Subject: Alternative Explanation for the December 21, 1954 Fickle Hill Earthquake
Dear [Recipient’s Name / USGS Earthquake Science Center],
I am writing regarding your recent report claiming that the December 21, 1954, Fickle Hill earthquake (M6.5, Northern California) was due to a “partial stress release from the Cascadia subduction zone.” While I respect the work that has gone into this interpretation, I believe this explanation remains incomplete and does not adequately address the broader seismic patterns observed during this period.
According to my research, earthquake timing and epicenters are not random. They are strongly influenced by celestial factors — specifically tidal, gravitational, and inertial forces exerted by the Sun, Moon, and planets. Allow me to illustrate with this event:
Date & Time: 21 December 1954, 19:56 UTC
Epicenter: 41°N, 124°W
Celestial Triggers:
The Sun was at Zenith directly overhead, near maximum declination and closer to Earth — consistent with my epicenter hypothesis.
Venus was also at maximum declination, changing direction, and in close interaction with the Moon and Saturn.
The Moon was aligned with Venus and Saturn, while Jupiter stood 120° apart — a configuration I identify as highly potent for seismic triggering.
Several planets were simultaneously near maximum declination, strengthening tidal and inertial pull.
Furthermore, this was not an isolated quake. Within a span of just a few days, multiple M6.5+ earthquakes occurred globally:
December 17, 1954 – Nevada (M7.1, M6.9)
December 20, 1954 – Argentina (M6.6)
December 21, 1954 – Northern California (M6.5)
This clustering is highly unlikely to be coincidental or explained solely by localized stress redistribution. It indicates that some dates are inherently potent for major earthquakes and eruptions, due to external gravitational-inertial influences.
My working framework can be summarized in three statements:
A) Certain dates are globally potent for major earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
B) Major quakes occur at plate boundaries not because plates “decide” to slip, but because these are the weaker zones that yield first under combined tidal, gravitational, and inertial pull.
C) The epicenter is determined by Sun/Moon positioning — quakes occur where the Sun/Moon is at Zenith or Nadir (±15° longitude) or at Rising/Setting (±45 minutes margin).
I urge USGS and the seismological community to test this hypothesis systematically. Even without publishing predictions (to avoid unnecessary alarm), researchers can silently monitor celestial alignments against earthquake catalogs. A transparent review of the evidence will show that seismic activity follows predictable celestial patterns.
It is time for seismology to think beyond plate tectonics alone and explore these external drivers seriously.
Sincerely,
Amit Dave
amitjdave@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment