[quote="Greenhalgh"]LOL, one more thing, her stats are inaccurate for the 29th. Here's all the significant EQs for the 29th April:
Quote:
2003/04/29 3.0 SOUTHERN ALASKA.
2003/04/29 4.9 VANUATU ISLANDS
2003/04/29 2.9 CENTRAL ALASKA.
2003/04/29 2.9 CENTRAL ALASKA.
2003/04/29 4.1 KURIL ISLANDS
2003/04/29 4.9 WESTERN INDIAN-ANTARCTIC RIDGE
2003/04/29 4.6 ADRIATIC SEA
2003/04/29 4.3 ADRIATIC SEA.
2003/04/29 3.1 CENTRAL CHILE.
2003/04/29 6.0 KURIL ISLANDS.
2003/04/29 4.8 HOKKAIDO, JAPAN REGION.
2003/04/29 5.0 SOUTHWEST OF SUMATRA, INDONESIA
2003/04/29 5.8 SOUTHWEST OF SUMATRA, INDONESIA.
2003/04/29 3.5 CENTRAL ALASKA.
2003/04/29 2.6 NEAR THE COAST OF CENTRAL CHILE.
2003/04/29 4.1 PANAMA-COSTA RICA BORDER REGION.
2003/04/29 3.6 NEAR THE COAST OF CENTRAL CHILE.
2003/04/29 2.4 ALABAMA.
2003/04/29 3.6 OFF THE COAST OF CENTRAL CHILE.
2003/04/29 4.6 ALABAMA.
2003/04/29 3.2 OFF THE COAST OF CENTRAL CHILE.
2003/04/29 2.3 MONA PASSAGE.
2003/04/29 4.2 SWITZERLAND.
2003/04/29 3.6 NEAR THE COAST OF CENTRAL CHILE.
2003/04/29 4.0 TAIWAN REGION
2003/04/29 3.3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
2003/04/29 5.0 SOUTHERN GREECE.
2003/04/29 4.7 KURIL ISLANDS
|
....One thing that is obvious, and what I've seen pointed out to several PXers is the double recordings of what very likely are the same quakes.......Such as the Alaska readings.....If these are the readings from several different graphs in the area, some being closer to the activity than others, they could still be recording the same activity even if one registered 3.0 and another 2.9......Several PXers have counted up every recorded quake (even those double, or even triple recorded) and the proclaimed that the 'disinfo agents' were under-reporting because the total numbers didn't add up.....Which they wouldn't when you remove the multiple records of the same quake......
.....Or, at least, that's the way I've read the explainations on some of the TT Yahoo sites........