Re: Zetas RIGHT Again! #1

David Tholen wrote in message <o85q8.18004$VQ2.6416190@twister.socal.rr.com>
> Steve Havas writes:
>
> >>> I couldn't find the newspaper article that stated there were 10,000+
> >>> earthquakes during that short time but I assure you that's what it said.
>
> >> I wouldn't rely on either your assurances or a newspaper.  Both have
> >> been known to get things wrong.
> >>
> >> So let's look at the scoreboard:
> >>
> >> Nancy predicted an increase in earthquake activity.  You believed her
> >> and claimed that there was a "big rise" in activity.  Wendy pointed
> >> to web site that contradicts that claim, even though she didn't realize
> >> it at the time.  So much for that prediction.
>
> > So, Tholen... it appears to me that what the non-earthquake increase people
> > have in rebuttal to the argument of a large or significant increase in
> > worldwide earthquakes is predominately this:
> >
> >  "As more and more seismographs are installed in the world, more
> >  earthquakes can be and have been located. However, the number
> >  of large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 or greater) have stayed
> >  relatively constant. "
>
> You have a problem with that, Havas?

No I don't. In fact, I'm delighted with it!

> > from the usgs. However, no one has provided any figures as to what the
> > increase in the seismographs actually amounts to over any sort of period of
> > time frame or in anyway whatsoever how much would or could this would affect
> > the yearly reported earthquake total.
>
> Irrelevant, Havas; the real issue is the amount of energy released by
> earthquakes, and that is dominated by the large ones.
>
> > Besides the largely insignificant evidence I offered from my personal
> > ramblings, Nancy's original post to this thread and all the well
> > documented information on this link:

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword102.htm (I noticed you quietly took the
link out so I've taken the liberty to put it back - do you have a problem
with that?)

>
> Well documented?

Yup.

> > which contains much supporting evidence pulled from  The Council of the
> > National Seismic System (CNSS) as well as many other sources,
>
> What do you consider "supporting evidence", Havas?

Look at the graphs with listed search criteria for earthquakes ranging from
richter 3+ http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tworx055.htm,
        6+ http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tworx056.htm, 
        7+ http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tworx057.htm for years ranging 
from 1970 to 2001 as they show a large increase in the number of yearly 
earthquakes over those time periods.

> > I think in any debating judges view would amount to a landslide victory
> > for the pro-earthquake increase group.
>
> What you think is irrelevant, Havas.

But the supporting data of increased worldwide earthquakes is not.

> > You guys just really haven't made much of an opposing case. Sorry...
>
> On the contrary, you've simply closed your mind to the opposing case,
> Havas.  Let me know when you've found something 11th magnitude in any
> of the recent images of the sky.  Until you have, you really haven't
> made much of a case.

Let me know when you want to come clean on the doctoring of NEAT images.