSubmit=Refresh+ViewGlobe

http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/viewer/index.shtml?type=mslp-precip&tz=AEDT&area=G&model=G&chartSubmit=Refresh+ViewGlobeThis the present forecast from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. It shows sea level pressure all round Earth.
The dark isobars depict low pressure (high energy winds) that will eat high pressure, relatively warm winds. Counter intuitive I know.

When they mix they expand and become a danger to all concerned. They are relatively save at sea. When they blow ashore they tend to separate rapidly. Possibly even explosively.

These charts comprise a series of 25 charts issued daily that show how the mixing occurs at the Bahrents Sea and the isthmus of Antarctica and the tip of South America. These are the main junctions that whistle up the dangerous winds, that cause
earthquakes.

At the moment the fake weather is concentrating on the barrier of the roaring 40's. This causes earthquakes to develop at the Falklands and South Sandwich Islands.

This is a system designed to keep the earth fertile and reproductive in minerals as well as fish-food. Earthquakes there Cause the ocean currents to reroute. The same engineering takes place at the tip of Africa and Australia. (In the Northern Hemisphere
the design is inverted.)



This was in reply to a Gab post about the scamdemic:
Kenan @SonOfEnos

Edited
YUGE!! Aussie Court Rules Mandatory Jabs Violate Free & Informed Consent & Therefore Break The Law

Australian Member of Parliament, Tanya Davis, is reading from a ruling that was just handed down from Fair Work Commission's decision that declares mandatory jabs as a condition of employment to be against the law. The ruling states that politicians
pushing for mandatory "vaccinations" are not doing so to protect public health.

This ruling can effectively have the effect of ending Covid-Tyranny in Australia, and hopefully be the first legal victory that'll initiate a domino effect that will bring this nightmare to an end around the world.

This is HUGE, Patriots.
Let's make it go VIRAL
o7
We Are The News Now, so let's do our duty

https://www.bitchute.com/video/U8UwbcENxRy5/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)