Comet Elenin Confirmed to be causing Earthquakes?

[Jason Thompson]

I've shown you scientific studies performed by a person with a PhD that is now apparently tracking Comet Elenin and the seismic activity it's producing.

No, you're still not grasping the difference between correlation and causation. The former does not immediately imply the latter, and proper scientific research does not stop at showing a correlation. It has to continue to establish whether or not there is a causal link. Earthquakes occur a lot on this planet. The number of objects in the solar system makes alignments of some sort very frequent. I frequently eat chocolate. The odds are that an earthquake happens somewhere or an alignment of some collection of objects in the solar system occurs on days I eat a lot of chocolate. That's a correlation, but there is no causal link.

What you have shown is that there are some loose alignments involving the comet on days when earthquakes occur. That does not immediately mean that the comet is causing those earthquakes.

Using this Data, It seems like at least someone would have their interests intrigued and try to investigate further...

Some of us here have. The problem is the difference between what you think should be investigated (why the comet is causing earthquakes) and what a proper scientific enquiry would first investigate (whether the comet is actually causing earthquakes).

[Strange]

While data may be data, not all data is of the same value.
...
So, he listed 90, there were 2850 (there may be a few more or less, I had trouble transferring them to my spreadsheet, but I'll stick with that number). So, there is a difference of 2760 earthquakes. If he could only find a correlation for 90 out of 2850, I think there really wasn't a correlation for those 90 either. Or, what I find more likely, can you say cherry-picked data, I knew you could.

Exactly.

Unless the other 2760 are caused by other comets...

[astromark]

I have tried very hard to be fair minded and considered all of the information available regarding the passage of comet 'Elenin' through our solar system...
I shall just for fun make a assumption that it is not a comet but is instead a black hole...and its not that.
For as much as I looked at how could a comet of not some major mass possibly disturb the tectonic plate structure of planet earth.. It could not.
Any such earthquake prediction or event prediction buy the passage of a distant small object is just foolishness to the absurd... No apology offered or implied. I would not offer a insult to the messenger or his followers... the facts do speak for themselves..
No such alignment did occur or will.. No earthquake can be attributed to have been triggered by such a event.

[Van Rijn]

I apologize for posting the wrong link in the original post!

Here is the correct link: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1104.2036

No problem. Thanks for the corrected link.

This article is Elenin-Specific.

I don't agree. Yes, it does mention Elenin, but that isn't the only thing mentioned in that article.

Looking forward to hearing your opinions on this matter.

Well, he starts out talking about the Moon and Sun (which could make sense to me because their tidal effects are far beyond any other objects in the solar system), but he moves on to what he calls "significant bodies of mass" between the sun and the orbit of Neptune. However, if he explained why he's including a low-mass object like Elenin, I missed it. I did notice that he mentions "gravitational shadowing" and claims this has been demonstrated. In fact, this is a very ATM idea.

I thought this bit was amusing:

"Thus the verification as presented herein is entirely methodological. No statistical testing was done due to relatively small sample sizes."

So, he has a small sample size, and can't support his argument statistically. But wait, it gets better!

"Then in order to empirically verify the georesonator concept, it suffices to show that all strong earthquakes have occurred during the astronomical alignments, and in a self-evident fashion. I arbitrarily select 2010 because it contained the most robust data, presumably due to the proximity of the approaching Elenin."

So, not only is he admitting that he has a small sample size and can't support his argument statistically, he is also admitting that he is making an arbitrary choice and is ignoring data that doesn't support his claim! He's picking easily adjustable criteria (whatever an alignment is supposed to be), he's choosing the data, and claiming its validity. He's making classic blunders, but the amazing thing is he's admitting to them. (Oh, and by the way, what is "self-evident" about any of his claims?)


In his conclusion he claims:

"The Earth's strong seismicity is unrelated to tectonics, and they both arise due to the same external (astronomical) causes."

Wow. He isn't just saying that ET objects could have an influence on geology. Rather, he seems to be claiming they are the sole cause. Still, he also says:

"Approximate [earth quake] forecast is feasible in time, location and magnitude."

So, he's making a claim that his system can lead to useful predictions. That at least is a testable claim. If he actually does start making useful predictions, then it might be worthwhile revisiting his ideas. Until that happens - if it ever happens - I don't see any reason to take him seriously.

[Van Rijn]

"Then in order to empirically verify the georesonator concept, it suffices to show that all strong earthquakes have occurred during the astronomical alignments, and in a self-evident fashion.

