1999 EARTHQUAKE - TETRAKTYS ASTROLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTRE

1999 EARTHQUAKES IN TURKEY

SUMMARY OF A PREDICTION REPORT

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 elements of 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 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, in general.

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 potential chart 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

total curves. Lunisolar curve is the leading indicator. When the system speed is slow, effects of the angular distances become more 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 the spatial vector

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 by the 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 to give a

clue to the reader, about our research methods.

Next, on the right you see the modified potential chart of angular distances of the bodies. 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 traditional concepts. 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 the major 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 the first 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 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 the possibility 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 are

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

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 relatively high 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 were eliminated. 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 insufficiency of the data employed in calculations, or both. But, the error rate of two spatial parameters suggesting the former to be true.

On the right is the traditional flat chart of the earthquake.

Even form this presentation; it is possible to expect a next earthquake, by tracing the long-term transformations of the configurations. Since the two elements of the first GC are slow in motion, after some 90 days, Sun will be forming surely a TC with them. During this period of time, if another GC or TC will be formed by the

elements of the second set, then it assures a possibility of a next earthquake, in the vicinity.

Following this second conjecture, I assumed the calculation results of the first model as a basis for the next possible earthquake. The first set, namely Sun-Mars-Uranus-Saturn, was transforming to a Sun-Uranus-Saturn TC in November of the same year. Again, the second set of Moon-Neptune-Jupiter-Mercury was transforming to a loose Moon-Neptune-Jupiter TC at the same time. But, transformed values were not assuring a perfect modeling like the previous one. Because, a set of four elements is always more reliable than a set of three elements. The former one was with two GCs, yet the next one would be with two TCs. It means that the matrices were to be reduced to half, and the precision to one third of the previous one.

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 an eclipse, 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 run a 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 fall into the

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 that includes 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 sudden amplitude 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°.

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, and sent 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.

[back to predictions list] [back to research intro] [main page] [table of contents]