Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California
Posted by Canie on October 29, 2001 at 20:42:51:

I'm not sure how to interpret: most of the scattered seismicity around the Compton activity turned out to be mislocations

The map is still showing about 75 quakes in the area - Is it being said that the quakes were 'ghosts' of a sort (never happened) or that they did happen and are just not quite located accurately yet?

21-28km deep is pretty unusual isn't it?

I like the thought that someone brought up - Doesn't the Newport Inglewood have a thrust component? (signal hill, dominguez hills, bladwin hills) - Yet Lucy Jones said it wasn't part of the Newport Inglewood system but close to it.... Is the srtike-slip fault located that shallow?

Canie

Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - Lowell  21:32:25 - 10/29/2001  (10475)  (1)
        ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - Canie  08:52:00 - 10/30/2001  (10482)  (1)
           ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - Lowell  09:05:20 - 10/30/2001  (10486)  (2)
              ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - 2cents  09:57:41 - 10/30/2001  (10492)  (1)
                 ● Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - Lowell  12:37:37 - 10/30/2001  (10495)  (2)
                    ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - 2cents  00:38:18 - 10/31/2001  (10518)  (1)
                       ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - Lowell  06:57:14 - 10/31/2001  (10521)  (1)
                          ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - 2cents  14:22:22 - 10/31/2001  (10547)  (1)
                             ● Re: water consumption - Canie  08:55:44 - 11/1/2001  (10566)  (1)
                                ● Re: water consumption - 2cents  23:21:01 - 11/1/2001  (10589)  (1)
                                   ● Re: water consumption - Canie  08:45:44 - 11/2/2001  (10606)  (1)
                                      ● Re: water consumption - 2cents  09:53:24 - 11/2/2001  (10614)  (1)
                                         ● Re: water consumption - Canie  11:27:17 - 11/2/2001  (10618)  (1)
                                            ● Re: water consumption - 2cents  22:24:12 - 11/3/2001  (10686)  (0)
                    ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - Roger Hunter  12:55:07 - 10/30/2001  (10498)  (1)
                       ● Re: Comparing a "random" prediction with a "good" prediction - Lowell  13:44:49 - 10/30/2001  (10499)  (0)
              ● Re: Note from a local seismologist in So. California - Canie  09:18:41 - 10/30/2001  (10489)  (1)
                 ● Yes, that's the one NT - Lowell  09:31:07 - 10/30/2001  (10490)  (0)