Gus > Please, stop confusing "tsunami" with "earthquake". There's enough scientific --and historical(*)-- evidence to show that one doesn't need an earthquake to trigger a tsunami. Likewise, a M6+ peak can be registered by seismographs because of a nuclear burst (instead of an earthquake).
Then you will have to tell that to the scientific community who consider the tsunami of 26/12/04 was the result of an earthquake.
But, actually I agree with you, but for a different reason. In my opinion, both the earthquake and the tsunami (and also volcanoes) are manifestations of the release of energy from within the earth from sources which are, as yet, undefined and not understood. For this reason, the nuclear device theory does offer some intellectual satisfaction because it starts from the energy source from which the other phenomena have derived. The earthquake/moving tectonic plate theory suffers from the weakness that the force which causes the movements is not understood and is therefore not mentioned. Indeed, earthquakes, volcanoes, underwater landslides and movements of tectonic plates, all of which are mentioned as the natural causes of tsunamis, are themselves the result of energy being released from within the earth (which may also include nuclear devices and other big man-made explosions) and are not, in fact, the source of those forces as the earth scientists would have one believe. |
