A Theory of Cometary Associations with Earthquakes

[Kalopin]

It has been an on going theory for many years of an association between comets and earthquakes, weather patterns, and even plagues. There have been many to suggest electromagnetic forces, pressure waves, and/or cosmic rays. In fact all these may come into play, including the size, speed, trajectory, mass, and alignment patterns. It has been only recently that more of mainstream science has accepted the fact that Near Earth Objects can become external crustal stressors. By the use of these forces a large enough object can send vibrations through the Earth's crust allowing tectonic activity. There have been some to say this is what occurred with The Great Comet of 1811. Although, I am sure these ideas are strong possibilities, I have come to a conclusion on one of my theories, I've been working on for quite a while. It was more than just pressure waves, or electromagnetic forces, but a direct impact. A meteor coming from the dust tail of Comet C/1811 F1 to Northern Mississippi that was the initial mechanism to cause The Great Earthquakes of 1811-12. It is my hope to make this common knowledge. So everyone will understand this quite amazing story of the year 1811 and a comet and a quake.

[Rhaedas]

What evidence, like an impact area, do you have?

[Nowhere Man]

Sounds like a long, far-fetched stretch. Remember that Earth is under the constant influence of a major stressor: The Moon, which causes water and crust tides every day. The Moon is much larger and closer than many, many near-earth asteroids or any comet. The only way an NEO can cause more stress than the Moon is by impact.

The Earth is far more likely to cause chaos on an NEO than vice-versa.

I second Rhaedas's request for evidence.

Fred

[slang]

Welcome to BAUT, Kalopin.

It has been only recently that more of mainstream science has accepted the fact that Near Earth Objects can become external crustal stressors.

I would like to see some evidence for this, please. I know it's not your main 'thing' to present here, but you still assert it as fact.

[Kalopin]

Noticed a couple of similar threads on this site: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....Of-Earthquakes and http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....ng-Earthquakes . Although this theory is quite old, here is a recent study: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/1811.htm , and I'm sure you're fimiliar with The Comet Elenin theory: http://globalrumblings.blogspot.com/...isastrous.html . Obviously this theory has been quite a challenge to prove, but the more technology catches up to the effects of NEOs, the more this scenerio seems possible. I would suspect that because the moon already pulls on the oceans and plates, that the extra pressure from another NEO and possibly in another direction, may have this effect.

As to my theory, it seems more likely that an impact of sorts could easily cause what would be considered an earthquake. This is what I propose happened in December of 1811. If you have a moment, go to a satellite view and zoom in at the top of Marshall County, Mississippi, slightly to the right of the middle of the county. This is the immediate crater and is quite difficult to make out, due to its make-up, erosion. and development. Quite a difference from an impact such as The Barringer Crater in Arizona. From this point, pan out and notice how all topographical lines encircle the impact site like a "bulls-eye". It appears as a huge thumbprint covering the entire river valley. No, I don't know why this has never been noticed, only that it is obvious to me. I would like for you to study all the evidence you may find on these events. Some of my evidence, just search "Kalopins Legacy". Here you will find the truths behind all the myths...

[redshifter]

A meteor coming from the dust tail of Comet C/1811 F1 to Northern Mississippi that was the initial mechanism to cause The Great Earthquakes of 1811-12. It is my hope to make this common knowledge. So everyone will understand this quite amazing story of the year 1811 and a comet and a quake.

Well, if it's your 'hope to make this common knowledge', then you'll need to present a great deal of evidence, as others have already stated.

[Rhaedas]

I found your past post on another site, almost a duplicate of the one here, but with a link to a place which does have more details, but also is pushing a book for sale. Curious why you didn't do the same here.

If you actually want to discuss the info you have on that site here, then I suggest you pick some of the details and go from there. I will say that just glancing over some of it, you're trying to connect too many different events, and you dismiss scientifically dated areas with "that can't be". It's going to have to be better than that.

[Kalopin]

:I don't want to be accused of spamming,advertising, or promoting, because I only want to investigate this theory and prove it beyond a doubt. I have posted similar threads, but none of which are trying to promote or sell the book, and I never mentioned my book until after someone brought it up. So I wouldn't consider that to be "pushing".
That may be what was wrong with my previous post, as it has not appeared.

I notice there are a few other threads on this site with similar subjects. Here's another site: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/1811.htm

[Kalopin]

Other sites that may be helpful on this subject:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/ , http://www.pasaz.org/forums/archive/...php/t-577.html , http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ub...t&Number=39933 , http://cometography.com/lcomets/1811f1.html , http://www.showme.net/~keller/quake/libroosevelt.htm , http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread665121/pg1 , and find the info. on this theory at http://www.wix.com/koolkreations/kalopins-legacy ,[documents and links, "A Few Comments on 1811"].

[slang]

You said:

It has been only recently that more of mainstream science has accepted the fact that Near Earth Objects can become external crustal stressors.

and I asked:

I would like to see some evidence for this, please.

and then we have this:

Noticed a couple of similar threads on this site: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....Of-Earthquakes and http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....ng-Earthquakes . Although this theory is quite old, here is a recent study: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/1811.htm , and I'm sure you're fimiliar with The Comet Elenin theory: http://globalrumblings.blogspot.com/...isastrous.html . Obviously this theory has been quite a challenge to prove, but the more technology catches up to the effects of NEOs, the more this scenerio seems possible. I would suspect that because the moon already pulls on the oceans and plates, that the extra pressure from another NEO and possibly in another direction, may have this effect.

How can you possibly characterize a couple of BAUT threads, a vague website, some blog and some supposition by you as evidence that "more of mainstream science has accepted" something? You'll have to do better than that. Please do so, or withdraw the assertion.

Also, as a side note, please quote any post you're replying to, or at least mention which one you're responding to.

[captain swoop]

Wouldn't an impact big enough to cause a major Earthquake be noticed by someone?

[Kalopin]

Wouldn't an impact big enough to cause a major Earthquake be noticed by someone?

Yes, it was noticed by many as lights across the skies. It may have killed thousands of natives, as they were the only ones near the impact. No one may ever truly know. Times were so primitive. Natives had only "the spoken word" and were not paid much attention to. New Madrid was a French settlement and the river valley was sparsely populated with only a few settlements, such as Memphis, Natchez, St. Loius, and New Orleans.

[PetersCreek]

Welcome to the BAUT forums, Kalopin. I would like you to pause and read our rules...especially rule 13, since it applies specifically to the Against The Mainstream forum. I also recommend you read Alternate Theory Advice. Both are linked in my signature line below.

To participate in this form, you must make your case here. While you may link to off-site references, you may not simply post a handful of links while saying little more than 'read this'. It is preferable to provide a brief quote from the linked material and explain why you believe it to be relevant to your claims.

Additionally, you must provide timely answers to the questions asked of you. Using the Reply With Quote feature will help make clear to whom you are responding.

[Kalopin]

You said:

and I asked:

and then we have this:


How can you possibly characterize a couple of BAUT threads, a vague website, some blog and some supposition by you as evidence that "more of mainstream science has accepted" something? You'll have to do better than that. Please do so, or withdraw the assertion.

Also, as a side note, please quote any post you're replying to, or at least mention which one you're responding to.

You're right, I wasn't answering you, so no, I don't believe that would be enough evidence. However, all one need do is go to a search engine, type in "NEOs, planetary alignments and earthquakes" to see how many have discussed this possibility. Agreed, not very many legitimate sites, NASA, JPL, Cometography, and others had a few good sites but had been taken down. Here's NASA's newest disclaimer: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...012-guest.html

[Kalopin]

Wouldn't an impact big enough to cause a major Earthquake be noticed by someone?

Well, it did occur in one of the coldest winters on record [it was reported that The Ohio River was completely frozen over], and it was 2:30 a.m., so most were sleeping. Although there are still several accounts available that discuss lights across the skies and several accounts of meteor showers prior to and during the earthquakes. One account at http://pasadena.wr.usgs/office/hough/mitchill.html , go down to where Captain Robert Alexander discribes the meteors.

[Swift]

It has been an on going theory for many years of an association between comets and earthquakes, weather patterns, and even plagues. There have been many to suggest electromagnetic forces, pressure waves, and/or cosmic rays. In fact all these may come into play, including the size, speed, trajectory, mass, and alignment patterns.

What exactly is a "pressure wave"?

Why would electromagnetic forces cause earthquakes? Other than the visible light photons from the comet, what electromagnetic forces do you think comets generate, how are they generated, and why would they cause earthquakes?

How would a comet generate a cosmic ray? Cosmic rays are measured routinely on Earth, is there any evidence they increase when comets are close? How would a cosmic ray cause an earthquake?

I notice you don't mention gravity as one of the possible forces; why not?

[Kalopin]

What exactly is a "pressure wave"?

Why would electromagnetic forces cause earthquakes? Other than the visible light photons from the comet, what electromagnetic forces do you think comets generate, how are they generated, and why would they cause earthquakes?

How would a comet generate a cosmic ray? Cosmic rays are measured routinely on Earth, is there any evidence they increase when comets are close? How would a cosmic ray cause an earthquake?

I notice you don't mention gravity as one of the possible forces; why not?

The present theory considers all forces in one way or another. Any object with enough mass and speed will disrupt various forces in different manners in different situations. It has been suggested that high intensity, extremely low frequencies under pressure will produce a vibration, such as "telegeodynamics" [as with Nikola Tesla's "mechanical oscillator" http://www.rexresearch.com/teslamos/tmosc.htm ] or as with "thermoacoustic refrigeration" [ http://www.scribd.com/doc/29052830/T...efrigeration-3 ]. This may be similar to when a jet plane hits the sound barrier and produces a sonic boom. You must consider the fact that there are so many variables and intracacies to consider. Trajectories easily change from contact with another objects forces. The spin and wobble of our planet also will change and give variations with the speed of objects and how they will interact with one another. This may be a possible scenerio, an o.k. theory?

[Kalopin]

Here are a few good sites on the forces of P-waves and cosmic rays: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...smic_rays.html , http"//scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/P-Wave.html , http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/GRB.html , http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...e-weather.html . I am sure my theory should be a little bit easier to prove, but who knows?

[Tensor]

Well, it did occur in one of the coldest winters on record [it was reported that The Ohio River was completely frozen over],

Which has, what exactly, to do with observations of something large enough to cause a large earthquake colliding with the Earth?

and it was 2:30 a.m., so most were sleeping.

And such a collision would not cause a large enough explosion, or large enough shaking of the Earth, on it's own, to wake people up?

Although there are still several accounts available that discuss lights across the skies

And your proof that those lights across the sky had anything to do with the earthquakes, other than by assertion, is what, exactly?

and several accounts of meteor showers prior to and during the earthquakes.

And your proof that those meteors had anything to do with the earthquakes, other than by assertion, is what, exactly?

One account at http://pasadena.wr.usgs/office/hough/mitchill.html , go down to where Captain Robert Alexander discribes the meteors.

The link doesn't work for me.

[Kalopin]

Which has, what exactly, to do with observations of something large enough to cause a large earthquake colliding with the Earth?

Not many people awake on a freezing morning at 2:30.



And such a collision would not cause a large enough explosion, or large enough shaking of the Earth, on it's own, to wake people up?

Obviously, if the sound or shaking woke you up then it was probably after the meteors bright light and I would imagine the impact and shock-wave would have killed everything for many miles. As I stated there were no settlers near the impact.



And your proof that those lights across the sky had anything to do with the earthquakes, other than by assertion, is what, exactly?

the physical evidence of the satellite view of the topography, the hundreds of, what I believe to be, meteorites, impactites, and even encased body parts from the natives and animals near the crater.



And your proof that those meteors had anything to do with the earthquakes, other than by assertion, is what, exactly?

The topography indicates an impact crater about five to ten miles in diameter. This is a complex crater, from a meteor consisting mainly of ice, sand, dust, smaller rocks and some boulder sized, coming in at a low trajectory from the south/south-east impacting through a frozen lake with soil horizon consisting of only gravel sand, dirt, and over vast water-wells, considerably dampening the blow [my theory, my opinion].



The link doesn't work for me.

You may just want to google "The Accounts of Samuel Mitchell 1815". It seems to be getting more difficult to find original accounts.

[Eclogite]

However, all one need do is go to a search engine, type in "NEOs, planetary alignments and earthquakes" to see how many have discussed this possibility. Agreed, not very many legitimate sites,

Kalopin, after searching through several of the sites located by your suggested search words I have found no legitimate sites that support your claim. Would you therefore, please, do one of two things

a) Provide specific citations to peer reviewed scientific journals that demonstrate clearly that "more of mainstream science has accepted the fact that Near Earth Objects can become external crustal stressors".
b) Retract the assertion.

This point is secondary to your argument, but until you have done a) or b) it stands in the way of addressing your primary interest.

[Van Rijn]

Noticed a couple of similar threads on this site: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....Of-Earthquakes and http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....ng-Earthquakes .

Have you read those threads? There was a claim that Elenin caused earthquakes, but there was also substantial discussion of the problems with that claim, and the general conclusion was that the claim is unsupportable. No realistic mechanism was presented and the attempted correlation was so poor as to be useless.

Obviously this theory has been quite a challenge to prove, but the more technology catches up to the effects of NEOs, the more this scenerio seems possible. I would suspect that because the moon already pulls on the oceans and plates, that the extra pressure from another NEO and possibly in another direction, may have this effect.

How would it be possible? By far, the Moon and the Sun have the greatest tidal effects on the Earth, yet there seems to be no correlation between earthquakes and their motions. NEOs are flyspecks compared to the Moon and generally much more distant, so their tidal effects are miniscule compared to other planets, let alone the Moon and the Sun.

As to my theory, it seems more likely that an impact of sorts could easily cause what would be considered an earthquake. This is what I propose happened in December of 1811. If you have a moment, go to a satellite view and zoom in at the top of Marshall County, Mississippi, slightly to the right of the middle of the county. This is the immediate crater and is quite difficult to make out, due to its make-up, erosion. and development. Quite a difference from an impact such as The Barringer Crater in Arizona. From this point, pan out and notice how all topographical lines encircle the impact site like a "bulls-eye". It appears as a huge thumbprint covering the entire river valley. No, I don't know why this has never been noticed, only that it is obvious to me. I would like for you to study all the evidence you may find on these events. Some of my evidence, just search "Kalopins Legacy". Here you will find the truths behind all the myths...

How large a crater are you suggesting? Here's a page discussing the likely local effects of the Barringer Crater impact:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/krin...startpage.html

Quoting:

The probable sum of these effects is the destruction of vegetation over an area 800 to 1500 km². Damage to vegetation would have extended over an additional 200 to 600km². Animals within 3 to 4 km of the impact site would probably been killed, with maiming injuries extending out to distances of ~16 to 24 km. . While these effects are severe, they are confined to the immediate region and did not cause extinctions. In fact, the newly formed bowl shaped depression soon filled with water providing a lake habitat (see graphic) for aquatic plants and animals. Recolonization of the area was probably accomplished in a few to ~100 years.


So it would have taken substantial time for Barringer Crater area to recover, and if there had been people around, effects of the blast would have been noticeable for great distances, yet it sounds like you're suggesting something far larger. Sparsely populated or not, I don't see how a large impact in 1811 could have escaped immediate notice, and failing that, how would the blast effects remain undetected until today?

[Strange]

You're right, I wasn't answering you, so no, I don't believe that would be enough evidence. However, all one need do is go to a search engine, type in "NEOs, planetary alignments and earthquakes" to see how many have discussed this possibility. Agreed, not very many legitimate sites, NASA, JPL, Cometography, and others had a few good sites but had been taken down. Here's NASA's newest disclaimer: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...012-guest.html

Many people may have discussed it but that isn't, in itself, evidence.

Any "legitimate" sites will presumably just debunk the idea and explain why it is nonsense (as with the NASA page you link to).

[tusenfem]

You may just want to google "The Accounts of Samuel Mitchell 1815". It seems to be getting more difficult to find original accounts.

