Na, evtl. hast Du ja eine Erklärung für diese Mag. 5,3 u. ff. events ab 06.02.

verfasst von RK, 18.02.2004, 21:24

-->Eine"Minen-Explosion", die als Folge wie ein Erdbeben der Stärke 5,3 erschien?
Ach ja? Wirklich? Ziemlich schwachsinnige Ausrede, nicht wahr?
RK


Von:"Mitch Battros" <earthchanges@earthlink.net>
An:"Breaking News" <earthchanges@earthlink.net>
Betreff: ECTV/Breaking News - New 3.5 mag. EQ Hits Yellowstone Area on Sunday
Datum: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:33:24 -0800


New 3.5 mag. EQ Hits Yellowstone Area on Sunday...02/17/04
by Mitch Battros (ECTV)

Just when I think we had made progress in our investigation regarding
the
5.3 mg quake that was reported in the Yellowstone area on Feb. 6th, I
receive notice of a new 3.5 mg. quake which hit this past Sunday. This
new
quake just happens to be almost in the"exact" location as last weeks
5.3.
Is this a coincidence?
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_exag.html

In my investigation, I spoke directly to the two high governing
officials
which would have the answers to my questions. Mr. Jim Case is the lead
supervisor at the"Wyoming State Geological Survey" located in Laramie,
WY.
WSGS: http://www.wsgsweb.uwyo.edu/. Read his comments later in this
article.

I also spoke to Heidi Koontz, who is the assistant administrator of the
USGS
Center located in Golden, CO. When I questioned Ms. Koontz as to the
confirmation of the Feb. 6th 5.3 mg. event, she stated that"yes, it
did
occur. Our scientist have looked into it, and after consulting the team
led
by Pam Benfield, seismologist at the USGS Center, it was determined the
5.3
EQ did in fact occur, and was caused by a"mine collapse" or"mine
blast".

When I informed Mr. Jim Case of the USGS statement confirming a 5.3
mag.
reading did in fact occur, and the top scientific supervisor states it
was
due to a"mine blast"; Mr. Case reacted with disbelief and stated"no,
I
don't think it was a mine blast. If it was an explosion, and measured
5.3,
we're talking something on the scale of MOAB or a nuclear devise." He
went
onto to explain that it could have been a"mine collapse". Case:
"However, a
mine collapse would still not measure up to a 5. 3 mg, but more likely
a 2.5
to 3.5 quake."

So how can this be? First we have the USGS saying"it was not an
earthquake,
but a mine blast", then we have the Wyoming seismology center say"it
was
not a mine blast, because if it was, it was a nuclear explosion. There
is no
way it would measure that high". And now we have a brand new 3.5 mag.
quake
which occurred almost in the exact area. So what's it going to be! 1)
A
second mine blast? 2) A second earthquake? 3) First one mine blast,
second
one earthquake?

Does this sound right to you? Or is it the smell of fish, this far
inland!

What the heck... I am going to make my investigative phone recordings
available to all. I want you to hear it straight from the
representatives
involved.

Yellowstone EQ Investigation (21 min's)
http://www.earthchangestv.net/Audio/usgsyellowstoneresponse21104.mp3

Note: there is a 5 second delay between the first and second interview.

Thread gesperrt

 

gesamter Thread:

• 'Die 3 Siebe des Sokrates': Wahrheit, Güte, Notwendigkeit /@Elli + Mitschreiber - Tobias, 18.02.2004, 16:37
  • Re: 'Die 3 Siebe des Sokrates': Danke, so meinte ich es...... - -- Elli --, 18.02.2004, 16:41
    • Message understood - XERXES, 18.02.2004, 17:02
    • Subjektivität ist doch was schönes.... - wheely, 18.02.2004, 17:51
      • Re: Subjektivität ist doch was schönes.... - - Elli -, 18.02.2004, 19:05
      • Na, evtl. hast Du ja eine Erklärung für diese Mag. 5,3 u. ff. events ab 06.02. - RK, 18.02.2004, 21:24
  • Re: 'Die 3 Siebe des Sokrates': Wahrheit, Güte, Notwendigkeit /@Elli + Mitschreiber - Emerald, 18.02.2004, 16:49
    • www.nutzlose-fakten.de:-) - Tobias, 18.02.2004, 20:12
      • Re: Nützliches Faktum auf ''nutzlose-fakten.de'' - Ecki1, 18.02.2004, 20:54
      • Re: Kommst gerade vom Seminar: Einschleimen bei Elli für Fortgeschrittene? ;)) - JoBar, 18.02.2004, 20:54
        • Re: Kommst gerade vom Seminar: Einschleimen bei Elli für Fortgeschrittene? ;)) - - Elli -, 18.02.2004, 21:16
          • Re: Einschleimen bei Elli für Fortgeschrittene? ;)) Na gut, dan nicht ;( - JoBar, 18.02.2004, 21:23
            • Re: Einschleimen bei Elli für Fortgeschrittene? ;)) Na gut, dan nicht ;( - - Elli -, 18.02.2004, 21:35
              • Re: Na gut, dann nicht - Tobias? k.A. bin doch erst 3 Monate hier - JoBar, 18.02.2004, 21:39