Thursday, December 13, 2018

Mike Bara in "Getting something right" shocker

        The last time this blog admitted that Mike Bara was right about something was back in July 2017, when he roundly debunked Jay Weidner's "Nazca mummy" hoax. Well, what do you know? He was right again in last night's Tell the truth Wednesday vlog—or at least, in one part of it.
00:58 "If you believe that airplanes didn't hit the buildings on 9/11, or that building number 1, I think it was, didn't fall on building number 7 and damage it, I can't help you. If you think a drone or a missile hit the pentagon, and all the people were actually taken off of the airplanes to some secret base somewhere, and the planes were replaced with different airplanes— I can't help you. This is not the place for me. Because that's all bullshit, OK? What happened on 9/11 was that four jetliners were hijacked by Muslim terrorists and they were flown into buildings. The twin towers, the Pentagon, and the fourth one crashed in Pennsylvania. It was shot downnote 1 and crashed—that's the truth. And there's no mystery about what happened, it's all simply a matter of math, physics and structural dynamics, and gravity. It really is. So... I looked at all the details of this, to explain it to you guys, and I have. But [...] it's the only one that makes sense. There are some people out there doing some interviews saying things like "I was told by insiders, bla-bla-bla that the planes were hijacked and landed in a secret airfield, and all the people were taken off, and now they're working as slaves in underground bases, and empty planes were replaced and flown into the buildings." That's bullshit. First of all it's not only bullshit, but it's Sean David Morton's information from about 2012. And the people that are out there espousing it now... I'm not going to name any names, got it from Sean David Morton —they simply stole his ideas. Which by the way were completely fucking wrong in the first place. So it's just really frustrating to me to have to deal with this stuff. The important thing to remember about 9/11 is that it does not require bombs, missiles, [...], particle beams...none of that is required for there to be a conspiracy about 9/11. I'm very convinced it was a conspiracy, a financial based conspiracy, but the conspiracy was to use Arab terrorists to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. That was the conspiracy!"
        That took us to about 03:30 in a one-hour performance. Later, he was right again in recommending that his followers "take with a grain of salt" the claims of "Jon Lavine" in relation to the so-called secret later Apollo missions. In that case he didn't go far enough, in my view.

        Well, obviously he couldn't keep on being right for a whole hour. He went off into political material for about ten minutes, then returned to "science" by reiterating a fairy-story first invented by Richard Hoagland, according to which The first Chinese Moon lander confirmed that the Moon was covered in vast glass domes. Here's the image:


        Hoagland arrived at this travesty by using the EQUALIZE tool in Photoshop. Using EQUALIZE when more than half of the image is expected to be RGB 0,0,0 is not likely to lead to anything authentic or true. In this case it simply revealed random CCD noise. I covered this four years ago. Naturally, last night Bara did not credit Hoagland as the creator...er, I should say corrupter, of this image. Neither did he give the true technical history of the image; he presented it as though it was exactly what the Chinese Space Agency released.

        I nearly fell off my chair when Bara pointed to the shazz in the sky exclaiming "see how geometrical it is!" None of the fans commenting in real time called bullshit, what a surprise.

Further reading
        Stuart Robbins did a far more thorough job of explaining why this image is invalid, back in May 2014.

====================/ \=======================
[1] Well, it would be too much to expect him to be completely right, wouldn't it?

37 comments:

Two Percent said...

Seriously, expat!!!???

You think Mr Barfa could possibly be indisputably right about this, any more than a randomly flipped coin can establish this dark truth?

That's the real shocker!

THE Orbs Whiperer said...



Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak,
D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams

This article was submitted to 23rd American Chemical Society National Meeting,
Orlando, FL, April 7-11, 2002

October 1, 2002

expat said...

All I really mean is that I agree with him for once, apart from the "shot down" fantasy.

expat said...

Tritium in aircraft emergency exit signs!!! Who knew????

Two Percent said...

I agree that Bara is 100% right about one thing, not that he knows much about it:

" ... it's all simply a matter of math, physics and structural dynamics, and gravity. It really is.

And it's mainly the physics which proves they could only have been a series of professional demolition jobs. (Staged to look like Suicide Pilot Terrorists in Passenger Planes crashing into the buildings.)

