AntiMatter Technology Problems

AntiMatter Technology Problems

 

AntiMatter Technology Problems by, Concept Activity Research Vault

May 16, 2011 09:42:4 ( PST ) Updated ( Originally Published: May 10, 2011 )

CALIFORNIA, Los Angeles – May 16, 2011 – The global scientific community is eyeing suspiciously a 1952 ‘experimental projects’ organization known as the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire ( CERN ) [ ( also known as ) European Organization for Nuclear Research ] wherein its Large Hadron Collider ( LHC ) consists of a huge 27-mile in diameter high-energy particle collider is conducting some extremely serious experiments involving what scientists and physicisys say involves something called a “CP-violation” that deals with creating a variety of new subatomic particles that are believed to have never existed anywhere on Earth.

There is quite a bit of controversy concerning something called a “strangelet” ( strangelets ) and other particle creations within the CERN experiment, which because of conjectures in scientific theories are feared by some professionals, could create a ’new subatomic particle’ that may upset the balance of Earth as we know it, and what is even more frightening is that if something goes out-of-control, it may take anywhere between 1-year to 5-years ‘before anyone notices a chain reaction having already been created that some have already identified as a ‘micro-blackhole’ that could theoretically begin consuming Earth from within its own magnetic iron core. Sounding like ‘science fiction’, apparently CERN experiments are ’definitely not’ something to be taken lightly.

This serious and highly controversial subject amongst scientists and physicists around the world is being touched-on in this report, amongst other related information, amongst which includes video clips ( below ) for better understanding some of the many aspects for public knowledge not being addressed by mainstream news broadcasts.

CERN went even further, though, by expanding its deep underground experiments to conduct related experiments in outerspace within what it calls the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS / AMS-02 ) now scheduled for launch aboard the U.S. Space Shuttle Endeavor STS-134 mission set for May 16, 2011. The AMS-02 is, however, to be delivered to the International Space Station ( ISS ) where it will continue CERN designated experiments.

Interestingly, during July 2010 the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS / AMS02 ) was ‘not’ launched as the video clip ( above ) depicted. The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS / AMS-02 ), being equated to that of the Hubble space telescope, actually holds far more technological advancements from CERN and is solely designed to focus on subatomic particles surrounding antimatter issues.

U.S. Space Shuttle Endeavor mission STS-134 was scheduled to launch on April 14, 2011 but was delayed until the end of April 2011, but then was delayed yet again until May 16, 2011. Why so many delays and reschedulings?

Earth anti-matter issues are rarely addressed by the mainstream news media with the public, however in-lieu of the recent NASA public warning that it is expecting a ‘significant’ “solar flare” to erupt, coming bound for Earth, as something “we all need to be concerned about,” the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) having just been recently placed onboard the U.S. Space Shuttle Endeavour mission – scheduled to deliver the AMS aboard the International Space Station ( ISS ) – is something the public really needs to take a closer look at.

[ PHOTO ( above ): Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS / AMS-02 ) in U.S. Space Shuttle Endeavour cargo bay April 2011 ( click to enlarge ) ]

– –

Source: Nature.Com

AntiUniverse Here We Come by, Eugenie Samuel Reich

May 4, 2011

A controversial cosmic ray detector destined for the International Space Station will soon get to prove its worth.

The next space-shuttle launch will inaugurate a quest for a realm of the Universe that few believe exists.

Nothing in the laws of physics rules out the possibility that vast regions of the cosmos consist mainly of anti-matter, with anti-galaxies, anti-stars, even anti-planets populated with anti-life.

“If there’s matter, there must be anti-matter. The question is, where’s the Universe made of antimatter?” says Professor Samuel C.C. Ting, a Nobel prize winning physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ( MIT ) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. But most physicists reason that if such antimatter regions existed, we would have seen the light emitted when the particles annihilated each other along the boundaries between the antimatter and the matter realms. No wonder the Professor Samuel C.C. Ting brainchild, a $2,000,000,000 billion dollar space mission was sold ‘partly on the promise of looking for particles emanating from anti-galaxies’, is fraught with controversy.

Professor Ting’s project, however has other ‘more mainstream scientific goals’ so, most critics of which held their tongues last week as the U.S. Space Shuttle Endeavour STS-134 mission – prepared to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS version, known as the AMS-02 ) to the International Space Station ( ISS ) – flight was delayed ( because of problems ) until later this month ( May 2011 ).

Pushing The Boundaries

Seventeen ( 17 ) years in the making, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) is a product of the former NASA administrator Dan Goldin quest to find remarkable science projects for the Internation Space Station ( ISS ) and of the Ting fascination with anti-matter.

Funded by NASA, the U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ), plus a sixteen ( 16 ) country consortium of partners, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) has prevailed – despite delays and technical problems – along with the doubts of many high-energy and particle physicists.

“Physics is not about doubt,” says Roberto Battiston, deputy spokesman for the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) and physicist at the University of Perugia, Italy. “It is about precision measurement.”

As the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) experiment headed to the Space Shuttle Endeavour launch pad, Roberto Battiston and other scientists were keen to emphasize the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) ‘unprecedented sensitivity’ to the gamut of cosmic rays, that rain down on Earth, that should allow the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) to perform two ( 2 ) things:

1. Measure Cosmic Ray High-Energy Charged ‘Particles’ and ‘Properties’ ( thereof ), sent from:

– Sun ( Earth’s ); – Supernovae ( distant ); and, – γ-ray bursts.

AND,

2. Detect AntiMatter ( errant chunks ), sent from the:

a. Universe ( far-away ).

Cosmic rays ( on Earth ) can only be indirectly detected by their showers of ‘secondary particles’ produced – when slamming into molecules of atmosphere in high regions above the Earth, but the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) in space will get an undistorted view.

“We’ll be able to measure ( solar ) Cosmic Ray Flux very precisely,” says collaboration member physicist Fernando Barão of the Laboratory of Instrumentation and Experimental Particle Physics in Lisbon, Spain. “The best place ( for detecting this ) is to be in ‘space’ because you don’t have Earth’s atmosphere that is going to destroy those cosmic rays.”

No matter what happens, with the more speculative search for antimatter, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) should produce a definitive map of the cosmic ray sky – helping to build a kind of ‘astronomy not dependent on light’.

Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) consists of a powerful permanent magnet surrounded by a suite of particle detectors.

Over 10-years ( or more ), that the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) experiment will run, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) magnet will bend the paths of cosmic rays by an amount that reveals their energy and charge, thereby their identity.

Some will be ‘heavy atomic nuclei’, while others ( made from anti-matter ), will reveal themselves by ‘bending in the opposite direction’ from their ‘matter’ counterparts ( see, e.g. cosmic curveballs ).

By ‘counting positrons’ ( i.e. antimatter ‘electrons’ ), the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) could also ‘chase a tentative signal of dark matter’, the so-far ‘undetected stuff’ thought to account for ‘much of the mass of the Universe’.

In 2009, Russia and Italy researchers – with the Payload for Antimatter Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics ( PAMELA ) onboard a Russia satellite – published evidence of an ‘excess amount of positrons in the space environment surrounding Earth’ ( O. Adriani et al. Nature 458 , 607–609; 2009 ). One potential source of this is the ‘annihilation of dark-matter particles’ within the ‘halo enveloping our Galaxy’.

Another speculative quest, is to follow up on hints of ‘strange matter’, a ‘hypothetical substance’ that should be found in ‘some collapsed stars’ containing ‘strange quarks’, ‘up quarks’ and ‘down quarks’ – within ordinary nuclei.

NASA Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) program manager Mark Sistilli says hints of ‘strange matter’ were seen – during a 1998 pilot flight of the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS / AMS-01 ) aboard the Space Shuttle, however NASA determined results ‘too tentative to publish’.

Because the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS / AMS-02 ) status was made as an “exploration mission,” the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) ‘did not need to follow’ “peer review” NASA would ‘normally have required’ for a ”science mission.”

But Sistilli emphasizes the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ( AMS ) earned flying colors from committees convened by the U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ), which is supplying $50,000,000 million of the funding.

Now their ( DOE ) confidence will be put to the test.

Reference

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110504/full/473013a.html

– –

While for some it may appear strangelet subatomic antimatter particle research is for advancing our knowledge of unlocking the secrets of life in the Universe, others are still asking NASA what they really know is behind ‘why’ an ‘expected significant’ Solar Energetic Particle Event ( SEPE ) is something “we all need to be concerned about” on Earth.

With Solar Energetic Particle Event ( SEPE ) high-energy effects capable of disrupting Earth ground-based and space-based electrical components and electricity grid infrastructure systems for up to 10-years, many wonder why billions upon billions of dollars were and are still being pumped into the CERN project studying ‘strangelets’ and want to know just why we need ‘more immediate information detection capabilities’ on high-energy solar flare proton and electron ejections coming toward Earth soon, which NASA and other agencies ‘know far more about’ than they are willing to tell the public.

How advanced has government authorities grown from private-sector science and technology knowledge? The United States has already mapped internal magma flows of the Sun.

How could the U.S. government possibly ‘see inside the Sun’ to know when a coronal mass ejection from a solar flare would occur in the future?

In layman terms, for government it was like looking through a clear glass Pyrex bowl positioned atop a stove burner, watching as water starts to boil inside it, and then predicting – based on the flame heating it the water – when bubbles will come to the surface, when one takes into account a government ’ground-based’ ( does ‘not’ require ‘space-based placement’ ) observatory telescope equipped with a “super lens” used for imaging ( observing ) ‘objects at great distances inside matter’ – a “superlens” that now even ‘defies light-speed’ and ‘matter’. ( Read Below )

– –

[ PHOTO ( above ): Antimatter photon ‘optic’ substrate structure material for ‘subsurface solar imaging plasma flows’ inside Sun enables plotting Coronal Mass Ejections ‘before solar surface eruptions’ ( click to enlarge ) ]

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Operated by the University of California

Optical Antimatter Structure Shows The Way For New Super Lens by, Aditi Risbud

April 21, 2009

A device, made from alternating layers of ‘air’ and ‘silicon photonic crystal’, behaves like a ‘super lens’ – providing the first experimental demonstration of optical antimatter.

Scientists at Berkeley Lab ( Berkeley, California, USA ) and the Institute for Microelectronics and Microsystems ( CNR ) in Naples, Italy have experimentally demonstrated – for the first time – the ‘concept of optical antimatter’ by ‘light traveling through a material without being distorted’.

By engineering a material focusing light through its own internal structure, a beam of light can enter and exit ( unperturbed ) after traveling through millimeters of material.

For years, optics researchers have struggled to bypass the ‘diffraction limit’, a physical law restricting imaging resolution to about 1/2 the wavelength of light used to make the image.

If a material with a negative index of refraction ( a property describing how light bends as it enters or exits a material ) could be designed, this diffraction hurdle could be lowered.

Such a material could also behave as a superlens, useful in observing objects from imaging equipment with ‘details finer than allowed by the diffraction limit’, a physical law restricting imaging resolution to about 1/2 the wavelength of light used to make the image.

Despite the intriguing possibilities posed, by a substance with a negative index of refraction, ‘this property is inaccessible through naturally occurring ( positive index ) materials’.

During the mid 1990s, English theoretical physicist Sir John Pendry proposed his clever ‘sleight of light’ using so-called metamaterials – engineered ‘materials’ whose underlying structure ‘can alter overall responses’ to ‘electrical fields’ and ‘magnetic fields’.

Inspired by the Sir John Pendry proposal, scientists have made progress in scaling metamaterials from microwave to infrared wavelengths while illuminating the nuances of light-speed and direction-of-motion in such engineered structures.

“We’ve shown a ‘completely new way to control and manipulate light’, ‘using a silicon photonic crystal’ as a ‘real metamaterial’ – and it works,” said Stefano Cabrini, Facility Director of the Nanofabrication Facility in the Molecular Foundry, a U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) User Facility located at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ( LBNL ) providing support to nanoscience researchers around the world.

“Our findings will open-up an easier way to make structures and use them effectively as a ‘super-lens’.”

Through the Molecular Foundry user program, Cabrini and post-doctoral researcher Allan Chang collaborated with Vito Mocella, a theoretical scientist at the Institute of Microelectronics and Microsystems ( CNR ) in Naples, Italy to fabricate a 2 X 2 millimeter device consisting of alternating layers of air and a silicon based photonic crystal containing air holes.

Using high precision nanofabrication processes, the team designed the spacing and thicknesses of each layer to behave like the metamaterial Sir John Pendry had envisioned.

This device was then used to focus a beam of near-infrared ( I-R ) light, essentially ‘annihilating’ 2 millimeters of ‘space’.

“Now that we have a prototype to demonstrate the concept, our next step will be to find the geometry and material that will work for visible light,” said Cabrini.

Along with possibilities in imaging, the researchers’ findings could also be used to develop hybrid negative-index and positive-index materials, Cabrini added, which may lead to novel ‘devices’ and ‘systems’ unachievable through either material alone.

“Self-collimation of light over millimeter-scale distance in a quasi zero average index metamaterial,” by Vito Mocella, Stefano Cabrini, Allan S.P. Chang, P. Dardano, L. Moretti, I. Rendina, Deirdre Olynick, Bruce Harteneck and Scott Dhuey, appears in Physical Review Letters available in Physical Review Letters online.

Portions of this work were supported by the U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences under Contract No. DE-AC0205CH11231.

The Molecular Foundry is one ( 1 ) of five ( 5 ) U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) Nanoscale Science Research Centers ( NSRC ) that are premier national user facilities for interdisciplinary research at the nanoscale. Together, the U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) Nanoscale Science Research Centers ( NSRC ) comprise a suite of complementary facilities providing researchers with state-of-the-art capabilities to fabricate, process, characterize and model nanoscale materials, which constitutes the ‘largest infrastructure investment’ of the National Nanotechnology Initiative ( NNI ).

U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) Nanoscale Science Research Centers ( NSRC ) are located at these six ( 6 ) locations:

– Argonne National Laboratory ( ANL ); – Brookhaven National Laboratory ( BNL ); – Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ( LBNL ); – Oak Ridge National Laboratory ( ORNL ); – Sandia National Laboratory ( SNL ); and, – Los Alamos National Laboratory ( LANL ).

For more information about the DOE NSRCs, please visit http://nano.energy.gov.

Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) National Laboratory located in Berkeley, California conducting ‘unclassified scientific research’ managed by the University of California.

References

http://www.lbl.gov http://foundry.lbl.gov http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2009/04/21/optical-antimatter

– –

If the public could keep its eye open for one second, it would see what is coming at them before it hits them with a surprise that only government knows anything about, but governments have spoken mysteriously to citizens for a very long time, but perhaps a mere fact ’known today’ may eventually come as no surprise to many whom would have otherwise been kept in the dark while only a few know far more about what awaits the masses.

Perhaps, people may begin asking more questions of their country’s agencies spending so much money so quickly for apparently some ‘mysterious emergency purpose’, and if not for some ‘mysterious emergency purpose’, why is so much money being spent on science and space projects while the global public is told about serious government budget cutbacks causing so many people to suffer? If there is no ’emergency’, then people should know ‘why they are suffering financially more’ – just for the sake of ‘growing science experiment budgets’? Might be a good idea for everyone to begin keeping their eyes open a little more often and trained on something more than light-hearted mainstream media news comedy broadcasts.

If people think they get real serious about ‘what they know’ as told on television news broadcasts, imagine how much more serious they will become when they learn about what they ‘were not told’?

Think about it. How Fast Is Technology Growing? Just beginning to grasp something ‘new’? Now think about something even newer than the Large Hadron Collider ( LHC ) at CERN, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider ( RHIC ) that added its Solenoidal Tracker At RHIC ( STAR ) claiming to ‘reverse time’ by ultra super computers reconstructing sub-atomic particle interactions producing particles – emerging from each collision – that STAR is believed to be able to ‘run time backward’ in a process equated to examining final products coming out-of a factory that scientists and physicists have no idea ’what kinds of machines produced the products’. Basically, they are developing items so fast, they do not know how they were formed, much less what the capabilities are. Fact is, ’they could easily produce a monster’ and ‘not know what it is until after they are eaten by it’. Scary, really, like kids being given matches to play with.

They are being educated beyond their own intelligence, so much so and to the point by which scientists and physicists ’cannot even grasp what ‘it’ is they’re looking at – much less know what they are trying to manipulate to ‘see what it does next’ – nevertheless they are conducting experiments like children playing with dynamite.

Think this is science fiction? Think they are mad scientists at play? Check the research reference links ( below ). Think antimatter technology has advanced alot since you began reading this report? calculate ‘more’ because the public does not even know half of it.

CERN has been operating since 2002, and the “SuperLens” was worked-on ‘before’ 2002, making ‘both’ today now 10-years old.

Want newer ‘news’?

Superlenses – created from perovskite oxides – are simpler and easier to fabricate than ‘metamaterials’.

Superlenses are ideal for capturing light travelling in the mid-infra-red ( IR ) spectrum range, opening even newer technological highly sensitive imaging devices, and this superlensing effect can be selectively turned ‘on’ and ‘off’, opening yet another technology of ‘highly dense data storage writing’ for ‘far more advanced capability computers’.

Plasmonic whispering gallery microcavities, consisting of a silica interior coated with a thin layer of silver, ‘improves quality by better than an order of magnitude’ of current plasmonic microcavities. and paves the way for ‘plasmonic nanolasers’.

Expand your knowledge, begin researching the six ( 6 ) reference links ( below ) so that the next time you watch the ‘news’ you’ll begin to realize just how much you’re ‘not being told’ about what is ‘actually far more important’ – far more than you’re used to imagining.

 

Submitted for review and commentary by,

 

Concept Activity Research Vault E-MAIL: ConceptActivityResearchVault@Gmail.Com WWW: http://ConceptActivityResearchVault.WordPress.Com

References

http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/
http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/STAR.asp
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=1075&template=Today
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/03/29/perovskite-based-superlens-for-the-infrared/
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2009/01/22/plasmonic-whispering-gallery/
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=1018060

 

Advertisements

Earth Event Alerts

Earth Event Alerts

[ IMAGE ( above ): IBM Stratus and Cirrus supercomputers analyze Global Environmental Intelligence ( click to enlarge ) ]

Earth Event Alerts

by, Kentron Intellect Research Vault [ E-MAIL: KentronIntellectResearchVault@Gmail.Com ]

August 17, 2012 19:00:42 ( PST ) Updated ( Originally Published: March 23, 2011 )

MARYLAND, Fort George G. Meade – August 17, 2012 – IBM Stratus and IBM Cirrus supercomputers as well as CRAY XK6m and CRAY XT5 ( Jaguar ) massive parallel supercomputers and vector supercomputers are securely controlled via the U.S. National Security Agency ( NSA ) for analyzing Global Environmental Intelligence ( GEI ) data extracted from ground-based ( terrestrial ) monitoring stations and space-based ( extraterrestrial ) spaceborne platforms studying Earth Event ( Space Weather ) effects via High-Performance Computing ( HPC ) as well as, for:

– Weather Forecasting ( including: Space Weather ); – U.S. Government Classified Projects; – Scientific Research; – Design Engineering; and, – Other Research.

[ IMAGE ( above ): CRAY XK6m supercomputers analyze Global Environmental Intelligence ( click to enlarge ) ]

CRAY INC. largest customers are U.S. government agencies, e.g. the U.S. Department of Defense ( DoD ) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ( DARPA ) and the U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) Oak Ridge National Laboratory ( ORNL ), which accounts for about 3/4 of revenue for CRAY INC. – as well as other supercomputers used worldwide by academic institutions ( universities ) and industrial companies ( private-sector firms ).

CRAY INC. additionally provides maintenance, support services and sells data storage products from partners ( e.g. BlueArc, LSI and Quantum ).

Supercomputer competitors, of CRAY INC., are:

– IBM; – HEWLETT-PACKARD; and, – DELL.

On May 24, 2011 CRAY INC. announced its new CRAY XK6 supercomputer, a hybrid supercomputing system combining its Gemini InterConnect, AMD Opteron™ 6200 Series processors ( code-named: InterLagos ) and NVIDIA Tesla 20 Series GPUs into a tightly integrated upgradeable supercomputing system capable of more than 50 petaflops ( i.e. ‘quadrillions of computing operations’ per ‘second’ ), a multi-purpose supercomputer designed for the next-generation of many-core High Performance Computing ( HPC ) applications.

The SWISS NATIONAL SUPERCOMPUTING CENTRE ( CSCS ) – located in Manno, Switzerland – is the CRAY INC. first ( 1st ) customer for the new CRAY XK6 system. CSCS ( Manno, Switzerland ) promotes and develops technical and scientific services in the field of High-Performance Computing ( HPC ) for the Swiss research community, and is upgrading its CRAY XE6m system ( nick-named: Piz Palu ) into a multiple cabinet new CRAY XK6 supercomputer. The SWISS NATIONAL SUPERCOMPUTING CENTRE ( CSCS ) supports scientists working, in:

– Weather Forecasting; – Physics; – Climatology; – Geology; – Astronomy; – Mathematics; – Computer Sciences; – Material Sciences; – Chemistry; – Biology; – Genetics; and, – Experimental Medicine.

Data additionally analyzed by these supercomputers, include:

– Ultra-Deep Sea Volcanoes located in continental plate fracture zones several miles beneath ocean basin areas ( e.g. Asia-Pacific Rim also known as the “Pacific Ring of Fire” where a circum-Pacific seismic belt of earthquakes frequently impact areas far across the Pacific Ocean in the Americas ).

Global geoscience realizes Earth ‘ground movement shaking’ earthquakes hide alot, of what people are actually walking on-top-of, large geographic land mass areas known as ‘continental shelves’ or “continental plates” that move ( tectonics ) because of superheated pressurized extrasuperconducting magnetic energy properties released from within molten magma material violently exploding beneath the surface of the Earth down in ultra-deep seas.

[ IMAGE ( above ): Global Tectonic Plate Boundaries & Major Volcano HotSpots ( click to enlarge ) ]

Significant volcanoes are positioned like dots along this global 25,000-mile circular region known as the “Pacific Ring of Fire” extending from south of Australia up the ‘entire eastcoast’ of Japan, China and the Kamchatka Pennisula of Russia to across the Aleutian Islands of Alaska and then south down the ‘entire westcoast’ of North America and Latin America.

[ IMAGE ( above ): Ultra-Deep Sea Pacific Ocean Basin ( click to enlarge ) ]

March 11, 2011 Tohoku-chiho Taiheiyo-oki Japan 9.0 earthquake held several secrets, including U.S. government contractors simultaneously monitoring a significant ”moment of magnitude” ( Mw ) Earth Event occurring parallel to the eastcoast of Japan beneath the Western Pacific Ocean where an entire suboceanic mountain range was being split in-half ( south to north ) 310-miles long and split open 100-feet wide ( east to west ), which the public was unaware of nor were they told details about.

Interestingly, the March 11, 2011 Japan island earthquakes have not yet stopped, as the swarm of 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 Richter scale earthquakes continue as a direct and proximate cause of erupting ‘suboceanic volcanoes‘ moving these large “plates” beginning to force yet others to slam into one another thousands of miles away.

Japan’s Western Pacific Ocean ‘eastcoast’ has a ’continental plate’ slamming point meeting the ’westcoast’ of North America near the Cascade mountain range ‘plate’ reacting in one ( 1 ) of two ( 2 ) ways, i.e. ’seaward’ ( plate thrusting toward Japan ) or ‘landward’ ( plate thrusting toward the Pacific Northwest ) of the United States and/or Canada.

What The Public Never Knew

Government leadership, globally, is acutely familiar with these aforementioned types of major Earth Events, including ‘monstrous plate tectonic pushing matches’, which usually collapse one or more ‘national infrastructures’ and typically spells ‘death’ and ‘serious injuries’ for populations in developed areas.

Extremely familiar with mass public panic resulting from Earth Event catastrophes, government ‘contingency actions’ pre-approved by ‘governing bodies’ and/or ‘national leadership’ Executive Order Directives, which although not advertised is a matter of public record, ‘immediately calls’ upon ‘all military forces’ to carry-out “risk reduction” ( ‘minimization of further damages and dangers’ ) through what is referred to as “mitigation” ( ‘disaster management’ ) within “National Disaster Preparedness Planning” ( ‘national contingency measures’ ) details citizens are unaware-of. Government decision-makers know a “national emergency can bring temporary suspension of Constitutional Rights and a loss of freedoms – a volatile subject few care to discuss because ’any significant natural disaster’ will result in government infringment on many civil liberties most populations are accustomed to enjoying.

Before 1-minute and 40-seconds had passed into the March 11, 2011 Tohoku, Japan earthquake ( Richter scale: M 9.0 ), key U.S. government decision-makers discussed the major Earth Event unfolding off Japan’s eastcoast Plate-Boundary subduction zone beneath the ultra-deep sea of the Western Pacific Ocean where Japan’s monstrous volcano mountain range had split at least 100-feet wide open and cracked 310-miles long in a northern direction headed straight for the Aleutian Islands of Alaska in the United States.

U.S. Military Contingent Standby “Red Alert” Notification

U.S. Air Force ( USAF ) ‘subordinate organization’ Air and Space Operations ( ASO ) Communications Directorate ( A6 ) ‘provides support’ over ‘daily operations’, ‘contingency actions’ and ‘general’ Command, Control, Communication and Computer Intelligence ( C4I ) for the U.S. Air Force Weather Agency ( USAFWA ) saw its 1st Weather Group ( 1ST WXG ) Directorate ready its USAFWAWXGOWS 25th Operational Weather Squadron ( OWS ) at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base ( Tucson, Arizona ) responsibile for conjuntive communication notification issuance of an Earth Event “Red Alert” immediately issued directly to U.S. Army Western Command ( WESTCOM ) with a “Standby-Ready” clause pausing Western Region ( CONUS ) mobilization of Active, Reserve and National Guard military forces at specific installations based on the Japan Earth Event “moment of magnitude” ( Mw ) Plate-Boundary consequential rebound expected to strike against the North America westcoast Plate-Boundary of the Cascadia Range reactionarily triggering its subduction zone into a Cascadia ‘great earthquake’.

CALTECH Public News Suppression Of Major Earth Event

Officials, attempting to diminish any clear public understanding of the facts only knowing a Richter scale level earthquake ‘magnitude’ ( never knowing or hearing about what a major Earth Event “moment of magnitude” ( Mw ) entailed ), only served-up ‘officially-designed double-speak psycho-babble terms’ unfamiliar to the public as ‘creative attention distraction’ announcing the “Japan earthquake experienced,” a:

– “Bilateral Rupture;” and,

– “Slip Distribution.”

The facts are that, the Japan ‘earthquake’ would ‘never have occurred’, ‘unless’:

1ST – “Bilateral Rupture” ( ‘suboceanic subterranean tectonic plate split wide open  ) occurred; followed by,

2ND – “Slip Distribution” ( ‘tectonic plate movement’ ); then finally,

3RD – “Ground Shaking” ( ‘earthquake’ ) response.   Officials failed the public without any notification a major Earth Event “moment of magnitude” ( Mw ) on the “Pacific Ring of Fire” ( circum-Pacific seismic belt ) in the Western Pacific Ocean had a, huge:

1. Continental Plate Break Off;

3. Undersea Plate Mountain Range Crack Wide Open; plus,

2. Mountain Range Split Open 310-Miles Long.

There are some, laying at rest, that might ‘not consider’ the aforementioned three ( 3 ) major Earth Event occurences significant, except those ‘still living’ on Earth.

Asia-Pacific Rim

This western Pacific Ocean huge ‘undersea mountain range’ moved ‘east’, crushing into the smaller portion of its tectonic plate’ toward the continent of Asia, which commenced continous streams of day and night significant earthquakes still registering 5.0 + and 6.0 + according to Richter scale levels of magnitude now and for over 12-days throughout the area surrounding Japan, the point nearest where the tectonic plate meets the continent of Asia within the western Pacific Ocean from where this ‘monstorous undersea mountain range’ suddenly split, sending the ‘eastern half’ – with the ‘tectonic plate’ broken beneath it – slamming into the continent of Asia.

Simultaneously pushed, even greater with more force outward ( note: explosives – like from out-of a cannon or from a force-shaped explosive – project blasts outward from the ‘initial explosive blast’ is blunted by a back-stop ) away-from the Asia continent, was this ‘monstorous undersea mountain range’ split-off ( 310-miles / 500-kilometers long ) ‘western half’ slammed west up against the Americas ‘western tectonic plates’ .

This ‘is’ the ‘major’ “Earth Event” that will have consequential global impact repurcussions, ‘officially minimized’ by ‘focusing public attention’ on a ‘surface’ Earth Event earthquake 9.0 Richter scale magnitude ( once ), while even further diminishing the hundreds of significant earthquakes that are still occuring 12-days after the initial earthquake.

Asia-Pacific Rim “Ring Of Fire”

Many are unaware the “Asia-Pacific Rim” is ( also known as ) the “Ring of Fire” whereunder the ”ultra-deep sea Pacific Ocean’ exists ‘numerous gigantic volatile volcanoes’ positioned in an ‘incredibly large circle’ ( “ring” ) around a ‘huge geographic land mass area’ comprised of ‘tectonic plates’ that ‘connect’ the ‘Eastern Asias’ to the ‘Western Americas’.

Yellowstone National Park Super Volcano

Many people are still wondering ‘why’ the Japan earthquakes have not yet stopped, and why they are being plagued by such a long swarm of siginificant earthquakes still to this very day nearly 60-days later. The multiple color video clips viewed ( below ) provides information on unusual earthquake swarm patterns and reversals while studying the World’s largest supervolcano in Wyoming ( USA ) located at Yellowstone National Park, a global public attraction viewing natural underground volcano steam vents known as geyser eruptions:

[ PHOTO ( above ): Major HotSpot at Yellowstone displays Half Dome cap of granite rock above unerupted volcano magma. ]

Ultra-Deep Sea Volcanoes

When huge undersea volcanoes erupt they dynamically force incredibly large geographic land mass plates to move whereupon simultaneously and consequentially movement is experienced on ‘surface land areas’ people know as ’earthquakes’ with their ’aftermath measurements’ provided in “Richter scale level” measurements that most do not understand. These Richter scale measurements are only ‘officially provided estimates’, as ’officials are never presented with totally accurate measurements’ because many of which are ‘not obtained with any great precision for up-to 2-years after the initial earthquake’.

Rarely are ‘precise measurements’ publicly provided, and at anytime during that 2-year interim the public may hear their previously reported earthquake Richter scale level measurement was either “officially upgraded” or “officially downgraded.” Often, this is apparently dependent when one sees ’many other countries contradicting U.S. public news announcements’ about the magnitude of a particularly controversial earthquake. An example of this was seen surrounding the March 12, 2011 earthquake in Japan:

– Japan 1st public announcement: 9.2 Richter scale;

– United States 1st public announcement: 8.9 Richter scale;

– United States 2nd public announcement: 9.0 Richter scale; and,

– United States 3rd public announcement: 9.1 Richter scale.

What will the March 12, 2011 Japan earthquake be officially reported as in 2-years? Who knows?

Never publicly announced, however are measurements of an earthquake ‘force strength pressure accumulation’ transmitted through suboceanic tectonic plates grinding against one another, a major Earth Event ‘geographic pushing process’, having been seen by U.S. NSA supercomputers from global ground and space-based monitoring analysis surrounding the “Asia-Pacific Rim Ring of Fire” – stretching from the ‘Eastern Asias’ to the ‘Western Americas’ and beyond.

This ‘domino plate tectonic principle’ results from combined amounts of ‘volcanic magmatic eruptive force strength’ and ‘tectonic plate accumulative pressure build-up’ against ‘adjacent tectonic plates’ causing ‘suboceanic, subterranean and surface land to move’ whereupon ‘how significant such amounts occur determines strength’ of both consequential ‘earthquakes’ and resultant ‘tsunamis’.

Waterway Tsunamis

When most of the public ‘hears about’ a “tsunami”, they ‘think’ ‘high waves’ near “ocean” coastal regions presented with significant floods over residents of cities nearby. Few realize the ‘vast majority of Earth’s population predominantly live all along ocean coastal regions. Few realize one ( 1 ) ‘gigantic tsunami’ could ‘kill vast populations living near oceans in the wake of popular beaches, a tough trade-off for some while logical others choose ‘living further inland’ – away from large bodies of water like ‘large lakes’ where ‘tide levels are also effected by the gravitational pull of the moon’ that can also can a ‘vast deep lake body’ bring a tsunami dependent on which direction tectonic plates move a ‘force directionalized earthquake’ creating a ‘tsunami’ with significant innundating floods over residents living in cities near those ‘large shoreline’ areas too.

What most of the public does not yet fully realize is that ‘large river bodies of water’, like the Mississippi River that is a ‘north’ to ‘south’ directional river’ could easily see ‘east to ‘west’ directional ‘tectonic plates’ move adjacent states – along the New Madrid Fault subduction zone – with significant ‘earthquakes’ – from tectonic plate movement easily capable of squeezing the side banks of even the Missippi River forcing huge amounts of water hurled out onto both ‘east’ and ‘west’ sides resulting in ‘seriously significant inland flooding’ over residents living in ‘low lying’ states of the Central Plains of the United States.

Japan “Pacific Ring Of Fire” Earthquakes To Americas Cascadia Fault Zone

Japan accounts, of a co-relative tsunami, suggest the Cascadia Fault rupture occurred from one ( 1 ) single earthquake triggering a 9-Mw Earth Event on January 26, 1700 where geological evidence obtained from a large number of coastal northern California ( USA ) up to southern Vancouver Island ( Canada ), plus historical records from Japan show the 1,100 kilometer length of the Cascadia Fault subduction zone ruptured ( split cauding that earthquake ) major Earth Event at that time. While the sizes of earlier Cascadia Fault earthquakes are unknown, some “ruptured adjacent segments” ( ‘adjacent tectonic plates’ ) within the Cascadia Fault subduction zone were created over periods of time – ranging from as little as ‘hours’ to ‘years’ – that has historically happened in Japan.

Over the past 20-years, scientific progress in understanding Cascadia Fault subduction zone behavior has been made, however only 15-years ago scientists were still debating whether ‘great earthquakes’ occured at ‘fault subduction zones’. Today, however most scientists realize ‘great earthquakes’ actually ‘do occur in fault subduction zone regions’.

Now, scientific discussions focus on subjects, of:

– Earth crust ‘structural changes’ when a “Plate Boundary” ruptures ( splits ) – Related tsunamis; – Seismogenic zone ( tectonic plate ‘locations’ and ‘width sizes’ ).

Japan America Earthquakes And Tsunamis Exchange

Great Cascadia earthquakes generate tsunamis, which most recently was at-least a ’32-foot high tidal wave’ onto the Pacific Ocean westcoast of Washington, Oregon, and California ( northern portion of state ), and that Cascadia earthquake tsunami sent a consequential 16-foot high todal wave onto Japan.

These Cascadia Fault subduction zone earthquake tsunamis threaten coastal communities all around the Pacific Ocean “Ring of Fire” but have their greatest impact on the United States westcoast and Canada being struck within ’15-minutes’ to ’40-minutes’ shortly ‘after’ a Cascadia Fault subduction zone earthquake occurs.

Deposits, from past Cascadia Fault earthquake tsunamis, have been identified at ‘numerous coastal sites’ in California, Oregon, Washington, and even as far ‘north’ as British Columbia ( Canada ) where distribution of these deposits – based on sophisticated computer software simulations for tsunamis – indicate many coastal communities in California, Oregon, Washington, and even as far ‘north’ as British Columbia ( Canada ) are well within flooding inundation zones of past Cascadia Fault earthquake tsunamis.

California, Oregon, Washington, and even as far ‘north’ as British Columbia ( Canada ) westcoast communities are indeed threatened by future tsunamis from Cascadia great earthquake event ‘tsunami arrival times’ are dependent on measuring the distance from the ‘point of rupture’ ( tectonic plate split, causing earthquake ) – within the Cascadia Fault subduction zone – to the westcoast “landward” side.

Cascadia Earthquake Stricken Damage Zone Data

Strong ground shaking from a “moment of magnitude” ( Mw ) “9″ Plate-Boundary earthquake will last 3-minutes or ‘more’, dominated by ‘long-periods of further earthquakes’ where ‘ground shaking movement damage’ will occur as far inland as the cities of Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Vancouver, British Columbia ( Canada ).

Tsunami Optional Wave Patterns “Following Sea”

Large cities within 62-miles to 93-miles of the nearest point of the Cascadia Plate-Boundary zone inferred rupture, will not only experience ‘significant ground shaking’ but also experience ‘extreme duration ground shaking’ lasting far longer, in-addition to far more powerful tsunamis carrying far more seawater because of their consequential “lengthened  wave periods” ( ‘lengthier distances’ between ‘wave crests’ or ‘wave curls’ ) bringing inland akin to what fisherman describe as a deadly “following sea” ( swallowing everything within an ‘even more-so powerful waterpath’ ), the result of which inland causes ‘far more significant damage’ on many ‘tall buildings’ and ‘lengthy structures’ where ‘earthquake magnitude strength’ will be felt ‘strongest’ – all along the United States of America Pacific Ocean westcoast regional areas – experiencing ‘far more significant damage’.Data Assessments Of Reoccuring Cascadia Earthquakes

cascadia ‘great earthquakes’ “mean recurrence interval” ( ‘time period occuring between one earthquake with the next earthquake ) – specific ‘at the point’ of the Cascadia Plate-Boundary – time is between 500-years up-to 600-years, however Cascadia Fault earthquakes in the past have occurred well within the 300-year interval of even less time since the Cascadia ‘great earthquake’ of the 1700s. Time intervals, however between ‘successive great earthquakes’ only a few centuries up-to 1,000 years has little ‘well-measured data’ as to ‘reoccurance interval’ because the numbers of recorded Cascadia earthquakes have rarely measured over ‘five’ ( 5 ). Data additionally indicates Cascadia earthquake intermittancy with irregular intervals when they did occur, plus data lacks ‘random distribution’ ( ‘tectonic plate shift’ or ‘earth movement’ ) or ‘cluster’ of these Cascadia earthquakes over a lengthier period of time so ‘more accurate assessments are unavailable’ for knowning anything more about them. Hence, because Cascadia earthquake ‘recurrence pattern’ is so ‘poorly known’, knowing probabilities of the next Cascadia earthquake occurrence is unfortunately unclear with extremely sparse ‘interval information’ details.

Cascadia Plate-Boundary “Locked” And “Not Locked”

Cascadia Plate-Boundary zone is ‘currently locked’ off the U.S. westcoast shoreline where it has accumulating plate tectonic pressure build-up – from other tectonic plates crashing into it for over 300-years.

The Cascadia Fault subduction zone, at its widest point, is located northwest just off the coast of the State of Washington where the maximum area of seismogenic rupture is approximately 1,100 kilometers long and 50 kilometers up-to 150 kilometers wide. Cascadia Plate-Boundary seismogenic portion location and size data is key-critical for determining earthquake magnitude, tsunami size, and the strength of ground shaking.

Cascadia Plate-Boundary “landward limit” – of only its “locked” portion – where ‘no tectonic plate shift has yet to occur’ is located between the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate and North America tectonic plate were it came to be “locked” between Cascadia earthquakes, however this “ocked” notion has only been delineated from ‘geodetic measurements’ of ‘surface land deformation’ observations. Unfortunately, its “seaward limit” has ‘very few constraints’ up-to ‘no constraints’ for travelling – on its so-called “locked zone” portion – that could certainly move at any time.

Cascadia Plate Continues Sliding

Cascadia transition zone, separating its “locked zone” from its “continuous sliding zone” headed east into the continent of North America, is constrained ( held-back ) poorly so, Cascadia rupture may extend an unknown distance – from its now “locked zone” to its “continously sliding transition zone.”

On some Earth crust faults, near coastal regions, earthquakes may also experience ‘additional Plate-Boundary earthquakes’, ‘increased tsunami tidal wave size’ plus ‘intensification of local area ground shaking’.

Earth Event Mitigation Forces Global Money Flow

Primary ‘government purpose’ to ‘establishing international’ “risk reduction” is solely to ‘minimize global costs from damages’ associated with major magnitude Earth Events similar-to but even-greater than the what happend on March 11, 2011 all over Japan.

Historical earthquake damages assist in predictive projections of damage loss studies suggesting disastrous future losses will occur in the Pacific Northwest from a Cascadia Fault subduction ‘great earthquake’. National ‘loss mitigation efforts’ – studying ‘other seismically active regions’ plus ‘national cost-benefit studies’ indicate that ‘earthquake damage loss mitigation’ may effectively ‘reduce losses’ and ‘assist recovery’ efforts in the future. Accurate data acquired, geological and geophysical research and immediate ‘technological information transfer’ to ‘national key decision-makers’ was to reduce Pacific Northwest Cascadia Fault subduction zone additional risks to those of the Western North America coastal region.

Damage, injuries, and loss of life from the next great earthquake from the Cascadia Fault subduction zone will indeed be ‘great’, ‘widespread’ and ‘significantly ‘impact national economies’ ( Canada and United States ) for years to decades in the future, which has seen a global concerted increase, in:

– International Cooperative Research; – International Information Exchanges; – International Disaster Prepardeness; – International Damage Loss Mitigation Planning; – International Technology Applications; and, – More.

Tectonics Observatory

CALTECH Advanced Rapid Imaging and Analysis ( ARIA ) Project collaborative members of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory ( JPL ), University of California Institute of Technology ( Pasadena ) Tectonics Observatory ARIA Project members, CALTECH scientists, Shengji Wei and Anthony Sladen ( of GEOAZUR ) modelled the Japan Tohoku earthquake fault zone sub-surface ( below surface ) ‘tectonic plate movement’, dervived from:

– TeleSeismic Body Waves ( long-distance observations ); and,

– Global Positioning Satellites ( GPS ) ( near-source observations ).

A 3D image of the fault moving, can be viewed in Google Earth ( internet website webpage link to that KML file is found in the “References” at the bottom of this report ) projects that fault rupture in three dimensional images, which can be viewed from any point of reference, with ‘that analysis’ depicting the rupture ( ground splitting open 100-feet ) resulting in the earthquake ( itself ) ‘triggered from 15-miles ( 24-kilometers ) beneath the ultra-deep sea of the Western Pacific Ocean, with the ‘entire island of Japan being moved east’ by 16-feet ( 5 meters ) from its ‘before earthquake location’.

[ IMAGE ( above ): NASA JPL Project ARIA Tectonic Plate Seismic Wave Direction Map ( click image to enlarge and read ) ]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ) Jet Propulsion Laboratory ( JPL ) at the University of California ( Pasadena ) Institute of Technology ( also known as ) CALTECH Project Advanced Rapid Imaging and Analysis ( ARIA ) used GEONET RINEX data with JPL GIPSY-OASIS software to obtain kinematic “precise point positioning solutions” from a bias fixing method of a ‘single station’ matched-up to JPL orbit and clock products to produce their seismic displacement projection map details that have an inherent ’95% error-rating’ that is even an ‘estimate’, which ‘proves’ these U.S. government organization claims that ‘all they supposedly know’ ( after spending billions of dollars ) are what they are ‘only willing to publicly provide may be ‘only 5% accurate’. So much for what these U.S. government organizations ‘publicly announce’ as their “precise point positioning solutions.”

Pay Any Price?

More ‘double-speak’ and ‘psycho-babble’ serves to ‘only distract the public away from the ‘truth’ as to ‘precisely what’ U.S. taxpayer dollars are ‘actually producing’, and ‘now knowing this’ if ‘those same officials’ ever ‘worked for a small business’ they would either be ‘arrested’ for ‘fraud’ or ‘fired’ because of ‘incompetence’, however since ‘none of them’ will ever ‘admit to their own incometence’ their ‘leadership’ needs to see ‘those responsible’ virtually ‘swing from’ the end of an ‘incredibly long U.S. Department of Justice rope’.

Unfortunately, the facts surrounding all this only get worse.

[ IMAGE ( above ): Tectonic Plates ( brown color ) Sinking and Sunk On Earth Core. ]

Earthquake Prediction Falacy

Earthquake prediction will ‘never be an accomplished finite science for people to ever rely upon’, even though huge amounts of money are being wasted on ‘technology’ for ‘detection sensors’ reading “Seismic Waveforms” ( also known as ) “S Waves” that ‘can be detected and stored in computer databases’, because of a significant fact that will never be learned no matter how much money or time may be devoted to trying to solve the unsolvable problem of the Earth’s sub-crustal regions that consist primarily of ‘molten lake regions’ filled with ‘floating tectonic plates’ that are ‘moving while sinking’ that ‘cannot be tested’ for ‘rock density’ or ‘accumulated pressures’ existing ‘far beneath’ the ‘land surface tectonic plates’.

The very best, and all, that technology can ever perform for the public is to record ‘surface tectonic plates grinding aganist one another’ where ‘only that action’ ( alone ) does in-fact emit the generation of upward ‘accoustic wave form patterns’ named as being ‘seismic waves’ or ‘s-waves’ that ‘do occur’ but ‘only when tectonic plates are moving’.

While a ‘public early warning’ might be helpful for curtailing ‘vehicular traffic’ crossing an ‘interstate bridge’ that might collapse or ‘train traffic’ travel being stopped, thousands of people’s lives could be saved but it would fail to serve millions more living in buildings that collapse.

Early Warning Exclusivity

Knowing governments, using publicly unfamiliar terms, have ‘statisticly analyzed’ “international economics” related to “national infrastructure preparedness” ( ‘early warning systems’ ) – both “public” ( i.e. ‘utility companies’ via ‘government’ with ‘industrial leadership’ meetings ) and “private” ( i.e. ‘residents’ via ‘television’, ‘radio’, ‘newspaper’ and ‘internet’ only ‘commercial advertisements’ ) between which two ( 2 ) sees “national disaster mitigation” ‘primary designated provisions’ for “high density population centers” near “coastal or low-lying regions” ( ‘large bodies of ocean, lake and river water’ ) “early warning” but for only one ( 1 ) being “public” ( i.e. ‘utility companies’ via ‘government’ with ‘industrial leadership’ meetings ) “in the interest of national security” limiting ‘national economic burdens’ from any significant Earth Event impact ‘aftermath’.

In short, and without all the governmentese ‘psycho-babble’ and double-speak’, costs continue being spent on ‘high technology’ efforts to ‘perfect’ a “seismic early warning” for the “exclusive use” ( ‘national government control’ ) that “provides” ( ‘control over’ ) “all major utility company distribution points” ( facilities from where ‘electrical power is only generated’ ) able to “interrupt power” ( ‘stop the flow of electricity nationwide’ from ‘distribution stations’ ), thus “saving additional lives” from “disasterous other problems” ( ‘aftermath loss of lives and injuries’ caused by ‘nuclear fallout radiation’, ‘exploding electrical transformers’, and ‘fires associated with overloaded electrical circuits’ ).

Logically, ‘much’ – but ‘not all’ – of the aforementioned ‘makes perfect sense’, except for “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” ‘exemplified anonomously’ ( herein ) as individuals whom if ‘earlier warned’ could have ‘stopped their vehicle ‘before crossing the bridge that collapsed’ or simply ‘stepped out of the way of a huge sign falling on them’ being ‘killed’ or ‘maimed’, however one might additionally consider ‘how many more would ‘otherwise be killed or maimed’ after an ‘ensuing mass public mob panics’ by ‘receiving’ an “early warning.” Tough call for many, but few.

Earth Data Publicly Minimized

Tohoku-oki earthquake ‘seismic wave form data’ showing the Japan eastcoast tectonic plate “bilaterally ruptured” ( split in-half for a distance of over 310-miles ) was obtained from the USArray seismic stations ( United States ) was analyzed and later modelled by Caltech scientists Lingsen Meng and Jean-Paul Ampuero whom created preliminary data animation demonstrating a ‘super major’ Earth Event simultaneously occurring when the ‘major’ earthquake struck Japan.

U.S. National Security Stations Technology Systems Projects

United States Seismic Array ( USArray ) Data Management Plan Earthscope is composed of three ( 3 ) Projects:

1. Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology ( IRIS ), a National Science Foundation ( NSF ) consortium of universities, Data Management Center ( DMC ) is ‘managed’ by the “United States Seismic Array ( USArray )” Project;

2. UNAVCO INC. ‘implemented’ “Plate-Boundary Observatory ( PBO )” Project; and,

3. U.S. Geological Service ( USGS ) ‘operated’ “San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth ( SAFOD )” Project at Stanford University ( California ).

Simultaneous Earth Data Management

USArray component “Earthscope” data management plan is held by USArray IRIS DMC.

USArray consists of four ( 4 ) data generating components:

Permanent Network

Advanced National Seismic System ( ANSS ) BackBone ( BB ) is a joint effort – between IRIS, USArray and USGS – to establish a ‘Permanent Network’ of approximately one-hundred ( 100 ) Earth monitoring ‘receiving stations’ ( alone ) located in the Continental United States ( CONUS ) or lowere 48 states of America, in-addition to ‘other stations’ located in the State of Alaska ( alone ).

Earth Data Multiple Other Monitors

USArray data contribution to the Advanced National Seismic System ( ANSS ) BackBone ( BB ) consists, of:

Nine ( 9 ) new ‘international Earth data accumulation receiving stations’ akin to the Global Seismic Network ( GSN );

Four ( 4 ) “cooperative other stations” from “Southern Methodist University” and “AFTAC”;

Twenty-six ( 26 ) ‘other receiving stations’ from the Advanced National Seismic System ( ANSS ) with ‘upgrade funding’ taken out-of the USArray Project “EarthScope;” plus,

Sixty ( 60 ) additional stations of the Advanced National Seismic System ( ANSS ) BackBone ( BB ) network that ‘currently exist’, ‘will be installed’ or ‘will be upgraded so that ‘data channel stream feeds’ can and ‘will be made seamlessly available’ through IRIS DMC where ‘data can be continuously recorded’ at forty ( 40 ) samples per second and where 1 sample per second can and ‘will be continously transmitted in real-time back into IRIS DMC where quality assurance is held at facilities located in ‘both’ Albuquerque, New Mexico and Golden, Colorado with ‘some’ U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS ) handling ‘some operational responsiblities’ thereof.

Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory ( ASL ) –

Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory ( ASL ) supports operation and maintenance of seismic networks for the U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS ) portion of the Global Seismographic Network ( GSN ) and Advanced National Seismic System ( ANSS ) Backbone network.

ASL runs the Advanced National Seismic System ( ANSS ) depot facility supporting the Advanced National Seismic System ( ANSS ) networks.

ASL also maintains the PASSCAL Instrument Center ( PIC ) facility at the University of New Mexico Tech ( Socorro, New Mexico ) developing, testing, and evaluating seismology monitoring and recording equipment.

Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory ( ASL ) staff are based in ‘both’ Albuquerque, New Mexico and Golden, Colorado.

Top-Down Bottom-Up Data Building Slows Earthquake Notifications

Seismic waveform ( ‘seismic Wave form frequency’ ) data is received by the Global Seismic Network ( GSN ) and Advanced National Seismic System ( ANSS ) BackBone ( BB ) network by electronic transmissions sent ‘slower than real-time’ by sending only ‘near-time data’ ( e.g. tape and compact disc recordings ) to the National Earthquake Information Center ( NEIC ) ‘station’ of the U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS ) ‘officially heralded’ for so-called “rapid earthquake response,”

Unbelieveably is the fact that in-addition to the aforementioned ‘slow Earth Event data delivery process’, an additional number of ‘data receiving stations’ have absolutely ‘no data streaming telemetry’ transmission capabilities whatsoever so, those station data recordings – on ‘tapes’ and ‘compact discs’ – are delivered by ‘other even more time consuming routes’ before that data can even reach the U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS ). In short, all the huge amounts of money being spent goes to ‘increasing computer technologies, sensors, satellites, ‘data stream channel networks’ and ‘secure facility building stations’ from the ‘top, down’ instead of building ‘monitoring stations’ and ‘recording stations’ from the ‘bottom, up’ until the entire earthquake monitoring and notification system is finally built properly. As it curreently stands, the ‘apple cart stations continue being built more and more’ while ‘apple tree stations are not receiving the proper technological nutrients’ to ‘delivery apples ( ‘data’ ) and ‘fed into notification markets’ ( ‘public’ ) where all this could do some good.

U.S. National Security Reviews Delay Already Slow Earthquake Notifications

IRIS Data Management Center ( DMC ) – after processing all incoming data streams from reporting stations around the world – then distributes seismic waveform data ‘back to’ both the Global Seismic Network ( GSN ) and Advanced National Seismic System ( ANSS ) BackBone ( BB ) network operations, but only ‘after seismic waveform data has been ‘thoroughly screened’ by what U.S. national security government Project leadership has deemed its ‘need to control all data’ by “limiting requirements” ( ‘red tape’ ) because ‘all data must undergo’ a long ardous ‘secure data clearing process’ before any data can be released’. Amusingly to some, the U.S. government – in its race to create another ‘official acronym’ of ‘double-speak’ – that national security requirement clearing process’ was ever so aptly named:

“Quality Assurance Framework” ( QUACK )

Enough said.

Let the public decide what to do with ‘those irresponsible officials’, afterall ‘only mass public lives’ are ‘swinging in the breeze’ at the very end-of a now-currently endless ‘dissinformation service rope’ being paid for by the tax-paying public.

In the meantime, while we are all ‘waiting for another Earth Event to take place far beyond, what ( besides this report ) might ‘slap the official horse’, spurring it to move quickly?

How about us? What shhould we do? Perhaps, brushing-up on a little basic knowledge might help.

Inner Earth Deeper Structure Deep Focus Earthquakes Rays And Related Anomalies

There is no substitute for knowledge, seeing information technology ( IT ) at the focal point of many new discoveries aided by supercomputing, modelling and analytics, but common sense does pretty good.

The following information, although an incredibily brief overview on such a wide variety of information topics surrounding a great deal of the in’s and out’s surrounding planet Earth, scratches more than just the surface but deep structure and deep focus impacting a multitude of generations from as far back as 700 years before the birth of Christ ( B.C. ).

