Stop the presses; Time out for an earthquake

Presently in process, there are essay sequences examining 1) the mathematics of Mr. Gann's inscrutable triangle within the outer circle and outer square....proves the fourth dimension, 2) a detailed study of all earthquakes relative to the acrostic "ens" to determine if there is a correlation and deterministic math relation and 3) the timeline of the first battles of WD Gann's "The Tunnel Thru the Air."

In addition, an essay is planned to discuss the "Jonas Storm" that occurred January 2016 relative to the possible manifestation of a 4.9M earthquake that occurred about 33 days later on February 23, 2016 at Wasco CA (only a couple miles from San Francisco).  Was the minor storm "Jonas Storm" a harbinger of the minor 4.9M earthquake connected by a notable number (the days I compute are 32 days by its hard to say its 32 or 33 if you can't determine an exact date and hour of a storm).  If there are minor Jonas signs and minor events and major Jonas signs and major events?

Perhaps, signs and cycles within signs and cycles.

So HERE, a find courtesy of a long-time Internet friend, is an earthquake article that has interrupted my many divergent trains of thought this morning.  A telling excerpt from that article:

[The article is incorrect in spirit.  The 3.2M that occurred of which they write is not the critical event.  They say its the largest in over a year within 100 miles.  Some journalistic or scientific finesse.  No, perhaps they put that fine point on their article to ignore the February 23, 2016 Wasco 4.9M earthquake.  Or perhaps USGS did so in order not to signal greater concern.  Wasco is midway between SF and LA and darn close if not on top of the San Andreas (I have not checked that.)]

By my study in the earthquake series it had already become clear that the 1906 SF earthquake was preceded by activity around the Pacific Rim of Fire.  I didn't know about the offshore 3.2M that occurred two days ago.  And more-so, that that earthquake signaled offshore structural problems that may involve SF.  This article is a must read.

Almost religiously, government seismologists are said to be opposed to the idea that earthquakes propagate additional earthquakes that "ripple" outward.  Unlike a pebble thrown into a liquid, or a meteor hitting the upper atmosphere and creating a circular and expanding wave, earthquakes are in solids and solids don't ripple.  Surely, the recent earthquakes in Ecuador and Japan cannot create an increased likelihood of events other places.  Hmmm, the first big ones were Indonesia, then Japan, then, Vanuatu, then Equador.  Going the other way from the first Indonesia equakequake quakes have moved westward as well.  The exact chronological progression is tracked HERE by Michal Janitch.  He has long held that earthquakes propagate outward from the initial shock and has been assailed by the seismic community.  As well, he has held that earthquakes are predictable and that earthquakes in an area are interrelated.  

Interestingly, the USGS is the agency signaling the concern.  Are they throwing in the towel?  Is the information they are getting so contrary to their theories of earthquake propagation they must admit their error?  Or is it because the information so public?  So painfully obvious?

Here is the article's map of concern included in the cited article:

The above flies in the face of what is said to be traditional seismic events; specially distant earthquakes are not related, are not predictable, do not propagate in waves.

But the greater question.  Okay, we have notable earthquakes every 7 years in SF (not tragic events, just notable).  We have a Cascade Subduction event (the subduction that exists from just north of SF through Portland and Seattle deep into Canada) every 300 years and one is now greatly overdue.  We have not had a Yellowstone event for 630,000 years.

What might be the first Jonas sign?  Did the first Jonas sign occur in January 2016 with the Jonas Storm?

I was going to write this essay after completing other research as noted in the first paragraph and I was going to suggest (as opposed to predict or conclude), that a deep Pacific shock might be that next small Jonas sign.

And I was going to write, if one sees that Pacific shock manifest into a greater event tragically involving SF and LA (as it did in the battles of SF and LA in TTTTA), then one might want to consider if those tragic events are the Jonas sign for a Cascade Subduction event.  Again, a far greater event.  

And if a Cascadia event occurs (such would dwarf a SF and LA event both in damage to SF and LA but to all coastlines of the Pacific Rim of Fire by virtue of the super tsunami created) would it be great Jonas sign of Yellowstone.

Never fear.  We are told  earthquakes do not geographically propagate out from an initial shock and yet we see the above make.  We are told are not predictable:

Obviously, there was an error on page 320 of TTTTA:

An inadvertent error or an intentional error.  Do we create the correct word by removing the 'y' from "greaty" to create the word "great"  .... or do we remove the "at" to create the word "grey."  What would a volcanic ash storm look like?

From page 69 of TTTTA...and the Bible:

The "key" to the interpretation of the future, perhaps?  

And from page 83:

Creating these 'imaginative' stories out of the 'clues' found in TTTTA is just too easy.  As always, make up your own mind.  Do your own research.

[If you would like to understand the magnitude of many of the above events, the 2015 article, "The Really Big One", was recently awarded a Pulitzer Prize for it portrayal of such events and has been favorably reviewed by the seismic community regarding its fair treatment of such scenarios.  Please don't trust me for your perception of earthquakes; they don't teach us that stuff for the CPA exam.]

Jim Ross