got it
Posted by John Vidale on August 21, 2012 at 22:23:32:

I have to say that the signals associated with earthquakes in the papers look quite unlikely to me - too big and way too far away not to appear on all the other sensitive geodetic measurements, many of them much closer to the faults that broke, and the coincidence in space and time does not seem rigorously evaluated.

Follow Ups:
     ● Re: got it - Pavel Kalenda  23:31:19 - 8/21/2012  (80162)  (1)
        ● that signal is way too big - John Vidale  23:53:44 - 8/21/2012  (80163)  (1)
           ● Re: that signal is way too big - Pavel Kalenda  00:30:55 - 8/22/2012  (80164)  (1)
              ● confusing - John Vidale  09:56:57 - 8/22/2012  (80168)  (3)
                 ● Re: confusing - Pavel Kalenda  02:13:23 - 8/23/2012  (80177)  (1)
                    ● Re: confusing - Skywise  09:30:01 - 8/23/2012  (80181)  (0)
                 ● Re: confusing - Pavel Kalenda  13:38:38 - 8/22/2012  (80171)  (1)
                    ● Berger - John Vidale  15:11:57 - 8/22/2012  (80172)  (1)
                       ● Re: Berger - Pavel Kalenda  00:29:24 - 8/23/2012  (80176)  (1)
                          ● move discussion to new thread? - heartland chris  06:33:14 - 8/23/2012  (80179)  (1)
                             ● no point - John Vidale  09:30:51 - 8/24/2012  (80193)  (0)
                 ● typo correction - John Vidale  10:01:33 - 8/22/2012  (80169)  (0)