An additional note: In table 1 of the article, there are a number of alleged alignments: Earth/Mercury/Sun/Venus, Earth/Sun/Venus, Mars/Earth/Venus, Mars/Earth/Sun, Mars/Earth/Mercury, Elenin/Earth/Venus, Elenin/Earth Sun, etc. etc. Clearly there isn't any specific alignment he's talking about. Rather, it appears that for each earthquake, he looks for an alignment he can fit to it. So, it shouldn't be a surprise that the Earthquakes happen during astronomical alignments. Clearly he has a lot of alignments to work wilh. I'd be interested if, with his criteria, it would ever be possible for an event to happen when there are no alignments. By the way, I noticed that the claimed alignments involve planets, planets and sun, or planet/sun/comet Elenin. That is, he didn't include any other comets, asteroids, or satellites. It appears Elenin is just another arbitrary choice, but if he ever needs more alignment possibilities I have some suggestions on what he could use..

[Tog]

That all sounds oddly familiar.

If this is all based on gravity, then shouldn't we have a major quaked about every 14 days, to coincide with the new and full moons? Surely the gravitational influence of the moon is stronger than any of the planets, or comets, as felt on Earth.

[MAPNUT]

See, the moon doesn't cause earthquakes because it's been shaking up the earth's crust for billions of years and every possible fault that could be created by the moon has been created and then healed. So the crust has toughened up and achieved immunity to the moon. That's like the windstorms which there have been a lot of in my neighborhood over the last several years. Several big storms brought down a lot of trees and branches. But the last few storms didn't bring any down because there are only strong healthy trees left. Makes perfect sense, right? - science by analogy. So only transient phenomena like comets, whose gravity comes at different angles than the moon, can now cause earthquakes.

When you can't think of tests to prove a hypothesis, try words.

[Jim]

MAPNUT, makes sense to me.

Vasotech, welcome to BAUT. This subject has been discussed in other threads, most notably http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....f-Earthquakes?. I say "most notably" because, starting with post #16, kamaz basically destroys the claim of any comet being the cause of earthquakes.

Would you care to address his points?

[shriram]

...The only 'proof' is the Leonid Elenin post where he does NOT clearly state that the "Comet" is causing the Earthquakes, but did take the time to collect the data. And our new friend Dr. Omerbashich.

Using this Data, It seems like at least someone would have their interests intrigued and try to investigate further...

The only thing the data conclusively proves that the comet was whereever it was when the earthquakes took place, not that the comet caused the earthquakes... IMHO.

[amazeofdeath]

See, the moon doesn't cause earthquakes because it's been shaking up the earth's crust for billions of years and every possible fault that could be created by the moon has been created and then healed. So the crust has toughened up and achieved immunity to the moon. That's like the windstorms which there have been a lot of in my neighborhood over the last several years. Several big storms brought down a lot of trees and branches. But the last few storms didn't bring any down because there are only strong healthy trees left. Makes perfect sense, right? - science by analogy. So only transient phenomena like comets, whose gravity comes at different angles than the moon, can now cause earthquakes.

When you can't think of tests to prove a hypothesis, try words.

If this is a serious post, can you show actual correlation with comet mass and distance to earth vs. number of earthquakes within the time window where the comet can affect the earth; show why the planets don't cause the earthquakes (is there's a cut-off limit for regular vs. irregular influence?); or alternatively, if the effect is not gravity-driven, show a plausible explanation for the proposed effect? If the tidal bulge caused by the moon running over ever-changing crustal plate collision zones isn't enough to trigger earthquakes, as seems to be the case, any gravity-related effect is pretty much ruled out--while the moon's movement is regular, the zones still evolve, so you can't claim that the earth is accustomed to the effect without a proper explanation.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post, "science by analogy" does rather point to the direction that you were joking, but I really can't tell for sure.

[MAPNUT]

No.

[Extracelestial]

I see, so instead of looking over the data and drawing conclusions... We are going to try & discredit the messenger?

Please put all your bias opinions aside and take a hard look at the data.

In my opinion, that is the only unbias thing we have as human beings.

Hello vasotech,

here are my five pennies worth of comment:

#1 Mr. Omerbashich (Mr. O hereafter) gives only his own work as reference. Such a method is prone to circular reasoning.

#2 "The European Royal Society" which is quoted in the title - what is that? Only a G-Mail account and nothing else? So where does this work of Mr. O come from?

