ForumGarden

Look, I can't tell anyone who lives in California enough times, that most if not all of California is in for some serious trouble as we approach December 21st, 2012. This is no longer a joke. The Chile Earthquake that happened was just a ripple in the ocean compared to the major Earthquakes that will start to happen more and more often as we get closer to that date.

I realize I am just some guy who posts things on this message board, talking about prophecies and the like, but this is a life or death matter we are talking about here at this point. And if you or your family live in California and expect to just glide through the coming disasters you can think again people because it isn't going to happen.

If you value your life, if you value the lives of your family members and friends, then you will do your best to get out of California as soon as possible. This quake that happened in Chile has the potential to create other quakes in areas around it, and California is in line to get hit with a big one. I don't know the exact day, or the exact time, but all it takes is one quake, and California is in serious trouble. Hundreds/thousands of people could end up dying. And it's all because they won't leave. Money is not an option when it comes to saving your life. So if you are thinking that there is no possible way to leave Cali and you don't have the means to do it, all it takes is a bus ticket, and that's it. No excuses. If the big quake was to strike tomorrow, and if you died because of it, or your family did, you would have made a serious mistake.

I can't convince all people who read this to leave, but if I can convince just one person than I did my job. Particularly if you live in areas such as San Francisco, California, Los Angeles, California, San Diego, California, San Bernadino, California, Riverside, California, Santa Rosa, California, Petaluma, California, Cape Mendocino in California, Santa Barbara, California, or Coachella Valley California. Those areas are in VERY SERIOUS DANGER. And there is absolutely NO reason to stay in them. Like I said all I can do is get the word out the best I can, and it will unfortunately never reach as many people as I would hope it would, but I say again, this is not a joke. This is not a drill. The government is not going to mobilize you people. You have to do this for yourselves.

I have a thread going in the Warcraft and Military section that covers this, and it just so happens that I am on the exact section that deals with all of this. The Earthquake in Chile was just a minor example of what could happen. What is slated for California is much much worse. And Chile has not seen the worst of it's quakes yet either. You MUST get you and your family out of Cali at least until after December 21st, 2012. 2 years and some change is little to ask if it means that you might be able to make a choice that ends up allowing you to live longer. And ensuring that you live longer should be of prime importance for anyone who values life and the lessons that it gives you.

Here's the link to my thread at the moment. But people...don't look the other way on this one. I guarantee that you will end up regretting it:

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/warfa ... a-198.html

"Do that which is good, for there has been given in the consciousness of all the fruits of the Spirit; fellowship, kindness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, love; these be the fruits of the Spirit. Against such there is no law."

"Doubt, fear, avarice, greed, selfishness, self-will, these are the fruits of the Evil forces. Against such there is a law. Self-preservation, then, should be in the fruits of the Spirit, as ye seek through any channel to know more of the path from Life--from Good to Good--to Life; from death unto Life, from Evil unto Good."

Edgar Cayce

5752-3

November 8, 1933

I actually believe you are right. Natural disasters do not stop happening just because man Is on the earth. I do believe It will come, It's just a case of the date.

I saw a documentary a couple of years ago about California. They did a scaled down mock up of what would happen when the Tsunami Hit. Frightening !!!!

Good afternoon Mr Happy. And how are you today?

Hugh Janus;1293479 wrote: Good afternoon Mr Happy. And how are you today? :wah:

TruthBringer;1293466 wrote: "Do that which is good, for there has been given in the consciousness of all the fruits of the Spirit; fellowship, kindness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, love; these be the fruits of the Spirit. Against such there is no law."

"Doubt, fear, avarice, greed, selfishness, self-will, these are the fruits of the Evil forces. Against such there is a law. Self-preservation, then, should be in the fruits of the Spirit, as ye seek through any channel to know more of the path from Life--from Good to Good--to Life; from death unto Life, from Evil unto Good."

Edgar Cayce

5752-3

November 8, 1933


I agree. Haiti and now Chile should be a wake-up call. Our turn is coming and maybe very soon.

hoppy;1293493 wrote: I agree. Haiti and now Chile should be a wake-up call. Our turn is coming and maybe very soon.
Well at least Japan won't be slaughtering Dolphins and Whales. Ho Hum.. every cloud etc.

Well TB----I am leaving California tonight at 7:30 PM for New Zealand. Several things are crossing my mind. One---I am leaving one earthquake area for another. Two--The plane just may crash. Three---A terrorist may slip by and blow up the plane. Four---I could choke to death on part of my in plane dinner. Five---I could have a heart attack. Six---I could have a stroke. Seven----I might not make it to the airport and get killed in an auto accident on the freeway. Eight --- I may arrive in New Zealand and drown in the surf this coming Wednesday. One thing for sure----Like everyone esle---I'm going to die, but I really don't think it will be from anyone of the foregoing incidents.

Typical North american paranoia 200,000 dead in Haiti and it's a warning, earthquake in chile so now the planet is out to get them.

Mother Nature has to get rid of some of us some how natural disasters work. I will stay right here in San Diego Earthquakes and all if I gotta go might as well be in a beautiful place. :-6:-6

Californians are strange people. Brush fires, earthquakes and mudslides don't deter them. They'll keep rebuilding in the same places.:wah:

You know, the odd few hundred Californians dying of earthquakes every twenty or so years is a trivial matter even to the Californians themselves. Or even a thousand or two, come to that. What happened in San Fransisco in 1906 is impossible to repeat, buildings aren't like that any longer.

