|
|
|
|
| surprisely close but no bull's eye |
The earthquake initiation was at +2N not 5.6S, that's close to 1000 km away. He says "may exceed 7" as well as "9+", the former is not so unlikely, the latter is probably wrong. The statement 8.5 to 9+M may be considered a hit, but what does "to 9+" mean? We've all heard the mantra "specify the area, the magnitude range and the time interval", and I read his word as missing (but close to) the area, missing (but close to) the time window, and with 3 mutually inconsistent statements of the magnitude, not referenced to a particular magnitude scale. Intriguing and close to a rare event, but hardly a bull's eye. Follow Ups: ● Is within time window - chris in suburbia 14:32:07 - 3/28/2005 (25391) (1) ● my mistake - John Vidale 14:54:48 - 3/28/2005 (25392) (1) ● Let's Give Credit Where Credit is Due - Petra 17:56:43 - 3/28/2005 (25408) (1) ● mine was a pre-emptive post - John Vidale 18:32:13 - 3/28/2005 (25410) (1) ● Re: mine was a pre-emptive post - Cathryn 19:53:53 - 3/28/2005 (25412) (2) ● not an aftershock - John Vidale 20:27:32 - 3/28/2005 (25414) (1) ● Re: not an aftershock - Cathryn 23:46:58 - 3/28/2005 (25418) (1) ● distance, not aftershock, no tsunami - chris in suburbia 04:01:15 - 3/29/2005 (25420) (1) ● Re: distance, not aftershock, no tsunami - Canie 08:15:57 - 3/29/2005 (25424) (1) ● flat thrust, no tsunami - chris in suburbia 08:37:39 - 3/29/2005 (25425) (1) ● no really up on this - John Vidale 21:35:29 - 3/29/2005 (25448) (0) ● Re: mine was a pre-emptive post - Petra 20:03:35 - 3/28/2005 (25413) (1) ● Re: mine was a pre-emptive post - Cathryn 23:48:03 - 3/28/2005 (25419) (0) |
|
|
|
|
