Chris,

You're right about the antipodal to the Indonesia area, but earlier this evening I looked to see if the Kermadec Islands 7.4 would have been an influence there and I would say that it is. The P-103 maps are not the same as the FFA maps, though close. I think the Ecuador quake is just shadowing the P-103 line, so it's very close. But you know FFA events do not have to be large events, just as the MT 3.9 was not that large, but there was also a string of earthquakes following the same degree line. Lowell pointed that out many times and I think those who follow FFA's need to know they don't have to be large earthquakes.

I always think of how water wells in distant places tilt or the water moves around in them from distant earthquakes, so its easy to see how the smaller end quakes would be prevalanet far away, but closer to or at the antipodal larger, being more in the moderate range, like Ecuador.

Earthquake theories are often not taken in the literal form of the theorists because we seem to get a bit or piece of information, but not all of it. This holds the same as Mogi Donuts. People think they should always look like a circle so they miss the one's which look like half of a tire laid on its side; the elliptical formation.

Proper understanding of the theory and good observation skills are required to see the obvious, but in a world where we are so rushed most of the time, these things are not captured in space and time, so we miss the most important clues to precursory phenomena. It is much like the amateur astonomer who only has a few nights to watch the sky hoping to catch a comet and finds repeatedly they occurred at another time.

I suppose it must be like that saying, "someday my ship will come in and I'll be at the airport."

Petra