Either TruthBringer's talking about an earthquake of proportions unknown since the dawn of human history or he's scare-mongering to no purpose and California can take it on the chin without even blinking. If, on the other hand, he's with the faction expecting half the seaboard to sink into the Pacific, he's prognosticating out in la-la land again.

Oh, people still ask that, spot. The subject in 6th science last week was earthquakes, and numerous times the kids asked if California was going to fall off into the ocean. Already at a young age, they think things like that!

If part of California breaks apart or falls into the Ocean I will have beach front property. :-6:-6

Well all I can say to the people who say, "I'm gonna sit right here, and if a series of major earthquakes rocks California, along with tsunamis of epic proportions, then I will make dinner for them before I say my last goodbye" (I'm being a bit sarcastic but you see the point)", is.......why?

Because we all die?

Well if we all die, then why don't we all just kill ourselves right now? It would save us the time of having to wait for it (I'm being sarcastic again of course).

chonsigirl;1293615 wrote: Oh, people still ask that, spot. The subject in 6th science last week was earthquakes, and numerous times the kids asked if California was going to fall off into the ocean. Already at a young age, they think things like that!


Look the bottom line is that when a large landmass breaks off of a continent it doesn't usually float in the water like an Island does. It usually breaks apart into pieces that are so heavy and that hit the water with so much force that they literally sink to the bottom of the ocean, never to be seen again (unless they are dug out by divers, etc.).

Heavy rocks don't float on the ocean. They sink. Heavy falling and separated land masses are no different. Therefore landslides into the ocean means that you and your house (if you are still inside of it) are going into the ocean along with them.

So the portions of California falling into the ocean theory is not that far fetched. In fact it is alot more real than many people might be willing to accept. Now given it will most likely be the beachfront houses that will qualify, but how many people live right next to the beach in California? Times that by an average of probably 2 people to each house, and you can see how disasterous that would be.

TruthBringer;1293657 wrote: So the portions of California falling into the ocean theory is not that far fetched.Perhaps you'd like to give us previous examples of portions of a continent falling into the sea during historical times, so we can look up the magnitude of the events and consider how disastrous they might be for Californians if what happens in future is comparable?

spot;1293660 wrote: Perhaps you'd like to give us previous examples of portions of a continent falling into the sea during historical times, so we can look up the magnitude of the events and consider how disastrous they might be for Californians if what happens in future is comparable?


The magnitude of damage that I am speaking of has not been seen by Human Beings for at least 10-12 thousand years. But it will soon be seen again.

Lon;1293525 wrote: Well TB----I am leaving California tonight at 7:30 PM for New Zealand. Several things are crossing my mind. One---I am leaving one earthquake area for another. Two--The plane just may crash. Three---A terrorist may slip by and blow up the plane. Four---I could choke to death on part of my in plane dinner. Five---I could have a heart attack. Six---I could have a stroke. Seven----I might not make it to the airport and get killed in an auto accident on the freeway. Eight --- I may arrive in New Zealand and drown in the surf this coming Wednesday. One thing for sure----Like everyone esle---I'm going to die, but I really don't think it will be from anyone of the foregoing incidents.


I'm just happy you are getting out Lon. But I have very bad news for you. New Zealand's fate is just as bad.

I wish you would have said Montana, or Southern Canada, but that's alright. Those are just two of the safety lands that people should start moving to as the destruction begins to rear it's ugly head.

TruthBringer;1293663 wrote: The magnitude of damage that I am speaking of has not been seen by Human Beings for at least 10-12 thousand years. But it will soon be seen again.


That, other than for your unaccepted prescient nature, seems unlikely.

Go on then, go back before 10-12 thousand years, try the last million. What do you have for us to compare possible scales to?

spot;1293665 wrote: That, other than for your unaccepted prescient nature, seems unlikely.

Go on then, go back before 10-12 thousand years, try the last million. What do you have for us to compare possible scales to?


I'm not going to get into a deep discussion about Atlantis with you Brother. I highly doubt you are one who accepts the theory that there was once an entire Continent that broke into pieces and then sank into the Ocean. But I would imagine that you do know that one of the great thinkers of our Human history, Plato, who created the first institution of higher learning in the Western World, believed in this same theory?

Also, Japan is going to be a first hand lesson of what I am speaking about. When much of Japan falls into the sea, perhaps before California even, then you will know what I am speaking about. However California may very well be broken apart first before that happens. Not all of it, but alot of it.

So, apart from Atlantis, it's not happened before? But it's definitely going to happen in the next twenty months on various continents?

gmc;1293557 wrote: Typical North american paranoia 200,000 dead in Haiti and it's a warning, earthquake in chile so now the planet is out to get them.
:yh_rotflnah...just nasty mean scots.:p

I have a question.

What about Washington and Oregon? Doesn’t anyone care about them? Or Vancouver, Canada?

The fault lines runs up the Rockie’s Mt range (which is why the mountains are there to begin with).

I am no expert, but this post made me look at what the risks really are (particularly compared to Hattie)

OK, so the main reason everyone is concerned about California in particular is because of the famous San Andreas Fault line. But, from my understanding, here are the main differences and why people do not need to worry to the degree that truthbringer is worried.

Here is why:

San Andreas: The two fault lines are running Norwest and Southwest. So basically these two plates are not colliding, they are sliding up alongside each other, therefore, there is still a strong potential for serious earthquakes, but not that high of risk. The movement is 0.79mm per year

Hattie: The two plate that caused the major earthquake in Hattie are actually moving away from each other. The plate that caused the earthquake shifted eastward, and moves at a rate of 20mm per year, which is significantly greater than California, therefore much more dangerous. I would guess that over a couple of hundred thousand years or so Haiti could be two separate islands.

