FirstAlerts
Natural DisastersVersion 5

Magnitude 7.7 Earthquake Strikes Indonesia's Flores Island

A powerful earthquake hit East Nusa Tenggara province on August 15, 2026, triggering tsunami warnings that were later lifted.

3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 19, 2026, 4:53 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 16, 2026, 11:36 a.m. ETUpdated Aug 21, 2026, 5:41 p.m. ET
A magnitude 7.7 struck on August 15, 2026, at approximately 06:00, according to Al Jazeera. The quake occurred at a depth of 10 km, as reported by Local 10, The Independent, and PerthNow. Reports differ on the exact location: PerthNow and The Independent placed the in , while Local 10 and Al Jazeera reported it as . Tsunami warnings were issued and later lifted, according to The Independent and PerthNow.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 21, 2026, 5:26 p.m. ET

    Magnitude of Indonesia Earthquake Revised to 7.7

    The magnitude of the earthquake that struck Indonesia on August 15 has been revised to 7.7, according to Al Jazeera. The quake occurred at approximately 06:00 local time, as reported by Perth Now and The Independent, though Al Jazeera reported the time as 00:00 UTC. The epicenter was in East Nusa Tenggara province, on the island of Flores, according to local10.com and Al Jazeera, while Perth Now and The Independent also placed it in East Nusa Tenggara province on Flores. The earthquake had a depth of 10 kilometers, as reported by local10.com, The Independent, and Perth Now. Tsunami warnings were issued and later lifted, according to The Independent and Perth Now.

  2. Aug 19, 2026, 4:53 a.m. ETFirst report

    Earthquake Strikes East Nusa Tenggara Province in Indonesia

    An earthquake occurred in East Nusa Tenggara province on the island of Flores, Indonesia, at approximately 06:00 on August 15, 2026, according to perthnow.com.au. The earthquake was recorded at a depth of 10 km.

    Tsunami warnings were issued following the event and were later lifted, perthnow.com.au reported.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 521 Aug 2026, 21:41current

    Updated to reflect the best-supported time and location, noting the disagreement among sources.

  2. Version 421 Aug 2026, 21:36

    Added magnitude and clarified location conflict with attribution.

  3. Version 319 Aug 2026, 10:53

    Updated story to include reporting and attribution from The Independent.

  4. Version 219 Aug 2026, 09:24

    Updated story structure, headline, dek, and attribution formatting.

  5. Version 121 Aug 2026, 21:26current

    First published.

  6. Version 119 Aug 2026, 08:53current

    First published.

  7. Version 119 Aug 2026, 09:23

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.