The two Twin Towers fell to the ground in 12 or 13 seconds. Pure free fall would have taken 9 seconds. Those who don't understand the laws of physics and energy conversion will not understand the importance of these numbers, but it simply could not have happened that quickly as a result of simple, isolated structural failure, beginning near the seat of the fuel-fed fires. The only way the two towers could have fallen that fast is "with high energy assistance" doing most of the 'disassembly' work.

But for those who don't understand that, there are always the videos on YouTube. The one, I think of the North Tower, showing the entire top section of the building starting to lean over as it begins to fall, then suddenly "disappearing", is a big clue.

Not to mention the liquid metal filmed flowing out of one(?) of the corners of the building(s) before the collapse.

'Nuff said.

astroguy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

As a Mechanical Engineer I an fully in agreement with the 2 % on this one. It is like the new political and economical belief-systeem called global cooling/ozone holes/acidic rain/global warming/climate change/severe weather
[ Yes it changed that rapidly in the course of a few decades...hilarious in and on itself ]
This aforementioned belief-system tolerates NO form of scientific critique WHATSOEVER which makes it...yes indeed...fascism.
The same principle is used for the whole 9-11 debacle .

So let's have it with a still unanswered question a asked quite a while ago on this forum...without making it to technical :-)

Take the final NIST report on the mentioned debacle and quote all the page numbers, names and occupations of ALL
the professionals like policemen, firefighters etc who heard several explosions in the buildings mentioned on locations in the mentioned buildings nowhere near the already crashed airplanes. Including the famous and mysterious building that wasn't even hit by anything .

Well...anyone ?

Without ALL the written testimonies of these professionals one does not even have to go into technical details...Why?
Because without these written testimonies and proper follow up investigation...No one can take it really seriously.

Adrian

PS
Expat must be pulling out his hair by know :-) Oh no...not this 9-11 discussion again :-) on the assumption he has hair :-)



Trekker said...

Mike believes the true story only because the perps were brown-skinned Muslims.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if they'd been white home-grown American terrorists (like the majority of mass shooters have been), he'd be first in line in promoting one or other conspiracy theory denying their involvement.

expat said...

« The two Twin Towers fell to the ground in 12 or 13 seconds. Pure free fall would have taken 9 seconds. »

9.217 seconds, actually, assuming h=1368 ft and g=32.2 ft/sec/sec. So the drop time was ~3 sec longer than it would have taken for an object dropped off the top to hit the ground. I understand the laws of physics and I don't have much of a problem with that.

« The only way the two towers could have fallen that fast is "with high energy assistance" doing most of the 'disassembly' work.»

So, let's see... Some humungous accelerator devices were pre-installed awaiting the signal to let 'er rip. What's a reasonable estimate of the number of workers needed to manufacture and install such an engine? A few hundred, minimum? How were two of these things pre-installed without security officers saying "Er, 'scuse me guv'nor, WTF is that?"

Then when the planes hit, these monsters were not set to work immediately as you'd expect, but delayed until collapse was initiated later. Where was the operator situated?

I'll take the 3 seconds as a better idea, personally. OK, it's surprising, but your alternative is ridiculous.

Two Percent said...

Very good, expat:

"9.217 seconds, actually, assuming h=1368 ft and g=32.2 ft/sec/sec. So the drop time was ~3 sec longer than it would have taken for an object dropped off the top to hit the ground. I understand the laws of physics and I don't have much of a problem with that.

Have you done any of your own calculations?

I have, quite a while ago. I used an Excel spreadsheet, with one line per floor.

I modelled a very simple collapse, it's true, but the thing is, in my model, I assumed the building had ZERO structural strength. I assumed that each floor had "JUST enough" strength to stay up. In other words, as if the bolts, brackets, welds etc holding that floor to the vertical frame would shear if another ounce of weight were applied to that floor.

Hair Trigger supports, you might say. And that was just the floors.

Then, I ran Domino Effect conservation of momentum calculations, and found that in that scenario, it was JUST possible to get all the floors down to the ground in (don't recall exactly now) 12 or 13 seconds.

You see, when one falling floor hits the one below, the Law of Conservation of Momentum decrees that the two floors slow down at the moment of impact. Gravity then accelerates the two floors again, until they hit the floor below, slowing down again. Of course, the slowdown effect gets less and less as the collapse proceeds, but as you can imagine, at the start, the collapse clearly proceeds more slowly than an object in free fall.

Then, I discovered something else. And this is only in my ultra-simple, absolute best case, no strength model. Even without any structural strength, it's damn hard to get JUST THE FLOORS on the ground that fast.