Clearly referenced “Encyclopaedia Britannica” general public access information is all second-hand observations of records from other worldwide information collection sources, such as:

– Archives ( e.g. governments, institutions, public and private );

– Symposiums ( e.g. white papers );

– Journals ( professional and technical publications );

– Other information collection sources; and,

– Other information publications.

Encyclopaedias, available in a wide variety of styles and formats, are ’portable catalogs containing a large amount of basic information on a wide variety of topics’ available worldwide to billions of people for increasing their knowledge.

Encyclopedia information formats vary, and through ’volume reading’, within:

– Paper ‘books’ with either ’printed ink’ ( sighted ) or ’embossed dots’ ( Braille );

– Plastic ‘tape cartridges’ ( ‘electromagnetic’ media ) or ‘compact discs’ ( ‘optical’ media ) with ‘electronic device display’; or,

– Electron ‘internet’ ( ‘signal computing’ via ‘satellite’ or ‘telecomputing’ via ’landline’ or ‘node’ networking ) with ‘electronic device display’.

After thoroughly reviewing the Encyclopedia Britannica ‘specific compilation’, independent review found reasonable a facsimile of the original reformatted for easier public comprehension ( reproduced further below ).

Suprisingly, after that Encyclopedia Britannica ‘specific compilation’ information was reformatted for clearer reading comprehension, otherwise inner Earth ‘deep-structure’ geophysical studies formed an amazing correlation with additional factual activities within an equally amazing date chronology of man-made nuclear fracturing reformations of Earth geology geophysical – activities documented worldwide more than 1/2 century ago but somehow forgotten; either by chance or secret circumstance.

How could the Encyclopedia Britannica, or for that matter anyone else, missed something on such a grand scale that is now so obvious?

… [ TEMPORARILY EDITED-OUT FOR REVISION PURPOSES ONLY –  ] …

For more details, about the aforementioned, Click: Here!

Or,

To understand how all this relates, ‘begin with a better basic understanding’ by continuing to read the researched information ( below ):

====

Circa: March 21, 2012

Source:  Encyclopaedia Britannica

Earthquakes

Definition, Earthquake: Sudden shaking of Earth ground caused by passage of seismic waves through Earth rocks.

Seismic waves are produced when some form of energy stored in the Earth’s crust is suddenly released, usually when masses of rock straining against one another suddenly fracture and “slip.” Earthquakes occur most often along geologic faults, narrow zones where rock masses move in relation to one another. Major fault lines of the world are located at the fringes of the huge tectonic plates that make up the Earth’s crust. ( see table of major earthquakes further below )

By the early 20th Century ( 1900s ), little was understood about earthquakes until the emergence of seismology, involving scientific study of all aspects of earthquakes, now yielding answers to long-standing questions as to why and how earthquakes occur.

About 50,000 earthquakes, large enough to be noticed without the aid of instruments, occur every year over the entire Earth, and of these approximately one-hundred ( 100 ) are of sufficient size to produce substantial damage if their centers are near human habitation.

Very great earthquakes, occur on average about once a year, however over centuries these earthquakes have been responsible for millions of human life deaths and an incalculable amount of property damage.

Earthquakes A -Z

Earth’s major earthquakes occur primarily in belts coinciding with tectonic plate margins, apparent since early ( 700 B.C. ) experienced earthquake catalogs, and now more readily discernible by modern seismicity maps instrumentally depicting determined earthquake epicentres.

Most important, is the earthquake Circum-Pacific Belt affecting many populated coastal regions around the Pacific Ocean, namely:

South America;

– North America & Alaska;

Aleutian Islands;

Japan;

New Zealand; and,

New Guinea.

80% of the energy, estimated presently released in earthquakes, comes from those whose epicentres are in the Circum-Pacific Belt belt.

Seismic activity is by no means uniform throughout the belt, and there are a number of branches at various points. Because at many places the Circum-Pacific Belt is associated with volcanic activity, it has been popularly dubbed the “Pacific Ring of Fire.”

A second ( 2nd ) belt, known as the Alpide Belt, passes through the Mediterranean region eastward through Asia and joining the Circum-Pacific Belt in the East Indies where energy released in earthquakes from the Alpide Belt is about 15%of the world total.

There are also seismic activity ‘striking connected belts’, primarily along oceanic ridges including, those in the:

Arctic Ocean;

Atlantic Ocean;

Indian Ocean ( western ); and along,

East Africa rift valleys.

This global seismicity distribution is best understood in terms of its plate tectonic setting.

Forces

Earthquakes are caused by sudden releases of energy within a limited region of Earth rocks, and apparent pressure energy can be released, by:

Elastic strain;

– Gravity;

Chemical Reactions; and / or,

– Massive rock body motion.

Of all these, release of elastic rock strain is most important because this form of energy is the only kind that can be stored in sufficient quantities within the Earth to produce major ground disturbances.

Earthquakes, associated with this type of energy release, are called: Tectonic Earthquakes.

Tectonics

Tectonic plate earthquakes are explained by the so-called elastic rebound theory, formulated by the American geologist Harry Fielding Reid after the San Andreas Fault ruptured in 1906, generating the great San Francisco earthquake.

According to Reid theory of elastic rebound, a tectonic earthquake occurs when energy strains in rock masses have accumulated ( built-up ) to a point where resulting stresses exceed the strength of the rocks where then sudden fracturing results.

Fractures propagate ( travel ) rapidly ( see speeds further below ) through the rock, usually tending in the same direction and sometimes extending many kilometres along a local zone of weakness.

In 1906, for instance, the San Andreas Fault slipped along a plane 270-miles ( 430 kilometers) long, a line alongwhich ground was displaced horizontally as much as 20-feet ( 6 meters ).

As a fault rupture progresses along or up the fault, rock masses are flung in opposite directions, and thus spring back to a position where there is less strain.

At any one point this movement may take place not at-once but rather in irregular steps where these sudden slowings and restartings give rise to vibrations that propagate as seismic waves.

Such irregular properties of fault rupture are now included in ‘physical modeling” and ‘mathematical modeling’ earthquake sources.

Earthquake Focus ( Foci )

Roughnesses along the fault are referred to as asperities, and places where the rupture slows or stops are said to be fault barriers. Fault rupture starts at the earthquake focus ( foci ), a spot that ( in many cases ) is close to being from 5 kilometers to 15 kilometers ‘under the surface where the rupture propagates ( travels )’ in one ( 1 ) or both directions over the fault plane until stopped ( or slowed ) at a barrier ( boundary ).

Sometimes, instead of being stopped at the barrier, the fault rupture recommences on the far side; at other times the stresses in the rocks break the barrier, and the rupture continues.

Earthquakes have different properties depending on the type of fault slip that causes them.

The usual ‘fault model’ has a “strike” ( i.e., direction, from north, taken by a horizontal line in the fault plane ) and a “dip” ( i.e. angle from the horizontal shown by the steepest slope in the fault ).

Movement parallel to the dip is called dip-slip faulting.

In dip-slip faults, if the hanging-wall block moves downward relative to the footwall block, it is called “normal” faulting; the opposite motion, with the hanging wall moving upward relative to the footwall, produces reverse or thrust faulting. The lower wall ( of an inclined fault ) is the ‘footwall’, and laying over the footwall is the hanging wall.

When rock masses slip past each other ( parallel to the strike area ) movement is known as strike-slip faulting.

Strike-slip faults are right lateral or left lateral, depending on whether the block on the opposite side of the fault from an observer has moved to the right or left.

All known faults are assumed to have been the seat of one or more earthquakes in the past, though tectonic movements along faults are often slow, and most geologically ancient faults are now a-seismic ( i.e., they no longer cause earthquakes ).

Actual faulting, associated with an earthquake, may be complex and often unclear whether in one ( 1 ) particular earthquake, where total energy, is being issued from a single ( 1 ) fault plane.

Observed geologic faults sometimes show relative displacements on the order of hundreds of kilometres over geologic time, whereas the sudden slip offsets that produce seismic waves may range from only several centimetres to tens of metres.

During the 1976 Tangshan earthquake ( for example ), a surface strike-slip of about 1 meter was observed along the causative fault east of Beijing, China, and later ( as another example ) during the 1999 Taiwan earthquake the Chelung-pu fault slipped vertically up to 8 meters.

Volcanism & Earthquake Movement

A separate type of earthquake is associated with volcano activity known as a volcanic earthquake.

Although likely, even in such cases, disturbance is officially believed resultant from sudden slip of rock masses adjacent a volcano being consequential release of elastic rock strain energy, however stored energy may be partially of hydrodynamic origin due heat provided by magma flowing movements ( tidal ) throughout underground reservoirs beneath volcanoes or releasing under pressure gas, but then there certainly is a clear corresponding distinction between geographic distribution of volcanoes and major earthquakes particularly within the Circum-Pacific Belt traversing ocean ridges.

Volcano vents, however, are generally several hundred kilometres from epicentres of most ‘major shallow earthquakes’, and it is believed ’many earthquake sources’ occur ‘nowhere near active volcanoes’.

Even in cases where earthquake focus occurs where structures are marked ’directly below volcanic vents’, officially there is probably no immediate causal connection between the two ( 2 ) activities where likely both may be resultant on same tectonic processes.

Earth Fracturing

Artificially Created Inductions

Earthquakes are sometimes caused by human activities, including:

– Nuclear Explosion ( large megaton yield ) detonations underground;

– Oil & Gas wells ( deep Earth fluid injections )

– Mining ( deep Earth excavations );

– Reservoirs ( deep Earth voids filled with incredibly heavy large bodies of water ).

In the case of deep mining, the removal of rock produces changes in the strain around the tunnels.

Slip on adjacent, preexisting faults or outward shattering of rock into where new cavities may occur.

In fluid injection, the slip is thought to be induced by premature release of elastic rock strain, as in the case of tectonic earthquakes after fault surfaces are lubricated by the liquid.

Large underground nuclear explosions have been known to produce slip on already strained faults in the vicinity of test devices.

Reservoir Induction

Of the various earthquake causing activities cited above, the filling of large reservoirs ( see China ) being most prominent.

More than 20 significant cases have been documented in which local seismicity has increased following the impounding of water behind high dams. Often, causality cannot be substantiated, because no data exists to allow comparison of earthquake occurrence before and after the reservoir was filled.

Reservoir-induction effects are most marked for reservoirs exceeding 100 metres ( 330 feet ) in depth and 1 cubic km ( 0.24 cubic mile ) in volume. Three ( 3 ) sites where such connections have very probably occurred, are the:

Hoover Dam in the United States;

Aswan High Dam in Egypt; and.

Kariba Dam on the border between Zimbabwe and Zambia in Africa.

The most generally accepted explanation for earthquake occurrence in such cases assumes that rocks near the reservoir are already strained from regional tectonic forces to a point where nearby faults are almost ready to slip. Water in the reservoir adds a pressure perturbation that triggers the fault rupture. The pressure effect is perhaps enhanced by the fact that the rocks along the fault have lower strength because of increased water-pore pressure. These factors notwithstanding, the filling of most large reservoirs has not produced earthquakes large enough to be a hazard.

Specific seismic source mechanisms associated with reservoir induction have been established in a few cases. For the main shock at the Koyna Dam and Reservoir in India ( 1967 ), the evidence favours strike-slip faulting motion. At both the Kremasta Dam in Greece ( 1965 ) and the Kariba Dam in Zimbabwe-Zambia ( 1961 ), the generating mechanism was dip-slip on normal faults.

By contrast, thrust mechanisms have been determined for sources of earthquakes at the lake behind Nurek Dam in Tajikistan. More than 1,800 earthquakes occurred during the first 9-years after water was impounded in this 317 meter deep reservoir in 1972, a rate amounting to four ( 4 ) times the average number of shocks in the region prior to filling.

Nuclear Explosion Measurement Seismology Instruments

By 1958 representatives from several countries, including the United States and the Russia Soviet Union government, met to discuss the technical basis for a nuclear test-ban treaty where amongst matters considered was feasibility of developing effective means to detect underground nuclear explosions and to distinguish them seismically from earthquakes.

After that conference, much special research was directed to seismology, leading to major advances in seismic signal detection and analysis.

Recent seismological work on treaty verification has involved using high-resolution seismographs in a worldwide network, estimating the yield of explosions, studying wave attenuation in the Earth, determining wave amplitude and frequency spectra discriminants, and applying seismic arrays. The findings of such research have shown that underground nuclear explosions, compared with natural earthquakes, usually generate seismic waves through the body of the Earth that are of much larger amplitude than the surface waves. This telltale difference along with other types of seismic evidence suggest that an international monitoring network of two-hundred and seventy ( 270 ) seismographic stations could detect and locate all seismic events over the globe of magnitude 4.0 and above ( corresponding to an explosive yield of about 100 tons of TNT ).

Earthquake Effects

Earthquakes have varied effects, including changes in geologic features, damage to man-made structures, and impact on human and animal life. Most of these effects occur on solid ground, but, since most earthquake foci are actually located under the ocean bottom, severe effects are often observed along the margins of oceans.

Surface Phenomena

Earthquakes often cause dramatic geomorphological changes, including ground movements – either vertical or horizontal – along geologic fault traces; rising, dropping, and tilting of the ground surface; changes in the flow of groundwater; liquefaction of sandy ground; landslides; and mudflows. The investigation of topographic changes is aided by geodetic measurements, which are made systematically in a number of countries seriously affected by earthquakes.

Earthquakes can do significant damage to buildings, bridges, pipelines, railways, embankments, and other structures. The type and extent of damage inflicted are related to the strength of the ground motions and to the behaviour of the foundation soils. In the most intensely damaged region, called the meizoseismal area, the effects of a severe earthquake are usually complicated and depend on the topography and the nature of the surface materials. They are often more severe on soft alluvium and unconsolidated sediments than on hard rock. At distances of more than 100 km (60 miles) from the source, the main damage is caused by seismic waves traveling along the surface. In mines there is frequently little damage below depths of a few hundred metres even though the ground surface immediately above is considerably affected.

Earthquakes are frequently associated with reports of distinctive sounds and lights. The sounds are generally low-pitched and have been likened to the noise of an underground train passing through a station. The occurrence of such sounds is consistent with the passage of high-frequency seismic waves through the ground. Occasionally, luminous flashes, streamers, and bright balls have been reported in the night sky during earthquakes. These lights have been attributed to electric induction in the air along the earthquake source.

Tsunamis

Following certain earthquakes, very long-wavelength water waves in oceans or seas sweep inshore. More properly called seismic sea waves or tsunamis ( tsunami is a Japanese word for “harbour wave” ), they are commonly referred to as tidal waves, although the attractions of the Moon and Sun play no role in their formation. They sometimes come ashore to great heights—tens of metres above mean tide level—and may be extremely destructive.

The usual immediate cause of a tsunami is sudden displacement in a seabed sufficient to cause the sudden raising or lowering of a large body of water. This deformation may be the fault source of an earthquake, or it may be a submarine landslide arising from an earthquake.

Large volcanic eruptions along shorelines, such as those of Thera (c. 1580 bc) and Krakatoa (ad 1883), have also produced notable tsunamis. The most destructive tsunami ever recorded occurred on December 26, 2004, after an earthquake displaced the seabed off the coast of Sumatra, Indonesia. More than 200,000 people were killed by a series of waves that flooded coasts from Indonesia to Sri Lanka and even washed ashore on the Horn of Africa.

Following the initial disturbance to the sea surface, water waves spread in all directions. Their speed of travel in deep water is given by the formula (√gh), where h is the sea depth and g is the acceleration of gravity.

This speed may be considerable—100 metres per second ( 225 miles per hour ) when h is 1,000 metres ( 3,300 feet ). However, the amplitude ( i.e., the height of disturbance ) at the water surface does not exceed a few metres in deep water, and the principal wavelength may be on the order of hundreds of kilometres; correspondingly, the principal wave period—that is, the time interval between arrival of successive crests—may be on the order of tens of minutes. Because of these features, tsunami waves are not noticed by ships far out at sea.

When tsunamis approach shallow water, however, the wave amplitude increases. The waves may occasionally reach a height of 20 to 30 metres above mean sea level in U- and V-shaped harbours and inlets. They characteristically do a great deal of damage in low-lying ground around such inlets. Frequently, the wave front in the inlet is nearly vertical, as in a tidal bore, and the speed of onrush may be on the order of 10 metres per second. In some cases there are several great waves separated by intervals of several minutes or more. The first of these waves is often preceded by an extraordinary recession of water from the shore, which may commence several minutes or even half an hour beforehand.

Organizations, notably inJapan,Siberia,Alaska, andHawaii, have been set up to provide tsunami warnings. A key development is the Seismic Sea Wave Warning System, an internationally supported system designed to reduce loss of life in thePacific Ocean. Centred inHonolulu, it issues alerts based on reports of earthquakes from circum-Pacific seismographic stations.

Seiches

Seiches are rhythmic motions of water in nearly landlocked bays or lakes that are sometimes induced by earthquakes and tsunamis. Oscillations of this sort may last for hours or even for 1-day or 2-days.

The great Lisbon earthquake of 1755 caused the waters of canals and lakes in regions as far away as Scotland and Sweden to go into observable oscillations. Seiche surges in lakes in Texas, in the southwestern United States, commenced between 30 and 40 minutes after the 1964 Alaska earthquake, produced by seismic surface waves passing through the area.

A related effect is the result of seismic waves from an earthquake passing through the seawater following their refraction through the seafloor. The speed of these waves is about 1.5 km (0.9 mile) per second, the speed of sound in water. If such waves meet a ship with sufficient intensity, they give the impression that the ship has struck a submerged object. This phenomenon is called a seaquake.

Earthquake Intensity and Magnitude Scales

The violence of seismic shaking varies considerably over a single affected area. Because the entire range of observed effects is not capable of simple quantitative definition, the strength of the shaking is commonly estimated by reference to intensity scales that describe the effects in qualitative terms. Intensity scales date from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, before seismographs capable of accurate measurement of ground motion were developed. Since that time, the divisions in these scales have been associated with measurable accelerations of the local ground shaking. Intensity depends, however, in a complicated way not only on ground accelerations but also on the periods and other features of seismic waves, the distance of the measuring point from the source, and the local geologic structure. Furthermore, earthquake intensity, or strength, is distinct from earthquake magnitude, which is a measure of the amplitude, or size, of seismic waves as specified by a seismograph reading ( see below Earthquake magnitude )

A number of different intensity scales have been set up during the past century and applied to both current and ancient destructive earthquakes. For many years the most widely used was a 10-point scale devised in 1878 by Michele Stefano de Rossi and Franƈois-Alphonse Forel. The scale now generally employed in North America is the Mercalli scale, as modified by Harry O. Wood and Frank Neumann in 1931, in which intensity is considered to be more suitably graded.

A 12-point abridged form of the modified Mercalli scale is provided below. Modified Mercalli intensity VIII is roughly correlated with peak accelerations of about one-quarter that of gravity ( g = 9.8 metres, or 32.2 feet, per second squared ) and ground velocities of 20 cm (8 inches) per second. Alternative scales have been developed in bothJapan andEurope for local conditions.

The European ( MSK ) scale of 12 grades is similar to the abridged version of the Mercalli.

Modified Mercalli scale of earthquake intensity

  I. Not felt. Marginal and long-period effects of large earthquakes.

  II. Felt by persons at rest, on upper floors, or otherwise favourably placed to sense tremors.

  III. Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibrations are similar to those caused by the passing of light trucks. Duration can be estimated.

  IV. Vibrations are similar to those caused by the passing of heavy trucks (or a jolt similar to that caused by a heavy ball striking the walls). Standing automobiles rock. Windows, dishes, doors rattle. Glasses clink, crockery clashes. In the upper range of grade IV, wooden walls and frames creak.

  V. Felt outdoors; direction may be estimated. Sleepers awaken. Liquids are disturbed, some spilled. Small objects are displaced or upset. Doors swing, open, close. Pendulum clocks stop, start, change rate.

  VI. Felt by all; many are frightened and run outdoors. Persons walk unsteadily. Pictures fall off walls. Furniture moves or overturns. Weak plaster and masonry cracks. Small bells ring (church, school). Trees, bushes shake.

  VII. Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of automobiles. Hanging objects quivering. Furniture broken. Damage to weak masonry. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices. Waves on ponds; water turbid with mud. Small slides and caving along sand or gravel banks. Large bells ringing. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged.

  VIII. Steering of automobiles affected. Damage to masonry; partial collapse. Some damage to reinforced masonry; none to reinforced masonry designed to resist lateral forces. Fall of stucco and some masonry walls. Twisting, fall of chimneys, factory stacks, monuments, towers, elevated tanks. Frame houses moved on foundations if not bolted down; loose panel walls thrown out. Decayed pilings broken off. Branches broken from trees. Changes in flow or temperature of springs and wells. Cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes.

  IX. General panic. Weak masonry destroyed; ordinary masonry heavily damaged, sometimes with complete collapse; reinforced masonry seriously damaged. Serious damage to reservoirs. Underground pipes broken. Conspicuous cracks in ground. In alluvial areas, sand and mud ejected; earthquake fountains, sand craters.

  X. Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes, embankments. Large landslides. Water thrown on banks of canals, rivers, lakes, and so on. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. Railway rails bent slightly.

  XI. Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of service.

  XII. Damage nearly total. Large rock masses displaced. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into air.

With the use of an intensity scale, it is possible to summarize such data for an earthquake by constructing isoseismal curves, which are lines that connect points of equal intensity. If there were complete symmetry about the vertical through the earthquake’s focus, isoseismals would be circles with the epicentre (the point at the surface of the Earth immediately above where the earthquake originated) as the centre. However, because of the many unsymmetrical geologic factors influencing intensity, the curves are often far from circular. The most probable position of the epicentre is often assumed to be at a point inside the area of highest intensity. In some cases, instrumental data verify this calculation, but not infrequently the true epicentre lies outside the area of greatest intensity.

Earthquake Magnitude

Earthquake magnitude is a measure of the “size” or amplitude of the seismic waves generated by an earthquake source and recorded by seismographs.

Types and nature of these waves are described in Seismic waves ( further below ).

Because the size of earthquakes varies enormously, it is necessary for purposes of comparison to compress the range of wave amplitudes measured on seismograms by means of a mathematical device.

In 1935, American seismologist Charles F. Richter set up a magnitude scale of earthquakes as the logarithm to base 10 of the maximum seismic wave amplitude ( in thousandths of a millimetre ) recorded on a standard seismograph ( the Wood-Anderson torsion pendulum seismograph ) at a distance of 60-miles ( 100 kilometers ) from the earthquake epicentre.

Reduction of amplitudes observed at various distances to the amplitudes expected at the standard distance of 100 kilometers ( 50-miles ) is made on the basis of empirical tables.

Richter magnitudes ML are computed on the assumption the ratio of the maximum wave amplitudes at two ( 2 ) given distances is the same for all earthquakes and is independent of azimuth.

Richter first applied his magnitude scale to shallow-focus earthquakes recorded within 600 km of the epicentre in the southern California region. Later, additional empirical tables were set up, whereby observations made at distant stations and on seismographs other than the standard type could be used. Empirical tables were extended to cover earthquakes of all significant focal depths and to enable independent magnitude estimates to be made from body- and surface-wave observations.

A current form of the Richter scale is shown in the table.

Richter scale of earthquake magnitude

magnitude level

category

effects

earthquakes per year

less than 1.0 to 2.9

micro

generally not felt by people, though recorded on local instruments

more than 100,000

3.0-3.9

minor

felt by many people; no damage

12,000-100,000

4.0-4.9

light

felt by all; minor breakage of objects

2,000-12,000

5.0-5.9

moderate

some damage to weak structures

200-2,000

6.0-6.9

strong

moderate damage in populated areas

20-200

7.0-7.9

major

serious damage over large areas; loss of life

3-20

8.0 and higher

great

severe destruction and loss of life over large areas

fewer than 3

At the present time a number of different magnitude scales are used by scientists and engineers as a measure of the relative size of an earthquake. The P-wave magnitude (Mb), for one, is defined in terms of the amplitude of the P wave recorded on a standard seismograph. Similarly, the surface-wave magnitude (Ms) is defined in terms of the logarithm of the maximum amplitude of ground motion for surface waves with a wave period of 20 seconds.

As defined, an earthquake magnitude scale has no lower or upper limit. Sensitive seismographs can record earthquakes with magnitudes of negative value and have ‘recorded magnitudes up to’ about ‘9.0’ ( 1906 San Francisco earthquake, for example, had a Richter magnitude of 8.25 ).

A scientific weakness is that there is no direct mechanical basis for magnitude as defined above. Rather, it is an empirical parameter analogous to stellar magnitude assessed by astronomers. In modern practice a more soundly based mechanical measure of earthquake size is used—namely, the seismic moment (M0). Such a parameter is related to the angular leverage of the forces that produce the slip on the causative fault. It can be calculated both from recorded seismic waves and from field measurements of the size of the fault rupture. Consequently, seismic moment provides a more uniform scale of earthquake size based on classical mechanics. This measure allows a more scientific magnitude to be used called moment magnitude (Mw). It is proportional to the logarithm of the seismic moment; values do not differ greatly from Ms values for moderate earthquakes. Given the above definitions, the great Alaska earthquake of 1964, with a Richter magnitude (ML) of 8.3, also had the values Ms = 8.4, M0 = 820 × 1027 dyne centimetres, and Mw = 9.2

Earthquake Energy

Energy in an earthquake passing a particular surface site can be calculated directly from the recordings of seismic ground motion, given, for example, as ground velocity. Such recordings indicate an energy rate of 105 watts per square metre (9,300 watts per square foot) near a moderate-size earthquake source. The total power output of a rupturing fault in a shallow earthquake is on the order of 1014 watts, compared with the 105 watts generated in rocket motors.

The surface-wave magnitude Ms has also been connected with the surface energy Es of an earthquake by empirical formulas. These give Es = 6.3 × 1011 and 1.4 × 1025 ergs for earthquakes of Ms = 0 and 8.9, respectively. A unit increase in Ms corresponds to approximately a 32-fold increase in energy. Negative magnitudes Ms correspond to the smallest instrumentally recorded earthquakes, a magnitude of 1.5 to the smallest felt earthquakes, and one of 3.0 to any shock felt at a distance of up to 20 km ( 12 miles ). Earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 cause light damage near the epicentre; those of 6.0 are destructive over a restricted area; and those of 7.5 are at the lower limit of major earthquakes.

The total annual energy released in all earthquakes is about 1025 ergs, corresponding to a rate of work between 10,000,000 million and 100,000,000 million kilowatts. This is approximately one ( 1 ) 1,000th the ‘annual amount of heat escaping from the Earth interior’.

90% of the total seismic energy comes from earthquakes of ‘magnitude 7.0 and higher’ – that is, those whose energy is on the order of 1023 ergs or more.

