Was There a Volcanic Eruption off California's Coast on December 10th 2017?

So again, no one can actually prove that this is a hoax. No one can prove that what the video shows is a CGI, or anything else.

We only got some people making claims that dutchsinse "must be on drugs and must be insane"... Really?...for what? Pointing out something he saw in satellite imagery and thinking that it could have been caused by an underwater volcano when the event appears out of nowhere and occurs in an area that is full of underwater volcanoes?... Oh boy...yeah the insanity of actually adding one and one together...

How about this. ANYONE prove that the video showing the satellite imagery was faked/CGI...

BTW, before anybody goes to claim "but no seismic monitor recorded any earthquakes"... Well, underwater volcanic eruptions don't always show up in seismic monitors. Again, you don't have to believe me, but here is evidence proving my statement.

Surprise Underwater Volcanic Eruption Discovered
By Andrea Mustain | August 9, 2011 03:44pm ET

An undersea volcano has erupted off the coast of Oregon, spewing forth a layer of lava more than 12 feet (4 meters) thick in some places, and opening up deep vents that belch forth a cloudy stew of hot water and microbes from deep inside the Earth.

Scientists uncovered evidence of the early April eruption on a routine expedition in late July to the Axial Seamount, an underwater volcano that stands 250 miles (400 kilometers) off the Oregon coast.

The discovery came as a surprise, as researchers attempted to recover instruments they'd left behind to monitor the peak a year earlier. When the researchers hefted a seafaring robotic vehicle overboard to fetch the instruments, the feed from the onboard camera sent back images of an alien seafloor landscape.
...

www.livescience.com...

Notice how the article states how the scientists were surprised to see the video showing the eruption because there was no other evidence showing this occurred.

Here is another article explaining how scientists are also using microphones to capture underwater volcanic eruptions because seismic monitors don't always register such eruptions.

Underwater Volcano Eruptions Sound like Gunshots And Can Travel 10,000 Miles Through The Ocean
...
Volcanic activity is usually monitored using seismology. Devices buried deep below the ground pick up vibrations. Seismologists can recognize and record the size and depth of volcanic activity using this data. Sound waves travel differently in vast bodies of water like oceans, so normal seismology can fall short in recording underwater eruptions.
...

uk.news.yahoo.com...

BTW, still waiting for evidence from anyone, including Phage and the moderator who decided to claim this was a hoax without providing any evidence that proves this is a hoax like they claim...

im with u on this. im not sure why its in the hoax bin. im not saying i believe the guy but he makes some interesting conclusions in the video. the part that intrigued myself was the part about the fires in southern california and the possibility of those having been caused by a rush of methane from an eruption along the fault. its not like the leaky gas in southern california is a mysterious new thing either. theyve known for a very long time about the massive amount of natural gas that seeps up through the ground all over southern cali and there is no fix for it.

a reply to: TheScale

Nothing is going to happen. Phage won't admit to being wrong, and she already did the damage she wanted, and like always even when threads that have been sent to "the hoax bin" were later proven to be true there are many which are never taken off the hoax bin...

If the OP wants to know why their thread was moved to this forum, all the OP has to do is privately contact the ATS staff.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
If the OP wants to know why their thread was moved to this forum, all the OP has to do is privately contact the ATS staff.

Well, when I ask all the staff in general i get told "contact the particular moderator who did it". When i contact that particular moderator, not just about this thread, i get no response at all... BTW, i am not saying all moderators do this, and i did try to contact the moderator sending him/her two messages.

But anyway, since Phage wants to claim this is a hoax, make her prove it is a hoax...

BTW Phage, presenting your opinion doesn't equal to evidence. You should know by now the difference between "opinion" (more so biased opinion) and "evidence".

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Where did I claim this was a hoax?

I did point out that the analyses of Dutchsense don't have a very good history of accuracy. He can't seem to tell the difference between rain clouds (and prescribed fires) and volcanic eruptions.

Being an idiot does not make one a hoaxer.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: TheScale

originally posted by: Baddogma
Where does this guy think clouds come from in the first place?

he explains why its not water in his opinion in the video since its not visible in other wavelengths of light that water vapor would normally be visible in

That makes no sense. Clouds are not composed of water vapor. They are composed of water droplets (or ice).

Water vapor is invisible to the human eye, yet we can see clouds. And so can satellites that use visible wavelengths.

Yet another claim from Phage which is false... There is a wavelength that is used in satellite imagery that shows up water vapor content.

www.weather.gov...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Where did I claim this was a hoax?

I did point out that the analyses of Dutchsense don't have a very good history of accuracy. He can't seem to tell the difference between rain clouds (and prescribed fires) and volcanic eruptions.

Being an idiot does not make one a hoaxer.

