Jim Bergland, the geologist who has been discredited by the USGS but is nevertheless eerily good at predicting some earthquakes (using scientific methods, not tea leaves or cosmic notions), feels we are about to have a pretty large earthquake in the LA Basin around the middle of June of this year.

Furthermore, and apparently independent of the above, a prominent psychic (is there any other kind?) predicts a large earthquake on or about June 19th in the LA area.  She says it will be quite large, but little loss of life.  She was on Art Bell Coast To Coast AM a few nights ago, so take that for what it is worth.

Dan, posting this for the benefit of mankind

Dan, do you have links to news stories citing this? If not, then I will put this in either “hoaxes” or “off-topic chit chat” (I can’t decide which)

*Thread moved to hoaxes until we either get a source or figure out the most appropriate forum for it’s home*

By coincidence (which does not excists ofcourse) I stumbled day before yesterday on this photo of the San Francisco quake of 1906.

A Breathtaking panoramic pic shot from a baloon 2000ft up

What is a ‘pretty large’ earthquake, exactly?  I think it’s likely that some earthquake will occur during June, they’re very common.  So what qualifies it as a ‘pretty large’ one? 

One that is recorded by seismometers but not noticed by people in the city?

One that is noticeable to people going about their normal routine, but causes no property damage?

One that causes minimal property damage with no disruption of services?

One that causes severe damage/some loss of life with widespread disruption of services?

One that that flattens great sections of the city causing catastrophic damage and great loss of life?

Let’s try for specifics, shall we.  Otherwise it’s a meaningless prediction. 

The problem is that no specifics will come.  Any earthquake at all near LA will count and,  if it’s a spectacular one, then any earthquake in California will count.  Give me specifics or give me silence.

One that shakes my martini enough so that I don’t have to do it myself.

That’s pretty suave.

“Vodka martini…earthquake shaken, not stirred.”

Renquist - 02 June 2007 01:30 AM

That’s pretty suave.

“Vodka martini…earthquake shaken, not stirred.”

Priceless!  You got me to laugh out loud!

Okay, as a resident of the SF Bay for the last 45 years, my own feeling is that pretty large beginds at about 6.5 or so.

Usually a 5 gets your attention, things rattle, the ground moves for a while, no real damage.

But that Loma Prieta earthquake, whose magnitude (I think) was 7.4 or something, and the epicenter about 35 miles from my house, that shook pretty damned good!  The ground literally felt like a diving-board at a swimming pool, and the puppy lasted for at least 30 seconds.  Then there were pretty healthy aftershocks in the 6.0 range over the next few days.

The SF earthquake was reputed to be about 8.4, but that is a retroactive assessment, as no measuring devices existed then.

So, moderate is in the 5’s, healthy up to about 6.5, anything above 6.5 is damned strong.

9.0 or above?  Bend over and kiss your little buns goodbye, the tidal wave will sweep us all to Never-Never Land.

This is the Official Dan Scale Of Earthquake Assessment, created about two minutes ago.

Dan the rabid scientist

Oooh….something else that seems familiar...I think I’ve been round here too long.

Charybdis - 01 June 2007 03:43 PM

What is a ‘pretty large’ earthquake, exactly?  I think it’s likely that some earthquake will occur during June, they’re very common.  So what qualifies it as a ‘pretty large’ one? 

One that is recorded by seismometers but not noticed by people in the city?

One that is noticeable to people going about their normal routine, but causes no property damage?

One that causes minimal property damage with no disruption of services?

One that causes severe damage/some loss of life with widespread disruption of services?

One that that flattens great sections of the city causing catastrophic damage and great loss of life?

Let’s try for specifics, shall we.  Otherwise it’s a meaningless prediction. 

The problem is that no specifics will come.  Any earthquake at all near LA will count and,  if it’s a spectacular one, then any earthquake in California will count.  Give me specifics or give me silence.

*applause*

Very well said!

Judging by the predicted dates, I’d say this earthquake will simply be the June 12 Nuclear Baby passing gas.

Gee, you know, if these dooms-day predictions were only dependable!

Run up them credit cards!  Buy a Ferrari and do not concern yourself with speeding tickets!  Eat cheeseburgers and cheesecake!  Sleep ‘til noon, jump in that Ferrari, and speed off to have prime-rib and baked potatoes for breakfast!

Get bold and hit on Bebe and Huli!

Tell Dan to stuff it!

Dan, stuffing it

Well Dan, anyone who hit on me and Bebe would become so enveloped in chaos that theyd never realize a 10.5 earthquake was happening…Bebe