Then, add furniture, filing cabinets, and Lord spare us, structural strength to the building, and it's impossible to get it down that quick. Just crushing the furniture and filing cabinets is going to absorb energy. This is not to mention pulverising many, many feet (4 inches per floor) of high strength concrete.

And, it doesn't take into account any of the actual structural strength of the building. In my scenario, all the steel framing has to remain standing.

So, you tell me how the Twin Towers came down in 13 seconds.

expat said...

« So, you tell me how the Twin Towers came down in 13 seconds. »

I'll let Bazant and Verdure tell you. They know more than either of us.

Chris said...

For reference here's a related paper which is also interesting to read. Bažant is one of the authors.

http://cee.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Backup%20of%20Papers/476%20WTC%20collapse.pdf

Chris

OneBigMonkey said...

Is it worth pointing out to anyone that the ozone hole, acid rain and climate change are complete different things, not different names for the same thing.

If you didn't know that, you probably shouldn't offer an opinion on it.

George Benkel said...

They know more than either of us? As you said Expat, you saw it on TV. I also saw it on TV, right into the Lobby of WTC 1 & 2, which you NOW SAY was "heaped high" with rubble and debris, as per B&V.

Anonymous said...

@ the Monkey

"Is it worth pointing out to anyone that the ozone hole, acid rain and climate change are complete different things, not different names for the same thing. If you didn't know that, you probably shouldn't offer an opinion on it."

You probably shouldn't say anything at al. We had the following
-global cooling [ i.e. coming ice age [ probably the most valuable scientific argument to have since we are in a interglacial period meaning that we are still in an ice-age ]]
then came
- acid rain and ozone holes
then the social engineered minds were switched to
- global warming [ even with scientists claiming that the melting away North pole would create havoc because of rising sea levels...they probably never heard of Archimedes ]
then the minds pulled another switch and gave us
-climate change
and to top it of there came another switch in the form of
- severe weather

The only thing it reveals is [modus operandi] that this is a political and economical game and has nothing to so with science whatsoever . It may come as a surprise to you but Al Gore is a political actor, not a scientist. Leonardo di Caprio is a babyface actor, not a scientist. Bill Nye the so called science guy is an blithering idiot, no explanation needed for the educated ones amongst us. The IPCC is a political instrument of the UN, not an independent scientific institute.
Consensus is a politcal term, not a scientific one and speaking of such....the question nobody seems to bother asking...97% of the scientist's agree that there is blablabla...The very simple and scientific kindergarten-school level question is and should be...97% of What???? The answer to that question will come to you as a real shocker!
And the list goes on and on.

It is really of no essence to go into details because that's the real problem with this issue...before one can say cat in the hat someone always manages to turn it into a dog and pony show, Al gore's favorite modus operandi.

In conclusion therefore...It is beyond stupidity to believe and criminal to make people believe that it is some form of science when...
A really complex system as earth's climate and that changes therein are reduced to just one parameter...a natural gas called Carbon-dioxide. It is beyond hilarious to even consider calling this science and as a member of the human species one should feel very very ashamed to take crap for science because one is unwilling or unable to get informed.

So get of the personal "Al Gore" personal attack mode and stick to the elements of science and how it is being hijacked
by politics and internationals. Just one giveaway clue for fun as a serious question
-In what way is trading [ i.e. buying and selling ] emission rights a scientific method?

Even monkeys have a learning curve :-)

Adrian

Two Percent said...

'Ullo expat,

Apologies for the delay - not enough spare time to focus on this in the build up to The Annual [Northern Hemisphere Winter] Solstice parties, etc.

"I'll let Bazant and Verdure tell you. "

Thanks for that! Nice attempted side-step!

Sorry to say, but they wouldn't, or couldn't (tell me). Whatever, they didn't.

Actually, I'm surprised that a high-ranking university like Northwestern would allow their good name to be associated with a 'toilet paper' like that, but once again, it just goes to show that Politics trumps Science, every damn time.

I'm also surprised at just how many supposedly educated, intelligent people have been taken in by this Alice in Wonderland version of events.

And I'm surprised that a science journalist with your experience and wisdom can't see this (paper) for what it is, expat.

If you disagree, you have fallen right into the trap. That, of course, is exactly what was intended.

This is classic, textbook Machiavelli. The end justifies the means, and everything else that entails.

