Abstract


The Kobe earthquake of January 17, 1995, which had a magnitude of 7.2, was accompanied by earthquake lightning (EQL). The fault gouge near ground level at the Nojima fault, near where the EQL was witnessed, was highly lithified and anomalously mag-netized. The characterization of the fault gouge and the mudstone near the fault suggests that the anomalies might have been induced by an intense EQL current which passed through the fault plane.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998GeoRL..25.2721E

There’s an interesting article on Helium!

Underground lightning may cause earthquake and volcanic events

http://www.helium.com/items/2121199-underground-lightning-may-cause-earthquake-and-volcanic-events

Dear James,
I freely admit that I have no education in the science of earthquakes or crop circles. Here is an earth science forum that may interest you. I think the members are fairly well up on the subject and would be more able than I to discuss these phenomenon.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/104-earth-science/

Love,
Betty

Okay James ,

According to your source, YOU ARE RIGHT--TOTALLY RIGHT!

Do I get s free copy of your book for admitting it?

Maybe you would like to read a bit more about James's source, Alice. Terrence Aym (author of the Helium article in James's link) has quite a reputation:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/09/no-a-pole-shift-wont-cause-global-superstorms/

Jonathan DuHamel writes:

"Aym’s story has the attributes of a B-grade disaster movie on the Syfy channel, scientific fact be damned."

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/02/07/superstorms-and-magnetic-poles/

THANK YOU, SHELAGH,

You saved me from eating crow!


This poor guy is almost as confused as James is.

That’s not the way grass roots campaigns work.

Scientists are going to oppose the concept of earthquake being lightning way beyond their drawing a pension.

So you don’t face the herd head-on. You whittle away chip-by-chip and Helium is as good a place as any - and better than most, because it gets exposure.

Pretty soon earthquake as brittle fracture along fault lines will be as archaic as a Model T.

James

Why is the theory oppposed?

It isn't opposed, Alice. There is ongoing research to find a way of predicting earthquakes. The scientists are looking for a way that works and saves lives. They don't have a preference for one way of predicting over another. There is uncertainty (there always is with scientific experiments!) that needs to be brought within acceptable parameters. They haven't succeeded in doing this yet.

This is NOT (and never was) about predicting earthquakes.

Earthquake (lightning) is opposed because people in academia have spent their careers developing the brittle fracture and sliding fault concept.

The journals have published paper after paper on it. Building codes and bridge construction specifications are based on brittle fracture

So earthquake (lightning) meets a lot of opposition - but building costs being what they are - and the Internet being what it is - change is going to come (hopefully) w/in our lifetime

James

James,
You have a very short memory.

Alice

Here is a quote from a previous thread - this is NOT (and never was) about predicting earthquake

Quote:

Earthquake as lightning (being electrical) was my discovery - and it took 30 years of hard study and research to discover the physics of it

BTW - I posted the NASA report three (3) times!

James,

You said lives would be saved and construction improved when people understood the
cause of earthquakes.

I have had it with this subject.

Me too.