ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer | |
Free Store User ID: 142819 Canada 01/01/2008 07:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Boomerang User ID: 299985 United Kingdom 01/01/2008 07:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Do tell what the average is for the planet's quakes overall. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 142819You are joking???? I'm looking forward (with relish and glee) to the near future that shows Nancys Zeta buddies to be talking crap again. Nancy is insisting that there are PX moons near Sol. I thought she was a bit smarter, she should have stayed away from that thread......but there again, it would show that she is hearing voices in her head and is simply mentally ill. Either way........looking like...... Debunkers (will be) right again |
Free Store User ID: 142819 Canada 01/01/2008 07:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Menow User ID: 169333 United States 01/01/2008 07:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Free Store User ID: 144456 Canada 01/01/2008 07:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Menow User ID: 169333 United States 01/01/2008 07:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Free Store User ID: 144456 Canada 01/01/2008 07:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Menow User ID: 169333 United States 01/01/2008 07:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Are you discussing this with USER 75/68? I see. But when you get done finished let me know what the average is. Quoting: Free Store 144456No one "discusses" ANYTHING with Luser, since he will never "discuss" back. What is the average number of quakes? Ever think of reading the very thread you are posting to? |
Boomerang User ID: 299985 United Kingdom 01/01/2008 07:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Free Store User ID: 144456 Canada 01/01/2008 07:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Menow User ID: 169333 United States 01/01/2008 08:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So menow refuses to back himself up with some averages. O well you know.. Quoting: Free Store 144456Averages over certain periods are posted on this very thread, you loon. READ them. Or you can go to the sites we are referencing and do averages for yourself. What is wrong with you? |
The Lone Ranger User ID: 345915 New Zealand 01/01/2008 08:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Ms LIEDer has NOW claimed, early on in the pinned thread that......drumroll.....that Planet "eX" has been discovered once again. And only because NASA were too lazy to cover it up :horse laug: --------------------------------------------------------- Thread: Breaking *** NASA ** Sunspot C-class explosion , shows a strange object orbiting the Sun (Page 2) Nancy Lieder Forum Moderator User ID: 348420 1/1/2008 7:41 AM Re: Breaking *** NASA ** Sunspot C-class explosion , shows a strange object orbiting the Sun Quote Someone needs to show the Zetas this planet that no one knows what it is shown on the video! Nancy you have talked and talked! Look at this!!! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3908 "Planet X is now visible on LASCO C2, yes, showed up on 12/23."(Nancy Lieder) --------------------------------------------------------- DESPERATION is a word that springs to mind. The fun continues. Life Is But A Dream!! Therefore, "'Tis better to have dreamed and lost than never to have dreamed at all." ------------------------------------ Disclaimer: DON'T BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS THREAD!....USE DISCERNMENT!! |
Free Store User ID: 144456 Canada 01/01/2008 09:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So how would averages factor the the 18 7,0 and greater quakes worldwide for 2007. If i remember the record to beat was like 14 7.0 and greater and am looking for the record chart for 2000 to 2007 Averages in quakes are bogus. They are installing more Quake monitoring stations all the time since the first one in the beginning of recorded Quakes. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 144456 Canada 01/01/2008 09:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Menow User ID: 169333 United States 01/01/2008 09:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So how would averages factor the the 18 7,0 and greater quakes worldwide for 2007. Quoting: Free Store 144456You need to learn to express yourself in clearer English. I don't understand your question. What do you mean? If i remember the record to beat was like 14 7.0 and greater and am looking for the record chart for 2000 to 2007 Quoting: Free Store 144456The "record to beat"? You mean the year with the most quakes? Why don't you just look it up instead of guessing? Averages in quakes are bogus. They are installing more Quake monitoring stations all the time since the first one in the beginning of recorded Quakes. Quoting: Free Store 144456Why don't you tell Nancy and the other "bunkers" that? By the way, quake monitors have always picked up some quakes which occur in far away places if they are strong enough. It is the smaller quakes that were mostly being missed. |