Frequency

There also are empirical relations for the frequencies of earthquakes of various magnitudes. Suppose N to be the average number of shocks per year for which the magnitude lies in a range about Ms. Then log10 N = abMs fits the data well both globally and for particular regions; for example, for shallow earthquakes worldwide, a = 6.7 and b = 0.9 when Ms > 6.0. The frequency for larger earthquakes therefore increases by a factor of about 10 when the magnitude is diminished by one unit. The increase in frequency with reduction in Ms falls short, however, of matching the decrease in the energy E. Thus, larger earthquakes are overwhelmingly responsible for most of the total seismic energy release. The number of earthquakes per year with Mb > 4.0 reaches 50,000.

Earthquake Occurrences & Plate Tectonic associations

Global seismicity patterns had no strong theoretical explanation until the dynamic model called plate tectonics was developed during the late 1960s. This theory holds that the Earth’s upper shell, or lithosphere, consists of nearly a dozen large, quasi-stable slabs called plates. The thickness of each of these plates is roughly 50-miles ( 80 km ). Plates move horizontally relative to neighbouring plates at a rate of 0.4 to 4 inches ( 1-cm to 10-cm ) per year over a shell of lesser strength called the asthenosphere. At the plate edges where there is contact between adjoining plates, boundary tectonic forces operate on the rocks, causing physical and chemical changes in them. New lithosphere is created at oceanic ridges by the upwelling and cooling of magma from the Earth’s mantle. The horizontally moving plates are believed to be absorbed at the ocean trenches, where a subduction process carries the lithosphere downward into the Earth’s interior. The total amount of lithospheric material destroyed at these subduction zones equals that generated at the ridges. Seismological evidence ( e.g. location of major earthquake belts ) is everywhere in agreement with this tectonic model.

Earthquake Types:

– Shallow Earthquakes;

– Intermediate Earthquakes;

– Deep Focus ( Deep-Foci ) Earthquakes; and

– Deeper Focus ( Deeper-Foci ) Earthquakes.

Earthquake sources, are concentrated along oceanic ridges, corresponding to divergent plate boundaries.

At subduction zones, associated with convergent plate boundaries, deep-focus earthquakes and intermediate focus earthquakes mark locations of the upper part of a dipping lithosphere slab.

Focal ( Foci ) mechanisms indicate stresses aligned with dip of the lithosphere underneath the adjacent continent or island arc.

IntraPlate Seismic Event Anomalies

Some earthquakes associated with oceanic ridges are confined to strike-slip faults, called transform faults offset ridge crests. The majority of earthquakes occurring along such horizontal shear faults are characterized by slip motions.

Also in agreement with plate tectonics theory is high seismicity encountered along edges of plates where they slide past each other. Plate boundaries of this kind, sometimes called fracture zones include, the:

San Andreas Fault system in California; and,

– North Anatolian fault system in Turkey.

Such plate boundaries are the site of interplate earthquakes of shallow focus.

Low seismicity within plates is consistent with plate tectonic description. Small to large earthquakes do occur in limited regions well within the boundaries of plates, however such ‘intraplate seismic events’ can be explained by tectonic mechanisms other than plate boundary motions and their associated phenomena.

Most parts of the world experience at least occasional shallow earthquakes – those that originate within 60 km ( 40 miles ) of the Earth’s outer surface. In fact, the great ‘majority of earthquake foci ( focus ) are shallow’. It should be noted, however, that the geographic distribution of smaller earthquakes is less completely determined than more severe quakes, partly because the ‘availability of relevant data dependent on distribution of observatories’.

Of the total energy released in earthquakes, 12% comes from intermediate earthquakes—that is, quakes with a focal depth ranging from about 60 to 300 km. About 3 percent of total energy comes from deeper earthquakes. The frequency of occurrence falls off rapidly with increasing focal depth in the intermediate range. Below intermediate depth the distribution is fairly uniform until the greatest focal depths, of about 700 km (430 miles), are approached.

Deeper-Focus Earthquakes

Deeper-focus earthquakes commonly occur in patterns called Benioff zones dipping into the Earth, indicating presence of a subducting slab where dip angles of these slabs average about 45° – with some shallower – and others nearly vertical.

Benioff zones coincide with tectonically active island arcs, such as:

– Aleutian islands;

– Japan islands;

– Vanuatu islands; and

– Tonga.

Island arcs are, normally ( but not always ) associated, with:

Ultra-Deep Sea Ocean Trenches, such as the:

South America ( Andes mountain system ).

Exceptions to this rule, include:

– Romania ( East Europe ) mountain system; and

Hindu Kush mountain system.

Most Benioff zones,  deep-earthquake foci and intermediate-earthquake foci are usually found within a narrow layer, however recent more precise hypocentral locations – in Japan and elsewhere – indicate two ( 2 ) distinct parallel bands of foci only 12 miles ( 20 kilometers ) apart.

Aftershocks, Swarms and Foreshocks

Major or even moderate earthquake of shallow focus is followed by many lesser-size earthquakes close to the original source region. This is to be expected if the fault rupture producing a major earthquake does not relieve all the accumulated strain energy at once. In fact, this dislocation is liable to cause an increase in the stress and strain at a number of places in the vicinity of the focal region, bringing crustal rocks at certain points close to the stress at which fracture occurs. In some cases an earthquake may be followed by 1,000 or more aftershocks a day.

Sometimes a large earthquake is followed by a similar one along the same fault source within an hour or perhaps a day. An extreme case of this is multiple earthquakes. In most instances, however, the first principal earthquake of a series is much more severe than the aftershocks. In general, the number of aftershocks per day decreases with time.

Aftershock frequency, is ( roughly ):

Inversely proportional to time since occurrence of largest earthquake in series.

Most major earthquakes occur without detectable warning, but some principal earthquakes are preceded by foreshocks.

Japan 2-Years of Hundreds of Thousands Of Earthquakes

In another common pattern, large numbers of small earthquakes may occur in a region for months without a major earthquake.

In the Matsushiro region of Japan, for instance, there occurred ( between August 1965 and August 1967 ) a ‘series of earthquakes’ numbering in the hundreds of thousands – some sufficiently strong ( up to Richter magnitude 5.0 ) causing property damage but no casualties.

Maximum frequency? 6,780 small earthquakes on just April 17, 1966.

Such series of earthquakes are called earthquake swarms.

Earthquakes, associated with volcanic activity often occur in swarms – though swarms also have been observed in many nonvolcanic regions.

Study of Earthquakes

Seismic waves

Principal types of seismic waves

Seismic Waves ( S Waves ), generated by an earthquake source, are commonly classified into three ( 3 ) ‘leading types’.

The first two ( 2 ) leading types, propagate ( travel ) within the body of the Earth, are known as:

P ( Primary ) Seismic Waves; and,

S ( Secondary ) Seismic Waves ( S / S Waves ).

The third ( 3rd ) leading types, propagate ( travel ) along surface of the Earth, are known as:

L ( Love ) Seismic Waves; and,

R ( Rayleigh ) Seismic Waves.

During the 19th Century, existence of these types of seismic waves were mathematically predicted, and modern comparisons show close correspondence between such ‘theoretical calculations‘ and ‘actual measurements’ of seismic waves.

P seismic waves travel as elastic motions at the highest speeds, and are longitudinal waves transmitted by both solid and liquid materials within inner Earth.

P waves ( particles of the medium) vibrate in a manner ‘similar to sound waves’ transmitting media ( alternately compressed and expanded ).

The slower type of body wave, the S wave, travels only through solid material. With S waves, the particle motion is transverse to the direction of travel and involves a shearing of the transmitting rock.

Focus ( Foci )

Because of their greater speed, P waves are the first ( 1st ) to reach any point on the Earth’s surface. The first ( 1st ) P-wave onset ‘starts from the spot where an earthquake originates’. This point, usually at some depth within the Earth, is called the focus (also known as ) hypocentre.

Epicenter

Point ‘at the surface’ ( immediately ‘above the Focus / Foci’ ) is known as the ‘epicenter’.

Love waves and Rayleigh waves, guided by the free surface of the Earth, trail after P and S waves have passed through the body of planet Earth.

Rayleigh waves ( R Waves ) and Love waves ( L Waves ) involve ‘horizontal particle motion’, however ‘only Rayleigh waves exhibit ‘vertical ground displacements’.

Rayleigh waves ( R waves ) and Love ( L waves ) travel ( propagate ) and disperse into long wave trains, when occurring away-from ‘alluvial basin sources’, at substantial distances cause much of the Earth surface ground shaking felt during earthquakes.

Seismic Wave Focus ( Foci ) Properties

At all distances from the focus ( foci ), mechanical properties of rocks, such as incompressibility, rigidity and density play roles, in:

– Speed of ‘wave travel’;

– Duration of ‘wave trains’; and,

– Shape of ‘wave trains’.

Layering of the rocks and the physical properties of surface soil also affect wave characteristics.

In most cases, ‘elastic behaviors occur in earthquakes, however strong shaking ( of surface soils from the incident seismic waves ) sometimes result in ‘nonelastic behavior’, including slumping ( i.e., downward and outward movement of unconsolidated material ) and liquefaction of sandy soil.

Seismic wave that encounters a boundary separating ‘rocks of different elastic properties’ undergo reflection and refraction where a special complication exists because conversion between wave types usually also occur at such a boundary where an incident P or S wave can yield reflected P and S waves and refracted P and S waves.

Between Earth structural layers, boundaries give rise to diffracted and scattered waves, and these additional waves are partially responsible for complications observed in ground motion during earthquakes.

Modern research is concerned with ‘computing, synthetic records of ground motion realistic comparisons with observed actual ground shaking’, using wave theory in complex structures.

Grave Duration Long-Periods, Audible Earthquake Frequencies, and Other Earth Anomalies

Frequency range of seismic waves is widely varied, from being ‘High Frequency’ ( HF ) as an ‘audible range’ ( i.e. greater than > 20 hertz ) to, as Low Frequency ( LF ) as subtle as ‘free oscillations of planet Earth’ – with grave Long-Periods being 54-minutes ( see below Long-Period oscillations of the globe ).

Seismic wave attenuations in rock imposes High-Frequency ( HF ) limits, and in small to moderate earthquakes the dominant frequencies extend in Surface Waves from about 1.0 Hz to 0.1 Hertz.

Seismic wave amplitude range is also great in most earthquakes.

Displacement of ground ranges, from: 10−10 to 10−1 metre ( 4−12 to 4-inches ).

Great Earthquake Speed

Great Earthquake Ground Speed Moves Faster Than 32-Feet Per Second, Squared ( 9.8 Metres Per Second, Squared ) –

In the greatest earthquakes, ground amplitude of predominant P waves may be several centimetres at periods of 2-seconds to 5-seconds, however very close to seismic sources of ‘great earthquakes’, investigators measured ‘large wave amplitudes’ with ‘accelerations of the ground exceeding ( speed of gravity ) 32.2 feet per second squared ( 9.8 meters per second, squared ) at High Frequencies ( HF ) and ground displacements of 1 metre at Low Frequencies ( LF ).

Seismic Wave Measurement

Seismographs and Accelerometers

Seismographs ‘measure ground motion’ in both ‘earthquakes’ and ‘microseisms’ ( small oscillations described below ).

Most of these instruments are of the pendulum type. Early mechanical seismographs had a pendulum of large mass ( up to several tons ) and produced seismograms by scratching a line on smoked paper on a rotating drum.

In later instruments, seismograms ( also known as seismometers ) recorded via ‘rays of light bounced off a mirror’ within a galvanometer using electric current from electromagnetic induction ‘when the pendulum of the seismograph moved’.

Technological developments in electronics have given rise to ‘higher-precision pendulum seismometers’ and ‘sensors of ground motion’.

In these instruments electric voltages produced by motions of the pendulum or the equivalent are passed through electronic circuitry to ‘amplify ground motion digitized for more exactness’ readings.

Seismometer Nomenclature Meanings

Seismographs are divided into three ( 3 ) types of instruments knowingly confused by the public because of their varied names, as:

– Short-Period;

– Intermediate-Period ( also known as Long-Period );

– Long-Period ( also known as Intermediate-Period );

– Ultra-Long-Period ( also known as Broadband or Broad-Band ); or,

– Broadband ( also known as Ultra Long-Period or UltraLong-Period ).

Short-Period instruments are used to record P and S body waves with high magnification of the ground motion. For this purpose, the seismograph response is shaped to peak at a period of about 1-second or less.

Intermediate-period instruments, the type used by the World-Wide Standardized Seismographic Network ( WWSSN ) – described in the section Earthquake observatories – had about a 20-second ( maximum ) response.

Recently, in order to provide as much flexibility as possible for research work, the trend has been toward the operation of ‘very broadband seismographs’ digitizing representation of signals. This is usually accomplished with ‘very long-period pendulums’ and ‘electronic amplifiers’ passing signals in the band between 0.005 Hz and 50 Hertz.

When seismic waves close to their source are to be recorded, special design criteria are needed. Instrument sensitivity must ensure that the largest ground movements can be recorded without exceeding the upper scale limit of the device. For most seismological and engineering purposes the wave frequencies that must be recorded are higher than 1 hertz, and so the pendulum or its equivalent can be small. For this reason accelerometers that measure the rate at which the ground velocity is changing have an advantage for strong-motion recording. Integration is then performed to estimate ground velocity and displacement. The ground accelerations to be registered range up to two times that of gravity. Recording such accelerations can be accomplished mechanically with short torsion suspensions or force-balance mass-spring systems.

Because many strong-motion instruments need to be placed at unattended sites in ordinary buildings for periods of months or years before a strong earthquake occurs, they usually record only when a trigger mechanism is actuated with the onset of ground motion. Solid-state memories are now used, particularly with digital recording instruments, making it possible to preserve the first few seconds before the trigger starts the permanent recording and to store digitized signals on magnetic cassette tape or on a memory chip. In past design absolute timing was not provided on strong-motion records but only accurate relative time marks; the present trend, however, is to provide Universal Time ( the local mean time of the prime meridian ) by means of special radio receivers, small crystal clocks, or GPS ( Global Positioning System ) receivers from satellite clocks.

Prediction of strong ground motion and response of engineered structures in earthquakes depends critically on measurements of the spatial variability of earthquake intensities near the seismic wave source. In an effort to secure such measurements, special arrays of strong-motion seismographs have been installed in areas of high seismicity around the world.

Large-aperture seismic arrays (linear dimensions on the order of about 1/2 mile ( 0.6 mile ) to about 6 miles ( 1 kilometer to 10 kilometers ) of strong-motion accelerometers now used to improve estimations of speed, direction of propagation and types of seismic wave components.

Particularly important for full understanding of seismic wave patterns at the ground surface is measurement of the variation of wave motion with depth where to aid in this effort special digitally recording seismometers have been ‘installed in deep boreholes’.

Ocean-Bottom Measurements

70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water so, ocean-bottom seismometers augment ( add to ) global land-based system of recording stations.

Field tests have established the feasibility of extensive long-term recording by instruments on the seafloor.

Japan has a ‘semi-permanent seismograph’ system of this type placed on the seafloor off the Pacific Ocean eastcoast of centralHonshu,Japan in 1978 by means of a ‘cable’.

Because of mechanical difficulties maintaining ‘permanent ocean-bottom instrumentation’, different systems have been considered.

They ‘all involve placement of instruments on the ocean bottom’, though they employ various mechanisms for data transmission.

Signals may be transmitted to the ocean surface for retransmission by auxiliary apparatus or transmitted via cable to a shore-based station. Another system is designed to release its recording device automatically, allowing it to float to the surface for later recovery.

Ocean bottom seismograph use should yield much-improved global coverage of seismic waves and provide new information on the seismicity of oceanic regions.

Ocean-bottom seismographs will enable investigators to determine the details of the crustal structure of the seafloor and, because of the relative ‘thinness of the oceanic crust‘, should make possible collection of clear seismic information about Earth’s upper mantle.

Ocean bottom seismograph systems are also expected to provide new data, on Earth:

– Continental Shelf Plate Boundaries;

– MicroSeisms ( origins and propagations ); and,

– Ocean to Continent behavior margins.

MicroSeisms Measurements

MicroSeisms ( also known as ) ‘small ground motions’ are commonly recorded by seismographs. Small weak seismic wave motions ( also known as ) MicroSeisms are ‘not generated by earthquakes’ but in some instances can complicate accurate earthquake measurement recording. MicroSeisms are of scientific interest because their form relates to Earth surface structure.

Microseisms ( some ) have ‘local cause’, for example:

Microseisms due to traffic ( or machinery ) or local wind effects, storms and rough surf against an extended steep coastline.

Another class of microseisms exhibits features that are very similar on records traced at earthquake observatories that are widely separated, including approximately simultaneous occurrence of maximum amplitudes and similar wave frequencies. These microseisms may persist for many hours and have more or less regular periods of about five to eight seconds.

The largest amplitudes of such microseisms are on the order of 10−3 cm ( 0.0004 inch ) and ‘occur in coastal regions’. Amplitudes also depend to some extent on local geologic structure.

Some microseisms are produced when ‘large standing water waves are formed far out at sea’. The period of this type of microseism is ‘half’ of the Standing Wave.

Observations of Earthquakes

Earthquake Observatories

During the late 1950s, there were only about seven-hundred ( 700 ) seismographic stations worldwide, equipped with seismographs of various types and frequency responses – few instruments of which were calibrated; actual ground motions could not be measured, and ‘timing errors of several seconds’ were common.

The World-Wide Standardized Seismographic Network ( WWSSN ), became the first modern worldwide standardized system established to remedy that situation.

Each of the WWSSN had six ( 6 ) seismograph stations with three ( 3 ) short-period and three ( 3 ) long-period seismographs with timing and accuracy maintained by quartz crystal clocks, and a calibration pulse placed daily on each record.

By 1967, the WWSSN consisted of about one-hundred twenty ( 120 ) stations throughout sixty ( 60 ) countries, resulting in data to provide the basis for significant advances in research, on:

– Earthquakes ( mechanisms );

– Plate Tectonics ( global ); and,

– Deep-Structure Earth ( interior ).

By the 1980s a further upgrading of permanent seismographic stations began with the installation of digital equipment by a number of organizations.

Global digital seismograph station networks, now in operation, consist of:

– Seismic Research Observatories ( SRO ) within boreholes drilled 330 feet ( 100 metres ) deep in Earth ground; and,

– Modified high-gain long-period earthquake observatories located on Earth ground surfaces.

The Global Digital Seismographic Network in particular has remarkable capability, recording all motions from Earth ocean tides to microscopic ground motions at the level of local ground noise.

At present there are about 128 sites. With this system the long-term seismological goal will have been accomplished to equip global observatories with seismographs that can record every small earthquake anywhere over a broad band of frequencies.

Epicentre Earthquakes Located

Many observatories make provisional estimates of the epicentres of important earthquakes. These estimates provide preliminary information locally about particular earthquakes and serve as first approximations for the calculations subsequently made by large coordinating centres.

If an earthquake’s epicentre is less than 105° away from an earthquake observatory, the epicentre position can often be estimated from the readings of three ( 3 ) seismograms recording perpendicular components of the ground motion.

For a shallow earthquake the epicentral distance is indicated by the interval between the arrival times of P and S waves; the azimuth and angle of wave emergence at the surface indicated by somparing sizes and directions of the first ( 1st ) movements indicated by seismograms and relative sizes of later waves – particularly surface waves.

Anomaly

It should be noted, however, that in certain regions the first ( 1st ) wave movement at a station arrives from a direction differing from the azimuth toward the epicentre. This ‘anomaly is usually explained’ by ‘strong variations in geologic structures’.

When data from more than one observatory are available, an earthquake’s epicentre may be estimated from the times of travel of the P and S waves from source to recorder. In many seismically active regions, networks of seismographs with telemetry transmission and centralized timing and recording are common. Whether analog or digital recording is used, such integrated systems greatly simplify observatory work: multichannel signal displays make identification and timing of phase onsets easier and more reliable. Moreover, online microprocessors can be programmed to pick automatically, with some degree of confidence, the onset of a significant common phase, such as P, by correlation of waveforms from parallel network channels. With the aid of specially designed computer programs, seismologists can then locate distant earthquakes to within about 10 km (6 miles) and the epicentre of a local earthquake to within a few kilometres.

Catalogs of earthquakes felt by humans and of earthquake observations have appeared intermittently for many centuries. The earliest known list of instrumentally recorded earthquakes with computed times of origin and epicentres is for the period 1899 – 1903, afterwhich cataloging of earthquakes became more uniform and complete.

Especially valuable is the service provided by the International Seismological Centre ( ISC ) in Newbury, UK that monthly receives more than 1,000,000 seismic readings from more than 2,000 seismic monitoring stations worldwide and preliminary estimates locations of approximately 1,600 earthquakes from national and regional agencies and observatories.

The ISC publishes a monthly bulletin about once ( 1 ) every 2-years. The bulletin, when published, provides ‘all available information that was’ on each of more than 5,000 earthquakes.

Various national and regional centres control networks of stations and act as intermediaries between individual stations and the international organizations.

Examples of long-standing national centers include, the:

Japan Meteorological Agency; and,

U.S. National Earthquake Information Center ( NEIC ), a subdivision of the U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS ).

Centers, such as the aforementioned, normally make ‘local earthquake estimates’, of:

– Magnitude;

– Epicentre;

– Time origin; and,

– Focal depth.

Global seismicity data is continually accessible via Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology ( IRIS ) website.

An important research technique infers the character of faulting ( in an earthquake ) from recorded seismograms.

For example, observed distributions ( of the directions of the first onsets in waves arriving at the Earth’s surface ) have been effectively used.

Onsets are called “compressional” or “dilatational,” according to whether the direction is ‘away from’ or ‘toward’ the focus, respectively.

A polarity pattern becomes recognizable when the directions of the P-wave onsets are plotted on a map – there are broad areas in which the first onsets are predominantly compressions, separated from predominantly dilatational areas by nodal curves near which the P-wave amplitudes are abnormally small.

In 1926 the American geophysicist Perry E. Byerly used patterns of P onsets over the entire globe to infer the orientation of the fault plane in a large earthquake. The polarity method yields two P-nodal curves at the Earth’s surface; one curve is in the plane containing the assumed fault, and the other is in the plane ( called the auxiliary plane ) that passes through the focus and is perpendicular to the forces of the plane.

The recent availability of worldwide broad-based digital recording enabled computer programs written estimating the fault mechanism and seismic moment based on complete pattern of seismic wave arrivals.

Given a well-determined pattern at a number of earthquake observatories, it is possible to locate two ( 2 ) planes, one ( 1 ) of which is the plane containing the fault.

Earthquake Prediction

Earthquake Observations & Interpretations

Statistical earthquake occurrences are believed theorized, not widely accepted nor detecting periodic cycles, records of which old periodicities in time and space for major / great earthquakes cataloged are as old as 700 B.C. with China holding the ‘world’s most extensive catalog’ of approximately one ( 1 ) one-thousand ( 1,000 ) destructive earthquakes where ‘magnitude ( size )’ measurements were assessed based on ‘damage reports’ and experienced periods of ‘shaking’ and ‘other observations’ determining ‘intensity’ of those earthquakes.

Earthquake Attributions to Postulation

Precursor predictability approaches involve what some believe is sheer postulating what the initial trigger mechanisms are that force Earth ruptures, however where this becomes bizarre is where such forces have been attributed, to:

Weather Severity;

– Volcano Activity; and,

– Ocean Tide Force ( Moon ).

EXAMPLE: Correlations between physical phenomena assumed providing trigger mechanisms for earthquake repetition.

Professionals believe such must always be made to discover whether a causative link is actually present, and they further believe that to-date: ‘no cases possess any trigger mechanism’ – insofaras ‘moderate earthquakes’ to ‘large earthquakes’ unequivocally finding satisfaction with various necessary criteria.

Statistical methods also have been tried with populations of regional earthquakes with such suggested, but never established generally, that the slope b of the regression line between the logarithm of the number of earthquakes and the magnitude for a region may change characteristically with time.

Specifically, the claim is that the b value for the population of ‘foreshocks of a major earthquake’ may be ‘significantly smaller’ than the mean b value for the region averaged ‘over a long interval of time’.

Elastic rebound theory, of earthquake sources, allows rough prediction of the occurrence of large shallow earthquakes – for example – Harry F. Reid gave a crude forecast of the next great earthquake near San Francisco ( theory also predicted, of-course, the place would be along the San Andreas Fault or associated fault ). Geodetic data indicated that during an interval of 50 years relative displacements of 3.2 metres ( 10-1/2 feet ) had occurred at distant points across the fault. Elastic-rebound maximum offset ( along the fault in the 1906 earthquake ) was 6.5 metres. Therefore, ( 6.5 ÷ 3.2 ) × 50 or about 100-years would again elapse before sufficient strain accumulated for the occurrence of an earthquake comparable to that of 1906; premises being regional strain will grow uniformly and various constraints have not been altered by the great 1906 rupture itself ( such as by the onset of slow fault slip ).

Such ‘strain rates’ are now, however being more adequately measured ( along a number of active faults, e.g.San Andreas Fault) using networks of GPS sensors.

Earthquake Prediction Research

For many years prediction research has been influenced by the basic argument that ‘strain accumulates in rock masses in the vicinity of a fault, resulting in crustal deformation.

Deformations have been measured in ‘horizontal directions’ along active faults via ‘trilateration’ and ‘triangulation’ and in ‘vertical directions’ via ‘precise leveling and tiltmeters’.

Investigators ( some ) believe ‘ground-water level changes occur prior to earthquakes’ with variations of such reports from China.

Ground water levels respond to an array of complex factors ( e.g. ‘rainfall’ ) where such would have to be removed if changes in water level changes were studied in relation to earthquakes.

Phenomena Precursor Premonitories

Dilatancy theory ( i.e., volume increase of rock prior to rupture ) once occupied a central position in discussions of premonitory phenomena of earthquakes, but now receives less support based on observations that many solids exhibit dilatancy during deformation. For earthquake prediction, significance of dilatancy, if real, effects various measurable quantities of crustal Earth, i.e. seismic velocity, electric resistivity and ground and water levels. Consequences of dilatancy for earthquake prediction are summarized in the table ( below ):

The best-studied consequence is the effect on seismic velocities. The influence of internal cracks and pores on the elastic properties of rocks can be clearly demonstrated in laboratory measurements of those properties as a function of hydrostatic pressure. In the case of saturated rocks, experiments predict – for shallow earthquakes – that dilatancy occurs as a portion of the crust is stressed to failure, causing a decrease in the velocities of seismic waves. Recovery of velocity is brought about by subsequent rise of the pore pressure of water, which also has the effect of weakening the rock and enhancing fault slip.

Strain buildup in the focal region may have measurable effects on other observable properties, including electrical conductivity and gas concentration. Because the electrical conductivity of rocks depends largely on interconnected water channels within the rocks, resistivity may increase before the cracks become saturated. As pore fluid is expelled from the closing cracks, the local water table would rise and concentrations of gases such as radioactive radon would increase. No unequivocal confirming measurements have yet been published.

Geologic methods of extending the seismicity record back from the present also are being explored. Field studies indicate that the sequence of surface ruptures along major active faults associated with large earthquakes can sometimes be constructed.

An example is the series of large earthquakes inTurkeyin the 20th Century, which were caused mainly by successive westward ruptures of the North Anatolian Fault.

