not an aftershock
Posted by John Vidale on March 28, 2005 at 20:27:32:

This latest quake seemed to break the next stretch of the subduction zone to the south of the December earthquake, so I'd call it a new earthquake, although undoubtedly triggered by the one in December.


Follow Ups:
     ● 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)