ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Earthquake Review and Forecast for June 2016

Updated on May 31, 2016
retrojoe profile image

Has studied astrology/historical seismology since the late '70s in San Francisco. Published in the ISAR International Astrologer in 2012.

Map and Data courtesy of IRIS and the Global Centroid Moment Tensor Catalog
Map and Data courtesy of IRIS and the Global Centroid Moment Tensor Catalog

..something happenin' here; what it is ain't exactly clear..

The last few months (beginning in February 2016) have been a bit unusual in both seismological and astrological terms. February and, especially March were below average in earthquake activity, which represented a calm before somewhat of a storm of significant events in April 2016. As I mentioned in last month's hub, the month of April has been particularly active around the world for the last few years. However, while there was a link between most of the activity and astrological aspects for the previous April months, the last month of April represented an anomaly in that the earthquakes were not connected to astrology in almost all regards.

Speaking of just earthquakes of at least magnitude 6.8, my estimate of earthquakes related to astrology usually account for over 70% of such seismic events. But that is based on averages. Usually, when there is a seismic storm in a particular month, astrology will be playing a role more like 90% of the time and when activity is slower than usual, astrology may not play any role.

This last April was different though, in that activity was high and astrological influences were difficult to identify (if there was any relationship at all). In the last hub posted here, I also mentioned that May 2016 would likely be at least average. If one is looking at earthquakes of at least magnitude 6.8, I was correct.

Source of data= Global Centroid Moment Tensor Catalog (with the exception of a M5.8 earthquake on 31 May in Alaska given by the USGS).
Source of data= Global Centroid Moment Tensor Catalog (with the exception of a M5.8 earthquake on 31 May in Alaska given by the USGS).

M6.8+ quakes= average for May, due to 2 events on the 28th..

The first two earthquakes of note for the month occurred on the 18th. A magnitude 6.7 and 6.9 series of aftershocks occurred less than 9 hours apart on the 18th, the primary shock being the magnitude 7.8 earthquake of April 16th which took the lives of 674 people in Ecuador. In my opinion, aftershocks are more likely to be random events, especially the closer in time they are to the main event. Astrology did not appear to play a role for these aftershocks and so they are not surprisingly categorized as random (with the M6.9 event not counted as one of the two expected earthquakes of M6.8 or more).

However, before the month was through, two earthquakes, one of M6.9 and one of M7.2, occurred in two separate parts of the globe (one in the southern Atlantic ocean and the other in the southern Pacific ocean). These events of May 28th were only 4 hours and 8 minutes apart in time. One might think that with them being so close together in time that a spike in astrological influences might have occurred at about that time. And you'd be right...

But, at first I thought such a notion was false. What I found instead was a pattern of aspects that never found its way into my menu of around 150 distinctive aspect groups: A near exact conjunction (0 degrees) between the planet Venus and the asteroid Vesta, and the Sun nearly 2.5 degrees from the other two just mentioned solar system bodies. If you know anything about astrology, then I don't have to tell you about a conjunction. But you may ask, what is with the 2.5 degree aspect? Well, that is the smallest division (there are also 7.5 and 15 degree aspects too) of the primary aspects of 30, 60, 120 and even 45, 90, 150. As long as the group of planets is in a tight configuration or within say 15 minutes of 2.5 degrees, then you have a strong interaction between the planets concerned (either harmonious or inharmonious). Anyway, I figured that this combination of planets was involved in the two earthquakes of over M6.8 on the 28th of May. Where before there seemed to be no hint of a correlation, now things stood on firmer ground.

Before stumbling upon this realization, I had a somewhat different view than I now have about what the future held in store. Here's what I had planned to write:

So, what all of this means, as I suspected might occur a while back (giving as a reason for possibly taking some time off from this subject), and shared in this series of hubs, is that there has been no earthquakes associated with astrological influences during the last four months of February through May in the year 2016.

But what does the bigger picture mean. What is astrology doing at this point in relationship to seismic activity? Is it holding its breath and waiting for the right time when a large number, with a sustained series, of events take effect? This is my suspicion. I also have a feeling that the longer the delay, the longer will be the period of heightened activity following that.”

