It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unknown orange/red glow over Pacific Ocean

page: 4
186
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
My first thought was bioluminescent plankton but I can't seem to find any images that show occurrence in colours other than white / blue (hence the term milky seas).

The scale however can be massive...



Further reading: Milky Seas

The mystery continues!
edit on 25/8/2014 by Fazza! because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck

I agree. That picture doesn't really scream "taken from a plane" to me. However, if these are legit, could they be earthquake lights?



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   


Then, very far in the distance ahead of us, just over the horizon an intense lightflash shot up from the ground. It looked like a lightning bolt, but way more intense and directed vertically up in the air. I have never seen anything like this, and there were no flashes before or after this single explosion of light.


I was wondering if from their perspective they may have seen a meteor flash down and not a light flash up.
What would it look like under the water.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck

Go outside, tilt your head up at the night sky, walk a bit and tell me how much the stars move. Objects further in the distance seem to move with you. Now I'd imagine it would be pretty much like this in an airplane flying level at an altitude, so these images could just be possible even with the long exposure time, provided there was a tripod.

Also shooting in the dark requires the exposure to be long. If you look at the picture with the copilot visible, you can certainly see he moved about in the frame during the exposure. Also as the ground moves faster than the stars relative to the plane it would explain why the glowy bits in the sea appear more blurry than the stars in the sky.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnonymousWitness
I came across this story on a Dutch website. This is my first thread, I didn't know where to post this, please move the thread if it doesn't belong here.


Link to PBase.com Story


First of all, not to burst the OP's "first post" bubble, but Pbase IS NOT a "dutch" website...It's a photography website used to host photographer's galleries, etc. Pbase is actually one of the least attractive and antiquated photo sites out there.

PBase

Anyhow, the person who posted the photos is called "The Flying Dutchman" and the photos are linked to his Pbase page. If you look thru his galleries, there are all sorts of strange sky phenomena this dude has just happened to catch in several photos.

I truly believe these are hoaxed photos. Although I have no "proof", I have experience as a photographer and know there is no way shots with a 30 second exposure time that came out this clear, could have been taken from a plane. Regardless of the camera model, the lens type (fisheye), ISO, or any other settings that are mentioned, 30 seconds is 30 seconds and to a photog, that is a LONG time!


Air Traffic Control and an investigation into what happened in this remote region of the ocean is now started. Link to this "investigation"??

Two photos included, hardly edited except for watermark and resize.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Where are some of you getting an exposure time of 30 seconds? I thought the EXIF data said 8 seconds? I thought maybe it was the reflection from lights on the Engineers panel, but IDK.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: lovebeck

Never tried this myself but it's a full frame Nikon camera the lens is 10mm focal length the other pictures look legit ie in an aircraft.

Taking an average speed for the aircraft of 500mph it would have traveled 3.8 miles during the exposure I don't think there would be a dramatic change in the background stars that's why it would be good to see the full size file.


That makes sense to me, although I still go with the lights being Lava rock on a new island. The Nishinoshima/Niijima* island is doing all that now, has two calderas, (the plume upward?) and cloud, has various lava flows going down to the sea, and is growing. The only thing is the position, it's about 1000kms..600miles south east of Tokyo, although the plane did leave Hong Kong and presumably flew over the pacific southeast of Tokyo, it could have been seen in the distance, and would surely have all the glows described, it might even have it's own bit of aurora at very high altitude as well as sulphur red glow lower down.

*Not to be confused with Nii-jima
edit on 25-8-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck
I suppose you may have a point, although your jumping all over my complimentary statement(with a frowny face nonetheless..to make sure you strongly signal your displeasure..) is a bit reactionary.

Well I suppose it is true nothing is real anymore, everyone's faking it, and we simple humans know everything and can explain everything. That clears that up I suppose....

A few years back on here people believed in mystery and the unknown without thinking they had all the answers. There are many things in this world that are the beyond the understanding of our human brains, but now everythings called fake, a hoax, staged..etc. I'm not sure when this world became full of this sort of business..but I suppose internet posters do know best after all...no frowny face for you.




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I was wondering about methane emissions as well. Maybe ignited by an underwater lava source? the one picture looks like the setting sun on the horizon.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: lovebeck

originally posted by: AnonymousWitness
I came across this story on a Dutch website. This is my first thread, I didn't know where to post this, please move the thread if it doesn't belong here.


Link to PBase.com Story


First of all, not to burst the OP's "first post" bubble, but Pbase IS NOT a "dutch" website...It's a photography website used to host photographer's galleries, etc. Pbase is actually one of the least attractive and antiquated photo sites out there.

