Its a Normal Phenomenen...Get Over It

In the case of the China earthquake, I think you nail it like you always do
But there are other report of strange phenomenon before, during and after a big quake called earthquake lights
But earthquake light have reasonable explanation.
IMO opinion the best explanation is the piezoelectric one.

The earthquake crush rocks containing quartz crystals. Wich cause piezoelectricity.
This piezoelectricity create a magnetic field wich affect particle in the upper atmosphere like an aurora borealis would.

(Im not really good at vulgarizing)(even less in english)

Here 3 exemples of this

1
2
3

All of those video show the same light from 3 different point of view.

reply to post by OzWeatherman


I'm glad you brought this up, i agree fully. It seems people always lok to any natural disaster as unnatural.

Just for a second lets assume it was govvernmet caused, why would the clouds change? It seems to me it would be rock based not cloud based.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
So can we please drop the whole strange cloud causing earthquake/ chemtrail/ HAARP crap...

Yes, I am willing to drop the unsubstantiated nonsense behind these normal phenom, called iridescence clouds, if you are willing to believe in the spiritual aspect from a thread, which suggests nacreous clouds as a sign for mankind.

Iridescent clouds

Very much rarer iridescence is that of nacreous or mother-of-pearl clouds. They can glow very brightly and are far higher than ordinary tropospheric clouds. Iridescence is also seen in rocket exhaust trails.

[edit on 2008-5-20 by pikypiky]

reply to post by Jigore



Very interesting information.

I will make a point to do some research on that...

Thanks for the insight.

reply to post by Jigore


Now that makes complete sense, That effect is a well known problem in Oil and Natural gas drilling when fires erupt on the rigs. Most rigs are grounded to prevent this from happening when drilling through quartz deposits. Good post, thanks.

Zindo

Basically, isn't it the same kind of thing when you see a rainbow? or light through a prism?

Originally posted by jpm1602
Forgive me your majesty Oz. Some believe they 'were' earthquake lights. Whom are you? The God of all weather? You make me laugh sometimes in your sneering condescending way. Get over yourself already 'extraodinairre'.

Speaking of condescending....

The only here that needs to get over themselves is you.

Instead of attacking him because he does not subscribe to idiotic, moronic, stupid theories that are not supported by any sort of evidence, and is daring to show how these are natural phenomena...why don't you produce some sort of evidence that shows he is wrong, and that these clouds are "earthquake lights."

Originally posted by pikypiky
Yes, I am willing to drop the unsubstantiated nonsense behind these normal phenom, called iridescence clouds, if you are willing to believe in the spiritual aspect from a thread, which suggests nacreous clouds as a sign for mankind.

Yes, that's makes complete sense. Let's believe something that is backed up by science, observable phenomena...if only we can get Oz to believe something that is supported by a few lines in a book.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Instead of attacking him because he does not subscribe to idiotic, moronic, stupid theories that are not supported by any sort of evidence, and is daring to show how these are natural phenomena

He who said the earth wasn't flat was considered idiotic, moronic, and stupid too, wasn't he???

Science is great, but it is also locked in a box.

When all they had was candlelight electricity would have been considered Idiotic, moronic, and stupid.

Originally posted by interestedalways
He who said the earth wasn't flat was considered idiotic, moronic, and stupid too, wasn't he???

Science is great, but it is also locked in a box.

Wow...you really missed the point of what I said, didn't you?

I'll spell it out for you: provide evidence that he is wrong, that the phenomena observed in China was either not natural, or not a common meteorological event.

reply to post by SaviorComplex



I understand, let me try this.........

Aircraft flying through such areas during landing
approaches become positively charged in contrast to what is normally
experienced during regular fairweather flights. The explanation is
that if an aluminium fuselage is subject to ventilation of an abnormally
high positive to negative ion ratio, where N+ / N- = 1.3 or more then,
according to Fig. 11, the aircraft must charge positively.

