"Earthquake clouds" over Las Vegas, New Mexico?

reply to post by FireballStorm


Absolutely correct. My own "avatar" pic is of a circumhorizontal arc that was taken by me last year while riding along in a car. I need to enhance it a bit more so that it looks as colorful as when I saw it.

I had seen stories and pictures of these being called earthquake clouds before but I decided to research a bit after seeing that one and realized it was just a great combination of factors that made it appear and had nothing to do with anything going on underfoot. I still scan the sky when the sun is high and when there are wispy cirrus clouds about.

Originally posted by Iamschist
reply to post by MariaLida

 

Here is one thread .. www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have read many of your threads and posts, and enjoyed them, so it is with all due respect I ask you, are saying if you read it on ATS it must be true?

Mamatus is correct. There have been reports of 'lights' a phenomena visible at night, prior to earthquakes, but clouds, not so much. Clouds and earthquakes are not related. It has to do with the sun reflecting on the ice in the clouds, refraction.

edit on 16-5-2013 by Iamschist because: (no reason given)

There is no evidence connecting these clouds to earthquakes. There probably has not been any investigation into it yet either. Just because there is no evidence that shows a connection under these conditions does not mean that it is not real. When someone actually properly investigates this and says there is no evidence they are related than I will probably say ok, now it may have merrit and the clouds are not related. Just because someone says they are not related, no matter what their credentials, without as much as looking at one bit of information doesn't mean I will automatically believe them. I know people who do this kind of stuff, chuckling at the questions people ask. They blow it off and never research it because they are experts in the field. They use evidence and knowledge not pertinent to the situation all the time. Now, if you dangle two hundred grand in front of their noses, that is a different story.

I can't say if these are earthquake clouds, I haven't the means of getting evidence. I am just saying I can not discount something without proper legit evidence.

Well there was this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Don't claim to have any knowledge if the "earthlights" in the video have a connection to the earthquake that shortly followed but I can see why the OP posted this.

reply to post by NiteNGale2


Nice catch NiteNGale2! I have yet to see/photograph my first circumhorizontal arc, although I have photographed quite a few circumzenithal arcs and various other halos/arcs.

Keep looking, and not just when the Sun is high, or you will miss all the other halos/arcs

Originally posted by rickymouse
There is no evidence connecting these clouds to earthquakes. There probably has not been any investigation into it yet either. Just because there is no evidence that shows a connection under these conditions does not mean that it is not real.

How exactly do you investigate something when there is no evidence?

Have you got/seen another example of a CHA being observed prior to an earthquake?

You do understand that one example means nothing statistically?

So if there was an example of someone who saw a thunderstorm (or tornado, or meteor, or a plane leaving a contrail, or any other phenomena) prior to an earthquake, would you then consider that there might be connection between the two phenomena?

What about all the CHAs that occur and there is no earthquake? You do know CHAs are quite common when the Sun reaches a certain altitude above the horizon don't you?

Was there an earthquake in this case?

reply to post by FireballStorm


A person can look at data and evaluate if it has any similarities. I don't think that these clouds can be used alone as an indicator though. They may possibly be used in conjunction with other events though.

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.

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?