posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:43 PM
Originally posted by rickymouse
I just hate when people say something is not real just because there is no evidence when in fact noone has investigated whether there is even
evidence. That is like saying there are no fish in a creek because nobody fishes there.
What you are saying is like saying ""there was a robbery at a continence store just as a Toyota pickup was driving by, so we should look into the
connection between Toyotas and convenience store robberies".
Why should CHAs be connected to earthquakes any more than red sunsets, rainbows, or lenticular clouds? Because one idiot on youtube says it's so? Do
you always look to youtube for scientifically valid information?
Or other ice halo phenomena like sundogs, 22 degree halos, or this circumzenithal arc that I photographed (which is not showing up right now because
of an imageshack server error!):
...If it happened to be one of the above mentioned phenomena that appeared in the "earthquake lights" footage rather than a CHA. So you might say "but
it wasn't one of those, it was a CHA", and I'd reply to that by saying it could easily have been one of those.
Do you not understand/believe in the concept coincidence?
I could understand your stance if there were multiple examples of CHAs occurring before major earthquakes, but we have only a single (statistically
insignificant) example. Perhaps we should investigate every other spurious claim made on a youtube video too? We could waste lots of time and
resources doing that too
So if you are so convinced that there is something to this why don't you
go and find the evidence?
edit on 17-5-2013 by FireballStorm
because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-5-2013 by FireballStorm because: (no reason given)