Bazant's paper isn't intended to expose the truth. To the contrary. In addition, it doesn't have to be true, or even close. (The guy is not under oath, is just giving 'his' "opinion"...)

In fact, it's wild, unscientific fantasy, seemingly backed by such a "superior" mathematical snow-job that almost no one dare challenge him, because they can't understand it.

But it's just the old story: "Bullshit Baffles Brains."

Machiavelli would have been impressed, I'm sure. By the whole darn thing - not just Bazant's serial murders of the truth.


That's what amazes me the most. It has worked. Instead of fighting the lies, people who should be allies end up arguing over whether or not Bazant is correct.

The problem is, as has been said: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time," so eventually some people started to realise that they'd been fooled.

Thus, a paper like Bazant's quickly became very desirable, for the obvious Machiavellian purpose of muddying the waters as much as possible.

A paper like Bazant's??

Indeed. Here's how I imagine his instructions went:

CO: Write us a paper which shows how the Towers were taken down by a couple of airliners.

ZB: But, sir... that couldn't have happened so quickly. They must have been helped--

CO: I don't care. Write me a paper. Make shit up, if you have to. And that's an Order!

ZB: Yessir!


And so Bazant's many toilet papers suffered their ignoble conception.


I've written a bit of a critique, if you will. It starts like this, but I haven't yet completed it.


Bazant's efforts are nothing if not entertaining. On several occasions, he tips his hat to the conspiracy theorists. His opening sentence (Abstract) is highly pertinent, if not suggestive:

"Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions." [My emphasis.]

Hit the nail on the head, right away! (Of course, his primary job is to baffle the CTs, so let's engage with them asap!)

OK, let's get on with it! The third sentence:

"After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during the crushing of one floor (or group of floors) and its energetics are analyzed... "

Yep, it sounds good. Early days. Remember this bit, for later. Note "the motion". And the uncertainty about how many floors.


The fifth sentence really ups the ante:

"The collapse, in which two phases—-crush-down followed by crush-up-—must be distinguished..." [My emphasis.]

Ohhh, Yeah... Let's leap straight into fantasy land, ASAP.



[Word limit reached] ...tbc...

Two Percent said...

Hi Chris,

"For reference here's a related paper..."

Thanks, had a quick look. It's even more fantastic BS than expat's one.

Will justify that comment later. I love the sonic booms fairy tale!

Chris said...

Two Percent, the authors are well qualified in their fields, especially Bažant whom you can read about on Wikipedia. I'm going to hazard a guess that your skills end at making layman assumptions in a spreadsheet and that the maths in the papers is way above your head. Unless you can start pulling apart specific claims in the papers, showing how the physics and maths is wrong with your own physics and maths, you've got nothing worth adding here.

Two Percent said...

Chris writ:

"the authors are well qualified in their fields, especially Bažant..."

Indeed, I already knew that, which is why I refer to him in particular.

However, your argument employs the logical fallacy of "False Call to Authority". Just because he's qualified doesn't prove he's correct.

Anyway, go ahead, guess all you like. Of course, architects, engineers and scientists never use spreadsheets to calculate things... But before you can write a spreadsheet, you have to understand what you are trying to calculate. You have to have a mechanism to put numbers to.

Let's see evidence of your own critical thinking skills. What's your model for the collapses? Have you actually looked at any of it? The construction of the Towers, the mechanism of collapse? Do you have anything worth adding? Let's hear it.

Your comment is a little premature, as I have already indicated my intention to pull apart many of the claims. It's a work in progress.

Chris said...

TP: "I have already indicated my intention to pull apart many of the claims"

It'd be best if you do that in your own scientific paper and publish it, not here where it's off-topic.

Anonymous said...

...and while some are at it please answer the still open question

Take the final NIST report on the mentioned debacle and quote all the page numbers, names and occupations of ALL
the professionals like policemen, firefighters etc who heard several explosions in the buildings mentioned on locations in the mentioned buildings nowhere near the already crashed airplanes. Including the famous and mysterious building that wasn't even hit by anything and tell us about the meticulous research that has being done based on these testimonies given by these professionals

Well...anyone ?

Without ALL the written testimonies of these professionals one does not even have to go into technical details...Why?
Because without these written testimonies and proper follow up investigation...No one can take it really seriously.

Without this...yes... it is even ludicrous in trying to baffle people with high tech math that seems hocus pocus to people who are not well versed in these matters like mechanical and structural engineers for instance. Does this mean that everybody who doesn't understand high tech math is disqualified to have an logical opinion to see, analyse and calculate that there is something seriously wrong? If your answer to that question is yes...then you are at best nothing more then a political agitator
and a perverter of science.