Free Store User ID: 144456 Canada 01/01/2008 10:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Halcyon Dayz User ID: 337024 Netherlands 01/01/2008 10:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to neic.usgs.gov] At the bottom of the exact same page it says that 18 is the annual average. So 2007 wasn't remarkable. Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 348411 United States 01/01/2008 11:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OK it beat the yr. 2001 which had 15 Quakes 7.0 and greater, was the one to beat. Quoting: Free Store 1444562007 had 18 quakes greater than 7.0. Guess User was right. The Quakes are increasing. Wrong genius and luser. 1999 is the year to beat with 20 earthquakes 7.0 and greater and 1995 with 18 earthquakes 7.0 and greater. I'm not surprised that the bunkers are too stupid to do their own research or data analysis. These numbers generated from ANSS data and counted with the countif function available in MS Excel. 5 1980 6 1981 3 1982 4 1983 2 1984 4 1985 2 1986 4 1987 1 1988 2 1989 3 1990 2 1991 7 1992 8 1993 12 1994 18 1995 17 1996 16 1997 12 1998 20 1999 16 2000 15 2001 13 2002 15 2003 16 2004 11 2005 11 2006 17 2007 |
Free Store User ID: 144999 Canada 01/02/2008 12:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The most shakers of 7.0+ so far for the 2000 to 2010 decade is 2007 The USGS site gives slightly different numbers though for some yrs. No 20 x for 1999 yr and others. . We have two more yrs to go still and I feel this yr is the yr Hell opens up. [link to neic.usgs.gov] [link to wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov] |
The Lone Ranger User ID: 345915 New Zealand 01/02/2008 01:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The most shakers of 7.0+ so far for the 2000 to 2010 decade is 2007 Quoting: Free Store 144999The USGS site gives slightly different numbers though for some yrs. No 20 x for 1999 yr and others. . We have two more yrs to go still and I feel this yr is the yr Hell opens up. [link to neic.usgs.gov] [link to wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov] Is this the same as your "Canadian Word"? If so your feelings will be your worst enemy, eh? Life Is But A Dream!! Therefore, "'Tis better to have dreamed and lost than never to have dreamed at all." ------------------------------------ Disclaimer: DON'T BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS THREAD!....USE DISCERNMENT!! |
Free Store User ID: 144999 Canada 01/02/2008 02:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 348411 United States 01/02/2008 07:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Chew on this freestore and you other idiots: The NEIC/USGS database (which Nancy claims is dumbing down the numbers) gives a different set of numbers for earthquakes magnitude 7.0 and greater (there are more): 13 1973 14 1974 15 1975 17 1976 13 1977 16 1978 13 1979 14 1980 13 1981 10 1982 14 1983 8 1984 14 1985 6 1986 11 1987 8 1988 7 1989 18 1990 18 1991 24 1992 16 1993 15 1994 25 1995 22 1996 20 1997 16 1998 23 1999 20 2000 18 2001 13 2002 17 2003 16 2004 12 2005 12 2006 20 2007 |
The Lone Ranger User ID: 345915 New Zealand 01/02/2008 08:09 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I don't know...is it? Quoting: Free Store 144999Is there any subject here you know how to debate besides clownmanship? Seems you are making no friends on the other thread there. Have enough friends in "real" life thankyou. And once again I refuse(usually these days) to debate with fools that CANNOT be objective with known truth and facts beyond their beliefs in things UNPROVEN and proven to be false countless times. Life Is But A Dream!! Therefore, "'Tis better to have dreamed and lost than never to have dreamed at all." ------------------------------------ Disclaimer: DON'T BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS THREAD!....USE DISCERNMENT!! