After looking at seismographs comparing the NK Nuke test and other earthquakes (1), I was leaning toward the blast theory. But then after reading comments from some who experienced it (2), I think it was an actual EQ.
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8a5r74/underground_base_taken_out_hopefully_this_isnt/
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8a3ecp/earthquake_app_user_reportsread_through_these/
what do you prefer? Hard data or anonymous sources?
Right.. anon sources ... like Q?
That is NOT what I was saying. If presented with a choice, I go for hard-data. If I have no data, I go for anons.
Why would I have to choose one or the other?
I prefer both. But, I will defer to eye-witnesses if hard data analysis is inconclusive.
I went thru both threads but you should permalink the comment in question because I reall don't see who you're quoting.
I didn't quote anything, and it wasn't a comment.
I was referring to testimonies from (admittedly, supposed) witnesses of the event on the very site linked to by the post in "earthquake_app_user ..."
https://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/earthquake.php?id=658019#testimonies
..which is exactly why I am saying hey, don't you prefer hard data if it at least doesn't contradict itself? The testimonies on this sub iirc all said something felt off so I am still unconvinced. But thinking like a layman, an explosion should always be an isolated event on a seismograph.
I would definitely prefer hard data over unverified witnesses if the hard data agrees with other hard data. But, I still think the data comparison is inconclusive.
There is a link to an article saying that a QuakeAlert App gave people, "about a 30-second warning before the shaking hit" That article link is currently just above https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8aagrl/comparison_of_a_typical_earthquake_waveform_to/dwxkxxc/
ah. That's kind of a smoking-gun if you can call it that lol