Chile: The earthquake in Chile is as a result of a number of fault lines running through the Andes Mountains. This particular earthquake is where the two plates are actually colliding head on with each other (which is why the Andes is such a high mountain range.). The pressure of the two plate colliding directly can have major and devastating effects which we saw in recent events.

So, in conclusion, from what I have read, yes, California is at risk as any place on a fault line would be, but not nearly as high as risk as the other two recent locations of major earthquakes and it is not just going to fall into the ocean as it is only moving 0.79mm per year.

Did you that Chicago is on a major fault line as well? It is, but the two plates it sits on are moving in the same direction, so there is practically no risk at all.

TruthBringer;1293664 wrote: I'm just happy you are getting out Lon. But I have very bad news for you. New Zealand's fate is just as bad.

I wish you would have said Montana, or Southern Canada, but that's alright. Those are just two of the safety lands that people should start moving to as the destruction begins to rear it's ugly head.


By the way I meant to say Southern Canada not Northern Canada. Northern Canada is far more dangerous than Southern Canada when it comes to living there. Even though Canada as a whole will be relatively neutral in terms of the damage it suffers compared to many other places.

But just so people don't get confused, here's the official list of Dangerous places to be living in as we approach December 21st, 2012 (For those who haven't seen it yet):

TruthBringer;1293358 wrote:



The Most Dangerous Places To Be Living In As We Approach December 21st, 2012:



1. San Francisco, California

2. Los Angeles, California

3. Japan

4. The upper portion of Europe

5. New York City, New York

6. Connecticut

7. South Carolina

8. Georgia

9. The southern coast of California

10. Utah

11. Nevada

12. South America

13. The Arctic And Antarctic areas.

14. San Diego, California

15. Alabama

16. Italy

17. Guam

18. Wyoming

19. Hawaii

20. Kansas

21. Turkey

22. Sicily

23. Greece

24. Israel

25. France

26. Greenland

27. San Bernadino, California

28. Riverside, California

29. Costa Rica

30. Nicaragua

31. Guatemala

32. El Salvador

33. Santa Rosa, California

34. Petaluma, California

35. Cape Mendocino in California

36. Oregon

37. Anchorage, Alaska

38. Washington

39. British Columbia

40. Seattle, Washington

41. Alaska

42. Colorado

43. Brigham City, Utah

44. Tooele, Utah

45. Las Vegas, Nevada

46. Charleston, South Carolina

47. Central and Southern Illinois

48. Central and Southern Indiana

49. Central and Southern Ohio

50. Kentucky

51. Arkansas

52. Sharpsburg, Kentucky

53. Marked Tree, Arkansas

54. Cairo, Illinois

55. Metropolis, Illinois

56. Missouri

57. Mississippi

58. Tennessee

59. Southern Canada

60. Massachusetts

61. Little Rock, Arkansas

62. Vincennes, Indiana

63. Cape Ann, Massachusetts

64. Memphis, Tennessee

65. St. Louis, Missouri

66. Maine

67. Delaware

68. Long Island, New York

69. Maryland

70. New Hampshire

71. Greenwich Village, New York

72. New Jersey

73. Vermont

74. Rhode Island

75. Peapack, New Jersey

76. Boston, Massachusetts

77. New Madrid, Missouri

78. Chattanooga, Tennessee

79. Knoxville, Tennessee

80. Honshu Japan

81. Hokkaido Japan

82. Sendai Japan

83. Okushiri, Japan

84. Tokyo Japan

85. Kobe Japan

86. Osaka Japan

87. Central America

88. Mexico

89. Managua, Nicaragua

90. Mexico City, Mexico

91. Jalisco Mexico

92. Michoacán Mexico

93. Guadalajara Mexico

94. Colombia

95. Venezuela

96. Chile

97. Argentina

98. Santiago, Chile

99. Peru

100. Brazil

101. Valparaíso, Chile

102. Antofagasta, Chile

103. Ecuador

104. Bogotá Colombia

105. Pereira, Colombia

106. New Zealand

107. Bolivia

108. Awatere Valley New Zealand

109. Wellington, New Zealand

110. Hawkes Bay New Zealand

111. Napier, New Zealand

112. Hastings, New Zealand

113. North Island New Zealand

114. Christchurch, New Zealand

115. Indonesia

116. Ely, Nevada

117. Murray, Utah

118. Orem, Utah

119. Provo, Utah

120. Santa Barbara, California

121. Coachella Valley California

122. Lima Peru

123. Callao Peru

124. Idaho

125. New Mexico

126. Louisiana

127. Oklahoma

gmc;1293557 wrote: Typical North american paranoia 200,000 dead in Haiti and it's a warning, earthquake in chile so now the planet is out to get them.


Two very different Earthquakes. In the Haiti one, the Earthquake epicentre was much closer to land. In the Chile one, the Earthquake epicentre was close to 72 miles away from shore. If the Chile Earthquake's epicentre had been anywhere near where the Haiti one was, it would have been a whole different story. But because the epicentre was as far out as it was, it still has a chance to effect California, probably even to a higher degree.

spot;1293669 wrote: So, apart from Atlantis, it's not happened before? But it's definitely going to happen in the next twenty months on various continents?


