My Cart     Check Out

Proof that the moon causes earthquakes?


Two earthquakes, each measuring 5.2mag, have occurred exactly a month apart in Masterton, NZ. The depth was the same, as was the location, the day and the time. Above all, the geographical position of the moon for both events was identical.
So are the events connected?
Here is the data on the two shakes, from Geonet, at the exact times they occurred, also the representations of the position of the moon over the world at the exact times of the events (courtesy HomePlanet).

The first was listed thus

Public ID2016p275188
Intensity strong
Universal TimeApril 11 2016, 19:41:06
NZ Standard TimeTue, Apr 12 2016, 7:41:06 am
Depth24 km
Location15 km west of Masterton
Latitude, Longitude-40.89, 175.49

The second was listed thus
Public ID2016p356297
Intensity strong
Universal TimeMay 11 2016, 19:55:18
NZ Standard TimeThu, May 12 2016, 7:55:18 am
Depth27 km
Location20 km west of Masterton
Latitude, Longitude-40.92, 175.42

The interesting thing is these shakes are exactly a month apart. A month is of course, one moonth, or a 29-day moon cycle. Both earthquakes happened just after the highest tides for the month, called spring or king tides, which is the normal case for larger earthquakes. Both are also within 24 hours of northern declination of the moon. Some would consider this to be proof of the moon's involvement in earthquakes. Science otherwise must explain how otherwise the two events occurred with such uncanny repeat precision. We can also note that they occurred within 3km of the same depth and within 5km of exactly the same location.
This is not an isolated case, and is an example of the moon method of predicting earthquakes, successfully deployed by us before the Christchurch series, to warn citizens to prepare.
Geologists mislead with talk of 'after' and 'fore'shocks. In this case, which was the fore and which the after? What was the foreshock an aftershock of? Science is quiet on these matters. And what was the 7.1mag event on 4 September 2010 an aftershock of? After and fore in describing earthquakes adds nothing to current knowledge. It is not a way of predicting anything. It is nothing but an insurance device to diminish urgency. People expect a quick payout after all the hype of a significant earthquake. But if authorities label a shake as an aftershock, even if the magnitude is just as high as an earthquake, then there is more acceptance of a slower payout process.
In fact they are all just earthquakes. There are no afterwaves, aftershowers or afterwinds. Nothing is left over in weather, ready to join any next wave. The same energy process that creates a first earthquake may also produce a second and a third.

Did we predict these events? Some would say yes.

The second is to be found in

NZ Weather Almanac 2016

on p339, in the Earthquake Diary for 2016. The listing is for higher activity 11-13 May.

So how does science explain this amazing similarity, tied so closely to the moon cycle of a month, and each time on the very day of ascension?

Below is yet another example, when two large earthquakes recently hit Ecuador, on 16th and 22nd of April, causing widespread devastation. It will be noticed that on both occasions, the moon is in the same position  and approaching the same location.

Remember, there are no flukes in science. Coincidence, luck, chance etc are the language of gamblers, found in the casino, not the corridors of science. And why on earth not look to the moon for answers, when it comes to earthquakes?  After all, 10,000 years of Hindu texts have made this link - so why not modern earth science? The reason is western politics. And of course, money. Some would say there is as much conviction and determination to find a reliable way to predict earthquakes to safeguard populations, as there might be to find a simple and affordable cure for cancer.

Predict Weather 2009 ©