Rare Optical Displays in the Skies Harbinger Of Changes Within the Earth?

reply to post by westcoast


Any photos of the newest Halo? I'll do my best to not hold the fact that you're a nikon user against you (team canon *7D* here)

Ok finally made it through your entire OP. I will kindly retract my scoffing from page 1.

Your theory is actually quite interesting, and I feel slightly daft for smirking at it initially. I've been anticipating big seismicity in the Pacific NW / Cascades for a little while now and your theory + visual evidence actually makes me wonder if we are seeing "the signs" as you say.

I'll have to go back and check all the other seismic indicators to see if there is any trend of "risk" to match your uptick in visual cues.

Nice thread. Finally gave you that flag I promised.

I enjoyed this thread because i can relate, i recently spent a few weeks out in Utah skiing back in February. Prior to this i had been there once before, but had never seen a sun halo. The whole week at Snowbasin and Powder Mountain (Huntsville, UT) 9,000/10,000 ft up or so i was lucky enough to have a sun halo every sunny day.

@westcoast,

6-18 @ ~ 1100-1300 PST, Sacramento, CA

Unusually bright sun rainbow 360 degrees worth with Firebow, took pics on my phone will figure out how to upload those later today (old school flip phone).

Looked exactly like this: (your 4th pic from your last post with pics in it)

Yo Westcoast:

Great photos!

Nice to see an Ellensburg Bulldog on ATS. (Class of '65 here.)

Go get 'em and thank you for all you do.

[color=magenta]Peace Love Light
tfw [color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution

reply to post by bkaust


Here is a picture of the last one I saw (on the 16th, day after the big one, day before yesterday)


(as you can see, not as bright as the last one. This is more typical)

I won't hold your Nikon dislike against you....

Originally posted by Heliophant
Ok finally made it through your entire OP. I will kindly retract my scoffing from page 1.

Your theory is actually quite interesting, and I feel slightly daft for smirking at it initially. I've been anticipating big seismicity in the Pacific NW / Cascades for a little while now and your theory + visual evidence actually makes me wonder if we are seeing "the signs" as you say.

I'll have to go back and check all the other seismic indicators to see if there is any trend of "risk" to match your uptick in visual cues.

Nice thread.

Finally gave you that flag I promised.

Glad you found it interesting! Like I said, I am not 'sold' on it, but think it possible.



That so many people seem to be having the same experience, leads me to think it's not so much just my own personal awareness. This latest display (a day after starting this thread) makes me wonder even more.


@gauchedetroit - looking forward to seeing your picture! Hope you can get it uploaded

@thorforwinds - thank you! Class of '90 here! small world.

Interesting!

So many strange atmospheric events!

I have sort-of a Question, here. Are these Events happening mostly just in the Pacific Northwest area, or all over North America?! This is crucial, whether either or, to me.
If this is happening all over North America and the world, then one could attribute the Happenings to maybe cosmic rays, the elevation of increased energy that the new agers say is happening to us all at the 2012 age-rollover.
If this is happening in just the local area of the NW coast, this means that perhaps the underground plates are being stressed and some kind of "radiation' or gas is being emitted into the air.

there are psychics, i read, that predict a Richter 9+ for this area some day soon.
think: "japan and tidal wave" kind of crustal quake!
next week?
10 years from now?
50 years from now?
---how long do precurser events happen before the actual quake?!

freestone

reply to post by freestonew


Those are all good questions. It would seem that most of the posters on this thread stating they are seeing the same things are along the West Coast, and I think one in Idaho. Another reason that caused me to think of this possible link, because I have noticed whenever I post pictures on halos (in other previous threads) many people on the West coast have stated they have been seeing them a lot too.

Oh...and there is another, weaker one again today.

As for the Cascadian Subduction Zone; it is very similar to the Japan subduction zone. The other side of the same plate. Our potential for a +9 quake is very, very real. Most people around here are ill prepared for it.

There are new articles coming out every year stating more evidence that indicates we are approaching the 'breaking' point. Still no idea however on when exactly that will be. They keep narrowing the gap though.