There will be extreme damage on various continents, yes. Nothing like you have ever read in any formal history class.

TruthBringer;1293689 wrote: Two very different Earthquakes. In the Haiti one, the Earthquake epicentre was much closer to land. In the Chile one, the Earthquake epicentre was close to 72 miles away from shore. If the Chile Earthquake's epicentre had been anywhere near where the Haiti one was, it would have been a whole different story. But because the epicentre was as far out as it was, it still has a chance to effect California, probably even to a higher degree.


On a point of information, while both earthquakes were indeed offshore the main initial Chile earthquake was just three miles from land. Check on M8.8 - Offshore Maule, Chile

spot;1293691 wrote: On a point of information, while both earthquakes were indeed offshore the main initial Chile earthquake was just three miles from land. Check on M8.8 - Offshore Maule, Chile


Could be true. I heard the 72 miles away from shore statement on the news today. And I usually know better than to listen to the news. So shame on me if it turns out they were wrong.

TruthBringer;1293690 wrote: There will be extreme damage on various continents, yes. Nothing like you have ever read in any formal history class.


There are various interesting views about imminent eschatology at Center for Millenial Development - Boston University which I'm occasionally browsing through. The concepts centre on the roosters, flitting from perch to perch as time passes each of their deadlines, and the owls who watch them with incredulity. The roosters are, as you can imagine, absolutely invariably and totally wrong. What interests the owls is trying to work out what makes the roosters so obsessed with crowing and why imminent disaster should be so attractive a concept.

TruthBringer;1293692 wrote: Could be true. I heard the 72 miles away from shore statement on the news today. And I usually know better than to listen to the news. So shame on me if it turns out they were wrong.


I expect the U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey Earthquakes Division has a pretty good idea before they publish, they have a reputation to uphold. Three miles. It's their map on their own website.

spot;1293694 wrote: I expect the U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey Earthquakes Division has a pretty good idea before they publish, they have a reputation to uphold. Three miles. It's their map on their own website.


Well that may be true of the U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey Earthquakes Division, but in all fairness, the lady news anchor was being fed information through the earpiece that she was wearing, and she is no more than a mocking bird in that aspect, so whoever was feeding her the information could have definitely got it wrong. After all, it happens all the time.

One thing I know for sure, is I didn't hear anything about 3 miles. There's a big difference between me hearing the lady say "72 miles offshore, and that's why the stronger Earthquake didn't do as much damage as the Haiti one" and hearing her say "3 miles offshore, and that's why the stronger Earthquake didn't do as much damage as the Haiti one."

And one thing we can all agree on, is that stronger Earthquakes are more powerful than smaller ones. And the Chile Earthquake was larger than the Haiti one. And did less damage. We're talking about a death toll of what, hundreds of thousands compared to less than 2,000 for Chile? And the Earthquake that hit Chile was the biggest since half a century ago? For that area.

I'm not going to say that the only reason that Chile's Earthquake didn't do as much damage was because of the building codes. It played a lukewarm role if any. Almost no building is going to be able to withstand a super Earthquake if it hits in the right place. I don't care what it's made out of. The twin towers collapsed in on themselves and they were some of the most well made buildings for their time. All from an airplane filled with fuel. A major super Earthquake can and will do far more damage in total than any aircraft filled with fuel could ever do.

TruthBringer;1293695 wrote: Well that may be true of the U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey Earthquakes Division, but in all fairness, the lady news anchor was being fed information through the earpiece that she was wearing, and she is no more than a mocking bird in that aspect, so whoever was feeding her the information could have definitely got it wrong. After all, it happens all the time.

One thing I know for sure, is I didn't hear anything about 3 miles. There's a big difference between me hearing the lady say "72 miles offshore, and that's why the stronger Earthquake didn't do as much damage as the Haiti one" and hearing her say "3 miles offshore, and that's why the stronger Earthquake didn't do as much damage as the Haiti one."What she actually said, I expect, and what you mis-heard, was that the epicenter was 72 miles from Chile's second-largest city Conception and that's why the stronger Earthquake didn't do as much damage as the Haiti one because the Haiti one was on the Haitian capital's doorstep, bang outside the harbor entrance. I am, I concede, only guessing as far as the broadcast is concerned but I'd note that these people you're deriding are also professionals.

spot;1293699 wrote: I am, I concede, only guessing as far as the broadcast is concerned but I'd note that these people you're deriding are also professionals.


Professional mocking birds you mean.

"This just in."

spot;1293699 wrote: What she actually said, I expect, and what you mis-heard, was that the epicenter was 72 miles from Chile's second-largest city Conception and that's why the stronger Earthquake didn't do as much damage as the Haiti one because the Haiti one was on the Haitian capital's doorstep, bang outside the harbor entrance. I am, I concede, only guessing as far as the broadcast is concerned but I'd note that these people you're deriding are also professionals.


Please see my earlier post as well:

Anyway:

The other main reason there was more fatalities in Haiti is that Chile is one of the wealthier countries in South America and many of their buildings are built to a high standard designed to be resistant to earthquakes, much like the buildings in California.

Haiti however is a very poor country with poorly built building not up to withstanding much of anything, let alone an major earthquake. Something like 90% of their buildings in the capital were destroyed, which lead to such a high rate of death.

Your list of most dangerous places is a bit confusing.

It lists States, then in some cases entire continents, then countries within those continents, then specific cities within States, then an entire country, then later a city inside a country.