#3 The "alignments" Mr. O emphasises in his graphs appear to be "cherry picked". In Fig. 4 he describes an alignment of Earth-Mercury-Venus (omitting the sun) whereas in Fig. 5 Jupiter-Earth-Sun he's omitting Venus although nearby.

#4 The polynomial fitting function appears to have a very low (i.e. way below 0.6) R**2 thus rendering the slight bump almost non existent. Moreover, since the data is truncated at the extremes of his window (Fig. 2 again) the tangent has a bias on the curvature. Without confidence intervals etc. one can not conclude whether a 2nd order polynomial or other order is valid. This renders the graph useless.

#5 I didn't see any proposal of a mechanism how this can be that celestial bodies farther out and with small mass have any effect at all:

• why omit Vesta for instance with a diameter of almost 500 km of solid rock but take into account a dirty snowball with only a fraction of vesta's size

• His term "georesonator" suggests some mechanism which he doesn't elaborate. Did I miss here something?

• He claims to have proven that earth quakes have an external and not an internal cause. But this is nothing but a claim for lack of methodology and supportive data

This "paper" is worthless and probably a deliberate fraud I'm afraid.

Ex

[R.A.F.]

The "Paranoid Junk" comment is yet another attempt to discredit the messenger.

Those who irrationally think that the government is "out to get them", are, by definition, displaying paranoia.

It's not an attempt to discredit...it's a simple factual statement.

A buddy of mine here used to tell me that BAUT was all about the "Burden of proof"...

But our friends Leonid Elenin and Dr Mensur Omerbashich have provided the proof.

Sorry, but no...not even close.

Does he really have a reason to lie?

Why must he be lying?...why can't he simply be mistaken??

[streather]

I believe Kamaz did a pretty good debunking of whether or not Comet Elenin is causing earthquakes in the thread about it shortly after the tokyo earthquake and tsunami.


The post can be found here Clicky

[Tom Servo]

Hold on Did I miss something.

the comet is aligned with earth and what? The Sun? The Moon? Other Planets? Other Stars? All of the above?

Is it just aligned with the Earth? Because two objects are always in line with each other.

[phunk]

I did notice that he mentions "gravitational shadowing" and claims this has been demonstrated. In fact, this is a very ATM idea.

Isn't this disproven every time there's a lunar eclipse and the moon's orbit doesn't change?

[kheider]

I think Mensur Omerbashich is (incorrectly) suggesting the coma of Elenin is "a cloud of gravitationally locked particles around 30,000 km across". His paper was released on 11 Apr 2011.

On 08 Apr 2011, Elenin was 1.89AU from the Earth with a 27.4" coma (27.4"/206265*1.89AU=37,500km).
http://gustavomuler.fotografiaastron...110408-J47.jpg

-- Kevin Heider

[kheider]

But our friends Leonid Elenin and Dr Mensur Omerbashich have provided the proof.

Leonid makes no claim that the near alignments caused anything!

I would think someone doing professional alignment studies would keep track of the major asteroids. How did Mensur Omerbashich miss the fact that one of the largest asteroids, 3 Juno (258 km), had a better alignment with the Earth and Sun during the 11 March 2011 Japan quake?
Juno 2011-Mar-12 09:18@179.4981° and 1.78AU from Earth
http://home.comcast.net/~kpheider/3Juno-2011Mar12.gif
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=3;orb=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s-Neptunian.29
Comet Elenin's best alignment was 2011-Mar-14 14:00 @ 178.63° @2.1AU (missing by 3 days)

Personally, I think 3 Juno was jealous of all the attention 4 Vesta and 1 Ceres will be getting soon.

-- Kevin Heider

[Sardonicone]

Vasotech - Can you please explain to me how an object as uninspiring and small can produce orders of magnitude more seismic activity than the Moon? I fear you have a very simplistic view of how gravity works.

[Luckmeister]

Since it has already been noted in this thread that Omerbashich's data is flawed by cherry-picking both the earthquake examples and space objects involved in "alignment," the other factor left for discussion is his "resonance." Is he referring to gravity waves resonating with the natural resonant frequency of Earth, perhaps reminiscent of the breaking of a wine glass with a human voice singing a 110 decibel note matching its resonant frquency? If so, where are his tests and studies showing the possibility of this kind of interaction and that the energy produced would be sufficient to influence earthquake activity?

[Tensor]

Since it has already been noted in this thread that Omerbashich's data is flawed by cherry-picking both the earthquake examples and space objects involved in "alignment," the other factor left for discussion is his "resonance." Is he referring to gravity waves resonating with the natural resonant frequency of Earth, perhaps reminiscent of the breaking of a wine glass with a human voice singing a 110 decibel note matching its resonant frquency? If so, where are his tests and studies showing the possibility of this kind of interaction and that the energy produced would be sufficient to influence earthquake activity?