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 137069 United States 01/02/2008 01:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Chew on this freestore and you other idiots: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 348411The NEIC/USGS database (which Nancy claims is dumbing down the numbers) gives a different set of numbers for earthquakes magnitude 7.0 and greater (there are more): 13 1973 14 1974 15 1975 17 1976 13 1977 16 1978 13 1979 14 1980 13 1981 10 1982 14 1983 8 1984 14 1985 6 1986 11 1987 8 1988 7 1989 18 1990 18 1991 24 1992 16 1993 15 1994 25 1995 22 1996 20 1997 16 1998 23 1999 20 2000 18 2001 13 2002 17 2003 16 2004 12 2005 12 2006 20 2007 I thought Nancy and the bunkers said that strong earthquakes were increasing? It looks like there were more strong quakes in 1999, 1996, 1995 and 1992 than 2007. Nancy and the bunkers wrong again! |
User # 78/68 User ID: 341591 Canada 01/03/2008 02:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The deflunkers own data ALWAYS betrays them. Here is some more! MeNow, Agent #88145, Circuit Stupid etc. have been saying earthquakes did have a two year bleep up in 2004 and 2005 and after that, and more specifically 2007 that larger earthquakes were decreasing again. And what do we have here? The year 2007 has had many more larger earthquakes than both 2004 and 2005. Not decreasing ... but INCREASING! OUCH! These shills are as dumb as a bag of rocks, it seems. "Chew on this freestore and you other idiots: The NEIC/USGS database (which Nancy claims is dumbing down the numbers) gives a different set of numbers for earthquakes magnitude 7.0 and greater (there are more): 13 1973 14 1974 15 1975 17 1976 13 1977 16 1978 13 1979 14 1980 13 1981 10 1982 14 1983 8 1984 14 1985 6 1986 11 1987 8 1988 7 1989 18 1990 18 1991 24 1992 16 1993 15 1994 25 1995 22 1996 20 1997 16 1998 23 1999 20 2000 18 2001 13 2002 17 2003 16 2004 12 2005 12 2006 20 2007. Read it and weep agency idiots! |
Boomerang User ID: 299985 United Kingdom 01/03/2008 02:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Circuit Breaker User ID: 297320 United States 01/03/2008 02:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | MeNow, Agent #88145, Circuit Stupid etc. have been saying earthquakes did have a two year bleep up in 2004 and 2005 and after that, and more specifically 2007 that larger earthquakes were decreasing again. Quoting: User # 78/68Nice of you to come back to embarrass yourself again. Where did I say what you claim, Loser? Please provide supporting evidence. Or are you going to post and run as usual? A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos. |
Circuit Breaker User ID: 297320 United States 01/03/2008 02:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Since you obviously missed it (more like ignored), from page 8...here is the data YOU were ranting and raving about: 2007-1939 YTD 2006-2033 2005-2135 2004-1799 2003-1414 2002-1361 2001-1385 2000-1518 1999-1252 1998-1108 1997-1263 1996-1405 1995-1537 1990-1763 1980-1418 1975-1509 If you look at all the data you provided, you can see that the number of earthquakes over the time period remained fairly constant, with a dip in the numbers in the 90's and an increase in 2004...with a peak in 2005...two years AFTER Nancy's make believe "planet" was supposed to be here. And then the numbers started going down again. Funny how you can't wrap your head around that. If "Planet X" were really responsible for any increase, then those numbers would be continuing to increase. They aren't. And how do you know numbers that high haven't happened before? The data provided only goes back to 1975. For someone who claims to be so educated, you should know that this hardly shows a trend. So, go ahead and keep spinning it anyway you want. No matter what you say or do, you're still wrong about "Planet X." End of story. You lying twerps need your heads examined! You certainly aren't doing a good job of earning the meager salary Nancy pays you. A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos. |
User # 78/68 User ID: 341591 Canada 01/03/2008 02:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "with a dip in the numbers in the 90's and an increase in 2004...with a peak in 2005...two years AFTER Nancy's make believe "planet" was supposed to be here. And then the numbers started going down again." Kind of makes a fool out of you again, eh, CB? They don't call you Circuit Stupid for nothing! |
Boomerang User ID: 299985 United Kingdom 01/03/2008 02:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |