1999 Earthquakes in Turkey

8/8/2019 1999 Earthquakes in Turkey

1/11

1 9 9 9 E A R T H Q U A K E S I N T U R K E Y

S U M M A R Y O F A P R E D I C T I O N R E P O R T

Haluk Akcam - Dec. 26, 2002

A major earthquake with a magnitude of 7.6 occurred 32 miles southeast of Istanbul, Turkey, in the Gulf of

Izmit, at 00:01:39.13 UTC, and was centered at 40.748 N., 29.864 E.. (Source: USGS-NEIC)

The earthquake occurred on the northernmost strand of the North Anatolian fault system, and struck the region with

continuous aftershocks. Tens of thousands were killed, and the damage was devastating.

During the first months of 1999, I was working on the possible evaluations of the total solar eclipse of August

1999. A conjecture appeared in my mind, while examining the predetermined path of the eclipse. The North

Anatolian Fault Zone was crossing the path, and the activation of this system was almost sequential to build a

mathematical model.

Path of TSE on Aug 11, 1999

Left: detail of the path crossing Turkey

NAFZ, as depicted on the left, is an almost

uniform curvature, with periodic activations

proceeding towards West. At first glance, it

gives the impression that spatial elementsof the epicenters seem quite homogenously

sequential as if they may build a function

with appropriate time series. But this is an

other time consuming issue.

When compared with the above path of the

TSE, the middle part of the NAFZ (purple

in color) seems in conjunct with the path,

which promises a conjecture to come true.

Total solar eclipses with paths on inhabited regions of the earth do not occur frequently, and therefore need


2/11

special attention. But their indication is only spatial, and not related to exact timing of a possible occurrence.

Usually, the indicated event comes after the eclipse. The moment of the occurrence is mostly related to the

configurations, and sometimes to the cycles. In this case, the configuration was the notorious Sun-Mars-Uranus-

Saturn GC, possibly noted even by Nostradamus.

The potential of the planetary configurations in August 1999 was showing a troublesome curve between 03-18th, ingeneral.

As seen on the left, more

than two weeks of the first

part of August was indicating

a hard period, with an

extremum on the 11th. It was

because of the appearance of

the grand-cross formed by

four bodies. Namely, Sun,

Mars, Uranus, and Saturn.

It is easy to get a potentialchart simply by calculating

the angular distances of

bodies, and adding them as

sinusoidal curves, throughout

the specified interval.

Including the Moon's

movement causes secondary

fluctuations, but it is

essential here.

Another method to ascertain

the relative effects of angular

distances is to calculate the

angular speed of the system

by calculating the daily

movements

of the bodies, as seen in a chart below. Retrograde motion of the planets causes a difference between the absolute

and the


3/11

total curves. Lunisolar

curve is the leading

indicator. When the

system speed is slow,

effects of the angular

distances becomemore intensified. Here

it is indicated that the

minimal value is

reached on 18-19th

August. Therefore, the

peak of the hard

period shown by

angular distances will

be shifted towards

right, which is the

close of that period.

Now, another element

needs to be taken into

consideration. It is the

apparent focus of the

bodies in space. The

chart below is

showing the ecliptical

focus of ten

bodies for the same month. Focus is the optimal point derived from the positions of the bodies by calculating thespatial vector


4/11

products. Here it is given

with one parameter, by

reducing it to ecliptic

plane. On the other hand,

the efficiency of this

focus is determined bythe accumulation model

of the bodies. When the

rate is below 20-25 %, it

indicates that the focus is

dispersed beyond its

numerical value. Thus,

the hard period shown in

the first chart has a

mobile focus with a

longitude between 45-

220, shifting probably(15 %) more to the

second part of this

period. Determining the

exact position of the

focus for a moment is

essential for calculating

the geographical position

of the occurrence.

Therefore, more

sophisticated methods are applied for this purpose, which cannot be described here, since the aim of this article is togive a


5/11

clue to the reader, about our

research methods.

Next, on the right you see

the modified potential chart

of angular distances of thebodies. Modification is

based on accumulation

models of the bodies, which

is developed empirically

through years. The classical

aspect theory helps to form

the basic concept of these

models. It is a matter of

where and how these bodies

are situated, but not limited

with the traditionalconcepts. Discontinued

areas are of no importance,

and each set of curvature

denotes a separate model.

Here we have some

excessive values, between

04-11th. The scale at the

bottom of the chart is

showing a snapshot

about the importance of the period. To reduce our notation to standard values, a list of themajor configurations are given below with related time intervals. Three successive GCs, and

one TC belong more or less to the same model. But the last

one is an entirely different GC of a specific

model. Here, the first set, which is led by

Mars, Uranus, and Saturn, is indicating the

impact value, and describing the

quantitative part of events. But the last

one, which is led by Mercury, Jupiter, and

Neptune, is indicating the moment of the

event. On the other hand, the development

pattern of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th parts of thefirst set, is serving as a model for the

second set, to calculate the spatial

parameters. The 2nd part of the first set is

not included in the pattern, simply because

the dynamic time intervals are negligible,

due to relative slow motions. Another

point is the importance of the TC, because

of the New Moon phase.

It is also notable here to mention about the demonstrative values of these tables. Spatial

parameters cannot be calculated after these data. First of all, they are reduced to ecliptic

reference system, even without regarding the ecl. latitudes. Next, the orbital radii of the

bodies are totally neglected here, which play an important role in calculating the coefficients


6/11

of time series, which then should be applied to the rotation matrix of the earth. The purpose

of this article is to inspire the interested

scientist, not to provide

unearned means.

Right is the chart showing thepossibility of a major

earthquake that may occur in

August'99. Since the

configurations were perfect to

build a dynamic model, it was

easy to determine the exact

timing. Amplitude is showing

the approximated magnitude.

Red marks on the top are

indicating a possibility. Dots

on 10th, 24th, and 31st are

indicating a light possibility.

But the area on 16-17th seems

very significant, with a

magnitude range of 5.1-7.8,

corresponding to the interval

of the August 17th, 03:16-

04:44 UTC.

About the parameters of the

model, I suppose enough

clues aregiven above, and further explanation will be provided if any similar research projects appear somewhere else.


7/11

Spatial parameters can be

calculated by applying the

same model to the rotation

of the earth. Since the

rotation period is about 24

hours, which is relativelyhigh in regard to the

motions of the bodies,

there is always a difficulty

to pinpoint the exact

geographical longitude.

Again, when the latitudes

are in extreme values, the

same problem appears.

But, in this case, due to the

path of the TSE, most of

the difficulties wereeliminated. Even though,

the effect of the relative

high rotational speed

caused the points

horizontally scattered,

instead of giving a precise

accumulation point.

Nevertheless, when

compared with the western

part of NAFZ in detail, it

is clear to deduct that a

tiny rectangular

area is the most appropriate one for a possible earthquake, with these parameters: 28.75-29.00 E and 40.70-40.85 N.

After the occurrence, the errors were found quite satisfying. In terms of time, estimated value 04:00 UTC was only

238 minutes elapsing. Not days, but only minutes are in question here. In terms of space, difference in longitude

was 1.15, and in latitude 0.02. Estimated magnitude limits were 5.1-7.8, and deviated only 1.1 points. Second

term temporal parameters of the model were based mainly on the first set, suggesting a minimal value for the

altitude of the Sun, disregarding the reflection hypothesis, although the second set was also fully operative. If the

reflection hypothesis were taken for granted, the error would be only 9-10 minutes. Again, the error with the

longitude is still an unsolved problem, either because of the incompleteness of modeling theory or the insufficiencyof the data employed in calculations, or both. But, the error rate of two spatial parameters suggesting the former to

be true.


8/11


9/11

Modified potential chart of

angular distances of the bodies

in November were pointing to a

single moment, as seen on the

left. This time, there is no

specific event such as aneclipse, which is leading us, but

the preference is due to the

assumption of a former possible

earthquake.

The non-existence of the Moon

- Neptune - Jupiter TC

configuration in the chart is due

to exceeded limits, which

denotes that the material

employed is not sufficient. In

such cases, it is possible to runa research, but the results are to

be considered always dubious.

The loose set, which is not

shown here, was taking place

on the 06-07th. It was less

effective, and within the

operative period of the valid

TC, 03-08th of November.

Therefore, I assumed the

fortified part of the first set as a

self-inducing

one. Namely the interval, which is seen below. The New Moon factor was supposed to be triggering. On the 08th of

August,

at 01:20 UTC, the sharp peak as seen above, was indicating the

impact value. Yet, the moment of the event was not clear.

Because the loose set of second TC was beyond acceptable

limits. As a result of this uncertainty, the required parameters

were either missing or substituted, and the model did not work

precisely as it was with the first case. Here, it is visible in the

chart showing the predicted timings in November, as a

result of the crippled model. When the first term parameters are not supported by an other set, it is inevitable to fallinto the


10/11

recurrent sequence of weak

oscillations. But, I had to accept

the numeric values, instead of

guessing by heart, if this is

going to be a scientific

approach. Usually the set thatincludes the Sun indicates the

impact value. The next separate

set with the Moon indicates the

moment. Finally, from the

interaction of two sets, the time

series are produced to calculate

spatial parameters. Since there

were no two separate sets, the

location could not be calculated.

The only plausible time

indicator was the suddenamplitude change, during the

first half of the 07th day, as it is

seen on the left. Magnitude, on

the other hand, was not

deductible, due to the

incompleteness of the

parameters. A rough estimation

may be obtained by multiplying

the given value with 1.8, in this

case, which becomes then

maximum 5.6. But, it is not a proper way within the context of the modeling, and should not be allowed. For the

location of the occurrence, there was no better one than the results of the first calculations.

On the 12th of November 1999, a major earthquake did occur with a magnitude of 7.2 near Duzce, on the same part

of NAFZ, at 16:57:19.55 UTC, and was centered at 40.758 N., 31.161 E.. (Source: USGS-NEIC)

Estimated values in this case were not satisfying, due to the incompleteness. Round 06:00 UTC on 07th was

estimated, and the error became 5.5 days. There was no estimated magnitude, but a rough 5.6 suggestion, and the

deviation became 1.6 points. Calculating the spatial parameters was not possible, thus the previous results were

suggested. Again, the error in latitude was negligible, yet the extension of the fault line is already straight on East-

West direction. Longitude error was around 2.5.


11/11

On the right is

the traditional

flat chart of the

2nd

earthquake.

Note: On May 30th, 1999, I have prepared a two-paged report of my work, including area maps and time charts, andsent it next day to the Turkish Prime Minister. Two weeks after, there was no reply, and I called his office by phone.

In the end of terrible 35-40 minutes of line connections, a chatterbox appeared on the other side of the line, saying

that the secretary of the Prime Minister was too busy to reply my report, and besides, it was the policy of the

government not to esteem such baseless prophecies. The same day, I called the seismology department of the

Bosporus University in Istanbul. There again a stubborn academician gave a speech to me, about the impossibility

of predicting an earthquake, and advised me not to spend my time with such superstitious absurdities, instead of

considering to read the report.

After the shock of the first earthquake, I called the office of the Prime Minister, again, and ask them not to be

indifferent this time, due to a possible next one in November. But the reply was freezing. I was told that there was

no such report delivered to the ministry.

Copyright 2004-2008 Haluk Akcam. All rights reserved.

[back to predictions list] [back to research intro] [main page] [table of contents]
http://www.tenspheres.com/predictions.htmhttp://www.tenspheres.com/researches.htmhttp://www.tenspheres.com/index.htmhttp://www.tenspheres.com/contents.htmhttp://www.tenspheres.com/predictions.htmhttp://www.tenspheres.com/researches.htmhttp://www.tenspheres.com/index.htmhttp://www.tenspheres.com/contents.htm

1999 Earthquakes in Turkey

Documents

Transcript of 1999 Earthquakes in Turkey