Things may not be that extreme, now that I have had a newer, less inactive seismic to astrology relationship perspective in the recent past. In other words, there is more of a chance of astrology mirroring seismic activity in June and most of July of 2016, although it may only be a bit above normal or that being the case only for the largest earthquakes (≥6.8 magnitude).

Screenshot of Kepler 8.0 astrology program showing Astro-Aspect Values (AAV's) and Eclipse-Aspect Values (EAV's) for the month of June 2016.
Screenshot of Kepler 8.0 astrology program showing Astro-Aspect Values (AAV's) and Eclipse-Aspect Values (EAV's) for the month of June 2016.

..and now for the forecast..

Looking ahead over the remaining months for this year, noteworthy earthquake related aspects between typical solar system bodies are few and far between. One date is 31 July 2016 at 1200UT (although 6 August 2016 at 0400UT is a stronger possibility) and another is 24 December 2016 at 2345UT (with 10 December 2016 at 2000UT also a strong possibility). I am beginning to suspect that if there is coming a sustained period of heightened seismic activity, that it will begin as early as 31 July or as late as 24 December of 2016. For June and July of 2016 (with the exception of very late in the month of July), I suspect that significant seismic activity (quakes of M6.8 or more) will be no better than average. The only dates that I see where astrology may play a role during that time is on 2 June at 0800UT, 9 June at 1200UT, and 16 July 2016 at 0800UT (the windows surrounding those dates and time begin 12 hours before each peak time and end 36 hours after each peak time).


© 2016 Joseph Ritrovato

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • Buildreps profile image

    Buildreps 10 months ago from Europe

    Interesting retrojoe. You say: "..something happenin' here; what it is ain't exactly clear..". Might that be an unknown astronomical body that is coming our way? Niburu perhaps? We will see...

  • retrojoe profile image
    Author

    Joseph Ritrovato 10 months ago from Vancouver, WA (nextdoor to Portland, OR)

    Thanks for your comment buildreps, The quote in the article is from Buffalo Springfield's song “For What It's Worth” (from 1967), which fits with what happened seismically in April (having no apparent tie-in with astrological factors as is usual for above average activity). For the two months before that and most of the month after that, “..something not happening here; and why ain't exactly clear” would be more appropriate. Whatever is not going on is anomalous and I believe it is a period when the laws are temporarily suspended for unknown reasons. Maybe it is a similar situation to when there is a calm before a storm; perhaps we are in the eye of a coming storm of great size and intensity. I suspect that, borrowing a title from Ray Bradbury, “Something wicked this way comes”.

    As for Nibiru, I just say No to Nibiru, but, on the other hand, Caltech recently proposed a 9th planet (no longer 10th since Pluto was demoted) based on mathematical modeling and computer simulation, it is supposed to be 10 times more massive than earth and 20 times further out than Neptune. It would take between 10,000 and 20,000 years to orbit the sun. If such a planet played any role in earthquakes, they would be very long cycles that would be of no use to me (since I look at patterns as seen in days, weeks, and months). I have proposed a long cycle that peaked last in the 9th century and, if it exists, could be in the process of peaking again (since it is such a long cycle, the effects of its peak would probably last at least a decade or two).

    Regarding my forecast in the above hub, I think I said in one spot that the month of June 2016 would be no better than average and then elsewhere I state that it would likely be no more than a bit above average. Part of the problem is that when you are speaking statistically about just a month of time, average can vary from 1 to 3 earthquakes of M6.8+ per month. So I guess what I want to say is that the likely number of earthquakes for June will be anywhere from 2 to 4 significant events (of at least 6.8 in magnitude).

  • retrojoe profile image
    Author

    Joseph Ritrovato 10 months ago from Vancouver, WA (nextdoor to Portland, OR)

    Earthquake Weather Update: My forecast given in the last comment has me thinking that I over-estimated the possibility. I now believe that, for the month of June 2016, in regard to earthquakes of at least magnitude 6.8, there is more of a chance of no such earthquakes occurring (25% chance) than 4 such earthquakes occurring (4% chance). There is also more of a chance of just 1 such earthquake occurring (40% chance) than 3 occurring (6%). And there is about a 25% chance of 2 such quakes occurring during the month. Normally, or on average, there are 2 such quakes per month, so now I am saying that there is a greater chance for below normal activity rather than an elevated risk for quakes occurring above the average frequency (as I was saying before).

Click to Rate This Article