Excuse me .. you said “NINE 7.0 quakes” - There was no such thing. There were 3 at 7.0 quakes in a row - and the rest of the quakes on the map were all much lower than that.
I still say - you were playing with the facts.
What you “saw” were a bunch of quakes in the same place - but that doesn’t mean they were all 7.0 or better.
Go to the post where the map link is shown and look at it again. As you place your cursor on each corner of the squares - you will find that it shows what the strength of the quake was - and they were NOT all 7.0 quakes.
And .. why wouldn’t you want people to believe you ..??
I do not understand our failure to communicate.
ON THAT DAY—within hours of the quakes . . .
I clicked a link on the FR thread that took me to a standard quake website.
I do not THINK it was USGS. It is possible it was.
There were maybe 15 or so quakes listed on that page.
The quakes were listed as they normally are with their times, depths and intensities.
I SAW WITH MY OWN EYES THAT LIST OF QUAKES ON MY OWN SCREEN FROM WHATEVER STANDARD SITE THAT WAS.
The list of 15 or so quakes included 6 or 7 of the 9 7.0 and above listed one after the other without any lower quakes listed between them. I don’t *THINK* all 9 quakes were listed consecutively one after the other. They MIGHT have been. I believe at least 6 and probably 7 WERE listed consecutively without lower intensity quakes listed between them.
The South China sea or the 10th quake of 7.0 or above intensity was listed I *THINK* near the top with quakes of lower than 7.0 intensity between it and the string of 7.0 and above quakes.
I DO NOT KNOW WHY THAT LISTING OF QUAKES IS NOT FINDABLE ON THE NET AT THIS TIME.
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO IT.
I do not know if all those quakes got degraded in intensity or not. . . .seems like a lot to get lowered that much. But it’s plausible.
It is also plausible that folks are dinking with the record.
I suppose it is also plausible that AT THAT EARLY POINT IN TIME, listings were flooding into the collection site and being listed without being sorted out . . . and after they were sorted out, some were realized to be the same quake from different monitoring stations with initially slightly different times falsely indicating they were different quakes but later deduced to be the same quakes.
I KNOW WHAT I SAW WITH MY OWN EYES ON MY OWN SCREEN THAT DAY. I mentioned it to Joya but she didn’t get to looking at it on her own computer in the press of her work schedule and fatigue that day.
At some point, I don’t give a rip if you believe me or anyone else believes me, or not. God knows I’m telling the truth as I saw and experienced it.
Sheesh.
It is a puzzle I’d love to have an explanation for. I don’t.
I SAY AGAIN, THE INTENSITIES WERE LISTED JUST AS THEY ALWAYS ARE LISTED IN SUCH A LIST.
AND THE INTENSITIES WERE ALL 7.0, 7.3 ETC. FOR THOSE
NINE QUAKES . . . IN THE PHILIPPINES
AND THE ONE IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA.
My PhD may only mean piled higher and deeper to you or whoever else on here. However, I
CAN
COUNT TO 10.
That region is of keen interest to me because I lived 15 years of my life there.
I have a LOT of loved ones there, still.
I was paying close attention to what I saw on my screen. I did not look at the data quickly and carelessly.
EACH ONE OF THOSE INTENSITIES WERE LISTED AS 7.0 OR ABOVE.
If you have an explanation, I’d love to hear it.
If you are only interested in trying to tell me that I didn’t see what I saw—go chase a duck.
NO! I WAS ****NOT**** PLAYING WITH THE FACTS. I was shocked and examined the list repeatedly because I couldn’t quite believe what I was seeing. The list did not change that day—at least while I had time that hour or so to look at it repeatedly.
Gads folks assume a lot so quickly hereon.
Sheesh.
Here’s an ATS thread that includes several posts about
7.X data on quakes quickly disappearing from where it had just been posted:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread596622/pg1
PLEASE SEE MY UPDATE ON THAT JUST ABOVE.
OOOOOPS Must be wrong thread.
When I find the link again, I’ll post the link to you.