Tsunami Quake revised 1 by Andrew Bevan Astro*cartography - as introduced by Jim Lewis I'm starting off as moderator for the mundane section with a revision of my prediction of the Tsunami quake that hit Sumatra of Dec 26. 2004. The prediction was first announced on the Norwegian Radio Channel P4 on Dec 7. 2003 in conjunction with the Solar eclipse of Nov 23. 2003. My warning appeared again at the Norwegian financial website 'Hegnar Online' on Nov 7. 2004 in conjunction with Uranus' station of Nov 11. 2004. As can be seen the planet Uranus lies on the lower meridian of Sumatra and Indonesia at the time of the Solar eclipse of Nov 23. 2003. This is an indication of pressure on the build in a region already vulnerable to seismic activity. My research with seismic phenomena seems to indicate that an event may be released 47-49 days after the Solar eclipse associated with the occurance. But in 1988-1990 I also demonstrated how significant earthquakes could be measured along geometric, or rather chronological intervals of 45 days. The Solar eclipse of Nov 23. 2003 and the Uranus station of Nov 11. 2004 are interlocked by 12 synodic lunar months as they are 354 days apart. This is an interval that I through my work with the financial markets have commonly termed a 'fibonacci year.' In my opinion there was a potential of the earthquake striking the target area 45 days (or 47-49 days) after the Solar eclipse of Nov 23. 2003. There was a significant earthquake within the target area in the 2nd week of January 2004, but tension remained on the build due to the relation between the Solar eclipse and the station of Uranus in Nov 2004. Add 45 days to the date of Uranus' station of Nov 11. 2004 and this brings you to the date of Dec 26. 2004. This is, as history confirms, the date of the great quake of Sumatra that measured 8,9 on Richters scale and over 200.000 people lost their lives. This work is discussed my own website at: http://www.astronor.com/indonesia2.htm Note that 'The Guardian' did comment the prediction in their edition of Jan 6. 2005, but did not mention me by name. Oh well, probably just as well... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005 ... r.comment1 http://www.astronor.com Quote Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:48 pm