For example: number 16 is Italy, then number 22 is Sicily, yet Sicily is in Italy.

Anyway, Ireland is not there so I am OK.

mikeinie;1293740 wrote: Anyway, Ireland is not there so I am OK.That's what being protected by Saint Patrick means and long may it continue that way.

mikeinie;1293738 wrote: Please see my earlier post as well:

Anyway:

The other main reason there was more fatalities in Haiti is that Chile is one of the wealthier countries in South America and many of their buildings are built to a high standard designed to be resistant to earthquakes, much like the buildings in California.

Haiti however is a very poor country with poorly built building not up to withstanding much of anything, let alone an major earthquake. Something like 90% of their buildings in the capital were destroyed, which lead to such a high rate of death.


All of which applies in spades to California except TruthBringer has this get-out clause that he's talking about devastation on a scale exceeding by many orders of magnitude anything seen in the historical record of recent (as in the last million) years.

We can focus far more closely on where TruthBringer differs from the opinion of the rest here. He and we agree that the events he describes are possible, on geological time scales. We apply statistics to derive the level of comparative risk to this week or this year or this century, we know how to analyse what to avoid and what to set aside as survivable by the species. The sole difference is that TruthBringer claims to possess hidden knowledge by which he can announce now that the odds are not what we anticipate. I think the only disagreement we have, in this thread as in others, is whether such hidden knowledge can exist in this universe (and, beyond that, I suppose, even were we to grant that it could exist, whether he possesses it).

if TruthBringer limited himself to "it could happen though I know nothing to suggest that the odds are skewed from any other time in history" we'd not be arguing. Since his personal possession of hidden knowledge is central to his posts, though, that's not going to be a solution.

Update time = Tue Mar 2 4:09:17 UTC 2010



MAG UTC DATE-TIME

y/m/d hs LAT

deg LON

deg DEPTH

km Region

MAP 5.0 2010/03/02 03:48:37 -33.774 -71.669 26.0 VALPARAISO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/03/02 03:44:58 -34.473 -72.625 27.2 OFFSHORE LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.8 2010/03/02 02:51:24 18.238 122.487 29.6 LUZON, PHILIPPINES

MAP 5.3 2010/03/02 02:09:35 -39.797 -71.242 18.5 NEUQUEN, ARGENTINA

MAP 5.0 2010/03/02 01:55:39 42.542 75.584 17.4 KYRGYZSTAN



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAP 5.0 2010/03/01 21:51:03 -33.762 -71.201 48.4 REGION METROPOLITANA, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/03/01 17:23:33 -34.795 -73.924 19.2 OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/03/01 16:56:50 -36.305 -72.479 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/03/01 14:36:30 -34.359 -73.432 30.1 OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/03/01 12:27:16 -34.216 -71.821 35.0 LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/03/01 12:20:19 -34.513 -73.636 35.0 OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/03/01 08:58:34 -37.701 -74.390 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/03/01 07:49:08 -34.997 -72.861 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/03/01 06:24:59 32.347 105.178 36.2 SICHUAN-GANSU BORDER REGION, CHINA

MAP 5.1 2010/03/01 06:16:12 -37.581 -74.531 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/03/01 05:30:36 -34.451 -73.481 35.0 OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/03/01 03:53:16 -38.638 -73.122 35.0 ARAUCANIA, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/03/01 03:15:58 25.995 128.363 19.9 RYUKYU ISLANDS, JAPAN

MAP 5.2 2010/03/01 03:15:51 7.144 126.423 7.2 MINDANAO, PHILIPPINES

MAP 5.1 2010/03/01 03:07:51 -36.125 -72.796 40.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.8 2010/03/01 02:44:43 -35.095 -72.608 26.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.4 2010/03/01 01:10:58 -35.163 -71.704 42.6 MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/03/01 00:01:27 -38.306 -73.746 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAP 5.1 2010/02/28 23:49:05 -37.355 -72.952 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 23:45:06 -35.275 -72.257 34.9 MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 22:41:29 -36.840 -73.528 26.5 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/28 22:07:48 39.508 140.426 124.4 EASTERN HONSHU, JAPAN

MAP 5.9 2010/02/28 19:48:39 -38.054 -73.525 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/28 18:44:31 -36.630 -72.506 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 18:19:53 -34.845 -71.605 35.0 LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.4 2010/02/28 16:13:49 -58.242 -8.005 35.0 EAST OF THE SOUTH SANDWICH ISLANDS

MAP 5.2 2010/02/28 15:46:25 -35.330 -72.165 28.7 MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 15:26:55 -35.085 -72.061 29.6 MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/28 14:55:25 -33.880 -73.286 32.7 OFF THE COAST OF VALPARAISO, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/28 14:50:33 -33.844 -73.191 26.0 OFF THE COAST OF VALPARAISO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 13:47:06 -35.328 -72.918 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/28 12:18:59 -38.129 -73.341 26.5 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/28 12:13:27 2.146 98.906 51.3 NORTHERN SUMATRA, INDONESIA

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 12:01:15 -35.809 -72.786 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/28 11:50:36 -35.067 -72.730 20.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 6.1 2010/02/28 11:25:34 -34.906 -71.731 35.0 MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 11:14:27 -35.324 -72.655 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/28 10:43:11 -38.408 -75.219 35.0 OFF THE COAST OF ARAUCANIA, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/02/28 10:26:53 -1.110 -80.310 40.8 NEAR THE COAST OF ECUADOR