Liquefaction effects preserved in beds of sand and peat have provided evidence ( using radiometric dating methods ) for large paleoearthquakes back more than 1,000 years in many seismically active zones, including the U.S. Northwest Pacific Ocean Coastal Region.

Less well-grounded precursory phenomena, particularly earthquake lights and animal behaviour, sometimes draw more public attention than the precursors discussed above.

Unusual lights in the sky reported, and abnormal animal behaviour, preceding earthquakes are known to seismologists – mostly in anecdotal form.

Both phenomena, are usually explained away in terms of ( prior to earthquakes ) there being:

– Gaseous emmissions from Earth ground;

– Electric stimuli ( various ), e.g. HAARP, etcetera, from Earth ground; and,

– Acoustic stimuli ( various ), e.g. Seismic Wave subsonic emmissions from Earth ground.

At the present time, there is no definitive experimental evidence supporting reported claims of animals sometimes sensing an approaching earthquake.

… [ CENSORED-OUT ] …

Earthquake Hazard Reduction Methods

Considerable work has been done in seismology to explain the characteristics of the recorded ground motions in earthquakes. Such knowledge is needed to predict ground motions in future earthquakes so that earthquake-resistant structures can be designed.

Although earthquakes cause death and destruction via such secondary effects ( i.e. landslides, tsunamis, fires and fault rupture ), the greatest losses ( human lives and property ) result from ‘collapsing man-made structures’ amidst violent ground shaking.

The most effective way to mitigate ( minimize ) damage from earthquakes – from an engineering standpoint – is to design and construct structures capable of withstanding ‘strong ground motions’.

Interpreting recorded ground motions

Most ‘elastic waves’ recorded ( close to an extended fault source ) are complicated and difficult to interpret uniquely.

Understanding such, near-source motion, can be viewed as a 3 part problem.

The first ( 1st ) part stems from ‘elastic wave generations’ radiating ( from the slipping fault ) as the ‘moving rupture sweeps-out an area of slip’ ( along the fault plane ) – within a given time.

Wave pattern production dependencies on several parameters, such as:

Fault dimension and rupture velocity.

Elastic waves ( various types ) radiate, from the vicinity of the moving rupture, in all directions.

Geometric and frictional properties of the fault, critically affect wave pattern radiation from it.

The second ( 2nd ) part of the problem concerns the passage of the waves through the intervening rocks to the site and the effect of geologic conditions.

The third ( 3rd ) part involves the conditions at the recording site itself, such as topography and highly attenuating soils. All these questions must be considered when estimating likely earthquake effects at a site of any proposed structure.

Experience has shown that the ground strong-motion recordings have a variable pattern in detail but predictable regular shapes in general ( except in the case of strong multiple earthquakes ).

EXAMPLE: Actual ground shaking ( acceleration, velocity and displacement ) recorded during an earthquake ( see figure below ).

In a strong horizontal shaking of the ground near the fault source, there is an initial segment of motion made up mainly of P waves, which frequently manifest themselves strongly in the vertical motion. This is followed by the onset of S waves, often associated with a longer-period pulse of ground velocity and displacement related to the near-site fault slip or fling. This pulse is often enhanced in the direction of the fault rupture and normal to it. After the S onset there is shaking that consists of a mixture of S and P waves, but the S motions become dominant as the duration increases. Later, in the horizontal component, surface waves dominate, mixed with some S body waves. Depending on the distance of the site from the fault and the structure of the intervening rocks and soils, surface waves are spread out into long trains.

Expectant Seismic Hazard Maps Constructed

In many regions, seismic expectancy maps or hazard maps are now available for planning purposes. The anticipated intensity of ground shaking is represented by a number called the peak acceleration or the peak velocity.

To avoid weaknesses found in earlier earthquake hazard maps, the following general principles are usually adopted today:

The map should take into account not only the size but also the frequency of earthquakes.

The broad regionalization pattern should use historical seismicity as a database, including the following factors: major tectonic trends, acceleration attenuation curves, and intensity reports.

Regionalization should be defined by means of contour lines with design parameters referred to ordered numbers on neighbouring contour lines ( this procedure minimizes sensitivity concerning the exact location of boundary lines between separate zones ).

The map should be simple and not attempt to microzone the region.

The mapped contoured surface should not contain discontinuities, so that the level of hazard progresses gradually and in order across any profile drawn on the map.

Developing resistant structures

Developing engineered structural designs that are able to resist the forces generated by seismic waves can be achieved either by following building codes based on hazard maps or by appropriate methods of analysis. Many countries reserve theoretical structural analyses for the larger, more costly, or critical buildings to be constructed in the most seismically active regions, while simply requiring that ordinary structures conform to local building codes. Economic realities usually determine the goal, not of preventing all damage in all earthquakes but of minimizing damage in moderate, more common earthquakes and ensuring no major collapse at the strongest intensities. An essential part of what goes into engineering decisions on design and into the development and revision of earthquake-resistant design codes is therefore seismological, involving measurement of strong seismic waves, field studies of intensity and damage, and the probability of earthquake occurrence.

Earthquake risk can also be reduced by rapid post-earthquake response. Strong-motion accelerographs have been connected in some urban areas, such as Los Angeles, Tokyo, and Mexico City, to interactive computers.

Recorded waves are correlated with seismic intensity scales and rapidly displayed graphically on regional maps via the World Wide Web.

Exploration of the Earth’s interior with seismic waves

Seismological Tomography

Deep Structure Earth seismological data from several sources, including:

– Nuclear explosions containing P-Waves and S-Waves;

– Earthquakes containing P-Waves and S-Waves;

– Earth ‘surface wave dispersions’ from ‘distant earthquakes’; and,

– Earth ‘planetary vibration’ from ‘Great Earthquakes’

One of the major aims of seismology was to infer a minimum set of properties surrounding the planet interior of Earth that might explain recorded seismic ‘wave trains’ in detail.

Deep Structure Earth exploration made ‘tremendous progress during the first half of the 20th Century ( 1900s – 1950s ), realizing goals was severely limited until the 1960s because of laborious effort required just to evaluate theoretical models and process large amounts of recorded earthquake data.

Today’s application of supercomputer high-speed data processing enormous quantities of stored data and information retrieval capabilities opened information technology ( IT ) passageways leading to major advancements in the way data is manipulated ( data handling ) for advanced theoretical modeling, research analytics and developmental prototyping.

Earth structure realistic modeling studies by researchers since the middle 1970s include continental and oceanic boundaries, mountains and river valleys rather than simple structures such as those involving variation only with depth, and various technical developments have benefited observational seismology.

EXAMPLE: Deep Structure Earth significant exploration using 3D ( three dimensional ) imaging with equally impressive display ( monitor ) equipment possible from advanced microprocessor architecture redesign, new discoveries of materials and new concepts making seismic exploratory techniques developed by petroleum industry adaptations ( e.g. seismic reflection ) highly recognized as adopted procedures.

Deep Structure Earth major methods for determining planet interior is detailed analysis of seismograms of seismic waves; noting earthquake readings additionally provide estimates of, Earth internal:

Wave velocities;

– Density; and,

– Parameters of ‘elasticity’ ( stretchable ) and ‘inelasticity’ ( fixed ).

Earthquake Travel Time

Primary procedure is to measure the travel times of various wave types, such as P and S, from their source to the recording seismograph. First, however, identification of each wave type with its ray path through the Earth must be made.

Seismic rays for many paths of P and S waves leaving the earthquake focus F are shown in the figure.

Deep-Focus Deep-Structure Earth Coremetrics

Rays corresponding to waves that have been reflected at the Earth’s outer surface (or possibly at one of the interior discontinuity surfaces) are denoted as PP, PS, SP, PSS, and so on. For example, PS corresponds to a wave that is of P type before surface reflection and of S type afterward. In addition, there are rays such as pPP, sPP, and sPS, the symbols p and s corresponding to an initial ascent to the outer surface as P or S waves, respectively, from a deep focus.

An especially important class of rays is associated with a discontinuity surface separating the central core of the Earth from the mantle at a depth of about 2,900 km (1,800 miles) below the outer surface. The symbol c is used to indicate an upward reflection at this discontinuity. Thus, if a P wave travels down from a focus to the discontinuity surface in question, the upward reflection into an S wave is recorded at an observing station as the ray PcS and similarly with PcP, ScS, and ScP. The symbol K is used to denote the part (of P type) of the path of a wave that passes through the liquid central core. Thus, the ray SKS corresponds to a wave that starts as an S wave, is refracted into the central core as a P wave, and is refracted back into the mantle, wherein it finally emerges as an S wave. Such rays as SKKS correspond to waves that have suffered an internal reflection at the boundary of the central core.

The discovery of the existence of an inner core in 1936 by the Danish seismologist Inge Lehmann made it necessary to introduce additional basic symbols. For paths of waves inside the central core, the symbols i and I are used analogously to c and K for the whole Earth; therefore, i indicates reflection upward at the boundary between the outer and inner portions of the central core, and I corresponds to the part (of P type) of the path of a wave that lies inside the inner portion. Thus, for instance, discrimination needs to be made between the rays PKP, PKiKP, and PKIKP. The first of these corresponds to a wave that has entered the outer part of the central core but has not reached the inner core, the second to one that has been reflected upward at the inner core boundary, and the third to one that has penetrated into the inner portion.

By combining the symbols p, s, P, S, c, K, i, and I in various ways, notation is developed for all the main rays associated with body earthquake waves.

Hidden Inner Earth Deep Structure Anomalies

The symbol J, introduced to correspond with S waves located within Earth’s inner core, is only evidence if such ( if ever ) be found for such waves. Use of times of travel along rays to infer a hidden structure is analogous to the use of X-rays in medical tomography. The method involves reconstructing an image of internal anomalies from measurements made at the outer surface. Nowadays, hundreds of thousands of travel times of P and S waves are available in earthquake catalogs for the tomographic imaging of the Earth’s interior and the mapping of internal structure.

Inner Earth Deep Structure

Thinest & Thickest Part of Earth’s Crust

Inner Earth, based on earthquake records and imaging studies, are officially represented, as:

A solid layer flowing patterns of a mantle, at its ’thickest point’ being about 1,800-miles ( 2,900 kilometers ) thick, although at its ‘thinest point’ less than 6-miles ( 10 kilometers ) beneath the ocean seafloor bed beneath the surface of the ultra-deep sea.

The thin surface rock layer surrounding the mantle is the crust, whose lower boundary is called the Mohorovičić discontinuity. In normal continental regions the crust is about 30 kilometers to 40 km thick; there is usually a superficial low-velocity sedimentary layer underlain by a zone in which seismic velocity increases with depth. Beneath this zone there is a layer in which P-wave velocities in some places fall from 6 to 5.6 km per second. The middle part of the crust is characterized by a heterogeneous zone with P velocities of nearly 6 to 6.3 km per second. The lowest layer of the crust ( about 10 km thick ) has significantly higher P velocities, ranging up to nearly 7 km per second.

In the deep ocean there is a sedimentary layer that is about 1 km thick. Underneath is the lower layer of the oceanic crust, which is about 4 km thick. This layer is inferred to consist of basalt that formed where extrusions of basaltic magma at oceanic ridges have been added to the upper part of lithospheric plates as they spread away from the ridge crests. This crustal layer cools as it moves away from the ridge crest, and its seismic velocities increase correspondingly.

Below Earth’s mantle at its ‘thickest point’ exists a shell depth of 1,800 miles ( 2,255 km ), which seismic waves indicate, has liquid property form, and at Earth’s ‘shallowest point’ only 6-miles ( 10 kilometers ) located beneath the ultra-deep seafloor of the planet ocean.

At the very centre of the planet is a separate solid core with a radius of 1,216 km. Recent work with observed seismic waves has revealed three-dimensional structural details inside the Earth, especially in the crust and lithosphere, under the subduction zones, at the base of the mantle, and in the inner core. These regional variations are important in explaining the dynamic history of the planet.

Long-Period Global Oscillations

Sometimes earthquakes can be so great, the entire planet Earth will vibrate like a ringing bell’s echo, with the deepest tone of vibration recorded by modern man on planet Earth is a period of measurement where the length of time between the arrival of successive crests in a wave train has been 54-minutes considered by human beings as ‘grave’ ( an extremely significant danger ).

Knowledge of these vibrations has come from a remarkable extension in the ‘range of periods of ground movements’ now able to be recorded by modern ‘digital long-period seismographs’ spanning the entire allowable spectrum of earthquake wave periods, from: ordinary P waves ( with periods of tenths of seconds ) to vibrations ( with periods on the order of 12-hours and 24-hours ), i.e. those movements occuring within Earth ocean tides.

The measurements of vibrations of the whole Earth provide important information on the properties of the interior of the planet. It should be emphasized that these free vibrations are set up by the energy release of the earthquake source but continue for many hours and sometimes even days. For an elastic sphere such as the Earth, two types of vibrations are known to be possible. In one type, called S modes, or spheroidal vibrations, the motions of the elements of the sphere have components along the radius as well as along the tangent. In the second [ 2nd ] type, which are designated as T modes or torsional vibrations, there is shear but no radial displacements. The nomenclature is nSl and nTl, where the letters n and l are related to the surfaces in the vibration at which there is zero motion. Four ( 4 ) examples are illustrated in the figure. The subscript n gives a count of the number of internal zero-motion ( nodal ) surfaces, and l indicates the number of surface nodal lines.

Several hundred types of S and T vibrations have been identified and the associated periods measured. The amplitudes of the ground motion in the vibrations have been determined for particular earthquakes, and, more important, the attenuation of each component vibration has been measured. The dimensionless measure of this decay constant is called the quality factor Q. The greater the value of Q, the less the wave or vibration damping. Typically, for oS10 and oT10, the Q values are about 250.

The rate of decay of the vibrations of the whole Earth with the passage of time can be seen in the figure, where they appear superimposed for 20 hours of the 12-hour tidal deformations of the Earth. At the bottom of the figure these vibrations have been split up into a series of peaks, each with a definite frequency, similar to that of the spectrum of light.

Such a spectrum indicates the relative amplitude of each harmonic present in the free oscillations. If the physical properties of the Earth’s interior were known, all these individual peaks could be calculated directly. Instead, the internal structure must be estimated from the observed peaks.

Recent research has shown that observations of long-period oscillations of the Earth discriminate fairly finely between different Earth models. In applying the observations to improve the resolution and precision of such representations of the planet’s internal structure, a considerable number of Earth models are set up, and all the periods of their free oscillations are computed and checked against the observations. Models can then be successively eliminated until only a small range remains. In practice, the work starts with existing models; efforts are made to amend them by sequential steps until full compatibility with the observations is achieved, within the uncertainties of the observations. Even so, the resulting computed Earth structure is not a unique solution to the problem.

Extraterrestrial Seismic Phenomena

Space vehicles have carried equipment onto the our Moon and Mars surface recording seismic waves from where seismologists on Earth receive telemetry signals from seismic events from both.

By 1969, seismographs had been placed at six sites on the Moon during the U.S. Apollo missions. Recording of seismic data ceased in September 1977. The instruments detected between 600 and 3,000 moonquakes during each year of their operation, though most of these seismic events were very small. The ground noise on the lunar surface is low compared with that of the Earth, so that the seismographs could be operated at very high magnifications. Because there was more than one station on the Moon, it was possible to use the arrival times of P and S waves at the lunar stations from the moonquakes to determine foci in the same way as is done on the Earth.

Moonquakes are of three types. First, there are the events caused by the impact of lunar modules, booster rockets, and meteorites. The lunar seismograph stations were able to detect meteorites hitting the Moon’s surface more than 1,000 km (600 miles) away. The two other types of moonquakes had natural sources in the Moon’s interior: they presumably resulted from rock fracturing, as on Earth. The most common type of natural moonquake had deep foci, at depths of 600 to 1,000 km; the less common variety had shallow focal depths.

Seismological research on Mars has been less successful. Only one of the seismometers carried to the Martian surface by the U.S. Viking landers during the mid-1970s remained operational, and only one potential marsquake was detected in 546 Martian days.

Historical Major Earthquakes

Major historical earthquakes chronological listing in table ( below ).

 

Major Earthquake History

Year

Region / Area

Affected

* Mag.

Intensity

Human Death

Numbers

( approx. )

Remarks

c. 1500 BCE

Knossos,

Crete

(Greece)

X

One of several events that leveled the capital of Minoan civilization, this quake accompanied the explosion of the nearby volcanic islandof Thera.

27 BCE

Thebes

(Egypt)

This quake cracked one of the statues known as the Colossi of Memnon, and for almost two centuries the “singing Memnon” emitted musical tones on certain mornings as it was warmed by the Sun’s rays.

62 CE

Pompeii

and Herculaneum

(Italy)

X

These two prosperous Roman cities had not yet recovered from the quake of 62 when they were buried by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79.

115

AntiochAntakya,

(Turkey)

XI

A centre of Hellenistic and early Christian culture, Antiochsuffered many devastating quakes; this one almost killed the visiting Roman emperor Trajan.

1556

Shaanxi

( province )

China

IX

830,000

Deadliest earthquake ever recorded, possible.

1650

Cuzco

(Peru)

8.1

VIII

Many ofCuzco’s Baroque monuments date to the rebuilding of the city after this quake.

1692

Port Royal (Jamaica)

2,000

Much of thisBritish West Indiesport, a notorious haven for buccaneers and slave traders, sank beneath the sea following the quake.

1693

southeasternSicily,

(Italy)

XI

93,000

Syracuse, Catania, and Ragusa were almost completely destroyed but were rebuilt with a Baroque splendour that still attracts tourists.

1755

Lisbon,Portugal

XI

62,000

The Lisbon earthquake of 1755 was felt as far away asAlgiers and caused a tsunami that reached theCaribbean.

1780

Tabriz

(Iran)

7.7

200,000

This ancient highland city was destroyed and rebuilt, as it had been in 791, 858, 1041, and 1721 and would be again in 1927.
1811 – 1812

NewMadrid,Missouri

(USA)

7.5 – 7.7

XII

A series of quakes at the New Madrid Fault caused few deaths, but the New Madrid earthquake of 1811 – 1812 rerouted portions of the Mississippi River and was felt fromCanada to theGulf of Mexico.

1812

Caracas

(Venezuela)

9.6

X

26,000

A provincial town in 1812,Caracasrecovered and eventually becameVenezuela’s capital.

1835

Concepción,

(Chile)

8.5

35

British naturalist Charles Darwin, witnessing this quake, marveled at the power of the Earth to destroy cities and alter landscapes.

1886

Charleston,South Carolina

(USA)

IX

60

This was one of the largest quakes ever to hit the easternUnited States.

1895

Ljubljana

(Slovenia)

6.1

VIII

ModernLjubljanais said to have been born in the rebuilding after this quake.

1906

San Francisco,California

(USA)

7.9

XI

700

San Franciscostill dates its modern development from the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 and the resulting fires.

1908

Messina and Reggio di Calabria,Italy

7.5

XII

110,000

These two cities on theStraitofMessinawere almost completely destroyed in what is said to beEurope’s worst earthquake ever.

1920

Gansu

( province )

China

8.5

200,000

Many of the deaths in this quake-prone province were caused by huge landslides.

1923

Tokyo-Yokohama,

(Japan)

7.9

142,800

Japan’s capital and its principal port, located on soft alluvial ground, suffered severely from the Tokyo-Yokohama earthquake of 1923.

1931

Hawke Bay,New Zealand

7.9

256

The bayside towns of Napier and Hastings were rebuilt in an Art Deco style that is now a great tourist attraction.

1935

Quetta (Pakistan)

7.5

X

20,000

The capital of Balochistan province was severely damaged in the most destructive quake to hitSouth Asiain the 20th century.

1948

Ashgabat (Turkmenistan)

7.3

X

176,000

Every year,Turkmenistancommemorates the utter destruction of its capital in this quake.

1950

Assam,India

8.7

X

574

The largest quake ever recorded inSouth Asiakilled relatively few people in a lightly populated region along the Indo-Chinese border.

1960

Valdivia

and

Puerto Montt,

(Chile)

9.5

XI

5,700

The Chile earthquake of 1960, the largest quake ever recorded in the world, produced a tsunami that crossed the Pacific Ocean toJapan, where it killed more than 100 people.

1963

Skopje,Macedonia

6.9

X

1,070

The capital ofMacedoniahad to be rebuilt almost completely following this quake.

1964

Prince William Sound,Alaska,U.S.

9.2

131

Anchorage, Seward, and Valdez were damaged, but most deaths in the Alaska earthquake of 1964 were caused by tsunamis inAlaska and as far away asCalifornia.

1970

Chimbote,Peru

7.9

70,000

Most of the damage and loss of life resulting from the Ancash earthquake of 1970 was caused by landslides and the collapse of poorly constructed buildings.

1972

Managua,Nicaragua

6.2

10,000

The centre of the capital ofNicaraguawas almost completely destroyed; the business section was later rebuilt some 6 miles (10 km) away.

1976

Guatemala City,Guatemala

7.5

IX

23,000

Rebuilt following a series of devastating quakes in 1917–18, the capital ofGuatemalaagain suffered great destruction.

1976

Tangshan,

(China)

7.5

X

242,000

In the Tangshan earthquake of 1976, this industrial city was almost completely destroyed in the worst earthquake disaster in modern history.

1985

Michoacán state and Mexico City,Mexico

8.1

IX

10,000

The centre of Mexico City, built largely on the soft subsoil of an ancient lake, suffered great damage in the Mexico City earthquake of 1985.

1988

Spitak and Gyumri,Armenia

6.8

X

25,000

This quake destroyed nearly one-third ofArmenia’s industrial capacity.

1989

Loma Prieta,California,U.S.

7.1

IX

62

The San Francisco–Oakland earthquake of 1989, the first sizable movement of the San Andreas Fault since 1906, collapsed a section of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge.

1994

Northridge,

California

(USA)

6.8

IX

60

Centred in the urbanized San Fernando Valley, the Northridge earthquake of 1994 collapsed freeways and some buildings, but damage was limited by earthquake-resistant construction.

1995

Kobe,

(Japan)

6.9

XI

5,502

The Great Hanshin Earthquake destroyed or damaged 200,000 buildings and left 300,000 people homeless.

1999

Izmit,Turkey

7.4

X

17,000

The Izmit earthquake of 1999 heavily damaged the industrial city ofIzmit and the naval base at Golcuk.

1999

Nan-t’ou county,Taiwan

7.7

X

2,400

The Taiwan earthquake of 1999, the worst to hitTaiwan since 1935, provided a wealth of digitized data for seismic and engineering studies.

2001

Bhuj,

Gujarat

( state )

India

8.0

X

20,000

The Bhuj earthquake of 2001, possibly the deadliest ever to hitIndia, was felt acrossIndia andPakistan.

2003

Bam

(Iran)

6.6

IX

26,000

This ancientSilk Roadfortress city, built mostly of mud brick, was almost completely destroyed.

2004

Aceh

( province )

Sumatra

(Indonesia)

9.1

200,000

The deaths resulting from this offshore quake actually were caused by a tsunami originating in the Indian Ocean that, in addition to killing more than 150,000 inIndonesia, killed people as far away asSri Lanka andSomalia.

2005

Azad Kashmir

(Pakistanadministered )

( Kashmir )

7.6

VIII

80,000

The Kashmir earthquake of 2005, perhaps the deadliest shock ever to strikeSouth Asia, left hundreds of thousands of people exposed to the coming winter weather.

2008

Sichuan

( province )

(China

7.9

IX

69,000

The Sichuan earthquake of 2008 left over 5 million people homeless across the region, and over half of Beichuan city was destroyed by the initial seismic event and the release of water from a lake formed by nearby landslides.

2009

L’Aquila,

(Italy)

6.3

VIII

300

The L’Aquila earthquake of 2009 left more than 60,000 people homeless and damaged many of the city’s medieval buildings.

2010

Port-au-Prince,

(Haiti)

7.0

IX

316,000

The Haiti earthquake of 2010 devastated the metropolitan area ofPort-au-Prince and left an estimated 1.5 million survivors homeless.

2010

Maule,

(Chile)

8.8

VIII

521

The Chile earthquake of 2010 produced widespread damage inChile’s central region and triggered tsunami warnings throughout the Pacific basin.

2010

Christchurch,(New Zealand)

7.0

VIII

180

Most of the devastation associated with the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010–11 resulted from a magnitude-6.3 aftershock that struck on February 22, 2011.

2011

Honshu,

(Japan)

9.0

VIII

20,000

The powerful Japan earthquake and tsunami of 2011, which sent tsunami waves across the Pacific basin, caused widespread damage throughout easternHonshu.

2011

Erciş

And

Van,

(Turkey)

7.2

IX

The Erciş-Van earthquake of 2011 destroyed several apartment complexes and shattered mud-brick homes throughout the region.
  Data Sources: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ), National Geophysical Data Center ( NGDC ), Significant Earthquake Database ( SED ), a searchable online database using the Catalog of Significant Earthquakes 2150 B.C. – 1991 A.D. ( with Addenda ), and U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS ), Earthquake Hazards Program.  * Measures of magnitude may differ from other sources.

ARTICLE

AdditionalReading

Earthquakes are covered mainly in books on seismology.

Recommended introductory texts, are:

Bruce A. Bolt, Earthquakes, 4th ed. (1999), and Earthquakes and Geological Discovery (1993); and,

Jack Oliver, Shocks and Rocks: Seismology and the Plate Tectonics Revolution (1996).

Comprehensive books on key aspects of seismic hazards, are:

Leon Reiter, Earthquake Hazard Analysis – Issues and Insights (1990); and,

Robert S. Yeats, Kerry Sieh, and Clarence R. Allen, The Geology of Earthquakes (1997).

A history of discrimination, between:

Underground nuclear explosions and natural earthquakes, is given by:

Bruce A. Bolt, “Nuclear Explosions and Earthquakes: The Parted Veil” ( 1976 ).

More advanced texts that treat the theory of earthquake waves in detail, are:

Agustín Udías, Principles of Seismology (1999);

Thorne Lay and Terry C. Wallace, Modern Global Seismology (1995);

Peter M. Shearer, Introduction to Seismology (1999); and,

K.E. Bullen and Bruce A. Bolt, An Introduction to the Theory of Seismology, 4th ed. (1985).

LINKS

Year in Review

Britannica provides coverage of “earthquake” in the following Year in Review articles.