Kalopin, this does not constitute an answer. This is YOUR idea that comets may cause earthquakes and such. That means that YOU need to present your evidence, calculations etc. here on BAUT and not just deliver some list of websites that you think may or may not proof your point.

Reread the rules of the ATM section of BAUT, linked below in my sig.

There are a lot of questions above, that you have not answered, please look at these posts and give some real answers.
If you fail to do this you will receive an infraction.

[geonuc]

Yes, it was noticed by many as lights across the skies. It may have killed thousands of natives, as they were the only ones near the impact. No one may ever truly know. Times were so primitive. Natives had only "the spoken word" and were not paid much attention to. New Madrid was a French settlement and the river valley was sparsely populated with only a few settlements, such as Memphis, Natchez, St. Loius, and New Orleans.

Are you suggesting that, in 1811, the French settlement of New Madrid was so primitive to only have "the spoken word?" Likewise, with St. Louis, New Orleans and Memphis?

[slang]

You're right, I wasn't answering you, so no, I don't believe that would be enough evidence. However, all one need do is go to a search engine, type in "NEOs, planetary alignments and earthquakes" to see how many have discussed this possibility. Agreed, not very many legitimate sites, NASA, JPL, Cometography, and others had a few good sites but had been taken down. Here's NASA's newest disclaimer: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...012-guest.html

No, I will not do your searching for you. Support the assertion or withdraw it. Besides, that some random people discussed something does not make it "mainstream science". Quite a few people discuss creationism, geocentrism, and magic. Are those also "only recently being accepted by more of mainstream science"? What do you think "mainstream science" is?

[Rhaedas]

An impact of the size you're suggesting only 200 years ago would be easily seen today. Barringer Crater is probably the youngest we've found at 50 thousand years, so we'd expect a more recent one to be very well defined, even with erosion.

[Kalopin]

No, I will not do your searching for you. Support the assertion or withdraw it. Besides, that some random people discussed something does not make it "mainstream science". Quite a few people discuss creationism, geocentrism, and magic. Are those also "only recently being accepted by more of mainstream science"? What do you think "mainstream science" is?

It must be your opinion that none of the people discussing this have any legitamacy, that's fine, but not my opinion, so maybe leave it there? Mainstream science has had many definitions thruoghout human development. Once there was an inventor of a wheel!
Just because one has credentials, does not give the ultimate decison. If you cannot prove, beyond a doubt that these forces do not come into play, then it remains a theory!

[Kalopin]

An impact of the size you're suggesting only 200 years ago would be easily seen today. Barringer Crater is probably the youngest we've found at 50 thousand years, so we'd expect a more recent one to be very well defined, even with erosion.

NOPE, wrong, you must understand all the intracacies and variables. Barringer Crater was produced from a solid iron asteroid coming in at high trajectory impacting a desert. This crater was preserved due to vitrification, soil horizons [make-up is sand], little or no erosion or weather, and no development [except for maybe one road]. The impact I refer to was produced by a piece of a comet, mainly consisting of ice, sand, and dirt with many small rocks and some larger boulder sized. Coming in at a rather low trajectory [maybe about 30*] and impacted on a large frozen lake. The river valley consists of gravel, sand and dirt on top of The Artesian Wells. So this crater was subject to a totaly different set of circumstances. Imagine the evidence left between a meteor hitting the ocean compared to a city.

This has been a strange arguement for me. To see how many people come to this conclusion, that all craters are well defined. There are simple craters then there are complex craters. It really depends on so many different situations.

[Kalopin]

Are you suggesting that, in 1811, the French settlement of New Madrid was so primitive to only have "the spoken word?" Likewise, with St. Louis, New Orleans and Memphis?

NO, to be clear. I said that it was a French settlement. Many did not get along in these days. New Madrid had a newspaper [in French, of course] as did all the settlements and towns, yet you will only find a few articles from Dec. 1811 to June of 1812. The original reports and accounts are quite impossible to find. The article at my site has a few examples. You will also find NO information at The Office of Indian Affairs from 1809-1822. Just the facts and I CAN go on.