Still, it's an earthquake in the region. I wonder if the depth is reported as being too low, would an actual shallower depth allow for a quake that is further away? Or, if it's not really a quake but an underground explosion, could the seismic readings from the USGS confuse the depth and location, making it look like it was further away and deeper than it really was?
-PJ
Ah.... now I know what my THIRD mistake was. (they always come in threes, for some reason)