- June 18, 2005 -
|
On May 8, 2005, I predicted an earthquake of magnitude more than or equal to 5, likely 5.5 or bigger in the circle area of the off coast of Chile [1] to the public. On June 15, an earthquake of magnitude 6.5 happened at 45.04S 80.39W [2], all exact. The epicenter is marked by arrow [3]. Besides the above, I predicted an earthquake of magnitude more than or equal to 4 in the circle area of Northern California and its off coast [4] to the public on May 30, 2005. On June 15, an earthquake of magnitude 7.2 happened at 41.33N 125.87W [5], all exact. The epicenter is marked by arrow [6]. The quality of the latter is much worse than the former, but the prediction is the only one in the World for the 7.2 earthquake, and this earthquake has been the only one suitable for the prediction. Moreover, I had proposed satellite data problems [7] , and earthquake data problems [8], [9] and appealed to solve them many times, and even written to NOAA, Caltech & JPL. However, nobody cared of them. As a result, I had to wait for the result although I had doubted a large one for if all vapors of the following geoeruption [10] and earthquake clouds [11] [12] had come from the same source of the cloud of Apr. 29. Now, this earthquake was over without damage luckily, but the data problems still affect my work seriously. I caught many earthquake clouds and geoeruptions, but I could not post them due to no way to narrow their area windows. On the other hand, the USGS can solve those data problems, but it is interested in "foreshock" hypothesis now. To help people in earthquake hazard, and the USGS, I would like to mention two facts. First, thousands small foreshocks in Northern California in 1997 did not predict a large earthquake. Second, neither the 7.8 Tangshan earthquake in 1976, nor the 6.8 Bam earthquake in 2003 had foreshock, while I predicted the Bam earthquake only by the cloud exactly [13] [14,15].
|
| References |
|
|