PBase


If you read carefully, I have Dutch website hyperlinked, follow that link, and you will end up on a Dutch website, this is where I initially stumbled upon this story.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outtis
a reply to: lovebeck

Go outside, tilt your head up at the night sky, walk a bit and tell me how much the stars move. Objects further in the distance seem to move with you. Now I'd imagine it would be pretty much like this in an airplane flying level at an altitude, so these images could just be possible even with the long exposure time, provided there was a tripod.

Also shooting in the dark requires the exposure to be long. If you look at the picture with the copilot visible, you can certainly see he moved about in the frame during the exposure. Also as the ground moves faster than the stars relative to the plane it would explain why the glowy bits in the sea appear more blurry than the stars in the sky.



Thanks for the (unneeded) photography lesson...Your comment "dark requires exposure to be long" is EXACTLY my point. There is NO way that a photo is going to come out like that, taken from an airplane, with a 30 second exposure. Most people that are serious about photography understand this. Also, if taking such a long exposure then why the need for such a high ISO?

Please understand that I do know what I am talking about. I've taken thousands of photos over the years. When I take long exposure photos I even use a remote to ensure there is no camera shake.

Btw, I don't need to go out and look at the night sky, thanks though. Your point makes no sense as THE PLANE IS MOVING. The camera would also be moving, there would be camera shake, etc. Even on a tripod, the plane is moving, so would the lights and there would be some star trails if, in fact, that was a 30 second exposure.

There is so much wrong with the photo, and the way it was supposedly taken, that there is no way this is legit.
Period.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
People keep forgetting about the beam on forehand!

Two mysterieus sightings within a short timespan is likely to be related.


So forget the alge's or vulcano's.


I remember user Zaphod talking about some new beam weapon wat is already in a visible testing fase.




That is what intrigues me the most. I am thinking of contacting the pilot, perhaps we can view the images in full resolution albeit watermarked.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: lovebeck
This photo in particular has me stumped and thinking this is a possible hoax:



This looks like it was taken from a mountain top, or some other high vantage point, on a tripod and without camera shake. Not a plane. I do not see how one could take a THIRTY SECOND EXPOSURE, let alone a 3 second one, without major blurring of the the entire photo if it was taken from a plane cruising at 34,000 feet in the air.

You'd have to STOP the plane, and that isn't happening, to get this shot.

To me it looks like a possible forest fire, taken from a high and far away vantage point, with the "northern lights" added in during post. Or for those who speak Photoshop, a composite of the images.

I just don't buy it and that is based on my own experience as a photographer and as someone who's flown quite a bit...

However, if there is someone with both a physics and photography background that can explain this, then by all means...Explain away!


Yes and as Nyiah said page one the shape is very like The Door to Hell


and the horizon is similar, the other looks like valley pictures like some here, Iceland skies look closest though to me. Or simply looking down into the Door to Hell www.aaroads.com...




edit on 25-8-2014 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AnonymousWitness

I did follow your link. It took me to his Pbase gallery...



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: waverlyhills

Sorry, didn't mean to hurt your feelings...The non-smiley face was due to the fact the photog didn't use high ISO NR and wasn't directed toward your post.

Good grief, the fact that I have to reply in order to explain my use of emoticons is making my head hurt.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

It is very similar...Were is this Door to Hell?



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck

It wasn't a 30-second exposure. It was 8-second.

Also as anyone who has flown up that high know, the land moves very slowly.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: lovebeck
a reply to: Char-Lee

It is very similar...Were is this Door to Hell?


billions of photos of it, scary place.




The Door to Hell is a natural gas field in Derweze (also spelled Darvaze, meaning "gate"), Ahal Province, Turkmenistan.
Door to Hell is noted for its natural gas fire which has been burning continuously since it was lit by Soviet petrochemical engineers in 1971



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck
No need to apologize, trust me my feelings weren't hurt, it takes a bit more than some back and forth on a message board to hurt me. I was sort of using a bit of sarcasm, although I suppose in the internet days subtle humor is a lost art.

It appears that despite how interesting it would be if this were true, the photography skeptics are correct and this is debunked. This sort of trickery is why no-one believes in anything anymore however. There are so many out there faking phenomenon that on the offhand chance that someone actually catches something interesting and real no-one believes it anymore ,it's a shame Really

I believe the Aesop fable we can reference here is called "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"...



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: waverlyhills



but now everythings called fake, a hoax, staged..etc. I'm not sure when this world became full of this sort of business


Very sad indeed that we have to question now so much because there are so many liars and hoaxers and it seems if they are caught people just pat them on the back for having fooled us all. personally I wish there was a criminal offence for hoaxing anyone found to be trying to fool everyone should have a huge fine.



Well I suppose it is true nothing is real anymore

However I have to disagree with this, it is simply that the true is now hidden in the haystack and I am not sure how much we can find.




top topics



 
186
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join