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.

 

Tsunami Buoy in "EVENT MODE" off New Jersey - Sudden 180' Water Depth Change

page: 1
61
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+16 more 
posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
So I have never made a thread before and usually like to just lurk. Here is my first one!

www.superstation95.com...

I did a search and didn't find this article anywhere so go ahead and remove it if it is a double post. Apparently something off the New Jersey coastline triggered a tsunami buoy. Whatever it was, it caused a 180 foot water depth change in a matter of seconds.

So far the current explanation is a very small meteor that made it through the atmosphere. Very curious to learn what it was for sure. A volcano maybe? Something underneath that corroded and finally collapsed? What are your thoughts ATS?

-qiwi

edit on 24 4 2016 by qiwi676 because: Spelling




posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Could be a malfunction. It would seem that if a meteor did hit nearby they could use the other bouys to show the ripple effect was there. Maybe a UFO picked it up and carried it around or a whale used it's sonar to fool it.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Haha. All possible I suppose. I was also thinking underwater mine? Maybe a submarine is there that shouldn't be?



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I think a meteor would send a ripple effect to the other buoy in the area...
So a submarine seems like a much more plausible explaination...
The bad thing about that is it has been confirmed the US has no subs in the area...
edit on 24-4-2016 by 5StarOracle because: Word


+4 more 
posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   
A 180 foot change in water level is cataclysmic. Wouldn't there be effects seen (and felt) farther afield than just near that buoy if indeed it's not just an erroneous reading?



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Did another bouy nearby pick up similar or other changes?



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Congrats on your first post!

Does anyone know how big these buoys are? Are they small enough that a whale or great white got ahold of it?



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
Did another bouy nearby pick up similar or other changes?


Looking at the interactive map, I don't see any buoys in event mode.

Map



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: nexttothemoon

A 60 metre tsunami surge in the open sea would be the most horrific cataclysm ever visited on mankind.

I hope it's just a playful whale.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Instrument calibration reset.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: qiwi676

Man, that's interesting. The sea at night always gives me a sense of the creeps with the silence and darkness. Probably too much exposure to Jaws as a kid


The neighbouring buoys are over a 100 miles away so it does seem possible for the alert to be genuine without the others measuring anything. The 55 metres (180ft) charts its rise and fall so the buoy will have risen 90ft and back down again.

A 90ft wave is massive. It's also on the outer edges of recorded wave sizes so perhaps the buoy caught a very rare 'rogue wave.'



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Just doing a little further reading on Wikipedia and it seems waves in excess of even 40 metres are not out of the realm of possibility...

"The Fastnet Lighthouse off the south coast of Ireland was struck by a 47m High Wave in 1985."

and...

"On 11 March 1861 at midday the lighthouse on Eagle Island,[3] off the west coast of Ireland was struck by a large wave that smashed 23 panes, washing some of the lamps down the stairs, and damaging beyond repair the reflectors with broken glass. In order to damage the uppermost portion of the lighthouse, water would have had to surmount a seaside cliff measuring 40 m (133 ft) and a further 26 m (87 ft) of lighthouse structure."

Further reading from this article...

www.surfersvillage.com...

"In "The Bird in the Waterfall," Jerry Dennis and Glenn Wolff report that computer models can produce theoretical waves as high as 219 feet (67 meters)."




It seems rogue waves hitting a shoreline can push water hundreds of feet up onto land so waves on the open ocean measuring in excess of 40 metres... while likely extremely rare... are still apparently a possibility.
edit on 25-4-2016 by nexttothemoon because: spelling



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: nexttothemoon

Good post.

Can you imagine a more daunting thing than a rogue wave hitting a boat in the early hours? All smashed and drowned in a moment. Yikes.

Yeah, rogue wave appears like a reasonable explanation (barring a glitch).



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   
A 90 foot wave is absolutely not uncommon in the open ocean.

There is a video on YouTube of a United States aircraft carrier having the crest of a wave crash OVER THE TOP of the flight deck, and for any interested, Google the DRAUPNER WAVE, which is accepted as the first scientific evidence of rogue waves. IIRC it was over 90 feet tall.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: nexttothemoon
Just doing a little further reading on Wikipedia and it seems waves in excess of even 40 metres are not out of the realm of possibility...

"The Fastnet Lighthouse off the south coast of Ireland was struck by a 47m High Wave in 1985."

and...

"On 11 March 1861 at midday the lighthouse on Eagle Island,[3] off the west coast of Ireland was struck by a large wave that smashed 23 panes, washing some of the lamps down the stairs, and damaging beyond repair the reflectors with broken glass. In order to damage the uppermost portion of the lighthouse, water would have had to surmount a seaside cliff measuring 40 m (133 ft) and a further 26 m (87 ft) of lighthouse structure."

Further reading from this article...

www.surfersvillage.com...

"In "The Bird in the Waterfall," Jerry Dennis and Glenn Wolff report that computer models can produce theoretical waves as high as 219 feet (67 meters)."




It seems rogue waves hitting a shoreline can push water hundreds of feet up onto land so waves on the open ocean measuring in excess of 40 metres... while likely extremely rare... are still apparently a possibility.

Jesus wept...that's some big waves. Maybe the rogues we here about that simply swamp supposedly unsinkable vessels.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

The ESA sent a satellite up specifically to hunt for rogue waves...... the results were actually quite alarming (for those that don't lke sea travel!). They did this because over 200 super tankers and container ships were sunk over a 20 year period, so some seriously expensive losses.

In short, rogue waves are actually fairly common. However, there are certain areas where they are more common. The North and South Atlantic certainly get them, as do the North and South Pacific but an area that seems to get lots is the Cape of Good Hope (tip of South Africa). Since the satellite went up in 2004, there have actually been much less ships sunk as the shipping companies now use this data to plan their routes.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

Rogue waves seem a bit scary. Haven't read a about any damage on the NJ coast yet though (inland or on the water) so that's good. If it was a wave. Nobody was around to see it.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I first thought submarine, and NASA also mentions that possibility, and if there has been no seismic activity, it makes some sense. The military will rarely comment on anything like that.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: qiwi676

Really good catch on this!!!

My first thought was rogue wave after no corroborating data came in from other sources.Altho it could still be a boy malfunction?



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Isn't 180ft depth displacement a bit much for a sub? I mean, how exactly would that happen in the open ocean?

I'm gonna guess malfunction.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join