Bhutan  ( in  Bhutan )

geophysics  ( in  geophysics )

Japan

Kyrgyzstan  (in  Kyrgyzstan)

Nepal  (in  Nepal)

New Zealand  (in  New Zealand )

Chile  (in  Chile: Year In Review 2010)

China  (in  China: Year In Review 2010)

“Engineering for Earthquakes”  ( in  Engineering for Earthquakes: Year In Review 2010 (earthquake) )

geophysics  (in  Earth Sciences: Year In Review 2010)

Haiti  (in  Haiti: Year In Review 2010; in  Haiti earthquake of 2010 )

Mauritius  (in  Mauritius: Year In Review 2010)

New Zealand  (in  New Zealand: Year In Review 2010 )

Bhutan  (in  Bhutan: Year In Review 2009)

Costa Rica  (in  Costa Rica: Year In Review 2009 )

geophysics  (in  Earth Sciences: Year In Review 2009)

Indonesia  (in  Indonesia: Year In Review 2009)

Italy  (in  Italy: Year In Review 2009; in  Vatican City State: Year In Review 2009 )

Samoa  (in  Samoa: Year In Review 2009)

“Major Earthquake Shakes China’s Sichuan Province, A”  ( in  A Major Earthquake Shakes China’s Sichuan Province: Year In Review 2008 (earthquake) )

China  (in  China: Year In Review 2008; in  United Nations: Year In Review 2008 )

Congo, Democratic Republic of the  (in  Democratic Republic of the Congo: Year In Review 2008)

geology  (in  Earth Sciences: Year In Review 2008)

geophysics  (in  Earth Sciences: Year In Review 2008 )

geophysics  (in  Earth Sciences: Year In Review 2007)

paleontology  (in  Life Sciences: Year In Review 2007)

Peru  (in  Peru: Year In Review 2007 )

geophysics  (in  Earth Sciences: Year In Review 2006)

glaciers  (in  Earth Sciences: Year In Review 2006)

Mozambique  (in  Mozambique: Year In Review 2006)

archaeology  ( in  Anthropology and Archaeology: Year In Review 2005 )

geophysics  (in  Earth Sciences: Year In Review 2005)

India  (in  India: Year In Review 2005 )

Pakistan(in  Pakistan: Year In Review 2005 )

“Cataclysm in Kashmir”  (in  Cataclysm in Kashmir: Year In Review 2005 (Jammu and Kashmir))

geophysics  (in  Earth Sciences: Year In Review 2004)

Japan  (in  Japan: Year In Review 2004)

tsunami  (in  The Deadliest Tsunami: Year In Review 2004 (tsunami))

geophysics  (in  Earth Sciences: Year In Review 1996)

geophysics  (in  Earth and Space Sciences: Year In Review 1995)

LINKS

Other Britannica Sites

Get involved Share

Articles from Britannica encyclopedias for elementary and high school students.

Earthquake – Children’s Encyclopedia ( Ages 8-11 ) – During an earthquake, huge masses of rock move beneath the Earth’s surface and cause the ground to shake. Earthquakes occur constantly around the world. Often they are too small for people to feel at all. Sometimes, however, earthquakes cause great losses of life and property.

Earthquake – Student Encyclopedia ( Ages 11 and up ) – Sudden shaking of the ground that occurs when masses of rock change position below Earth’s surface is called an earthquake. The shifting masses send out shock waves that may be powerful enough to alter the surface, thrusting up cliffs and opening great cracks in the ground.

The topic earthquake is discussed at the following external Web sites.

Citations

To cite this page: MLAAPAHarvardChicago Manual of Style

MLA Style: “earthquake.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 21 Mar. 2012. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/176199/earthquake

Reference

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/176199/earthquake/247989/Shallow-intermediate-and-deep-foci?anchor=ref105456

– – – –

Feeling ‘educated’? Think you’re out-of the earthquake and tsunami water subject?

March 23, 2012 news, however contradicts decades of professional scientific knowledge and studies so, if you were just feeling ‘overly educated’ about earthquakes and tsunamis – don’t be. You’re now lost at sea, in the same proverbial ‘boat’, with all those global government scientific and technical ( S&T ) professionals who thought they understood previous information surrounding earthquakes and tsunamis.

After comparing Japan 9.0 ‘earthquake directional arrows’, depicted on the charts ( further above ), with ocean currents, tidal charts and trade winds from the global jet stream there’s a problem that cannot be explained when on March 23, 2012 British Columbia, Canada reported its northwest Pacific Ocean coastal sea waters held a 100-foot fishing boat ‘still afloat’ – more than 1-year after the Japan tsunami from its 9.0 earthquake on March 11, 2011.

[ IMAGE ( above ): 11MAR11 Japan 9.0 earthquake tsunami vistim fishing boat ( 50-metre ) found more than 1-year later still adrift in the Pacific Ocean – but thousands of miles away – off North America Pacific Ocean west coastal territory of Haida Gwaii, British Columbia, Canada ( Click on image to enlarge ) ]

– – – –

Source: CBS News – British Columbia ( Canada )

Tsunami Linked Fishing Boat Adrift Off B.C.

Nobody Believed Aboard 50-Meter Vessel Swept Away In 2011 Japanese Disaster CBC News

March 23, 2012 21:35 ( PST ) Updated from: 23MAR12 18:59 ( PST )

A Japanese fishing boat that was washed out to sea in the March 2011 Japanese tsunami has been located adrift off the coast of British Columbia ( B.C. ), according to the federal Transport Ministry.

The 50-metre vessel was spotted by the crew of an aircraft on routine patrol about 275 kilometres off Haida Gwaii, formerly known as the Queen Charlotte Islands, ministry spokeswoman Sau Sau Liu said Friday.

“Close visual aerial inspection and hails to the ship indicate there is no one on board,” Liu said. “The owner of the vessel has been contacted and made aware of its location.”

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, ofWashington, said in a release that the boat was expected to drift slowly southeast.

“On its current trajectory and speed, the vessel would not [ yet ] make landfall for approximately 50-days,” Cantwell said. Cantwell did not specify where landfall was expected to be.

First large debris

The boat is the first large piece of debris found following the earthquake and tsunami that struckJapanone year ago.

Scientists, at the University of Hawaii say a field of about 18,000,000 million tonnes of debris is slowly being carried by ocean currents toward North America. The field is estimated to be about 3,200 kilometres long and 1,600 kilometres wide.

Scientists have estimated some of the debris would hit B.C. shores by 2014.

Some people on the west coast of Vancouver Island believe ‘smaller pieces of debris have already washed ashore there’.

The March 11, 2011, tsunami was generated after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the coast of northern Japan. The huge waves and swells of the tsunami moved inland and then retreated back into the Pacific Ocean, carrying human beings, wreckage of buildings, cars and boats.

Nearly 19,000 people were killed.

Reference

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/03/23/bc-fishing-boat-tsunami-debris.html?cmp=rss

– – – –

Submitted for review and commentary by,

Kentron Intellect Research Vault

E-MAIL: KentronIntellectResearchVault@Gmail.Com

WWW: http://KentronIntellectResearchVault.WordPress.Com

References

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/japan/031111_M9.0prelim_geodetic_slip.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale
http://www.gsi.go.jp/cais/topic110315.2-index-e.html
http://www.seismolab.caltech.edu
http://www.tectonics.caltech.edu/slip_history/2011_taiheiyo-oki
http://supersites.earthobservations.org/ARIA_japan_co_postseismic.pdf
ftp://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/usrs/ARIA/README.txt
http://speclib.jpl.nasa.gov/documents/jhu_desc
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/pacnw/paleo/greateq/conf.php
http://www.passcal.nmt.edu/content/array-arrays-elusive-ets-cascadia-subduction-zone
http://wcda.pgc.nrcan.gc.ca:8080/wcda/tams_e.php
http://www.pnsn.org/tremor
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqscanv/Quakes/quakes_all.html
http://nthmp.tsunami.gov
http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov
http://www.pnsn.org/NEWS/PRESS_RELEASES/CAFE/CAFE_intro.html
http://www.pnsn.org/WEBICORDER/DEEPTREM/summer2009.html
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/prepare
http://www.passcal.nmt.edu/content/usarray
http://www.iris.washington.edu/hq
http://www.iris.edu/dms/dmc
http://www.iris.edu/dhi/clients.htm
http://www.iris.edu/hq/middle_america/docs/presentations/1026/MORENO.pdf
http://www.unavco.org/aboutus/history.html
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/anss
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/asl
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/asl/data
http://www.usarray.org/files/docs/pubs/US_Data_Plan_Final-V7.pdf
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/gis/station_comma_list.asc
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/physics/lab
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/asl/data
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/Pangaea.html
http://coaps.fsu.edu/scatterometry/meeting/docs/2009_august/intro/shimoda.pdf
http://coaps.fsu.edu/scatterometry/meeting/past.php
http://eqinfo.ucsd.edu/dbrecenteqs/anza
http://www.ceri.memphis.edu/seismic
http://conceptactivityresearchvault.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/global-environmental-intelligence-gei
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=157&page=1
https://login.afwa.af.mil/register/
https://login.afwa.af.mil/amserver/UI/Login?goto=https%3A%2F%2Fweather.afwa.af.mil%3A443%2FHOST_HOME%2FDNXM%2FWRF%2Findex.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2011/space-110225-afns01.htm
http://www.wrf-model.org/plots/wrfrealtime.php

Fireball Special Projects Program

Fireball Objects

Fireball Special Projects Program
by, Concept Activity Research Vault ( CARV )

August 16, 2011 12:30:08 ( PST ) Updated ( Published: April 11, 2011 )

CALIFORNIA, Los Angeles – August 16, 2011 – When a brilliant object appears twinkles while hanging motionless like a star against a darkened sky, but is ‘not a star’, what is it?

Between 2010 and 2011, residents throughout South Bay cities surrounding Los Angeles in southern California have been trying to figure out what keeps appears to them like an early dark morning star, but is not.

What’s odd about this object’s brilliance is that this ‘bright white light shines from the opposite side of the object facing the horizon where the early morning Sun rises later in the day. The only way the Sun could illuminate the object would be that the object would either have to be ‘transparent’ or equipped with the new advanced military defense ‘light reflection projection technology’ ( LRP ) also known as “Advanced Stealth.”

Does this mysterious hovering object belong to the U.S. Department of Defense ( DOD ) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ( DARPA ), U.S. Navy ( USN ), U.S. Air Force ( USAF ), U.S. Navy National Reconnaissance Office ( NRO ), or is it an Unidentified Flying Object ( UFO )?

In early January 2011 an early rising resident of Carson, California assumed the ‘flickering starlight’ he saw against the pitch black sky of early morning was simply a passenger airline with runway lights on its approach to Los Angeles International Airport not far away, but a Torrance, California resident claimed he had been outside sipping on a coffee for almost 2-hours and the starlight object had ‘not moved’ from its position in the darkened sky so, he believed the starlight object was just a ‘star’ and that it would disappear when the Sun rose. Both residents were wrong because as the Sun rose the brilliant starlight remained where it had been positioned in the darkened sky for hours.

One businessman, stepping from his car in a West Carson, California McDonald’s fast food parking lot walked over to see what everyone was looking up at ( the starlight object ) in the early morning darkened sky, and overheard amongst a small crowd of people one woman say, “Maybe it’s a UFO!”

Smiling as though he would settle the dispute he asked, “Don’t you people ever read the newspaper around here? That’s just the U.S. Department of Defense ‘Unmanned Aerial Vehicle’ ( UAV ) assigned to keep watch over the Port of Los Angeles from terrorist attacks.”

A homeless man, sitting nearby drinking his cup of coffee, looked at the businessman and asked, “Does that ‘look’ like any UAV or balloon you ever saw before? The businessman shook his head in a negative reply, whereupon the homeless man further enquired, “Then ‘why’ hasn’t that object moved in the sky for over 2-hours now?”

The businessman, saying nothing further in reply, turned away and went inside to get his early morning McDonald’s breakfast.

Although few bother looking up around at darkened skies, or for that matter after daybreak, there are now more people – especially in southern California – beginning to look up and study what’s hovering overhead them. Are residents expecting to see something new or becoming paranoid after watching so many television news broadcasts about the rash of UFO sightings and lights all over the world?

One man pulled-up in a minivan with Virginia license plates for his early morning breakfast, but also strolled over to where the commotion was going on at whereupon after observing it for about a minute smiled and said, “Heck, we got one of those over in Charlottesville. Shows up like clockwork, every night, ’round 8:00 p.m.,” and then walked away toward his breakfast shaking his head while mumbling, “Durn government spooks – spyin’ on us everywhere!”

As the Virginian left with his McDonald’s bagged breakfast in-hand, he stopped at the table outside to share some of his first-hand experiences with ‘fireballs’ and other ‘strange lights’ in the sky – some that look like ‘aircraft landing lights’ twinkling off in the ‘low horizon distance’ and similar lights appearing like ‘real bright stars’ that suddenly disappear a short time later.

He reported that whatever this mysterious Virginia sighting really ‘was’, there was no public information detailing its ‘flight path trajectory’ or where it landed – and it ‘did land’! In fact, it exploded, according to our Green County Record newspaper in Stanardsville, Virginia spoke to an eyewitness named Judy Kilgus who gave her own experience about what happened just outside a farm neighborhood 7-Eleven convenience store.

Further research, into the Virginian’s story, found the following details:

The 7-Eleven ( store number 21482 ) was located at 1199 29th Infantry Division Memorial Highway ( also known as ) U.S. Route 29 ( also known as ) North Seminole Trail in Madison, Virginia 22727-0024 where Judy Kilgus additionally experienced strange pungent aromatics she identified as an “eerie odor” lingering in the night air after the unidentified flying object ( UFO ) – resembling a “fireball” – crash landed. ( See Newspaper Report – Immediately Below )

 

– –

Source: GREENE COUNTY RECORD – a Medial General newspaper – ( Stanardsville, Virginia, USA )

Experts Offer Guesses On Mysterious Fire Ball Sighting
by, April Taylor – Greene County Record Reporter

April 2, 2009

VIRGINIA, Stanardsville – April 2, 2009 – Judy Kilgus of Stanardsville was driving on [ Virginia, U.S. ] Route 522 [ Sperryville Pike ] near Culpeper [ Virginia ] Sunday [ March 29, 2009 ] night when she saw what she says looked like a burning ball of fire falling from the sky.

“It was me, my mother and one of my brothers, and we were on our way back from Salem [ Virginia ],” Kilgus recalled. She said they were about 3-miles out of Culpeper ( Virginia ] when the “ball” came shooting across ( the sky ).

“At first it gave the appearance of a shooting ‘star’,  and then it was just huge,” she said continuing, This was not like some little light. The colors were brilliant and it was ‘flickering’. It was falling and looked as if it was burning like a ball of fire – reddish with the hint of a green tint.  It was frightening.”

Kilgus said that once the mysterious thing fell, “There was a big light, like an explosion. I said to my mom, ‘Oh, my gosh, it hit something’. I had never seen anything like it. It was traveling very fast.”

Kilgus said she stopped at the 7-Eleven in Madison [ Virginia ], about 15-miles or-so from where she saw the object, and then noticed an “eerie” odor when she got out of her car. She says she’s not sure if the smell is related to what she saw earlier.

Regardless, Kilgus is ‘not the only one who witnessed’ a strange “ball of fire” and big boom that night.

Reports of a “bright light,” and in some places an ‘explosion like sound’, poured into law enforcement offices across eastern Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina on Sunday night [ March 29, 2009 ].

“The phone is ringing off the hook,“ said meteorologist Sonia Mark at the U.S. National Weather Service ( NWS ) Wakefield station.

All of the reports dealt with incidents that occurred ‘about’ 9:45 p.m.

Several calls came to Richmond International Airport, but [ airport ] tower personnel did not see anything unusual related to aircraft, airport spokesman Troy Bell said.

It could have been caused by a ‘meteor’, or even a falling part from a Russia ‘spacecraft’, experts said earlier this week.

“I know it’s one of the two,” said Geoff Chester, an astronomer and public relations officer with the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C. “I just can’t tell you definitively’ which one it actually was.” Geoff Chester suggested that a falling Russian booster rocket caused the hub-bub. The booster – a steel cylinder about 25-feet long and 8-feet wide – was part of the Soyuz spacecraft launched Thursday on a mission to the International Space Station [ ISS / MIR ]. The booster was expected to fall toward Earth on a path headed ‘East’ that would have taken it across the Chesapeake Bay [ eastern-most eastcoast ] region Sunday night, Chester said. The booster would have burned in the friction of Earth’s atmosphere and, as it slowed below the speed of sound, it would have released energy that caused a sonic boom, Chester said. “My feeling is this is what people actually saw,” Chester said.

Stefan Bocchino, a spokesman for the U.S. Joint Space Operations Center [ JSOC ] at Vandenberg Air Force Base [ VAFB ] in California, said experts there [ in California ] do ‘not think the light was caused by a manmade object’.

Joint Space Operations Center tracks manmade objects that enter the atmosphere.

U.S. National Weather Service ( NWS ) has ‘ruled out any weather related cause’.

Other experts said the ‘light’ and ‘boom’ sound like the work of a meteor.

Meteors are bits of space rock or gravel that burn and create light when they hit the atmosphere.

“Some very bright ones are known to explode,” creating a sound, said Phillip Ianna, a professor emeritus of astronomy at the University of Virginia.

Meteors typically burn up in the atmosphere. Much ‘less often’, a small piece of the rock will hit Earth.

Steve Chesley, an astronomer with NASA [ National Aeronautics and Space Administration ] said the Sunday [ March 29, 2009 ] phenomena could be the work of a meteor the size of a ‘television set’ or ‘small car’. “These kinds of things hit the [ atmosphere ] once a month,” Chesley said. They usually fall over water or less populated areas and attract less attention. NASA doesn’t track such small objects, Chesley said, and focuses instead on big ones – ‘space rocks half the length of a football field or more’ – that are headed toward Earth. “It’s the big ones we’re worried about, and we need to find them decades in advance,” Chesley said.

The object on Sunday [ March 29, 2009 ] had to be ‘unusually bright’ to be ‘seen in urban areas’ where ‘artificial lights drown out’ most celestial objects, said David Hagan, a staff scientist with the Science Museum of Virginia.

At Record [ Greene County Record ] press time, on Tuesday, ‘experts were still offering various guesses’ as to ‘what the occurrence could have been’.

“One thing’s for sure,” says Kilgus, “It’s something I won’t soon forget. I was glad I saw ‘whatever it was’, but I kind-of ‘wonder what in the world is going on’,” she said. “I thought maybe it was a meteor, but whatever it was, it was ‘strange’.”

Article Reference:

http://www.greene-news.com/gcn/news/local/article/experts_offer_guesses_on_mysterious_fire_ball_sighting/38145/

– – – –

Now, the State of Virginia is infamous for its street and highway names – changing names – within a few miles of each other, making instant headaches for any outsider trying to provide location directions so, as close as can be determined – extrapolated from the newspaper description of the eyewitness ( Judy Kilgus ) account – Google Maps provides a “car” route that coincides with eyewitness Judy Kilgus’ claim she was “3-miles” outside “Culpepper, Virginia” on “Route 522″ ( also known as ) “Sperryville Pike” in “Salem, Virginia.” Interestingly, outsiders would ‘not know’ there are actually ‘two ( 2 ) towns’ named “Salem” in Virginia!

The particular town of “Salem, Virginia” the eyewitness ( Judy Kilgus ) mentions near “Culpepper, Virginia” and ‘that’ “Salem, Virginia” is ‘not easy to locate online’ at Google Maps.

After some ‘prodding’, Google Maps will eventually map ‘from’ “13300 Hunts Shade Drive, Salem, VA” providing its most direct route that quickly exits ( just outside Salem, Virginia ) off “U.S. Route 522″ ( also known as ) “Sperryville Pike” but turns onto “Norman Road” ( also known as ) “Hudson Mill Road” ( also known as ) “Reva Road” that leads to ‘yet another alias highway name’ for “U.S. Route 29″ – an address at 1199 on “29th Infantry Division Memorial Highway” in Madison, VA 22727 ( the 7-Eleven store ) where eyewitness Judy Kilgus claimed detecting a suspicious “eerie odor” outside that particular “7-Eleven” store ( Madison, Virginia ) on “U.S. Route 29.”

That aforementioned description explains why it’s no surprise as to ‘why’ or ‘how’ so many State of Virginia unidentified flying object ( UFO ) flightpath reports can so easily hide ‘landing site locations’ from much of the public observing them there.

The Green County Record newspaper account from eyewitness Judy Kilgus does not ‘detail the location’ ( e.g. NorthEast to SouthWest, etc. ) of where she was at 9:44 p.m. during the UFO fireball sighting.

Was Kilgus already traveling from Salem, Virginia – going through Madison, Virginia ( 16-miles from Salem, Virginia ) – enroute to her home ( Stanardsville, Virginia )?

Did she sight, on Sunday March 29, 2009 at 9:44 p.m., the UFO fireball ‘while she was still in Salem, Virginia’?

Did her sighting, ‘prompt her to leave’ Salem, Virginia earlier than she had planned, which placed her driving in a direction of her ‘home’ ( Stanardsville, Virginia )? If so, did the UFO sighting crash in the direction of where she resided ( Stanardsville, Virginia )?

Without a UFO ‘flightpath trajectory’ provided ( e.g. NorthEast to SouthWest, etc. ) information about this UFO fireball sighting, then perhaps only U.S. Fish & Game or U.S. Forest Service government officials located the UFO fireball landing / crash site. If so, it has undoubtedly been covered-up by now.

Was the March 29, 2009 9:44 p.m. central Virginia UFO fireball sighting really only just a “meteor” that ‘U.S. Space Command ( SPACOM ) government experts claim they were ‘unable to track’? What if it was some king of a rocket or missile launched from another location within the United States?

Could the sighting have been one of many U.S. Air Force Special Programs project spacecraft undergoing ‘classified flight tests’ for the Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA ) that is conducted primarily by the U.S. Department of Defense ( DoD ) National Reconnaissance Office ( NRO )?

Were Virginians used as an unsuspecting audience for part of the test flight for the new U.S. Department Of Defense ( DoD ), U.S. Navy, National Reconnaissance Office ( NRO ) new ‘stealth starlight surveillance dirigible’ – a lighter-than-air vessel believed designed from the 1990 patented Aereon lighter than airship [ similar in design to that of the NASA VentureStar, X-31 and X-33 spaceplanes  [ Image References: http://unwantedpublicity.media.officelive.com/Gallery.aspx ] – that may emit what is tantamount to ‘artificially produced starlight’; flickering akin to ‘aircraft landing lights’ on an aircraft the public would only suspect appears about ready to land but doesn’t?

May even more mysteries continue hiding amidst ‘seemingly peaceful night skies’ where reconnaissance and other spacecraft are now capable of being missioned to commence activation of ‘classified artificial landing strategies’ cleverly resembling a ‘fireball meteor flight’ – complete with a firework flares jettisoned to additionally resemble ‘meteor crash explosions’ too?

Research into conflicting news report information suggests that one ( 1 ) UFO fireball incident may have actually been confused with another UFO fireball on the same date and around the same time of night, a ‘dual event’ in Virginia.

One ( 1 ) eyewitness report – in the central Virginia geographic region – may have been mixed with ‘another press report’ using its central Virginia eyewitness interview in-conjunction with another news wire service report.

Simultaneous report sightings along the eastern seaboard of the United States from up and down the Atlantic Ocean coastline as far south North Carolina ( far northeast ), Virginia ( far east ) and Maryland ( far east ) in the region of the Chesapeake Bay as being the ‘same’ as what was seen in Madison, Virginia as reported by the Stanardsville, Virginia newspaper?

A few miles south of eyewitness Judy Kilgus UFO sighting near the 7-Eleven store ( Madison, Virginia ), also on “U.S. Route 29″ ( also known as ) “South Seminole Trail” at the east corner where 2055 Boulders Road ( Albemarle County ) sees the U.S. National Ground Intelligence Center ( NGIC ).

Adjacent to NGIC ( National Ground Intelligence Center ) is a new construction site for the new U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency ( DIA ) complex buildings as well.

Just a few miles further south – again on “South Seminole Trail” ( Virginia U.S. Route 29 ) – is the NORTHRUP-GRUMMAN Sperry Marine Division where a classified secret-sensitive multi-story windowless bricked-up test site building is perched behind an innocent looking single-story red brick office building – also on “South Seminole Trail” (aka) “U.S. Route 29″ (aka) “Emmett Road” where all these spooky government offices are popping up all around Charlottesville, Virginia.

 

A few miles further north on the west side of “South Seminole Trail” ( Virginia U.S. Route 29 ) – is the old single story red brick face building that the other three ( 3 ) sides are painted white complete with pyramid shaped surveillance cameras mounted high-up on the building, and while it only ‘appears vacant’ is a honeycombed-out floor-plan inside, shared by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency annex with the DIEBOLD CORPORATION, but you’d never know it to drive by the facility or drive up onto the terraced hill it sits atop and drive around the building either because you’ll only see a few vehicles outside where everyone enters through the north facing single glass door where everything appears just normal. Again, just a few miles north of this facility is the U.S. National Ground Intelligence Center ( NGIC ) buildings on the east side of Seminole Trail ( Virginia State Highway 29 ) about 95-miles southwest of Washington, D.C.

In any event, loud noise explosions – especially when they are conducted over U.S. population areas – should have provided the public with more concrete information, especially what it hit during its crash landing.
Submitted for review and commentary by,

Concept Activity Research Vault ( CARV ), Host
E-MAIL: ConceptActivityResearchVault@Gmail.Com
WWW: http://ConceptActivityResearchVault.WordPress.Com

References

http://www.space.com/news/090330-rocket-debris.html
http://www.space.com/news/090331-likely-meteor.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511857,00.html
http://unwantedpublicity.media.officelive.com/Gallery.aspx

/

/

 

Secret ET Technologies

[ NOTE The video ( above ), amidst its computer graphic interface ( CGI ), manipulates many of the actual ‘image document layout photographs of symbolics technology’ and ‘laboratory premise photos of components and sub-structures’ ( removed from the U.S. government classified laboratory Project CARET ), plus ‘select photos’ of unidentified flying objects ( UFO ) bearing similar symbolics worked on by an individual using the alias name “Issac” who publicly released partial details about this story. ]

Secret ET Technologies
by, Concept Activity Research Vault ( CARV )

November 22, 2010 12:37:42 ( PST ) Update ( Published: October 23, 2010 )

USA, California, Menlo Park – November 22, 2010 – What some perceived as chicken footprints  may likely be extraterrestrial symbolic construct technologies. Years ago, an individual – using the alias name “Issac” – conveyed a multi-page report ( ” CARET ” ), laboratory photographs, and detailed personal encounters ( from at least 1984 through 1987 ) on what was believed a U.S. Department of Defense ( DoD ) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ( DARPA ) Program recruiting to work on a specific Project ( believed Phase II or Phase III ) studying what was ‘officially briefed’ to Issac – amongst his task team –  as highly complex relatives of  ’extraterrestrial’ structures, materials, components, construct language symbolics.

Unwanted Publicity Intelligence Annex report ( herein ) will only provide more detailed analysis on Issac provided information that news media organizations half-heartedly carried to the public years ago.

Extraterrestrial materials, although highly complex to what Issac’s group had ever seen in their lives before, saw supercomputers lumber under tasking extremely complex substrates and geometric symbolics, amongst other secret-sensitive items, that Issac and others analyzed and deciphered.

Within the building, amongst other secret-sensitive items, combinatoric studies were not limited to extremely complex substrates, symbolics, and more that developed an extremely complex ‘primer’ in which Issac’s report is named “Commercial Applications Research for ExtraTerrestrial Technology” ( C.A.R.E.T. or CARET ).

Issac’s personal accounting ( further below ) reports the aforementioned work was conducted within what first appeared as only an upscale industrial office complex ‘building’, presumably located in the State of California County of Santa Clara.