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 10:11:07 -33.910 -72.030 35.0 OFFSHORE LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/28 09:14:54 -33.593 -71.765 35.0 OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE

MAP 5.6 2010/02/28 08:17:45 34.867 141.444 10.0 OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 08:07:46 -35.182 -72.517 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 07:36:30 -37.763 -73.141 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/28 07:14:21 -38.345 -73.514 35.0 OFFSHORE ARAUCANIA, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/02/28 05:19:35 -37.705 -73.412 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/02/28 05:13:59 -37.458 -73.014 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 05:04:06 -35.232 -71.214 35.0 MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/02/28 04:55:49 -33.925 -71.945 35.0 OFFSHORE LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 04:29:12 -34.905 -69.631 35.0 MENDOZA, ARGENTINA

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 04:17:52 -34.723 -72.183 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/28 03:33:50 25.952 128.385 35.0 RYUKYU ISLANDS, JAPAN

MAP 5.2 2010/02/28 03:23:49 -37.681 -73.533 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/28 03:14:12 -33.959 -73.195 35.0 OFF THE COAST OF VALPARAISO, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/28 02:51:47 25.994 128.394 35.0 RYUKYU ISLANDS, JAPAN

MAP 5.1 2010/02/28 02:41:10 -38.054 -73.213 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.4 2010/02/28 02:38:32 -38.270 -73.633 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/28 02:04:29 -34.610 -73.532 35.0 OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/28 01:58:50 -34.876 -72.646 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/28 01:45:29 -34.436 -73.728 35.0 OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/02/28 01:33:12 -36.600 -72.771 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/02/28 01:20:35 25.973 128.353 35.0 RYUKYU ISLANDS, JAPAN

MAP 5.5 2010/02/28 01:08:24 -34.113 -71.947 35.0 LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/02/28 01:01:12 -36.791 -73.352 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/28 00:53:34 -37.949 -73.659 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/02/28 00:00:49 -36.573 -73.279 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 23:35:15 -33.867 -72.226 34.8 OFFSHORE LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.7 2010/02/27 23:21:13 35.912 70.051 104.9 HINDU KUSH REGION, AFGHANISTAN

MAP 5.8 2010/02/27 23:12:35 -34.741 -71.864 35.0 LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.8 2010/02/27 23:02:01 -37.755 -72.713 35.2 ARAUCANIA, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 22:22:33 -34.072 -71.308 35.0 REGION METROPOLITANA, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/27 22:20:04 -35.094 -72.712 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 22:16:15 -36.491 -73.380 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/27 22:13:52 -34.437 -72.531 35.0 OFFSHORE LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 21:59:08 -36.794 -73.311 34.8 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/27 21:48:26 -33.968 -72.140 28.6 OFFSHORE LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 21:43:11 -35.131 -72.450 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 21:00:37 -33.855 -73.028 35.0 OFF THE COAST OF VALPARAISO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/27 20:44:34 -37.893 -73.423 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/27 20:37:41 -37.532 -73.580 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/27 20:29:23 -34.689 -73.621 35.0 OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.4 2010/02/27 19:54:30 10.896 -43.442 10.0 NORTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/27 19:46:10 -36.090 -73.332 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 19:06:18 -37.473 -73.502 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 6.3 2010/02/27 19:00:08 -33.425 -71.909 34.8 OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/27 18:41:51 -37.581 -73.501 34.9 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/02/27 18:23:12 -37.618 -73.818 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.6 2010/02/27 18:15:23 -37.527 -73.696 20.8 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/27 18:12:51 -33.847 -71.577 35.0 REGION METROPOLITANA, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/02/27 17:56:53 -34.688 -71.571 35.0 LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.5 2010/02/27 17:43:37 -36.453 -72.978 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.6 2010/02/27 17:24:34 -36.256 -72.927 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/27 17:22:26 -38.043 -73.629 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.5 2010/02/27 17:11:49 -33.953 -71.796 35.0 LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 16:50:20 -34.162 -72.010 35.0 LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.5 2010/02/27 16:37:34 -37.509 -73.605 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 16:32:21 -34.986 -72.356 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.5 2010/02/27 16:27:58 -37.820 -73.404 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.5 2010/02/27 16:21:14 -38.266 -73.434 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 6.3 2010/02/27 15:45:36 -24.674 -65.403 9.5 SALTA, ARGENTINA

MAP 5.1 2010/02/27 15:23:06 -34.528 -74.987 35.0 OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 15:09:08 -33.890 -71.268 35.0 REGION METROPOLITANA, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/27 14:40:53 -31.321 -74.548 35.0 OFF THE COAST OF COQUIMBO, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 14:23:28 -34.505 -72.596 35.0 OFFSHORE LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/27 14:20:00 -37.274 -73.062 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/27 14:06:47 -37.288 -72.835 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 13:54:04 -33.269 -71.834 35.0 OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/27 13:12:52 -35.014 -71.660 35.0 MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/27 13:07:42 -38.436 -73.254 35.0 ARAUCANIA, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/27 12:58:33 -33.443 -70.944 35.0 REGION METROPOLITANA, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/27 12:46:19 -37.699 -73.681 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/27 12:44:50 -36.999 -73.038 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/27 12:23:06 -36.253 -72.266 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 12:19:51 25.979 128.434 9.9 RYUKYU ISLANDS, JAPAN