I really don't think he has even that. If you go back to the data I pulled up from the site I mention in Post #29, you will find that in 2010, there were an average of ~8 earthquakes of M 4.9 and above (the low magnitude cutoff in his data) PER DAY.

I'm sure that most of use here could produce some kind of "alignment" with solar system object(s), if we're allowed to pick and choose from any of the 8 earthquakes per day or a total of ~40 if you count two days on either side.

[Luckmeister]

I really don't think he has even that. If you go back to the data I pulled up from the site I mention in Post #29, you will find that in 2010, there were an average of ~8 earthquakes of M 4.9 and above (the low magnitude cutoff in his data) PER DAY.

I'm sure that most of use here could produce some kind of "alignment" with solar system object(s), if we're allowed to pick and choose from any of the 8 earthquakes per day or a total of ~40 if you count two days on either side.

Yes, your post #29 was what I was primarily referring to when I said his data had been shown to be flawed. I was bringing up the resonace subject because I was wondering if ayone has seen any explanation on his part for what that means to him.

[abc456]

Hello all, found this thread and had the itch to post(no, I'm not Dr Mensur himself, just a passerby.) Obviously, the first question one would ask is whether he's "cherry-picking" the data. Now I do agree that his inclusion of mag 5+ and 4+ quakes are very strange, when he stated in the title that it's only valid for 6+. However, this inclusion only weakens his case slightly, not disprove it altogether. To me, to say that there are 2830 quakes in a year, because he listed a few 5+ and 4+ quakes, is very disingenuous, and seems to completely miss his point altogether.

To me, you can eliminate the 5+ and 4+ quakes that he listed altogether, and it still would not contradict his thesis, because he clearly stated that it's only valid for 6+ quakes. So now we ask, did he list ALL of the 6+ quakes? Well, there were about 174 6+ mag quakes last year. And he listed only about 70 of them.
However, the problem is that the USGS data does not differentiate between aftershocks, main quakes, and foreshocks(look up the biggest quakes and see how
many "aftershocks" happened within the same day, and keep in mind that foreshocks and aftershocks aren't limited to the same day) and we don't know what his theory is, regarding aftershocks and foreshocks. And since foreshocks and aftershocks can occur on different days, it's impossible to figure out which is which, especially without the locations.

What to do? Well, to me, we can try to figure out how many "legits mag 6+ quakes" there were. However, supposed that we revised his thesis to say that it's only valid for 7+ quakes(as a matter of fact, if he had done this from the beginning, it would have been perfectly fine, and his data would have been "robust" enough for him to make his point.) Now if we were to look at his 7+ quakes, you will see that he listed all of them, and they matched all of the 7+ quakes listed by USGS in 2010(making whether they're main quakes, foreshocks or aftershocks irrelevant. However, looking at the dates on each, they're most likely main quakes).

Is it possible that all 23 of the 7+ quakes can "coincidentally" each has an alignment? Well, if you look at his table of 2010, you'd see that there are 73 "unique" alignments(i.e 73 on different days). Let's assume that these are ALL of the possible alignments(perhaps this is the reason he included the 5+ and 4+, to include all of the alignments, without realizing that it contradicts his thesis a bit) within a given year, then to me, the odds of all of the 7+ quakes all having an alignment(or one not having an alignment) is very very low. We have to conclude
then, at least with regards to the 7+ quakes, that there is a correlation between planetary alignments(including Elenin) and 7+ quakes.

We can expand this further and include all of the biggest quakes in history. Once again, he listed all of the biggest quakes in history(before 1900). Now what are the chances of all
the quakes in history each having an alignment? Keep in mind that there is only a 1 in 5 chance that a quake will fit with an alignment, or 4 out of 5 chance that it will NOT fit within an alignment, within a given year. There are 11 biggest quakes, each in a unique year, which means that the chances of each falling into an alignment is 1/5 * 11.

[Jason Thompson]

Well, if you look at his table of 2010, you'd see that there are 73 "unique" alignments(i.e 73 on different days). Let's assume that these are ALL of the possible alignments

Why would we make that assumption?

The number of objects in the solar system is vast. I highly doubt that with all that rock and ice floating around out there that only 73 'alignments' occurred in any given year.