Exhaust charging also plays an important role in geophysical
phenomena such as volcanic eruptions which often produce lightning
and during earthquakes where a glow or earthquake light is emitted
along fissures and cracks

. There is
also a growing interest in planetary atmospheric electricity as a
consequence of data sent back from space probes.

Earthquake light is a rare phenomenon and its existence is still being
questioned by some scientists. It was not before 1965, during the
Matsushiro earthquakes in Japan, that actual photos were obtained of
earthquake light (Yasui, 1968 and 1971). Earthquake light has been
observed as a faint red and white glow for hundreds of miles around
just before the earth begins to shake and crack along a fault zone.
There has been much speculation on what might cause earthquake
light. One fact is certain, that the light must come from atoms that
have been ionized or excited by some mechanism triggered by the earthquake. The light is emitted when a detached or excited electron
falls back again into its stable orbit around the atomic nucleus.
Ionizing collisions in air, between atoms and particles or between
atoms and photons, by far outnumber exciting collisions. Ionization of
air molecules, to the extent where the sky will glow for miles around,
could be caused by corona discharges near the earth's surface or by
ionized exhaust gas escaping from the hot interior below the earth's
crust. It has been suggested that frictional heating of a shear zone will
occur during an earthquake and that the frictional heat will lead to
vaporization of water in and near the shear zone (Lockner et al, 1979).
The result would be a drastic increase in the electric resistivity of the
rock throughout the shear zone coupled with some sort of charge
separation due to the evaporation of water. After enough charge has
been collected in the shear zone, corona discharges along its top edge
would stream into the atmosphere like St. Elmo's fire. One problem,
however, is that corona discharges draw a great deal of current
( 100mA per cm2) and it is difficult to understand how such a current
can be supplied over a highly insulating rock surface. Also, corona is
quite a noisy phenomenon unlike silent earthquake light

sorry, couldn't use external source feature.


edit to attempt to show source, pdf file had no url so this is the best I could get.

[PDF] CHAPTER 5 FAIRWEATHER PHENOMENA 5.1 EXPERIMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS
91k

Thank you, SC, for helping me to contribute in a better way.

May I also link this thread which has gathered a wealth of info on the phenomena of the connections between HAARP and other manmade occurances regarding potential occurances in this realm of thought.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 22-5-2008 by interestedalways]

Originally posted by interestedalways

Thank you, SC, for helping me to contribute in a better way.

You're welcome! Anything for a damsel in distress!

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I think we have to distinguish between two things:
1. to explain scientifically the lights phenomena observed anywhere (China, Peru, Germany etc.) and
2. to make correlation observed lights with earthquakes.

The arguments exchanged between Oz and InterestedAlways are moving on these two different levels. Oz purely explains the lights phenomena, and IA wants to explain the origin of these lights phenomena, which could be induced 'naturally' (lights without earthquakes) or 'humanly' (lights with earthquakes).

Having no trust at all to our governments (many examples showed in the past and present that my suspicion is justified), I would be cautious by eliminating the second hypothesis.

Hope this will bring a more constructive debate, than to fight saying who is (not) right. ;0))

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Thanks for the input acknowldeging credence for all to be explored.

Originally posted by jpm1602
Forgive me your majesty Oz. Some believe they 'were' earthquake lights. Whom are you? The God of all weather? You make me laugh sometimes in your sneering condescending way. Get over yourself already 'extraodinairre'.

Hi JPM, let me ask you...What makes you think the colorful clouds seen before the earthquake are some sort of "earthquake light"? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim, or is just a belief? If just a belief, why do you believe it?

When I read something I ATS, I like to do research, look at the evidence, and then make up my mind. In this case, I did some research, then when I was going to post, saw OZ's post, which agreed with what I was going to say. Now we also have scientists stating that the clouds were a natural occurance (and they are, I've seen them many times) and had nothing to do with the earthquake.

So with all that evidence that has been posted in this thread, what evidence do you have that these "lights" were harbingers of the quake?

Here are a few more sites regarding this phenomenon.

source 1

source2

source3

lots of good pictures of the same phenomenon.