posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:28 PM
Originally posted by JohnVidale
Our solution puts it deep, but I prefer the interface depth.
Ok, so this would imply you put out the overall solution by consensus? May I ask how many people are routinely providing the votes for overall
consensus on depth? I have to admit though, that if you prefer another depth than that provided by the consensus solution, that says quite a bit about
your character as the director of the PNSN. And that is to be admired.
This situation is different than was the case when the event was really far offshore. There, the initial analyst misinterpreted it (missing
the very late S waves), and I had to correct it several hours later when I noticed her mistake.
So in this case, the S waves were clear enough to determine at the very least that you are SURE, those quakes were not out to sea....right?
Let me know if this didn't answer your question.
Yeah it did, to a degree, although perhaps some things are better left to private email- and you have been quite responsive there too, so thanks.
OK, so for the moment, let's say we operate under the assumption that those quake locations are correct. I mean ATS, now come on, we have no better
source at this point to assess this. And you all see that there is controversy surrounding the depths of them from the very best source there is. So
if we were to choose the consensus depth as well, and we have two quakes now at the subduction boundary depth, in addition to all the other activity,
then hey. You all can look away or take note. Up to you all.
One thing's for darn sure though. Better keep the eyes open. But here: I'll play it safe, and just say that those quakes are probably just
adjustments to the recent activity on the JDF/Gorda plates. No big deal.
Cause if I said what my real concerns were, I'd just get laughed at again.