Issac describes his facility adjacencies being multi-compartmentalized ‘individual government contractor offices’ – believed assigned to various sensitive tasks for the United States government – whereupon, amongst other compartmentalized secret characteristics ( never mentioned the facility being a ’self-sealing building’ ), were five ( 5 ) underground floors hidden.

Five ( 5 ) stories down, sub-surface levels – not reported by Issac – but easily ascertained must have included:

– One [ 1 ] underground level dedicated parking for ‘secondary staff’ and/or ‘special visitors ( e.g. military officials, etc. ) standard passenger vehicles; and,

– Two [ 2 ] underground level dedicated parking for ‘equipment delivery’ trucks; and,

– Three [ 3 ] underground level dedicated parking for ‘militarized troop personnel’ vans and/or buses.

Carefull observation, when combining all the aforementioned, initially bring a ‘few new questions’ followed by a few ‘remote suppositions’ ( immediately below ):

1. Could Issac’s seemingly ‘personal account’ have actually been ‘cleverly ghost written’ for ‘someone else’?

2. Could Issac have actually been a ‘female’?

3. Could the ‘name’ of the author, “Issac,” have actually been derived from the ‘name’ of a ‘male sibling or spouse’?

4. Could Issac’s seemingly ‘personal account’ have actually ‘taken place geographically elsewhere’?

“Issac” ‘reports’ ( further below ) begin ‘personal accountings’ by ‘laying a foundation scene’ surrounding the State of California County of Santa Clara “Silicon Valley” industrial technology history. Issac then simply includes a report ‘cover page’ entitled, “Palo Alto CARET Laboratory” so, for all intents and purposes readers may ‘then instantly gravitate with the assumption’ that Issac’s ‘personal account took place in Palo Alto, California’, but then “Issac” mentions – but does not detail – only very few ‘building characteristics’ and uses the most ‘general of terms’. Might Issac have ‘purposely laid such a foundation’ after ‘altering the true facility name on he report’ to only be known as the “Palo Alto CARET Laboratory” or “PACL” when the ‘building’ may have actually been ‘remotely located elsewhere’ albeit within or under a ‘temporary U.S. government contract project’ and/or ‘adjunct’ of yet another larger organization.

Was Issac’s ‘reported building’ just a stand-alone upscale city street-side industrial office building made of normal iron re-enforced concrete / cement walled tilt-up construction?

At the time, of Issac’s personal account’, the former ROCKWELL SCIENCE CENTER PALO ALTO LABORATORY ( 444 High Street, Suite #400, Palo Alto, California 94301 ) existed near a plethora of ‘other such organization buildings’ performing secret-sensitive work in the Silicon Valley area of northern California.

Plenty of such ‘remotely located buildings’ exist.

To name a ‘few’, are ‘buildings remotely situated’ at the U.S. National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico and although ‘such buildings and private contractors are geographically situated there’, funding secrets are hidden under ‘administrative domain auspices’ of the ‘University of California’.

But where do “Issac’s” reported ‘armed military personnel’ easily appear from in such a ‘building’?

Other ‘remotely situated buildings’ also exist – under U.S. government contract to private companies – on military reservations such as the United States Air Force Research Laboratory ( ARL ) that oversees “PHILIPS Laboratory” secret-sensitive work performed and tested ‘near but not within’ Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico but secretly hidden on that huge ‘reservation’.

[ PHOTO ( above): PHILIPS Laboratory at Kirkland Air Force Base, New Mexico ( USA ) NOTE: click to enlarge photo details. ]

In southern California, Edwards Air Force Base reservation holds unique offerings, amongst other secrets, where after a vehicle passes the ‘entrance sign’ it must continue to be driven an additional 20-miles further before even reaching the ‘main gate’ to gain ‘official admittance’ but with ‘further restricted movement’, whereupon scattered – all around that ‘reservation’ – are a plethora of ‘remotely situated buildings’ under ‘use’ by ‘private business U.S. government contract holders performing, amongst other things, U.S. government secret-sensitive work within a complex of buildings such as  those seen inside Area 51 ( also known as ) the Lazy G Ranch ( also known as ) The Ranch ( Nevada, USA ).

[ PHOTO ( above): Area 51 (aka) Lazy G Ranch (aka) The Ranch ‘main gate’ ( Nevada, USA ) circa 1970s. NOTE: click to enlarge photo details. ]

[ PHOTO ( above): Area 51 (aka) Lazy G Ranch (aka) The Ranch ( Nevada, USA ) circa 1970s. NOTE: click to enlarge photo details. ]

But even Area 51 (aka) the Lazy G Ranch (aka) The Ranch located in the Nevada desert cannot be compared ( here ) to its secret-sensitive  ’sister reservation’ that is only known as a ’proving ground’ someone named ”Dugway” ( Utah, USA ).

In  1968, the U.S. Navy had private contractors build its secret-sensitive China Lake Naval Weapons Station ( near Trona, California ) whereon that ‘reservation’ holds one ( 1 ) building, with eight ( 8 ) subterrainean story floor levels, that is stuck out in the middle of the southern California desert. If the U.S. Navy is a military ship sailing and aircraft flying defense organization, what is it doingwith an 8-story subterrainean building in the middle of a desert?

From within Issac’s given parameter basics describing the reported ‘upscale city industrial office building’ complex – with five ( 5 ) subterrainian stories – the closest resemblance ‘within the State of California County of Santa Clara Silicon Valley area’ that was the  ’unknown building predecessor’ of what later became known as the ‘first privately-owned and operated business’ belonging to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA ) named QIC ( believed known as ) QUANTUM INTEFACE CENTER ( formerly known as ) IN-Q-IT CORPORATION ( formerly known as ) IN-Q-TEL ( affectionately nicknamed ) CIA-IN-Q-TEL where the CIA business ’special technology’ research and development ( R&D ) was performed – although ‘never fully reported’ about – on ‘applications’ for what would later also be known as ” Commercial Off The Shelf ” ( C.O.T.S. / COTS ) product development of secret-sensitive technologies – ‘products’ in-essence, there would accumulate plenty of, for later distribution –  to be eventually traded for ‘other valuable considerations’ ( only very little press coverage reported it, as “… products to be sold to …”  ) ‘in-exchange’ for which a few ‘private companies’ ( e.g. ‘foreign based company’ PHILIPS, and a few select others ) could possibly offer ‘in-exchange’ for what they ‘could’ or ‘were already providing’ under U.S. government contract(s) that could ‘then’  secretly return U.S. Congress ‘budget approved’ U.S. Department of the Treasury funds by re-routing or mirroring bank wire transferred monies back into the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA ) private business that could then re-route those monies as deemed fit secretly into yet other out-of U.S. Congressional scrutinized intelligence projects and programs.

But could all this ‘really happen’?

The webpage links ( above ) show who was initially put in-charge and what senior executives were selectively chosen from key private industries that led the private U.S. Central Intelligence Agency business so, it really should come as no surprise to a few understanding mechanics behind international stock market trading and international bank wire transfers between domestic and foreign operations of the United States Federal Reserve System.

[ PHOTO ( above ) : U.S. Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA ) business IN-Q-TEL CORPORATION logo. ]

A few such secret-sensitive self-sealing rad-hard ( anti-radiation hardening concrete / cement via ‘gamma radiation saturation’ ) buildings reposturate – ‘prior to the onslaught of’ a U.S. national emergency – via remote triggering such buildings to submerge their entire mass into underground special covering multi-story holes dug in the ground beneath them.

So, did Issac’s ‘reported building’ have such ‘additional capacities’ or ‘more’?

One might consider such to be more distinct possibilities based on what the “CARET” report entailed and according to “Issac’s” ‘personal accountings’ surrounding such.

Courtesy: Unwanted Publicity Information Group

====

My Experience With The CARET Program And Extra-Terrestrial Technology

by, Isaac [ alias moniker used by the original author ]

June 2007

This letter is part of a package I’ve assembled for Coast to Coast AM [ a nightly broadcast radio station located in the United States of America ] to distribute to its audience. It is a companion to numerous ‘document’ and ‘photo’ scans and should not be separated from them.

You can call me Isaac, an alias I’ve chosen as a simple measure of protection while I release what would be called tremendously ‘sensitive information’ even by todays standards.

‘Sensitive’ is not necessarily synonymous with ‘dangerous’, though, which is why my conscience is clear as I offer this material up for the public.

My government [ United States of America ] has its reasons for its continual secrecy, and I sympathize with many of them, but the truth is that I’m getting old and I’m not interested in meeting my maker one day with any more baggage than necessary.

Furthermore, I put a little more faith in humanity than my former bosses do, and I think that a release of at least some of this information could help a lot ‘more’ than it could ‘hurt’, especially in today’s world.

I should be clear before I begin, as a final note:

I am not interested in making myself vulnerable to the consequences of betraying the trust of my superiors and will not divulge any personal information that could determine my identity.

However my intent is not to deceive, so ‘information that I think is too risky to share’ will be simply ‘left out’ rather than obfuscated in some way ( aside from my alias, which I freely admit is not my real name ).

I would estimate that with the information contained in this letter, I could be narrowed down to one [ 1 ] of maybe 30 to 50 people at best, so I feel reasonably secure.

Some Explanation for the Recent Sightings –

For many years I’ve occasionally considered the release of at least some of the material I possess, but the recent wave of photos and sightings has prompted me to cut to the chase and do so now.

I should first be clear that I’m not directly familiar with any of the crafts seen in the photos in their entirety. I’ve never seen them in a hangar or worked on them myself or seen aliens zipping around in them. However, I have worked with and seen many of the parts visible in these crafts, some of which can be seen in the Q3-85 Inventory Review scan found at the top of this page.

More importantly though, I’m very familiar with the ‘language’ on their [ craft(s) ] ‘undersides’ [ under bellies ] seen clearly in photos by Chad, Rajman, and – ‘another form’ – in the Big Basin photos.

One question I can answer – for sure – is why they are suddenly here.

These crafts have probably existed – in their current form – for decades, and I can say – for sure – that the technology behind [ abut ] them has existed for decades before that.

The ‘language’, in fact – I’ll explain shortly why I keep putting that in quotes – was the subject of ‘my work’ in years past. I’ll cover ‘that’ as well.

The reason they [ extraterrestrial craft(s) ] are suddenly ‘visible’, however is ‘another matter’ entirely.

These crafts – assuming they’re anything like the hardware I worked with in the 1980s ( assuming they’re better, in fact ) – are equipped with technology that enables invisibility. That ‘ability’ can be controlled both ‘on board’ the craft, and ‘remotely’.

However, what’s important in this case is that this ‘invisibility’ can also be ‘disrupted’ by ‘other technology’. Think of it like ‘radar jamming’.

I would bet my life savings ( since I know this has happened before ) that these craft are ‘becoming visible’ and then ‘returning to invisibility’ arbitrarily – probably unintentionally – and undoubtedly for only ‘short periods’ due to the ‘activity of a kind’ of ‘disrupting technology’ [ sonic flocculation ] being ‘set-off elsewhere’ but ‘near-by’.

I’m especially sure of this in the case of the Big Basin sightings where the witnesses themselves reported seeing the craft just ‘appear’ and ‘disappear’.

This is especially likely because of the way the witness described one [ 1 ] of the appearances being only a ‘momentary flicker’, which is consistent with the ‘unintentional’, ‘intermittent triggering’ of such a ‘device’.

It’s no surprise that these sightings are all taking place in ‘California’ ( USA ), and especially the Saratoga Bay / South Bay area.

Not far from Saratoga is Mountain View, California ( USA ) / Sunnyvale, California ( USA ) home to Moffett Field [ formerly, a United States Army Air Corps military airfield / United States Air Force Base ( USAFB ) ] and the [ National Aeronautic Space Administration ] NASA Ames Research center.

Again, I’d be willing to bet – just about anything – that the device capable of hijacking the cloaking of these nearby craft was inadvertently triggered, probably during some kind of experiment, at the exact moment they were being seen.

Miles away, in Big Basin, the witnesses were in the right place – at the right time – and saw the results of this disruption with their own eyes.

God knows what else was suddenly appearing in the skies at that moment, and who else may have seen it.

I’ve had some direct contact with this device, or at least a device capable of the same thing, and this kind of mistake is not unprecedented.

I am personally aware of at least one [ 1 ] other incident in which this kind of technology was accidentally set off, resulting in the sudden visibility of normally invisible things.

The only difference is that these days, cameras are alot more common!

The technology itself is ‘not’ ours, or at least it was ‘not in the 1980s.

Much like the technology, in these crafts themselves, the device capable of remotely hijacking vehicle clacking comes from a non-human source too.

Why we were given this technology has never been clear to me, but it’s responsible for a lot.

Our having access to this kind of device, along with our occasionally hap-hazard experimentation on them, has lead to everything from cloaking malfunctions like this to full-blown crashes.

I can assure you that most ( and in my opinion all) incidents of UFO crashes or that kind of thing had more to do with our meddling with extremely powerful technology at an inopportune time than it did mechanical failure on their part.

Trust me, those things don’t fail unless something even more powerful than them makes them fail ( intentionally or not ). Think of it like a stray bullet. You can be hit by one at any time, without warning, and even the shooter did ‘not’ intend to hit you.

I can assure you heads are rolling over this as well.

If anyone notices a brilliant but sloppy ‘physicist’ patrolling the streets of Baghdad [ Iraq ] in the next couple weeks, I’d be willing to guess how he got there. ( I kid – of course – as I certainly hope that has ‘not’ actually happened in this case ).

I would now like to explain how it is that I know this.

The CARET Program –

My story begins the same as it did for many of my co-workers, with graduate and post-graduate work at university in electrical engineering. And I had always been interested in computer science, which was a very new field at the time, and my interest piqued with my first exposure to a Tixo during grad school.

In the years following school I took a scenic route through the tech industry and worked for the kinds of companies you would expect, until I was offered a job at the United States Department of Defense [ DoD ] and things took a very different turn.

My time at the DoD [ United States Department of Defense ] was mostly uneventful but I was there for quite a while. I apparently proved myself to be reasonably intelligent and loyal.

By 1984 these qualities along with my technical background made me a likely candidate for a new program they were recruiting for called “CARET.”

Before I explain, what CARET was, I should back up a little.

By 1984, Silicon Valley had been a juggernaut of technology for decades. In the less than 40-years since the appearance of Shockley’s transistor, this part of the world had already produced a multi billion dollar computer industry and made technological strides that were unprecedented in other fields – from hypertext and online collaboration in 1968 to the Alto in 1973.

Private industry in Silicon Valley was responsible for some of the most incredible technological leaps in history and this fact did not go unnoticed by the US government and military.

I don’t claim to have any special knowledge about Roswell [ New Mexico, USA incident believed to be an extraterrestrial flying object ( UFO ) crash ] or any of the other alleged early UFO events, but I do know that whatever the exact origin, the ‘military’ was hard at work trying to understand and use the ‘extraterrestrial artifacts’ it had in its ‘possession’.

While there had been a great deal of progress overall, things were not moving as quickly as some would have liked.

So, in 1984, the CARET program was created with the aim of harnessing the abilities of private industry in silicon valley and applying it to the ongoing task of understanding extra-terrestrial technology.

One of the best examples of the power of the tech sector was XEROX PARC, a research center in Palo Alto, California [ USA ].

XPARC was responsible for some of the major milestones in the history of computing.

While I never had the privilege of working there [ XEROX PARC ( Palo Alto, California, USA ], myself, I ‘did’ know many of the people who ‘did’ and I can say that they were among the brightest engineers I ever knew.

XPARC served as one [ 1 ] of the models for the CARET program’s first incarnation, a facility called the PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( PACL ) – lovingly pronounced, “packle” during my time there.

This [ Palo Alto CARET Laboratory ] was where [ Palo Alto, California, USA ] I worked, along with numerous other civilians, under the auspices of military brass who were eager to find out how the tech sector made so much progress so quickly.

My time at the DoD [ U.S. Department Of Defense ] was a major factor behind why I was chosen, and in fact about 30+ [ 30 or more ] others – who were hired around the same time – had also been at the Department [ U.S. Department Of Defense ] about as long but this was not the case for everyone.

A couple of my co-workers were plucked right from places like IBM [ INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES ] and, at least two [ 2 ] of them came from XPARC [ XEROX PARC ( Palo Alto, California, USA ] itself.

My DoD [ U.S. Department Of Defense ] experience did make me more eligable [ eligible ] for positions of management, however, which is how I have so much of this material [ documents, photos, etc. ] in my possession to begin with.

So, in other words, civilians ( like myself ) who had – at most – some decent experience working for the DoD [ U.S. Department Of Defense ] but no actual military training or involvement were suddenly finding ourselves in the same room as highly classified extra-terrestrial technology.

Of course they spent about 2-months briefing us all before we saw or did anything, and did their best to convince us that if we ever leaked a single detail about what we were being told, they’d do everything short of digging up our ancestors and putting a few slugs in them too – just for good measure.

It seemed like there was an armed guard in every corner of every room.

I’d [ I had ] worked under some pretty hefty NDAs [ National Defense Administrations ] in my time but this was so far out of my depth. I didn’t think I was going to last 2-weeks in an environment like that. But amazingly things got off to a good start.

They wanted us, plain and simple, and our industry – had shown itself to be so good at what it did – that they were just about ready to give us carte blanche.

Of course, nothing with the military is ever that simple, and as is often the case they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. What I mean by this is that despite their interest in picking our brains and learning whatever they could from our way of doing things, they still wanted to do it ‘their way’ often enough to frustrate us. At this point I’m going to gloss over the emotional side of this experience, because this letter isn’t intended to be a memoir, but I will say that there’s almost no way to describe the impact this kind of revelation has on your mind.

There are very few moments in life in which your entire world view is turned forever upside down, but this was one of them.

I still remember that turning point – during the briefing – when I realized what he’d just told us, and that I hadn’t heard him wrong, and that it wasn’t some kind of joke.

In retrospect, the whole thing feels like it was in slow motion, from that ‘slight pause’ he took – just before the term “extra-terrestrial” came out for the first time – to the way the room itself seemed to go off kilter as we collectively tried to grasp what was being said.

My reflex kept jumping back and forth between trying to look at the speaker, to understand him better, and looking at everyone else around me, to make sure I wasn’t the only one that was hearing this.

At the risk of sounding melodramatic, it’s a lot like a child learning his parents are divorcing. I never experienced that myself, but a very close friend of mine did when were boys, and he confided in me a great deal about what the experience felt like. A lot of what he said would aptly describe what I was feeling in that room.

Here was a ‘trusted authority figure’ telling you something that you just don’t feel ready for, and putting a burden on your mind that you don’t necessarily want to carry. The moment that first word comes out, all you can think about it is, what it was like only ‘seconds ago’, and knowing that life is never going to be as simple as it was ‘then’.

After all that time at the DoD [ U.S. Department Of Defense ], I thought I at least had some idea of what was going on in the world, but I’d never heard so much as a peep about this.

Maybe one day I’ll write more on this aspect, because it’s the kind of thing I really would like to get off my chest, but for now I’ll digress.

Unlike traditional research in this area, we weren’t working on new toys for the air force.

For numerous reasons, the CARET people decided to aim its efforts at ‘commercial applications’ rather than ‘military’ ones.

They basically wanted us to turn these ‘artifacts’ into something they could ‘patent’ and ‘sell’.

One of CARET’s most ‘appealing promises’ was the revenue generated by these product-ready technologies, which could be funneled right back into ‘black projects’. Working with a ‘commercial application’ in-mind was also yet another way to keep us in a familiar mind state. Developing technology for the military is very different than doing so for the ‘commercial sector’, and not having to worry about the difference was another way that CARET was very much ‘like private industry’.

CARET shined, in the way it let us work the way we were used to working. They wanted to recreate as much of the environment we were used to as they could without compromising issues like security. That meant we got ‘free reign to set up’ our own ‘workflow’, ‘internal management structure’, ‘style manuals’, ‘documentation’, and the like. They wanted this to look and ‘feel like private industry’, ‘not the military’. They ‘knew’ this was ‘how to get the best work out of us’, and they were right.

But things didn’t go as smoothly when it came to matters like access to classified information.

They were exposing what is probably their single biggest secret to a group of people who had never even been through basic training and it was obvious that the gravity of this decision was never far from their minds.

We started the program with a small set of ‘extra-terrestrial artifacts’ along with ‘fairly elaborate briefings’ on ‘each’ as well as ‘access to a modest amount of what research had already been completed’.

It wasn’t long before we realized ‘we needed more’ though, and getting them to provide even the smallest amount of new material was like pulling teeth.

CARET stood for “Commercial Applications Research for Extra-Terrestrial Technology”, but we often joked that it should have stood for “Civilians Are Rarely Ever Trusted.”

PACL [ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ] was located in Palo Alto [ California, USA ], but unlike XPARC [ XEROX XPARC ( Palo Alto, California, USA ], it wasn’t at the end of a long road in the middle of a big complex surrounded by rolling hills and trees.

PACL was hidden in an ‘office complex’ – owned entirely by the military but ‘made to look like an unassuming tech company’.

From the street, all you could see was what appeared to be a normal ‘parking lot’ with a ‘gate’ and a ‘guard [ security ] booth’, and a 1-story building inside with a ‘fictitious name’ and ‘[ fictitious ] logo’.

What was ‘not visible’ – from the street – was that ‘behind’ the very ‘first set of doors’ was enough ‘armed guards’ to invade Poland, plus five [ 5 ] additional underground stories [ levels ].

They wanted to be as close as possible to the kinds of people they were looking to hire, and be able to bring them in with a minimum of fuss.

Inside, we had everything we needed. State of the art hardware and a staff of over 200 computer scientists, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, physicists and mathematicians.

Most of us were civilians, as I’ve said, but some were military, a few of them had been working on this technology already.

Of course, you were never far from the barrel of a ‘machine gun’ – even ‘inside the labs’ themselves ( something many of us never got used to ) – and ‘bi-weekly tours’ were made by ‘military brass’ to ensure that not a single detail was out of line. Most of us underwent extensive searches on our way into and out of the building. There it was, probably the biggest secret in the world, in a bunch of parts spread out on laboratory tables in the middle of Palo Alto so you can imagine their concern.

One ‘downside’ to CARET was that it was ‘not’ as ‘well-connected’ as ‘other operations’ undoubtedly ‘were’.

I ‘never got to see’ any ‘actual extra-terrestrials’ ( not even photos ), and in fact ‘never even saw’ one [ 1 ] of their ‘complete vehicles’ – ’99% of what I saw’ was ‘related to the work at-hand’, all of which was conducted within a very narrow context on ‘individual artifacts only’. The remaining ’1% came from people’ I met through the program, many of which ‘working more closely’ with “the good stuff” or ‘had [ worked with ] in the past’.

In fact, what was especially amusing about the whole affair was the way that our ‘military management’ almost ‘tried to act’ as if the ‘technology’ – we were essentially ‘reverse engineering’ – was ‘not extra-terrestrial’ at all.

Aside from the word “extra-terrestrial,” itself, we rarely heard any other terms like “alien” or “UFO” or “outer space” or anything. ‘Those aspects’ were ‘only mentioned briefly’ when absolutely ‘necessary to explain something’.

In many cases it was necessary to ‘differentiate’ between the different ‘races’ and ‘their’ respective ‘technology’, and they did ‘not’ even use the word “races.” They were referred to simply as different “sources.”

The Technology –

A lot of the technology we worked on was what you would expect, namely ‘anti-gravity’. Most of the ‘researchers’ ( on the staff ) – with ‘backgrounds’ in ‘propulsion’ and ‘rocketry’ – were ‘military’ men, but the ‘technology’ we were dealing with was so ‘out of this world’ that it didn’t really matter all that much what your background was because none of it applied.

All we could hope to do was use the ‘vocabulary’ of our respective fields as a way ‘to model’ the extremely bizarre ‘new concepts’ we were very slowly ‘beginning to understand’ as best we could.

A ‘rocket engineer’ doesn’t usually rub elbows much with a ‘computer scientist’, but inside PACL [ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( Palo Alto, California, USA ) ], we were all ‘equally mystified’ and were ready to ‘entertain any and all ideas’.

The ‘physicists’ made the most headway, initially because out of all of our skills, their’s ‘overlapped the most’ with the ‘concepts behind this technology’ ( although that isn’t saying much! ). Once they [ physicists ] got the ball rolling though, we began to find that many of the ‘concepts found in computer science’ were applicable as well, albeit in very vague ways.

While I didn’t do a lot of work with the antigrav [ anti-gravity ] ‘hardware’, myself, I was occasionally involved in the ‘assessment’ of ‘how’ that ‘technology’ was meant to ‘interface’ with its ‘user’.

The antigrav [ anti-gravity ] was amazing, of course, as were the ‘advances’ we were making with ‘materials engineering’ and so on.

But what interested me most then, and still amazes me most to this day, was something completely unrelated.

In fact, it was this ‘technology’ that immediately jumped out at me when I ‘saw’ the Chad and Rajman ‘photos’, and even more-so in the ‘Big Basin photos’.

The “Language” –

I put the word Language in quotes because calling what I am about to describe a “language” is a misnomer, although it is an easy mistake to make.

Their [ extraterrestrial ] ‘hardware’ was ‘not’ operated in quite the same way as ours.

In our technology, even today, we have a combination of ‘hardware and software’ running almost everything on the planet.

Software is more abstract than hardware, but ultimately it needs hardware to run it.

In other words, there’s no way to write a computer program on a piece of paper, set that piece of paper on a table or something, and expect it to actually do something.

The most powerful ‘code’ in the world still ‘does not actually do anything’ until a piece of ‘hardware interprets it [ software ]‘ and ‘translates’ its ‘commands’ into ‘actions’.

But ‘their [ extraterestrial ] technology’ is ‘different’.

It really did operate like the magical piece of paper sitting on a table, in a manner of speaking.

They had something akin to a ‘language’ that could quite literally ‘execute’ itself – at least in the ‘presence’ of a very specific type of ‘field’ [ ‘field presence execution’ ].

The ‘language’, a term I am still using very loosely, is a ‘system’ of ‘symbols’ ( which does admittedly very much resemble a written language ) along with ‘geometric forms’ and ‘[ geometric ] patterns’ that fit together [ ‘interlocking’ ] to ‘form diagrams’ that are themselves ‘functional’.

Once they [ interlocking symbolic format diagrams ] are ‘drawn’ – so to speak – on a suitable ‘surface’ made of a suitable ‘material’ and in the ‘presence’ of a certain type of ‘field’, they immediately begin performing the desired tasks. It really did seem like magic to us, even after we began to understand the principles behind it.

I worked with these ‘symbols’ – more than anything [ else ] – during my time at PACL [ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( Palo Alto, California, USA ) ], and ‘recognized them’ the moment I saw them in the ‘photos’.

They appear in a very simple ‘form’ on Chad’s ‘craft’, but appear in the ‘more complex diagram form’ on the ‘underside’ of the ‘Big Basin craft’ as well.

Both are unmistakable, even at the small size of the Big Basin photos.