We have to conclude
then, at least with regards to the 7+ quakes, that there is a correlation between planetary alignments(including Elenin) and 7+ quakes

Even if that conlcusion is 100% valid, I repeat that a correlation does not equate to a causal link.

[Gillianren]

Why would it make a difference if an earthquake is a foreshock or an aftershock?

[Amber Robot]

Why would it make a difference if an earthquake is a foreshock or an aftershock?

I imagine it would only make a difference if not differentiating them hurts the correlation.

[R.A.F.]

Is this...

We can expand this further and include all of the biggest quakes in history. Once again, he listed all of the biggest quakes in history(before 1900). Now what are the chances of all the quakes in history each having an alignment?

...the claim you will be defending?...that the "biggest quakes in history" have all occurred during some kind of "alignment"??

Please consider that a direct question.

[Garrison]

We can expand this further and include all of the biggest quakes in history. Once again, he listed all of the biggest quakes in history(before 1900). Now what are the chances of all
the quakes in history each having an alignment? Keep in mind that there is only a 1 in 5 chance that a quake will fit with an alignment, or 4 out of 5 chance that it will NOT fit within an alignment, within a given year. There are 11 biggest quakes, each in a unique year, which means that the chances of each falling into an alignment is 1/5 * 11.

Depends what you choose to call an alignment, if you include planets, comets, and NEOs your odds are much netter than you are claiming I would have thought, and it wouldn't be anymore meaningful than any other arbitrary correlation unless you are planning to outline a mechanism?

[Tensor]

Hello all, found this thread and had the itch to post(no, I'm not Dr Mensur himself, just a passerby.) Obviously, the first question one would ask is whether he's "cherry-picking" the data. Now I do agree that his inclusion of mag 5+ and 4+ quakes are very strange, when he stated in the title that it's only valid for 6+. However, this inclusion only weakens his case slightly, not disprove it altogether.

I suggest you go back and read the title and his paper. He does not say it is valid for only 6+ events. He says it is valid for ~6+ events. The ~ used before a number means approximately or approximately equal to. He specifies the "~" to mean ± 5%, but yet, the lower bound as determined from his data is 4.9. Very sloppy work.

To me, to say that there are 2830 quakes in a year, because he listed a few 5+ and 4+ quakes, is very disingenuous, and seems to completely miss his point altogether.

Disingenuous? I don't think so. After all, if he includes them, then why shouldn't we ask about the ones that he doesn't include? Why doesn't he include all of them? Cherry picking? Or, that fact that there is an average of 8 Per day through 2010 simply mean that it's useless to try and match up alignments due to the sheer number of earthquakes. If his hypothesis is based on 4.9+ events (which according to his data, it is) then he has to explain the other ~2700 quakes that he does not have a alignment listed for.

I think it's disingenuous to try to move the goalposts. His paper specifies 4.9+. We've shown that he's missed explaining ~2700 other earthquakes using his hypothesis. Now you come along and try to say he shouldn't have put them in. Sorry, he did, and the paper should explain it. It doesn't. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and take the ± 5%. That would mean a M5.7 event. That shows 344 quakes for the year 2010. Still, quite a few explanations short.

To me, you can eliminate the 5+ and 4+ quakes that he listed altogether, and it still would not contradict his thesis, because he clearly stated that it's only valid for 6+ quakes.

Nope, he does not. That "~" makes all the difference.

So now we ask, did he list ALL of the 6+ quakes? Well, there were about 174 6+ mag quakes last year. And he listed only about 70 of them.
However, the problem is that the USGS data does not differentiate between aftershocks, main quakes, and foreshocks(look up the biggest quakes and see how
many "aftershocks" happened within the same day, and keep in mind that foreshocks and aftershocks aren't limited to the same day) and we don't know what his theory is, regarding aftershocks and foreshocks. And since foreshocks and aftershocks can occur on different days, it's impossible to figure out which is which, especially without the locations.

Again, Cherry Picked data. Go look up his other papers. He mentions nothing of foreshocks or aftershocks, only earthquakes. Or, does he just list the quakes that show up within his ± 3 days window as those that count, and the ones that are outside that window as "well, lets not mention that one". It shouldn't matter what his hypothesis is, a well written paper would at least acknowledge the problem.

What to do? Well, to me, we can try to figure out how many "legits mag 6+ quakes" there were. However, supposed that we revised his thesis to say that it's only valid for 7+ quakes(as a matter of fact, if he had done this from the beginning, it would have been perfectly fine, and his data would have been "robust" enough for him to make his point.) Now if we were to look at his 7+ quakes, you will see that he listed all of them, and they matched all of the 7+ quakes listed by USGS in 2010(making whether they're main quakes, foreshocks or aftershocks irrelevant. However, looking at the dates on each, they're most likely main quakes).

