ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer

Yes, but it looks like at least a couple of bunkers haven't figured it out yet.

I am just recovering from this awful bug! I first got it very suddenly at bedtime on 30th December and was pretty much bed ridden for 3 days. It's not to be taken lightly and where possible, contact with others should be avoided. I'm still feeling the after effects now, having lost over half a stone in weight and am still struggling to eat as my stomach has shrunk and everything I eat makes me very queasy. I returned to work today but as far as no spreading the virus, I've managed to pass it to my partner and mother! Oops! Avoid at all costs.
Joanne , Woking BBC news

as long as anyone answers (instead of letting Nelle talk to herself) it is not dead.

All of the earthquake data represented in this thread have been for larger earthquakes ie. those over 5 and also those over 7.

The installation of more monitoring stations have nothing to do with the increasing stats in those years. Why must the debunkers trot out so damn much bullshit ... spin?

Who are they defending?

You said earthquakes are increasing. You were shown that isn't the case. Then you said earthquakes greater than 7 were increasing. Yes, there were 12 magnitude 7+ earthquakes in 2006 and 20 in 2007. So, yes, that is an increase from the years prior. However, ONE YEAR does not constitute a trend. AND, data was provided that shows quake activity between 1934 to 1950 were extremely active with a peak of 41 magnitude 7 or higher quakes in 1943. For the third time; was this activity caused by "Planet X?" And notice that in 1930 there were only 13 strong quakes and the next year there were 26! In 1933 there were only 14 magnitude 7 or greater quakes and then the number jumped to 22 and stayed over 20 for almost 20 years!! Why don't you try to explain that, Loser. And if you look average the total number of 7 or greater quakes per year for the time frame shown in the data, you get 19.5 quakes per year with a magnitude 7 or greater. Wow, and to think there were 20 such quakes in 2007. What an increase. A whopping whole .5...wohoo!!



A link was provided that states there has been no increase in small magnitude earthquakes, only that the increased number of sensors gives the appearance of an increase as more quakes are now detected. You say this is false, and yet, when pressed for evidence of this, you come up empty handed. Instead you spew insults and then run away. Why must you trot out so damn much bullshit and then continue spinning it? Why not just be man enough to admit you're wrong? Who are you defending? Oh yeah, Nancy...because you're paid to do so.

None of us has EVER said that there are not, were not, more actual quakes in some years than others. That means, technically, that if there were 22 quakes in one year and 24 the next, that is an INCREASE since one number is clearly LARGER than the other. DUH!

Happy now?

However, there has been NO overall increase in quakes when long-term stats are included. As I asked you before, and you ignored, why don't you scream about an "increase" when there is a quake on one day when there wasn't one the day before?

Don't worry. I won't expect an answer. The point is made.

So no link ??

I said Quakes greater than seven..

A link to what? You said something about 41 countries. I never posted any information about 41 countries. But since you apparently aren't capable of doing a search for yourself, here you go:

[link to neic.usgs.gov]

OK Thanks. Now look back at the last 20 years here. The 8,0 and over Quakes have Quadrupled. Which means The most sever Quakes have appeared in 2007.

Recent quote from freestore, who is apparently now worshiping Nancy Lieder as if she is a Jesus-like saviour:


********************
Free Store
User ID: 142947
1/4/2008 1:20 AM

Re: Breaking *** NASA ** Sunspot C-class explosion , shows a strange object orbiting the Sun Quote

Nancy Loves you, Menow. Keep that in mind.
*********************

Now THAT is creepy!!

[link to wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov]

I feel sorry for you Menow.

How special.

You are a true freakazoid.

I guess your at that age where girls are icky. :>

Free Store
User ID: 142947
1/4/2008 1:20 AM

hmm... "free store" seems to be posting under different ID's. Isn't that supposed to be a sign of a shill operation? Been kicked out of GLP lately, lover boy?

Isn't it a sign you know nothing?

Wow. There were four in 2007. But your link only goes back a few years. How do you know there weren't more before that? One year (2007) hardly constitutes a trend. And why weren't there 4 or more in the years prior when "Planet X" arrived and caused us to "halt in orbit?"

Here's one. Might be the same one. Don't know.

[link to earthquake.usgs.gov]

Nope- it's different. Shows more years, but you have to add for yourself.

Two years constitutes a trend, does it not CB?

Earthquakes over richter 5 did indeed increase for at least 2 years in a row ... 2004 and 2005. A trend.

Now, why is it that you claimed earthquakes had not increased during these years ... originally, in those years?


Why the lies about that ... then? (we all know richter 5 earthquakes are not smaller earthquakes)

In the middle of the page is for the 1990's. Planet X history of Effects on the Earth is more to the point for us.

No, lameass, 2 years does NOT constitute a trend. If it DOES, then why are you ignoring the most recent two years?

How many times are you going to ignore the idea that none of us EVER said that EQ's had not increased from one year to the next, or even over 2 years?

Are you familiar with the term "grasping at straws"? You have to go back and try to find some debunker error from several years ago?? How about Nancy's latest claim of PX Moons near the Sun? Why don't you try to defend that? You can start by explaining why there are just, allegedly, "moons" in the image and NO mother planet.

Er... and those effects would allegedly be?

And this "Planet X" is exactly where, allegedly?

Coming on with gusto. You see the change since 2004. The smaller plentiful Quakes are subsiding and becoming Earth Biblical nightmare Quakes.Since coming around the Sun.

Menow still hasn't figured out how the internet works.

Shows you.

Still trying to put a spin on it, eh, Loser? Now you're going to rant and rave about anything over magnitude 5? Talk about grasping at straws. What about all that activity between 1934 and 1951? Why are you ignoring it? What about 1943 when there were 41 magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes? Are you going to say "Planet X" was responsible? Why are you so afraid to answer?

Okay, so between 1934 and 1951 all those earthquakes were caused by "Planet X?" What about the 41 quakes 7 or greater in 1943? Let me guess...."Planet X" was swinging through the solar system then, too, huh? And if you say it wasn't responsible, then how do you know "Planet X" is responsible for any earthquake today? Come on, Free Store....show us.