An example of a diagram in the style of the Big Basin craft is included with this in a series of scanned pages from the [ mistitled ] “Linguistic Analysis Primer”.

We needed a copy of that diagram to be utterly precise, and it took about a [ one – 1 ] month [ 30-days ] for a team of six [ 6 ] to ‘copy’ that ‘diagram’ into our drafting program!

Explaining everything I learned about this technology would fill up several volumes, but I will do my best to explain at least ‘some’ of the ‘concepts’ – as long as I am taking the time to write all this down.

First of all, you wouldn’t open-up their [ extraterrestrial ] ‘hardware’ to find a CPU here, and a data bus there, and some kind of memory over there.

Their [ extraterrestrial ] ‘hardware’ appeared to be ‘perfectly solid’, and consistent, in terms of ‘material’ – from one side to the other. Like a rock or a hunk of metal.

But upon [ much ] closer inspection, we began to learn that it was actually one [ 1 ] big ‘holographic computational substrate’ – each “computational element” ( essentially, individual ‘particles’ ) can ‘function independently’ but are ‘designed to function together’ in tremendously ‘large clusters’.

I say its ‘holographic’ because you can ‘divide it up into the smallest chunks’ you want and still find a scaled-down but complete representation of the whole system.

They produce a ‘non-linear computational output’ when ‘grouped’.

So four [ 4 ] elements, working together, is actually more than four [ 4 ] times ‘more powerful than’ one [ 1 ].

Most of the internal “matter” in their [ extraterrestrial ] ‘crafts’, usually everything – except the outermost housing – is actually ‘this [ extraterestrial] substrate’ and can ‘contribute to computation’ at ‘any time’ and in ‘any state’.

The ‘shape’ of these [ extraterrestrial ] “chunks” of ‘substrate’ also had a profound ‘effect’ on its [ extraterrestrial ] ‘functionality’, and often served as a “shortcut” to achieve a goal that might ‘otherwise’ be more ‘complex’.

So back to the language.

The language is actually a “functional blueprint.”

The ‘forms’ of the ‘shapes’, ‘symbols’ and ‘arrangements’ thereof is itself ‘functional’.

What makes it all especially ‘difficult to grasp’ is that every ‘element’ of each “diagram” is ‘dependant on’ and ‘related to’ every ‘other element’ [ elements ], which means ‘no single detail’ can be ‘created’, ‘removed’ or ‘modified’ independently.

Humans like written language because each element of the language can be understood on its own, and from this, complex expressions can be built.

However, their “language” is entirely ‘context sensitive’, which means that ‘a given symbol’ could mean as little as a ’1-bit flag’ in ‘one [ 1 ] context’, or – quite literally – contain the entire human genome or a galaxy star map in another.

The ability for a single, small symbol to contain, not just represent, tremendous amounts of data is another counter-intuitive aspect of this ‘concept’.

We quickly realized that even ‘working in groups’ of ten [ 10 ] or more on the ‘simplest of diagrams’, we found it virtually impossible to get anything done. As each new feature was added, the ‘complexity of the diagram exponentially grew’ to unmanageable proportions.

For this reason we began to develop computer-based systems to manage these details and achieved some success, although again we found that a threshold was quickly reached beyond which even the supercomputers of the day were unable to keep up.

Word was that the ‘extraterrestrials could design’ these ‘diagrams’ as ‘quickly’, and [ as ] easily as a human programmer could write a [ computer language ] Fortran program.

It’s humbling to think that even a ‘network of supercomputers’ was ‘not’ able to ‘duplicate’ what they could do in their [ extraterrestrial ] own heads.

Our entire system of language is based on the idea of assigning meaning to symbols.

Their [ extraterrestrial ] technology, however, somehow ‘merges’ the ‘symbol’ and the ‘meaning’, so a subjective audience is not needed.

You can put whatever meaning you want on the symbols, but their behavior and functionality will not change, any more than a transistor will function differently if you give it another name.

Here’s an example of how complex the process is.

Imagine I ask you to incrementally add random words to a list such that no two [ 2 ] words use any of the same letters, and you must perform this exercise entirely in your head, so you can’t rely on a computer or even a pen and paper.

If the first [ 1st ] in the list was, say, “fox”, the second [ 2nd ] item excludes all words with the letters F, O and X.

If the next word you choose is “tree”, then the third [ 3rd ] word in the list can’t have the letters F, O, X, T, R, or E in it.

As you can imagine, coming up with even a third [ 3rd ] word might start to get just a bit tricky, especially since you can’t easily visualize the excluded letters by writing down the words.

By the time you get to the fourth [ 4th ], fifth [ 5th ] and sixth [ 6th ] words, the problem has spiraled out of control.

Now imagine trying to add the billionth [ 1,000,000,000 ] word to the list ( imagine also that we’re working with an ‘infinite alphabet’ so you don’t run out of letters ) and you can imagine how difficult it is for even a computer to keep up.

Needless to say, writing this kind of thing “by hand” is orders of magnitude beyond the capabilities of the brain.

My background lent itself well to this kind of work though. I’d spent years ‘writing code’ and ‘designing’ both ‘analog’ and ‘digital’ circuits, a process that at least visually resembled these diagrams in some way.

I also had a personal affinity for ‘combinatorics’, which served me well as I helped with the ‘design of software’ running on ‘supercomputers’ that could juggle the often trillions [ 1,000,000,000,000 ] of rules necessary to create a ‘valid diagram’ of any ‘reasonable complexity’.

This overlapped quite a bit with ‘compiler theory’ as well, a subject I always found fascinating, and in particular ‘compiler optimization’, a field that was ‘not’ half [ 50% ] of what it is today back then.

A running joke among the linguistics team was that Big-O notation couldn’t adequately describe the scale of the task, so we’d substitute other words for “big”.

By the time I left I remember the consensus was “Astronomical-O” finally did it justice.

Like I said, I could go on for hours about this subject, and would love to write at least an introductory book on the subject if it was not – still completely – ‘classified’, but that’s not the point of this letter so I’ll try to get back on track.

The last thing I’d like to discuss is how I got copies of this material, what else I have in my possession, and what I plan to do with it in the future.

My Collection –

I worked at PACL [ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( Palo Alto, California, USA ) ] from 1984 to 1987, by which time I was utterly burned out.

The sheer volume of details to keep in mind while working with the diagrams was enough to challenge anyone’s sanity, and I was really at the end of my rope with the military attitude towards our “need to know”. Our ability to get work done was constantly hampered by their reluctance to provide us with the necessary information, and I was tired of bureaucracy getting in the way of research and development [ R&D ].

I left somewhere in the middle of a 3-month bell curve in which about a quarter of the entire PACL [ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( Palo Alto, California, USA ) ] staff left for similar reasons.

I was also starting to disagree with the direction the leadership wanted to take as far as the subject of extra-terrestrials went.

I always felt that at least some form of disclosure would be beneficial, but as a lowly CARET ‘engineer’ I wasn’t exactly in the position to call shots.

The truth is, our management didn’t even want us discussing – even among ourselves – non-technical aspects of this subject ( such as ethical or philosophical issues, as they felt it was enough of a breach of security to let civilians like us anywhere near this kind of thing in the first place.

So, about 3-months before I resigned ( which was about 8-months before I was really out – since you don’t just walk out of a job like that with a 2-week notice ) – I decided to start taking advantage [ remove PACL work documents, etc. ] of my ‘position’ [ a ‘situational position’ wherein his ( Issac ) PACL ‘security inspections’ on his ( Issac ) ‘person’ became lessened or ‘weak’ upon his ( Issac ) ‘departures from the PACL facility’ ].

As I mentioned earlier, my DoD [ United States Department Of Defense ] experience got me into an internal management role sooner than some of my colleagues, and after about a [ one – 1 ] year of that kind of status, the outgoing [ departing ] searches [ security inspections ] each night became slightly less rigorous.

Normally, we were to empty out any containers, bags or briefcases, then remove our shirt and shoes and submit to a kind of frisking. Work was never allowed to go home with you, no matter who you were.

For me, though, the briefcase search [ secuity inspection ] was [ had become ] eventually enough [ all that the security inspection became on him ( Issac ) ].

Even before I [ Issac ] actually decided to do it [ remove PACL work documents, etc. ], I was sure that I would be able to sneak certain materials out with me.

I wanted to do this [ remove PACL work documents, photos, etc. ] because I knew the day would come when I would want to write something like this, and I knew I’d regret it until the day I died if I didn’t at least leave the possibility open to do so.

So I started photocopying [ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( Palo Alto, California, USA ) ] documents and reports by the dozen.

I had then [ 3-months before he ( Issac ) resigned from PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( Palo Alto, California, USA ) ] put the papers [ documents, etc. ] under my shirt around my lower back, tucked enough into my belt to ensure they wouldn’t fall out.

I could do this [ ‘physically able to do’ but ‘not authorized to do’ ] in any one of a few ‘short windowless hallways’ on some of the ‘lower floors’, which were among the few places that did ‘not’ have an ‘armed guard watching’ my every move.

I would walk in one end [ of the ‘short windowless hallways’ ] with a stack of papers large enough that when I came out the other end [ of the ‘short windowless hallways’ ] with some of them [ documents, photos, etc. ] in my shirt – there would ‘not’ be a visible [ observational ] difference in what I was holding.

You absolutely cannot be too careful if you’re going to pull a stunt like this.

As long as I walked carefully they would ‘not’ make a crinkling noise [ paper flex rustling upon movement ].

In fact, the more papers I took, the less noise they made, since they were ‘not’ as flimsy [ resistant to flex upon restricted movement ] that way.

I’d often take upwards of 10-pages up to 20-pages at once [ each time ].

By the time I was done, I had made out with [ unlawfully removed documents, photos, etc. away from PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( Palo Alto, California, USA ) ] ‘hundreds’ [ 200+ or more ] of ‘photocopies’, as well as a few ‘originals’ and a ‘large collection’ of ‘original photographs’.

With this ‘initial letter’, I have attached high resolution scans of the following:

– One [ 1 ] page is from a [ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( Palo Alto, California, USA ) ] “inventory review” with a ‘photo’ – appears to depict one ( 1 ) of the ‘parts’ found in the Rajman sighting and ‘parts’ very similar to the Big Basin craft;

– The first [ 1st ] nine ( 9 ) pages of one ( 1 ) of our [ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( Palo Alto, California, USA ) ] ‘quarterly’ research ‘reports’;

– Scans of the ‘original photographs’ used ‘in that report’ – since the ‘photocopies obscure’ most of the ‘details’; and

– Five [ 5 ] pages from a ‘report’ on our [ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( Palo Alto, California, USA ) ] ongoing analysis of the “language” ( inappropriately titled “linguistic analysis” ) depicting the kind of diagram – just barely visible on the underside of the Big Basin craft.

This material is the most, ‘relevant’ and ‘explanatory’, I could find on ‘short notice’.

Now that these are up [ on the internet ], ‘if’ I decide to release more in the future, I’ll be able to take my time and better search this rather large collection of mine that I’ve sadly never organized.

I’m not sure what I’ll be doing with the rest of the collection in the future.

I suppose I’ll wait and see how this all plays out, and then play it by ear.

There are certainly risks involved in what I’m doing, and if I were to actually be identified and caught, there could be rather serious consequences.

However, I’ve taken the proper steps to ensure a ‘reasonable level of anonymity’ and am quite secure in the fact that the information I’ve so far provided is by ‘no means unique’ among many of the CARET participants [ had access to ].

Besides, part of me has always suspected that the [ United States of America ] government ‘relies on the occasional leak’ – like this – and actually wants them to happen, because it ‘contributes to a steady slow-paced path towards revealing’ the ‘truth’ of this ‘matter’.

Since Leaving CARET –

Like I said, I left PACL in 1987, but have kept in touch with a great many of my friends and co-workers from those days.

Most of us are retired by now, except – of course – for those of us that went-on to get ‘teaching jobs’, but a few of us ‘still hear things’ [ ‘still told of these matters’ ] through the grapevine.

As for CARET itself, I’m not sure what’s become of it.

Whether it’s still known by the same name, I’m quite sure it’s ‘still active’ in ‘some capacity’, although who knows where.

I heard from a number of people that PACL [ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( Palo Alto, California, USA ) ] closed up shop a few years after I left, but I’ve still yet to get a clear answer on why exactly that happened.

But I’m sure ‘the kind of work we did there’ [ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( Palo Alto, California, USA ) ] is ‘still going’ strong.

I’ve heard from a lot of friends that there are multiple sites like PACL in Sunnyvale, California ( USA ) and Mountain View, California ( USA ) also disguised to look like ‘unremarkable office space’.

But this is all second-hand information so you can make of it what you will.

Around 2002, or so, I came across Coast to Coast AM [ radio station in the United States of America ] and have been hooked ever since.

I admit, I don’t take most of the [ radio program ] show’s content as anything more than entertainment, but there have been occasions when I could be sure a guest was clearly speaking from experience or a well-informed source.

For me, there’s just something very ‘surreal about hearing all this speculation’ and ‘so-called inside information’ about UFOs [ Unidentified Flying Objects ] ( and the like ) but [ my ( Issac ) ] being ‘personally able to verify’ at least ‘some of it’ as being true or false. It’s [ Coast to Coast AM radio program ( USA ) ] also a ‘nightly’ [ time period, when Coast to Coast AM radio is broadcasted ] reminder of how hectic things were in those days, which helps me enjoy my retirement all the more.

Knowing I’m not part of that crazy world anymore really is something I enjoy on a daily basis, as much as I miss some of it.

Conclusion –

What I’ve shared so far is only a very small portion of what I have, and what I know.

Despite the very sheltered and insulated atmosphere within CARET, I did ultimately learn a great deal from various colleagues, and some of what I learned is truly incredible.

I’d also like to say that for what it’s worth, during my time [ 1983 – 1987 ] there [ PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY ( Palo Alto, California, USA ) ] I never heard anything about invasions, or abductions, or many of the more frightening topics that often pop up on Coast to Coast AM [ radio program ( USA ) ].

That’s not to say that none of it is true, but in my time working alongside some of the most well-connected people in this field, it never came up.

So at the very least I can say my intent is not to scare anyone.

My view on the extra-terrestrial situation is very much a positive, albiet still highly secretive one.

One thing I can definitely say is that if they wanted us gone, we would have been gone a very, very long time ago, and we wouldn’t even have seen it coming.

Throw out your ideas about a space war or anything silly like that. We’d be capable of fighting back against them about as much as ants could fight back against a stampede of buffalo.

But that’s okay, we are the ‘primitive race’, they [ extraterrestrials ] are the ‘advanced races’, and that’s just the way it is.

The ‘other advanced races let them live through their primitive years’ back in ‘their day’, and there is no reason to think it will be any different for us.

They [ extraterrestrials ] are not in the market for a new planet, and even if they [ extraterrestrials ] were there are way too many planets out there for them [ extraterrestrials ] to care about ours enough to take it by force.

To reiterate my take on the recent sightings, I would guess that experimentation – done in the last couple months – on a device that, among other things, is capable of interfering with various crafts onboard invisibility has resulted in a sudden wave of sightings.

It may ‘not’ explain ‘all’ of the recent events, but like I said, I’d bet my life that ‘is’ exactly what happened at Big Basin – at least – and it’s probably related in some way to the Chad, Rajman and Tahoe [ Lake Tahoe, California / Nevada ( USA ) ] sightings [ of the unidentified flying object ( UFO ) ].

So, despite all the recent fanfare over this, I’d say this does ‘not’ mean much.

Most importantly, they are ‘not suddenly’ “here,” they [ extraterrestrials ] have been here for a long time, but just [ have ] happened to turn ‘intentionally visible’ for brief periods ‘recently’.

Lastly, there are so many people selling books, and DVDs, and doing lectures and all that so, I would like to reiterate the fact that I am ‘not’ here to ‘sell’ anything.

The material I’m sharing is ‘free to distribute’ provided it’s all kept intact and unmodified, and this letter is included.

I tend to question the motives of anyone charging money for their information, and will assure you that I [ Issac ] will never do such a thing.

And in the future, just to cover all the bases, anyone claiming to be ‘me’ [ Issac ] who ‘is’ selling a DVD or book is most certainly ‘not going to be me’ [ Issac ].

Any future releases from me [ Issac ] will come from the e-mail address I’ve used to contact Coast to Coast AM [ USA radio station ], and will be sent to them [ Coast to Coast AM ( USA radio station ) ] only.

I’d like to make this clear as well to ensure that people can be sure that any future information comes from the same source, although I must be clear:

At this time I do not have any future plans for additional information. Time will tell how long I will maintain this policy, but do not expect anything soon.

I’d really like to let this information “settle” for a while and see how it goes.

If I find out I’m getting an IRS [ United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) ] audit tomorrow, then maybe this wasn’t too smart.

Until then, I’m going to take it slow.

I hope this information has been helpful.

– Issac

– –

One of the documents ( in the form of high resolution scans of the original ) uploaded was called “PALO ALTO CARET LABORATORY Q-4 1986 RESEARCH REPORT” – here are some excerpts:

1. OVERVIEW –

This document is intended as a primer for the tentative findings of the Q4 1986 research phase ( referred to herein as “Q-4 1986″ ) at the Palo Alto CARET Laboratory (aka) PACL. In accordance with the CARET program mission statement, the goal of this research has been achieving a greater understanding of extraterrestrial technology within the context of commercial applications and civilian use. Examples of such applications, in no particular order, include transportation, medicine, construction, energy, computing and communication.

The ultimate goal of this research is to provide a core set of advanced technologies in a condition suitable for patent review.

2. EXTRACTION –

The process of converting raw artifacts of extraterrestrial origin to usable, fully-documented human technology is termed extraction. The extraction process ultimately consists of two phases:

First [ 1st ] is the establishment of a complete theoretical and operational understanding of the artifact; and,

Second [ 2nd ] is a distillation of the artifact’s underlying principles into usable, product-oriented technology.

Suggestions of specific product applications on behalf of PACL have been encouraged, but are not considered mandatory or essential.

– –

From: Isaac Subject: Re: “Drones” Date: June 27, 2007

Isaac:

“There are a few misconceptions that I have noticed so far and would like to clear them up, and will also answer your questions:

1) I realize now that I did not make this clear, but I should clarify that I am not responsible for the blacking out of the Q4-86 report. Most of the copies I was able to make came from documents that were already archived, which meant that they had already been censored for use by outside parties that needed access to some, but not all, of CARET’s information. I’m trying to share this information, not hide it, but if I did feel that if a given topic was too sensitive for some reason, I would make it clear that I had personally covered it up and probably try to give a reason why.

2) I do not understand the question about why the diagram would be “formatted for 8.5 x 11″… As I mention in my letter, the diagram is a reproduction, not the original. We had a team of technical artists painstakingly copy the diagram from its original source, which was a slightly curved panel not unlike the one seen in the Big Basin craft, although this one was apparently inside the craft, not on the outside. We copied it into a drafting program over the course of about a month.

Our software was understandably primitive by today’s standards, but it was still orders of magnitude more powerful than a pencil and paper would have been. This made a task that would have otherwise been nearly impossible relatively feasible, albeit extremely time-consuming. I can assure you, “they” did not make anything particularly convenient for us. One of the reasons we chose to reproduce that particular diagram was because out of all the diagram-artifacts we had access to, it was on the flattest surface.

Since the geometry of the forms is extremely important, curvature of the surface it’s printed on must be “corrected” if it is to be reproduced in a surface with a different contour (such as a flat page). This can be done in a number of ways, by either using a mathematical model to reverse the effect of the surface curves on the diagram’s shapes, or by methods of physical measuring that allow precise measuring of irregular surfaces. In either case, however, it adds a significant new dimension of labor to an already extremely labor-intensive task, so it’s avoided whenever possible. We really just needed one or two accurately copied diagrams to serve as convenient examples for our own work in decoding and reproducing it, so luckily this was not something we had to do often. Some experimentation was being done on ways to “scan” the diagrams as well, using an almost completely automated process that could automatically account for curved surfaces, but during my time there, very little progress was made on this front.

3) I think the confusion over the quality of the documents stems from the fact that he (critic) is under the impression they (CARET document) were typeset. They were not. First of all, I’m no guru when it comes to graphics or design, but being in close contact with numerous people from places like XPARC will give you enough background to know the lay of the land. What’s first important to note is that systems capable of desktop publishing had been in development for many years before CARET, mostly starting with the Xerox Alto (in 1973), which XPARC developed themselves.

In fact, I once remember hearing from someone related to the original Alto team that Boeing (I believe) used the Alto to lay out and print the documentation for one of their planes (or something to that effect, I heard the story years ago). The joke was apparently that there was so MUCH documentation that the plane itself could essentially be filled with the pages. Furthermore, laser printing itself had also been around for many years (albeit in an extremely expensive form), and was also developed within XPARC (more or less). Other systems, such as PERQ and Lilith, also came out around the late 70′s and while none of them turned into major commercial products, they were not uncommon among large companies and [mostly] universities and were put to very productive use.

These systems were also the inspiration for the Apple Lisa and Macintosh, which was of course perhaps the biggest factor in the consumer-level desktop publishing boom of the late 80′s and early 90′s. By 1984, there were quite a few options available for producing these kinds of documents, they were just ABSURDLY expensive, so they weren’t on every street corner. Obviously it was nowhere near as turnkey and simple as it is today, but it was a very crude approximation of the same process with similar tools. We just had far less features and everything was a hell of a lot slower. But the point I’m trying to make is that while our method of documentation was somewhat advanced for its time, and also somewhat uncommon, it was hardly unattainable by a sufficiently motivated, financed, and well-connected organization.

I had very little contact with the technical writers for the most part, but I do know that we were using this kind of technology for both page layout and printing. CARET was expected to produce a massive amount of detailed, well-formatted documentation that could be easily modified and re-used for numerous drafts and revisions, and we would not have been able to keep up using traditional page layout and typesetting techniques. The mid-1980′s were a very transitional period for these fields, and I would suggest that people do not assume we were using run-of-the-mill standards.

One of the things I appreciated most about CARET was that if the technology was available, and we needed it to work better or more effectively, it was given to us with little debate. But typesetting and digital page layout are apples and oranges, so I think most of this is a moot point anyway.

The bottom line is that many people both inside and outside the engineering world frequently underestimate how long we’ve had a lot of the technology we have. 99% of the algorithms we use today were developed decades ago, they just didn’t have the same practical applications immediately available. Most of the engineers of the 60′s and 70′s would have been right at home with today’s developments and technologies. The only difference is that things have gotten smaller and faster. In the vast majority of technologies, that is the only thing that REALLY changes from one era to the next. If I told the average person that we had speech-synthesizing technology in 1936, they probably wouldn’t believe me.

I could show you a prototype of a simple drafting/design system that was operated by a light pen directly on a screen from the 1960′s. You could draw a shape freehand, then immediately rotate it, modify it, duplicate it, or whatever. You could draw lines connecting different objects, then erase them by simply drawing a squiggly line over it. The computer could interpret the squiggles as a sign to erase something, all in real time. And this was half a century ago, and decades before CARET. Think about that for a moment. The point is, most of what we have today is much older than we think. The only differences are that it’s faster, cheaper, and a marketing team has given it a glossy finish and found a commercial application for it. But if you take away some of the speed, power, ubiquity and consumer appeal, you’ll find a lot of today’s technology scattered throughout much of the 20th century. I hope this is helpful.

Isaac”

– –

From: Isaac Subject: Re: “Drones” Date: June 27, 2007

Isaac:

“1) While I wasn’t a major player in the (CARET) organization, I was hardly ‘some worker.’ My middle-management position is the only reason I was able to make out with what I did. Bear in mind that even someone in my position would never get the chance to leave with even the smallest of actual artifacts, but paperwork smuggling was feasible for anyone who wasn’t subjected to the frisking.

Also, let’s not forget that paperwork only proves so much. I’ll be the first to agree that everything I’ve provided could be faked, I suppose. It is, after all, just a series of images. While the powers that be obviously don’t want this material leaking if they can help it, they’re certainly aware that scans of documents aren’t in the same league as UFOs landing on the White House lawn. I’m not the first person to leak a document or a photo, and I won’t be the last. The information I’ve shared is very unlikely to change the world, and this is the reason I’m not worried about being literally murdered if I’m identified. I’ll face consequences to be sure, but it’s not the kind of thing they kill for.

2) Of course the manual doesn’t look anything like typical government and military documents. The entire purpose of CARET was to recreate the look and feel of silicon valley private enterprise, populate it with private industry engineers, and let it tackle the problem of extraterrestrial technology research. Style manuals were among the numerous things we brought with us from the ‘outside world.’ I’m not sure what else can be said about this. I agree it’s uncommon for non-standard documents to come out of this kind of research, but it’s even more uncommon for people like myself (and even more so for many of my co-workers) to be brought into this kind of project in the first place. Most of us were decidedly not military men. I find it a lot more bizarre than the fact that we were able to design our reports a certain way. CARET was an exception to many of the usual rules.

3) If he (one of many critics who emailed Earthfiles and which I shared with Isaac) believes the pictures are fake, I certainly can’t do or say anything to prove otherwise. He sounds very sure of himself.

4) Most importantly, be very wary of anyone who claims to ‘know the mind’ of extraterrestrials. The comments he’s made are, to put it lightly, naive and extremely presumptuous. Firstly, he’s referring to ‘the aliens’ as if there is a single collective group of them. The universe is not split into ‘humans’ and ‘non-humans,’ any more than Earth is split up into ‘Spanish’ and ‘non-Spanish’ or something equally arbitrary. There are numerous races – and again, like our own races of humans here on earth, they do things in very different ways.

His comment that ‘the aliens don’t do this or that’ is akin to saying ‘humans don’t speak Japanese.’ Well, many humans don’t, but Japanese humans certainly do. The point is not that his statement is right or wrong, but simply that it’s phrased illogically. He then goes on to suggest that the design of the drones is wasting space, which is again, alarming in its arrogance. We had some of the brightest minds in the world spending years just to understand a single facet of their technology, while this individual claims to be able to assess basically every detail of a given design after looking at a single photo and conclude that it’s inefficient. I’m not even sure such a statement should be dignified with a response, and I’m sure you can understand why.

To be honest, whoever this person is, I wrote him off as soon as he said ‘the aliens would never design as these pictures depict.’ That’s about as presumptuous (if not ignorant) as a statement on this subject can be, at least coming from a fellow human. Unless there’s an alien engineer on the other side of this email, there’s simply no way such statements could have merit. I’m really only writing this as a courtesy to you.

At best, he’s been exposed to technology from a radically different race, and at worst, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This individual may have access to real information, and he might not. If he is a fellow ‘whistle blower,’ then I’m not interested in attacking him. If he’s not, and is simply making things up, then I’m even less interested. Whatever he is or isn’t is not for me to say, but judging by the way he talks about this issue I have my doubts.

It’s a big world and these are complicated issues. A sense of humility and the admission we don’t know everything is one of our greatest assets.

Isaac”

====

 

Submitted for review and commentary by,

 

Concept Activity Research Vault ( CARV ), Host
E-MAIL: ConceptActivityResearchVault@Gmail.Com
WWW: http://ConceptActivityResearchVault.WordPress.Com