Is it possible that all 23 of the 7+ quakes can "coincidentally" each has an alignment?

Define alignment. No where in that paper (linked to in Post #1) does he provide us with all the alignment parameters of each of the alignments. AAMOF, he only provides visuals for four. What were the particulars of the alignments? How far off based on degrees? Based on days? How about this from the paper "The alignments were estimated to be ±1°. Interestingly, the sentence before this states "Units of time are given to within ±1 day, as differential orbital inclinations in the nearly co- planar solar system can be safely ignored." Really? He's giving the alignments ±1°, but blows off the inclinations because they can be safely ignored? He obviously hasn't done his homework. Mercury can be up to 7° off the Earth's inclination (going by the ecliptic, if you go by the Sun's equator, the difference can almost 10.5°. Ten degrees can be safely ignored? When the other parameter is based on 1°? Want to explain that one?

Well, if you look at his table of 2010, you'd see that there are 73 "unique" alignments(i.e 73 on different days). Let's assume that these are ALL of the possible alignments(perhaps this is the reason he included the 5+ and 4+, to include all of the alignments, without realizing that it contradicts his thesis a bit) within a given year, then to me, the odds of all of the 7+ quakes all having an alignment(or one not having an alignment) is very very low. We have to conclude
then, at least with regards to the 7+ quakes, that there is a correlation between planetary alignments(including Elenin) and 7+ quakes.

Where is the data on the alignments? How many degrees off? How many days? In one case he has an alignment from March 30 to April 20th for Earth, Mercury, and Venus. Considering the speed with which the two other planets move, keeping them in alignment with Earth is a bit tricky. You have to have a special starting place. But we don't know, because he doesn't provide the data.

Interestingly, he has seven quakes during those 21 days. What happened during the other 14 days? If the alignment produced an earthquake on 7 days (actually only 5 alone, as there are claims for two other different alignments during the time period, and why are those other alignments only one day). Why not on those other days?

We can expand this further and include all of the biggest quakes in history. Once again, he listed all of the biggest quakes in history(before 1900). Now what are the chances of all the quakes in history each having an alignment?

Care to predict an upcoming large earthquake, based on the "alignments?

Keep in mind that there is only a 1 in 5 chance that a quake will fit with an alignment, or 4 out of 5 chance that it will NOT fit within an alignment,

Again, define alignment.

within a given year. There are 11 biggest quakes, each in a unique year, which means that the chances of each falling into an alignment is 1/5 * 11.

1/5 * 11? You sure? That comes to 11/5. Which is a bit over 200%. Sounds like a sure thing to me.

Besides, what are the error bars? What's the sigma? Those things are important to provide context for the actual meaning on what your presenting.

[Van Rijn]

Hello all, found this thread and had the itch to post(no, I'm not Dr Mensur himself, just a passerby.) Obviously, the first question one would ask is whether he's "cherry-picking" the data.

I don't think there is any doubt that he is cherry-picking. He admits to some of it himself. I quoted a couple of lines in an earlier post:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....03#post1889703

A quote from his paper:

"Then in order to empirically verify the georesonator concept, it suffices to show that all strong earthquakes have occurred during the astronomical alignments, and in a self-evident fashion. I arbitrarily select 2010 because it contained the most robust data, presumably due to the proximity of the approaching Elenin."

He is flat out saying that he arbitrarily selected 2010, and did not include less "robust" data. How could he be more clear that he is cherry-picking? Also, he says:

"No statistical testing was done due to relatively small sample sizes."

But there was a straightforward solution to that problem: Include more data! It's clear from his statements that this wouldn't have supported his argument, though.

Is it possible that all 23 of the 7+ quakes can "coincidentally" each has an alignment?

Why not? He didn't use any specific alignment of any specific objects. Rather, he had various combinations of the sun, planets, and comet Elenin. Why only these objects? How are the many combinations he selected supposed to be similar? After all, the masses and distances between these objects vary dramatically. All of the planets combined have a mass far less than the sun. The range of mass between the planets is also dramatic: Jupiter is over 300 times as massive as the Earth but Mars has about a tenth of the Earth's mass. And finally, comet Elenin has a mass far less than any of the planets, and is less massive than thousands of other identified minor objects he did not include.

Without a detailed explanation of the methodology behind his "alignment" argument, this too appears arbitrary.