The technical error noted for the “twin” strong earthquake off Ilia and the erroneous first estimate of the Geodynamic Institute, and its critical report Gerasimos Papadopoulos, they provoked his wrath Akis Celentis.

The earthquake was felt in many areas of the Peloponnese, even in Attica. Initially, the Geodynamic Institute reported that seconds later there was a second strong earthquake, also measuring 5.7 Richter, with an epicenter 25 kilometers east of Strofades and a focal depth of 21.5 kilometers. However, it was a technical error, and not a “twin” earthquake.

Reacting, Gerasimos Papadopoulos proceeded in a post on his personal Facebook account: “The thriller with the alleged double earthquake in the maritime area of ​​the Kyparissia Gulf is over. Initially, the National Observatory announced 2 earthquakes of magnitudes 5.6 and 5.7. Finally, after half an hour he announced 4.5 and 5.7. Such errors have happened in the past. They must be eliminated. They create confusion and make evaluation difficult. As a matter of fact, we are currently unsure if the 5.7 was the main earthquake. The area has had major earthquakes in the past. I’ll come back when they collect more data.”

The director of the Geodynamic Institute, Akis Tselentis, then responded to Mr. Papadopoulos’ specific post, calling him “well-known siltologist and retired naturalist”, and giving his own explanation, quoting sayings of ancient philosophers and poets.

The post Tselentis

“CONCERNING CLAIMS OF THE KNOWN MUDLOGIST THAT THE GEODYNAMIC DIDN’T DO ITS JOB WELL

Nisafi who is with this supposed professor of seismology retired Physiognost ex-employee of Geodynamics who did not respect the place where he ate bread and constantly appears in the media and accuses us both of scientific inadequacy and of empathy.

The man who has made predictions for all of Greece is speaking and if an event happens he will come out and tell us that he predicted it. A year ago it took me 5 months to calm down Thebes who was talking about 7 Richter. He doesn’t even respect the tourist season by throwing tourism into the air.

So read OUR PRESS RELEASE to see what happened with the morning earthquake and draw your own conclusions.

PRESS RELEASE OF THE GEODYNAMIC INSTITUTE OF THE NATIONAL OBSERVATORY OF ATHENS

On March 29, 2024 at 09:12:48.74 we had a very strong earthquake with a magnitude of 5.7 on the Richter scale east of Strofadis. Before this earthquake and at time 09:11:54.78, i.e. 53.96 seconds ago, an aftershock had occurred in the same area.

The automatic system immediately and correctly detected the existence of two earthquakes and even calculated the epicenters in the correct location. However, while the magnitude of the second strong earthquake was correctly calculated, the aftershock appeared with the wrong magnitude in the automatic solution.

The reason was that for all automatic systems, the magnitude calculation is typically based on a recording interval (window) of 120 seconds for each earthquake. This is done so that the measurement includes a sufficient number of stations in the calculations, even for the area of ​​the Greek arc and the border areas of Greece.

In this case the automatic system for calculating the magnitude of the aftershock used a window in which the large earthquake had already entered and was thus affected.

The shift immediately identified the existence of the error in magnitude, however, it had to immediately send the emergency warning of a possible tsunami, since the magnitude of the earthquake was M 5.7 (above M 5.5). The tsunami warning was completed in a very short time, namely in just 6 minutes (9:18).
Immediately after, at 9:21:28 (3 minutes later) the resolution of the strong earthquake was completed and at 09:23:17 (1 minute and 49 seconds later), the foreshock was immediately corrected.

We believe that the criticism is unfounded, that the automatic system could be set up better.

With a 50 second calculation window, so the problem doesn’t exist, we wouldn’t be able to get a reliable magnitude for most earthquakes south of Crete, or in Rhodes and certainly not in Kastellorizo. But what if the arrival was 30 seconds or 20 before? Would it be criticized again?

Also unfounded is the criticism that the correction had to be made before the tsunami warning, thus risking the safety of citizens.

The Geodynamic Institute reacted coolly and responsibly, even in this very difficult case of an earthquake (an earthquake with a difference of seconds and the need for a tsunami warning) and once announced the correct solutions”.