Have a beautiful Christmastime everyone

Adrian

Two Percent said...

Chris scratched:

It'd be best if you do that in your own scientific paper and publish it, not here where it's off-topic.

Thanks for your opinion. I’ll let expat decide that.

As for off topic... From the original article:

What happened on 9/11 was that four jetliners were hijacked by Muslim terrorists and they were flown into buildings.

Then, expat posted a link to one of Bazant’s papers, which I am exercising my right of reply to. Likewise for the link you posted.

My comments are off-topic...? Please explain your “logic”.

Chris said...

Adrian, thing is people aren't baffled by "high tech math". The papers are clearly aimed at those people who are able to understand it, of which there are plenty. The things you ask about don't change the science of what happened. I'm happy that the entire thing is understood.

Two Percent, I was serious. You should publish your own scientific paper which pulls apart Bažant et al's work. You'll be famous world wide - the person who showed beyond doubt that the engineers and professors of materials science are all wrong and that the buildings were demolished. Maybe start by posting your spreadsheet so your work can be peer reviewed, and announcing what it would take to falsify your conjecture that the buildings were demolished? I think the authors of the second paper did that when they looked at the energy requirements, but perhaps you know better than them.

The original article was about Bara who mentioned 9/11 conspiracy. You asked for an explanation and received a couple of technical papers in response. As far as I can see that's the end of it. Unless you're able to pull the papers apart on the same level as they're written you're just spouting uninformed layman opinion which has been done to death in forums all over the Internet for the last 17 years. You've got nothing new to add. Since this blog isn't going to turn into yet another one I suspect an endless debate on where you fail to understand what's going on is off-topic. You're right, it's expat's call.

Of course that will play into your narrative - the sheeple who had the wool pulled over their eyes. I don't mind you thinking that since anything that anyone says here will just fuel your opinion that you're right. So I will stick with the evidence and the science and the experts who know what they're talking about, and you can stick with your imagination.

Two Percent said...

Heil Chris!

Keep your eyes fixed on the ground. You might find a penny.

Myself, I'll try to model myself on the likes of Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein.

Tesla was the inventor of the modern, 3-phase AC Power Distribution Network among many other electrical things, who evidently credited his imagination with much of his ability to invent. According to Wikipedia:

"Tesla would visualize an invention in his mind with extreme precision, including all dimensions, before moving to the construction stage, a technique sometimes known as picture thinking. He typically did not make drawings by hand but worked from memory."

You may also have heard of Albert Einstein, who is credited with the following statements:

"Logic will get you from A to B; imagination will get you everywhere."

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."


In order to stick with the evidence, of course you first need to know what the evidence is.

Near free-fall disintegration? Sounds of explosions on videos? Multiple squibs? Nano-thermite (or thermate)? Rivers of Molten steel? Iron nano-spheres? Fires that would not go out? Eye witness testimonies...? Rapid disposal of the evidence...? ... ...

Nah! Stick with the science - if you can understand it.

You might enjoy this (or not):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYUYya6bPGw

from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. (Now has 3,000+ professional members.)

If one hour is too long, you could start at 44:50.


And remember, for the right price, you can always find an expert who will say the opposite of any other expert you choose. So, be careful which expert(s) you choose to believe. As the old adage goes:

'X is the unknown quantity, and spurt is a drip under pressure.'


I'll let Einstein have the final say in reply:

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."

Anonymous said...

@ Chris
"Adrian, thing is people aren't baffled by "high tech math". The papers are clearly aimed at those people who are able to understand it, of which there are plenty. The things you ask about don't change the science of what happened. I'm happy that the entire thing is understood."

Surely...you're having a laugh darling, aren't you.

"The things you ask about don't change the science of what happened"

Seriously?? You must be joking right or very very delusional...!

The so called "things" I asked about are at the very core of things. So my questions stand unchallenged. The core of my questions...the answer to my questions will definitely chance the science of what happened.

You may propose "move along...you heard nothing and you have seen nothing" but it only and only means one thing
That you are in denial of facts and observations and therefore you argue in the field of political agitation and most certainly not in the field of science. Science does not and should not exclude facts and observations. By doing so anyway it becomes an abomination.

Adrian

expat said...

This discussion is now closed for Christmas.

