Re: 4.3 could be foreshock
Posted by Canie on January 14, 2001 at 13:30:46:

I saw some discussion on it - i think in the newsgroups when they first stopped posting the info.

It had to do with the inaccuracy of the fault and location - when they say 2 miles North of the San Andreas a lot of people mis-interpretted it to mean it was ON the San Andreas (or whatever fault)

The best the computer can do is identify the nearest fault to the quake - that doesn't always mean it is the actual fault that is involved - it could be a new one like in the case of Northridge - it was on a previously unidentified fault. So they quit showing the nearest fault on most text messages.

Canie


Follow Ups:
     ● sounds reasonable-thanks (NT) - Dennis Gentry of Santa Clarita  15:25:42 - 1/14/2001  (4567)  (0)