MAP 5.5 2010/02/27 12:03:27 -34.399 -73.825 35.0 OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.4 2010/02/27 11:45:03 -36.318 -73.216 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/02/27 11:27:00 -38.103 -73.587 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.4 2010/02/27 10:54:24 -36.828 -73.336 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.9 2010/02/27 10:38:36 -38.019 -73.575 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 6.0 2010/02/27 10:30:33 -33.969 -72.879 35.0 OFFSHORE LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.6 2010/02/27 10:10:15 -33.701 -72.184 35.0 OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE

MAP 5.8 2010/02/27 09:59:21 -37.991 -73.467 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/27 09:21:26 -36.609 -73.218 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.6 2010/02/27 09:00:18 -33.425 -71.625 35.0 VALPARAISO, CHILE

MAP 5.3 2010/02/27 08:53:57 -34.447 -73.397 35.0 OFF COAST OF LIBERTADOR O'HIGGINS, CHILE

MAP 5.0 2010/02/27 08:53:27 -35.073 -71.760 35.0 MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.6 2010/02/27 08:48:05 -38.584 -75.257 35.0 OFF THE COAST OF ARAUCANIA, CHILE

MAP 5.7 2010/02/27 08:31:05 -34.820 -72.443 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 6.1 2010/02/27 08:25:30 -34.750 -72.394 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.5 2010/02/27 08:19:24 -33.479 -71.574 35.0 VALPARAISO, CHILE

MAP 5.6 2010/02/27 08:13:16 -33.062 -71.702 35.0 OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE

MAP 6.9 2010/02/27 08:01:24 -37.654 -75.199 39.0 OFF THE COAST OF BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.4 2010/02/27 07:59:56 -36.050 -73.562 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.2 2010/02/27 07:56:37 -36.933 -73.240 35.0 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.4 2010/02/27 07:51:06 -36.399 -72.498 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.4 2010/02/27 07:46:50 -36.795 -72.924 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 6.0 2010/02/27 07:37:18 -36.837 -72.541 35.0 BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.6 2010/02/27 07:33:31 -38.007 -73.484 35.7 OFFSHORE BIO-BIO, CHILE

MAP 5.4 2010/02/27 07:19:49 -35.811 -72.945 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 6.0 2010/02/27 07:12:29 -33.807 -71.913 35.0 OFFSHORE VALPARAISO, CHILE

MAP 6.2 2010/02/27 06:52:35 -34.735 -72.638 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 8.8 2010/02/27 06:34:15 -35.846 -72.719 35.0 OFFSHORE MAULE, CHILE

MAP 5.1 2010/02/27 00:48:46 25.989 128.510 32.8 RYUKYU ISLANDS, JAPAN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAP 7.0 2010/02/26 20:31:27 25.902 128.417 22.0 RYUKYU ISLANDS, JAPAN

MAP 5.1 2010/02/26 16:18:57 5.842 125.792 53.7 MINDANAO, PHILIPPINES

MAP 5.7 2010/02/26 08:37:03 6.394 126.805 117.3 MINDANAO, PHILIPPINES

MAP 5.4 2010/02/26 04:42:30 28.432 86.769 10.0 WESTERN XIZANG

MAP 5.0 2010/02/26 04:41:29 0.892 123.194 66.6 MINAHASA, SULAWESI, INDONESIA

MAP 5.5 2010/02/26 01:07:58 23.782 122.839 34.7 TAIWAN REGION

MAP 5.5 2010/02/26 00:11:51 -55.882 -5.052 6.0 SOUTHERN MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAP 5.0 2010/02/25 11:26:36 -23.765 -175.713 107.0 TONGA REGION

MAP 5.2 2010/02/25 08:03:41 51.703 -176.019 42.2 ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA

MAP 5.0 2010/02/25 04:56:57 25.536 101.919 39.2 YUNNAN, CHINA

MAP 5.6 2010/02/25 03:15:03 11.045 -86.312 24.0 NEAR THE COAST OF NICARAGUA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAP 5.3 2010/02/24 11:58:02 -30.305 165.833 35.0 NORTHWEST OF NEW ZEALAND

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAP 5.3 2010/02/23 22:38:32 -23.843 -175.921 1.4 TONGA REGION

MAP 5.0 2010/02/23 15:36:10 -15.023 -172.918 53.1 SAMOA ISLANDS REGION

MAP 5.6 2010/02/23 15:16:01 15.984 -91.386 10.0 GUATEMALA

MAP 5.3 2010/02/23 10:52:16 16.048 -91.230 10.0 GUATEMALA

MAP 5.3 2010/02/23 10:43:10 49.729 155.783 46.9 KURIL ISLANDS

MAP 5.1 2010/02/23 10:25:58 32.170 48.289 65.1 WESTERN IRAN

MAP 5.1 2010/02/23 06:05:03 -23.845 -175.837 45.9 TONGA REGION



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what the heck is that hoppy?

are we to read that?

mikeinie;1293853 wrote: what the heck is that hoppy?

are we to read that?


It's a list of the location and strength of all earthquakes worldwide larger than magnitude 5 over the last week. I'm not sure what other content it adds to the thread though.

Someone informed me that there are fairly new tsunami warning signs all along the beaches of California when they weren't there before. Is the government of California trying to warn it's citizens of an impending disaster? Something to think about.

Alright guys I have finally finished my list of the safest places to be living in the World as we approach December 21st, 2012. I can not stress this enough, that I strongly, strongly, strongly recommend moving you and your family to these areas, as well as trying to convince your loved ones and friends to move to these areas as well. Any one of these areas will do. And there should be more than enough room for anyone who would choose to move to them.

