EARTHQUAKE CLOUDS AND
SHORT TERM PREDICTION
Patent US 8,068,985B1
The US Patent and Trademark Department (USPTD) published Shou’s “Method of precise earthquake prediction and prevention of mysterious air and sea accidents” . This patent can pinpoint at an impending epicenter with hot surrounding as well as with cold surrounding and can narrow a time window from 112 days into 5 days. Therefore, evacuation is possible by automatic machine. This patent also offers a method to detect the vapor from a vessel or an airport to avoid a mysterious accident of air and sea.
Thousands peer reviewed articles were
published for various earthquake precursors. I studied them and found their
common problems. First, no scientific model to explain basic earthquake
phenomena, e.g. the Bam cloud, and to explain how those precursors can
trigger an earthquake step by step logically. Second, no prediction to show
their reliability in practice. Third, have false warming and loss. The USGS
claims “Neither the USGS nor Caltech nor any other scientists have ever
predicted a major earthquake” to admit failure of all those precursors
, but it causes a big mistake to include my vapor precursor. If it is not
neglect, but a lie to suppress my work, here are three pieces of evidence.
First, email evidence of international scientists for my successful Bam
prediction . Second, my 8 major predictions that were verified by the USGS
and proved all correct on time, area and magnitude by the data of the USGS
. Third, a comparison of the
Recently, the USGS proposed “Earthquake central” to emphasized hazard in New Madrid where three major quakes had happed in 1811-12 . Seth Stein says that kind of warning is dead wrong . I checked earthquake data of the USGS in USA from Jan. 1, 1990 to update, and found the hazard in New Madrid is not as high as the USGS emphasized, but far less than it along the West Coast.
The BEA spent multimillion dollars to find the black boxes of the crashed A330 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris on Jun. 1, 2009 and issued “Accident to the Airbus A330-203 Flight AF447 on 1st June 2009” to blame the accident on “Nose up” of the pilot . However, such an official document even contains obvious mistakes. For example, it mentioned, “The Captain was PNF, one of the co-pilots was PF”. Then, it wrote, “From 2 h 10 min 50, the PNF tried several times to call the Captain back.” Why did the Captain call himself back? Three similar mistakes make me doubt about whether or not the BEA was too eager to get rid of its responsibility to remember a document should not contain obvious mistakes.
Shou mailed Air France "Using the earthquake vapour theory to explain the French airbus crash”  to persuade it not to waste money to find the black boxes. In fact, Shou had studied what black boxes did and found them without record of timely temperature and moisture distribution around an airplane. Thus, black boxes could not explain mysterious air crash.
The BEA also reported, ‘Between 1 h 59 min 32 and 2 h 01 min 46 …the PF said, in particular "the little bit of turbulence that you just saw […] we should find the same ahead […] we’re in the cloud layer unfortunately we can’t climb much for the moment because the temperature is falling more slowly than forecast."’. This is key information. What was the forecast temperature? What was the actual temperature? In standard atmosphere, temperature at altitude 2,500m is -1.2oC and clouds should become rain, ice or snow there. The airbus’ altitude was 35,000ft, even 38,000ft (11,582m) where temperature should have been about -53oC. What were the clouds that could rise up so high from 2,500m to 11,582m and still owned enormous heat to make “the temperature is falling more slowly than forecast”? The BEA should answer above questions.
New York Times proposed, “Just before Flight 447 went down, it charged into a massive cluster of roiling clouds, even as three other planes made wide turns to avoid the weather. Why Flight 447 flew into the clouds may help explain why it never flew out” . This is correct answer! The crash was doomed when the airbus entered the massive cluster of roiling warm earthquake clouds no matter of “Nose up”, “Nose down” or “Nose zero”.
A Canadian doctor told me that vapor bubble could not through deep ocean water. I asked him whether or not he thought vapor bubble heaver than water of same volume. He can’t answer. I published ocean earthquake clouds of the M7.1 Off Coast of Northern California earthquake on Sep.1 1994, the M6.3 Off Coast of Oregon earthquake on Oct. 27, 1994. the M6.8 Off Coast of Northern California earthquake on Feb. 19,1995, and a union of 6M5-5.7 Indian Ocean earthquakes on Feb. 9-10, 2000 by Fig. 4-3, 4-4,.4-5 and 8 respectively . They disprove his opinion by fact. More than 20 international doctors including seismologists of the USGS debated with me, but all became speechless later. My theory is a truth, invincible. Any cooperation and support to perform the automatic machine is welcome that can free people from devastating earthquakes and mysterious air and sea accidents, and save large budgets. Otherwise, tragedies of earthquake and mysterious accident will happen continuously.
Many thanks to the US Patent and Trademark Department for noticing my work, Lawyer Han, the lee&hayes Office, and the Han Office for offering free consult to write the patent, the medium that published or reported my work, and my family and all friends for support, help, donation, belief and propagation.
1. Shou Method of precise
earthquake prediction and prevention of mysterious air and sea accidents. United
States Patent US 8,068,985B1
2. USGS FAQs EQ Myths Can you predicted earthquakes
3. International scientists Emails to admire Shou's success on the Bam prediction
4. Shou and USGS Shou's 8 major predictions, verified and proved by the USGS 1994-2000
5. Shou California Earthquake Situation
6. USGS The M7 Hector Mine earthquake proclaimed Shou's success The M7 Hector Mine earthquake map
7. Richard Monastersky. Seth Stein: The quake killer.Nature 479, 166-170 (2011)
8. BEA Accident to the Airbus A330-203 Flight AF447 on 1st June 2009. May 27, 2011
9. Zhonghao Shou, Jianjun Xia, and Wenying Shou Using the earthquake vapour theory to explain the French airbus crash Remote Sensing Letters1:285-94 (2010)
10. Wil S Hylton What Happened to Air France Flight 447? New York TimesMay 4, 2011
11. Darrell Harrington and Zhonghao Shou Bam Earthquake Prediction & Space Technology Seminars of the United Nations Programme on Space Applications 16 39-65 (2005)