- This topic has 4 voices and 6 replies.
October 7, 2008 at 4:36 pm #6486
No doubt our planet is alive and kicking… recently there was an earthquake cluster in the high reaches of western China, and today a big (relatively) one in the Arctic.
If anyone can post a screenshot of that, thanks 😕 🙄October 7, 2008 at 6:05 pm #9641PaulMemberOctober 7, 2008 at 6:16 pm #9642
Thanks 😀October 7, 2008 at 10:27 pm #9643AlusaMember
I may be wrong but didn’t Blossom say threw one of her channelings that there was soon going to be some tremors? I wonder…October 8, 2008 at 12:05 am #9644OrissaMember
Yes, she did , in the second last message where she received the clue about diamonds.
Someone asked if it was to be a physical or earthly tremor? I said both.
It is to be a shuddering within the core of your earth, but it shall cause no damage. It simply can not be avoided. It is of no harm. It shall take place a few days before the time of our appearance.October 8, 2008 at 2:01 am #9640
Yes, that’s why I’ve started looking at the IRIS monitor again lately. Waiting for the knock on the door!October 9, 2008 at 3:17 am #9645
Wow! Found this on tectonic strain theory while looking up Michael Persinger for another thread (this from wikipedia 😐 ):
Persinger has also come to public attention due to his 1975 Tectonic Strain Theory (TST) of how geophysical variables may correlate with sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Persinger argued that strain within the earth’s crust near seismic faults produces intense electromagnetic (EM) fields, creating bodies of light that some interpret as glowing UFOs. Alternatively, the EM fields generate hallucinations in the temporal lobe, based on images from popular culture, of alien craft, beings, communications, or creatures.
Canadian researcher Chris Rutkowski of the University of Manitoba has become a prominent harsh critic of Persinger’s Tectonic Strain Theory. For one thing, Rutowski argues, in order to try to accommodate UFO sightings in regions far removed from faults, Persinger has claimed that UFO-like lights or hallucinations can manifest hundreds of miles away from an area of seismic activity. Not only does this place an absurdly great distance between the actual area of tectonic stress and the surmised significant EM field, it also makes the theory unscientific by destroying any possible predictive power. Nearly every place on the planet lies within a few hundred miles of a seismically active area. Rutkowski pointed out severe flaws in Persinger’s statistical methodology, since he confused possible correlation (however weak) with causality. For example, one could more easily explain occasional clusters of UFO sightings along earthquake fault-lines by the fact that populations often occur there in higher densities and by the fact that transportation routes often follow major fault lines, such as the San Andreas fault in California.
As with criticisms of Persinger’s claims that minute laboratory magnetic fields can invoke hallucinations, Rutowski also points out that Persinger’s inferred seismic EM fields would have much less influence than what people commonly experience near electrical appliances like television sets or hair driers. This again raises the question as to why people don’t experience UFOs or aliens far more often than they do, or why these hypothetical hallucinations from electrical devices wouldn’t drown out any possible contribution from much weaker geophysical fields. Once again, Persinger notes that the magnitude of the EM fields may have less significance than the particular temporal patterns. Furthermore, commentators such as British researcher Albert Budden, has proposed that man-made electromagnetic emissions can (in certain circumstances)generate close encounter-type experiences and has cited possible examples of this effect in his work Electric UFOs (Blandford, 1998).
In the UK, Paul Devereux advocates a variant geophysical theory similar to TST, the Earthlights theory. However, unlike Persinger, Devereaux generally restricts such effects to the immediate vicinity of a fault line. Devereux’s approach also differs from Persinger’s in holding triboluminescence rather than piezoelectricity as the “more likely candidate” for the production of naturally occurring UFOs. Devereux doesn’t advocate, as in Persinger’s TST, that the phenomenon might create hallucinations of UFO encounters in people, instead proposing an even more radical hypothesis: that earthlights may possess intelligence and even have the ability to read witness’ thoughts. 
UFO researchers critical of the seismic stress theory admit that, while, observations of diffuse lights during (and sometimes before and after) very severe earthquakes may give some weak support to some parts of TST and Earthlights theory (see Earthquake lights), they question the ability of fault lines to generate luminous effects and hallucinatory experiences under much less severe conditions(as cited above). Nonetheless, even TST critics such as Rutowski think such theories may hold some promise for explaining a small percentage of UFO phenomena, although they doubt that they can ever offer a comprehensive explanation for the vast majority of unexplained UFO cases. Other UFO researchers (mainly in the U.K) believe this very limited interpretation of the TST is brought into question by the clustering of UFO reports within areas prone to faulting – such as the Pennine region of northern Britain. While acknowledging the drawback’s of Persinger’s theory, they feel that amended versions of it may account for a significant proportion of “True UFO” reports (Paul Devereux “Earthlights Revelation” 1989: pp 59-115).
Notable recent seismic activity (meaning big circles on the IRIS map) in the Arctic and Alaska, and still in central Asia… just noting an interesting correlation 🙄
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.