You will notice that this list of safe places is much smaller than the list of dangerous places. This is because much of the World is going to be effected by the coming catastrophes. And there truly won't be that many places that will be less effected. But these places will be much much safer than the ones I listed on the dangerous list. Now you can choose to believe me on this, or to pay no attention to it. The choice is for each of you to make, and all I can do is hope to God that you make the right decisions in respect to your survival and for the survival of those you care for.



The Safest Places To Be Living In As We Approach December 21st, 2012:



1. Virginia

2. Northern Ohio

3. Northern Indiana

4. Northern Illinois

5. Southern Canada

6. Eastern Canada

7. South-West Africa

8. Australia

9. Montana

10. North Dakota

11. Wisconsin

12. Michigan

13. West Virginia

14. North Carolina

15. Pennsylvania

16. Minnesota

17. Texas

18. Arizona

I am very sorry that I don't have more places to add to that safety list. There may be a few other places around the Globe that can be considered to be "Safety Lands", but unfortunately at the moment those are the only 18 places that I am absolutely sure about. Take my word for it. Time is running out.

"Don't think that there will not be trouble, but those who put their trust wholly in the Lord will not come up missing but will find conditions, circumstances, activities, someway and somehow much to be thankful for."

Edgar Cayce

1467-18

April 10th, 1944



"Hence the necessity...that the faith...in a divinity that is WITHIN be held - that shapes the destinies of individual experiences in such a way that the opportunities come...are those things which if taken correctly make for the greater soul development."

Edgar Cayce

1300-1

November 28th, 1936



"Make thy will then one with His. Be not afraid....That the periods from the material angle as visioned are to come to pass matters not to the soul, but do thy duty TODAY! TOMORROW will care for itself...for how hath He given? "The righteous shall inherit the Earth."

"Hast thou, my brethren, a heritage in the Earth?"

Edgar Cayce

294-185

June 30th, 1936

TruthBringer;1294405 wrote: I am very sorry that I don't have more places to add to that safety list. There may be a few other places around the Globe that can be considered to be "Safety Lands", but unfortunately at the moment those are the only 18 places that I am absolutely sure about. Take my word for it. Time is running out.


Just to be sure, and I ask solely out of concern for your own well-being - you do live in one of those nominated safe areas, don't you?

spot;1293589 wrote: You know, the odd few hundred Californians dying of earthquakes every twenty or so years is a trivial matter even to the Californians themselves. Or even a thousand or two, come to that. What happened in San Fransisco in 1906 is impossible to repeat, buildings aren't like that any longer.



Either TruthBringer's talking about an earthquake of proportions unknown since the dawn of human history or he's scare-mongering to no purpose and California can take it on the chin without even blinking. If, on the other hand, he's with the faction expecting half the seaboard to sink into the Pacific, he's prognosticating out in la-la land again.


Well it could happen. It may happen one day. Combine an earthquake out to sea with high tidal waves, mudslides and a coast prone to crumbling there could be some pretty significant damage.

If youre going to vacate CA it should be because of all the crappy movies they produce.

Thank you,

Nomad

spot;1294415 wrote: Just to be sure, and I ask solely out of concern for your own well-being - you do live in one of those nominated safe areas, don't you?


I figured I was going to be asked this question eventually. Just in case people are wondering whether I have taken my own advice and moved to one of the safe places on that list, the answer is yes. And I came here with nothing but my faith in God and around $300.00 in my pocket. There was much struggle in the beginning, but since then things have leveled out. I met my girlfriend/soon to be wife here, and I have encountered some amazing people here as well.

Do not let your fear stop you from making the right decisions in Life. 99% of the time you will find that your worst fears never come to pass. And that even if some do, you can always make it through if you hold on tight to your beliefs and never let up on your ideals.

Jobs? Ha. I've lost many. Money? Ha...I've been broke more times than I can count. Food? Ha....I've lived on sandwiches for more weeks than I care to remember (with the addition of multi-vitamins of course for full nutrition). What scares me? Many things. What keeps me going? My beliefs. And if I can do it people, than all of you can do it.

I'd also like to point out that I have grown in many ways since I first started posting on this board. I was 21 years old when I first started, and I am now 26 going on 27. So in a way, I've grown up here. lol. It's just funny when I think about it.

A 1960 article in the respected British periodical Nature on the concept of "planetary forces" as an element to be considered in the mechanism of Earthquake generation said this:

"To state the plain facts: one is led to conclude that the position of Uranus within 15 degrees of the meridian at the moment of great earthquakes can be regarded as significant and that there exist times of longer period (several years) when it is very highly significant. It is quite obvious that the strains and stresses in the Earth's crust are the primary cause of earthquakes, but it has been shown that the timing of the event can be described by the position of Uranus."

"If it is necessary to explain this within the limits of present-day science, attention would be directed to the fact that Uranus is the only planet of which the direction of its axis of rotation coincides with the plane of its orbital revolution. A possible magnetic field would influence the solar plasma in a way quite different from all other planets. The earthquake which destroyed Agadir occured with Uranus only 4 degrees from the meridian. Anybody in Agadir, knowing of my communication in Nature...would have kept away from buildings at the time of Uranus being near the meridian of Agadir which was from about 10 hours to 12 hours A.M. or P.M. The destruction of the town occurred at 11 hours P.M. local time. An unbiased approach to these problems, of which the correlations of Uranus are only a part and a first step, may help humanity. (R. Thomascheck, Nature, 1960, v. 186, p.338)."