THE Orbs Whiperer said...

You're just afraid that someone is going to make an Earthquake prediction for on the January 21st, 2019, Blood Moon! Notice how the recent, tsunami in Indonesia, was the result the collapse of a volcano, during the current, full Moon.

expat said...

This is a breakthrough, folks! Theadora has finally realized that there's nothing special about an eclipse, syzygy-wise.

Happy Xmas....

Anonymous said...

The Orb Mumbler thinks there is something to this syzygy codswallop. Tell us, Ms. Orb Mumbler where is your math showing a statistical connection between earthquakes and lunar position. Of course, you can't do the statistics, if you even know what the field is. You make the claim, you get to back it up.

THE Orbs Whiperer said...

I've posted those statistics in a thread below. They are copy and pasted from the website of the late, Jim Berkalnd, who's methodology I attempt to use in making major, Earthquake predictions.

Anonymous said...

Once again the Orb Mumbler shows her pathological ignorance. That is not a statistical analysis, that is a simple table. But we all suspect she can't do the math, has no idea the math exists or what it means. There are literally tens of thousands of earthquakes on the planet each year, most are quite tiny. With that many quakes it is the work of a slow witted, dull child to say there is a connection between lunar position and quakes. Proving it? Well, that is the part the peddlers of crackpottery can't quite seem to wrap their defective minds around.

Two Percent said...

Nice. I love the way this site so readily descends to ad hominem attacks.

What causes you to think there can be no correlation (codswallop)?

Like, what causes earthquakes in the first place?

expat said...

« Like, what causes earthquakes in the first place? »

Movement of tectonic plates. Very often the movement itself happens a long time afer the seismic event that was its true cause. Particularly in strike/slip zones such as the San Andreas, long stretches of the fault do not immediately slip but build up tension for months before finally succumbing.

Two Percent said...

expat: I agree (more or less), but...

Tension means Force.

What is causing the force(s), is what I was really asking?

Obviously, the sun, and to a much lesser extent, the moon, no doubt global warming, internal heat, magma movements, volcanic activity, fracking, underground nuclear testing...

Here's another question: If a Tropical Depression (reduced atmospheric pressure) causes a localised, so-called tidal surge, does the increased weight of water balance the reduction in atmospheric pressure on the crust beneath, and therefore, cause no net effect?


Anyway, @mx anonymous nasty:

"Once again the Orb Mumbler shows her pathological ignorance. ... With that many quakes it is the work of a slow witted, dull child to say there is a connection between lunar position and quakes. Proving it? Well, that is the part the peddlers of crackpottery can't quite seem to wrap their defective minds around. [My emphases]

Are the ad hominem attacks really necessary? Is that your best scientific argument?

In reality, the point is entirely moot, and your abuse is misdirected. Even the paid experts, who are actually paid and have the time to work out such things, have not been able to agree on this.

For example, the USGS, probably an authority on the subject:

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-position-moon-or-planets-affect-seismicity-are-there-more-earthquakes-morningin-eveningat-a?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products

"Several recent studies, however, have found a correlation between earth tides (caused by the position of the moon relative to the earth) and some types of earthquakes. One study, for example, concludes that during times of higher earth and ocean tides, such as during times of full or new moon, earthquakes are more likely on shallow thrust faults near the edges of continents and in (underwater) subduction zones. "

Versus:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/does-moon-cause-earthquakes-study-says-no-1-180967896/

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/moon-tide-earthquakes/499637/

and lots of others, both pro and con. As I said, it's obviously a moot point. Besides, an analysis that finds no correlation is probably not as authoritative as one that does, because it's quite difficult to prove a negative. Finding no correlation may just indicate a defective analysis... If your planet-sized brain can understand that.

Therefore, it's pretty unreasonable to expect Our Orbs to be the Final Authority. And what's wrong with his/her harmless posts here? What are you contributing that is so much superior? Show us!

expat said...

Yes, your three links expressing the contoversy are all good. Thanks.

Trekker said...

Just came across this article dealing with the moon and earthquakes:

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/09/can-the-moon-make-and-earthquake-worse?utm_source=asyfb&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=asyfb&fbclid=IwAR1WP1LLaAgpfQclkT5cs8bW3o2e4xtBJQtyJMJTwmh1TYb_07A72pbl4sI

Two Percent said...

Thanks Trekker,

I think that answers that question, finally.

Well enough for me, anyway.