Really Phage?... When you made this comment about threads which claim that Dutchsinse is a fraud and a hoaxer?... Not to mention that you didn't point out that in one of those threads another member posted a link to another thread in ATS which contradicts the claims made in one of those links you posted...

originally posted by: Phage
Deja Vu all over again.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


And who can forget this all time favorite?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

BTW Phage... Dutchinse knows the difference, he was just saying it wasn't either water vapor, which can be seen in a certain wavelength in satellite imagery contrary to your false claim, and it wasn't caused by the fire... Now you are twisting what he had to say which again shows your dishonesty.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There is a wavelength that is used in satellite imagery that shows up water vapor content.

Of course there is, I didn't say otherwise. You are ignoring the statement to which I replied:

its not visible in other wavelengths of light that water vapor would normally be visible in

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

and it wasn't caused by the fire

I didn't say it was. I referring to his pathetic history.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

When you made this comment about threads which claim that Dutchsinse is a fraud and a hoaxer?

I did not call him a hoaxer. I was pointing out his pathetic history of claiming that rain and prescribed burns are volcanic eruptions.

Being an idiot is not the same as being a hoaxer.

originally posted by: Phage

I did not call him a hoaxer. I was pointing out his pathetic history of claiming that rain and prescribed burns are volcanic eruptions.

Being an idiot is not the same as being a hoaxer.

LOL, really Phage? i doubt you even looked at the video.

Dutchinse used this website, which has a way to look at water vapor content in the atmosphere if you go to "regional products"...

weather.cod.edu...

i wonder if the "idiot" is the person that didn't even watch the video being mentioned and just made several false claims in the same thread...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dutchinse used this website, which has a way to look at water vapor content in the atmosphere if you go to "regional products"...

Yes. I know. You seemed to have missed the point. Clouds do not always appear in water vapor imagery because they are composed mostly of water droplets, not water vapor.

originally posted by: Phage
Yes. I know. You seemed to have missed the point. Clouds do not always appear in water vapor imagery because they are composed mostly of water droplets, not water vapor.

I didn't miss the point. He labeled it "cloudy event" because it looks like a cloud, not because it is a cloud... What he was mentioning is that in the satellite imagery it can be seen that it didn't originate from any clouds, nor from the fire. (The first event he mentions) If you had bothered to watch the first few minutes of the video you would have seen that all your claims are false.

In the satellite imagery it looks like the first event originated from a small point in the surface of the ocean and then spread out as it would be seen in a volcanic eruption.

Of mention, he also never said "you can see water vapor in the visible range"... He never said that, he did mention that looking at the imagery in the wavelength that allows us to see water vapor content that not much is seen there. That's completely different from what you are trying to claim.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

In the satellite imagery it looks like the first event originated from a small point in the surface of the ocean and then spread out as it would be seen in a volcanic eruption.

In the surface of the ocean? How can you tell that?

Of mention, he also never said "you can see water vapor in the visible range"... He never said that,

I didn't say that he did.

Any way, here are two images of the same moment in time. The first is water vapor imagery, the second is visible imagery. The two are clearly very different. Note how clouds appear in the visible imagery and not in the water vapor imagery. Are these all underwater volcanoes, do you think?



Dutchsense thinks a cloud is a volcanic eruption. It's a cloud.

originally posted by: Phage

In the surface of the ocean? How can you tell that?

....Because it originates from one small point and then it spreads out...

originally posted by: Phage
I didn't say that he did.

Any way, here are two images of the same moment in time. The first is water vapor imagery, the second is visible imagery. The two are clearly very different. Note how clouds appear in the visible imagery and not in the water vapor imagery. Are these all underwater volcanoes, do you think?

Dutchsense thinks a cloud is a volcanic eruption. It's a cloud.

What in the world Phage?... Dude, the damn video is in the op. You did not point to the first event he was talking about... I even gave three photos of the first event he was talking about...

Also if you would have bothered to read my op, i wrote that the second event he mentions could be questioned...

These are pictures showing the event, which in the video can be seen much better...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

....Because it originates from one small point and then it spreads out...

That is what clouds often do.

You did not point to the first event he was talking about...

I know, why would I? I was demonstrating that just because the water vapor imagery does not show a cloud, it does not mean it is not a cloud. Nor does the water vapor imagery have to show much water vapor for clouds to form.


It's a cloud.

...Here are pictures in sequence showing the first event after he brightens it so the event can be more clearly seen, which again it is not the cloud you claim he is talking about... He even has the mouse pointer right on the event he is talking about and you are pointing to a cloud that is hundreds of miles away from what he is talking about...

a reply to: Phage

... The first event occurred more or less around the blue circle i marked in the photo below... The red circles are yours...