Multiazimuth seismic data contains information about how the Earth’s seismic response changes with azimuthal direction. Directional-dependence of the seismic response can be caused by anisotropy or heterogeneity, associated with subsurface features such as fractures, stresses, or structure. Characterizing azimuthal variations is done through velocity analysis, which provides a link between an acquired data set and its image, as well as between the image and subsurface geology. At the stage which conventional velocity analysis is applied, it is difficult to distinguish the geologic cause of observed azimuthal velocity variations. The inability to distinguish the similar effects of anisotropy and heterogeneity leads to positioning errors in the final image and velocity estimates. Regardless of the cause, azimuthally variable velocities require at least three parameters to characterize, as opposed to the conventional single-parameter isotropic velocity. The semblance scan is the conventional tool for seismic velocity analysis, but it was designed for the isotropic case. For multiple parameters, the semblance scan becomes computationally impractical. In order to help address the xiissues of geologic ambiguity and computational efficiency, I develop three methods for multiazimuth seismic velocity analysis based on “velocity-independent” imaging techniques. I call this approach, velocity analysis by velocity-independent imaging, where I reverse the conventional order of velocity estimation followed by image estimation. All three methods measure time-domain effective-velocity parameters. The first method, 3D azimuthally anisotropic velocity-independent NMO, replaces the explicit measurement of velocity with local slope detection. The second method, time-warping, uses local slope information to predict traveltime surfaces without any moveout assumption beforehand, and then fit them with a multiparameter velocity model. The third method, azimuthal velocity continuation, uses diffraction image focusing as a velocity analysis criterion, thereby performing imaging and velocity analysis simultaneously. The first two methods are superior to the semblance scan in terms of computational efficiency and their ability to handle multi-parameter models. The third method is similar to a single multi-parameter semblance scan in computational cost, but it helps handle the ambiguity between structural heterogeneity and anisotropy, which leads to better positioned images and velocity estimates. / text