Perhaps I should not have left that sentence as it ended up since it is lacking context. I was wondering out loud which direction the camera was pointing relati

Perhaps I should not have left that sentence as it ended up since it is lacking context. I was wondering out loud which direction the camera was pointing relative to the epicenter of the quake and where the camera was located so that one could attempt to place the observed lights relative to the epicenter and perhaps determine whether there is a surface expression of the ruptured fault that one could tie to the lights. The initial assumption in this case would be that the lights observed are in the sky and are caused by the quake perhaps as a precursor or as a direct result of ground motion generating energy sufficient to cause lights to be seen during the quake through some energy transfer mechanism that is currently poorly defined. I'm not sure why you think the epicenter is unimportant in describing the "physical quake". To the geologist it helps establish rock types present in the rupture zone based on their knowledge of tectonic history and stratigraphy of the region. The characteristics of the overburden also help to understand how each wave mode in the full wavefield of the earthquake with be manifest at the surface as the energy propagates from the source (at the epicenter). The initial estimation of the magnitude of the earthquake may be revised as data from more sensors is factored in to the location determination, that is true. That does not mean that it is just a wild guess or that it is poorly constrained.