Hi Westcoast. Beautiful photos, and interesting hypothesis.

I saw this video a few months back, and after reading this thread, I thought it was semi-related.

The video shows the waves in the atmosphere from a rocket breaking the sound barrier. Sound waves and seismic waves are the technically the same phenomena (P-waves), they just travel through different mediums, and are generated by different sources.
This video gives a cool visual, and what is really interesting, is that the rocket breaking the sound barrier coincides with a sundog. The action begins at 1:50 into the video, and then replays a few times.

reply to post by Olivine


Holy Moly, that is so cool! It looks like ripples in a pond! I wish it was pointed a bit more to the right so we could have seen more of the sun dog!

"Rainbow" Around Sun Draws Attention

SACRAMENTO- A “rainbow” around the sun seemed to have gotten everyone’s attention Tuesday afternoon throughout the Sacramento Valley. Apparently, the sight is caused by light reflecting through ice crystals inside high, thin cirrus clouds tens of thousands of feet above our heads.

@westcoast, this is what I was talking about the other day, glad others caught it and got the word out locally here. It was very vivid on Tuesday. I cannot find the cord for the phone to plug-in to the pc, but once I do I will upload.

reply to post by Olivine


The premise of this thread was laughable to begin with, but with the post referred to above it is now farcical too.

So evidence that shock-waves (from a sonic boom caused by the SDO launch) destroys halos (the formally regular orientations of ice-crystals which give us halos and arcs are disrupted and randomized) now supports the "theory" that similar shock-waves from Earth itself make halos/arcs more common? How exactly does that work then?

A little like saying evidence that bullets fired at glass (resulting in the destruction of glass) is evidence that bullets are involved in the creation of glass

Great job people! The ignorance displayed on this thread really is astounding - a real credit to ATS

reply to post by FireballStorm

Good Morning FireballStorm,

I'm certain I could have worded my post more clearly, but I fail to see how it is "farcical".

I stated that I thought the video was "semi-related" to the OP's topic; not indisputible supporting evidence of her hypothesis. Secondly, pertaining to the sundog I wrote:

the rocket breaking the sound barrier coincides with a sundog.

"Coincides", not "causes". See the difference?


Regarding your statement that "the premise of this thread was laughable to begin with...", you may want to tread lightly.

Your command of the English language leads me to believe you are an educated person. As such, you must surely be aware of the incredible amount of politics involved in funding scientific research, especially among US governmental agencies like the USGS.

During the late 1970's and mid 1980's the goals of earthquake precursor detection and possible EQ prediction were main drivers of funding. Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, and in 1980 the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council was formed. (it is still in existance, btw)

After the USGS suffered a public setback from the failed "Parkfield Prediction", the focus of the agency switched to assigning earthquake risk probabilities based on seismic history, local geology, & computer models.
So today we get hazard maps stating things like, " a 62% chance of a Mag 6.7 on a given fault over the next 30 years"--good for urban planners and setting building codes. Ask the general public about earthquakes, and they want to know when the next "big one" is going to take place.
Personally, I'd love a heads up to make sure my family was outside when a strong earthquake hit.

The research Westcoast linked in her original post isn't bunk. Here is a NASA blog post describing hopeful prediction methods based on InSAR, infrared radiation, and small magnetic field fluctuations.
Because earth scientists are fearful of losing funding or being ridiculed by their peers, many are afraid to look outside the mainstream orthodoxy for answers.

Geology is a young discipline and bound to have numerous miscues, but dismissing someone's idea because it doesn't gel with our current understanding of earthly mechanics, is shortsighted in my opinion.

Originally posted by Olivine
I stated that I thought the video was "semi-related" to the OP's topic; not indisputible supporting evidence of her hypothesis. Secondly, pertaining to the sundog I wrote:

the rocket breaking the sound barrier coincides with a sundog.

"Coincides", not "causes". See the difference?

Well, you said the destruction of the sun dog by the SDO was "semi-related" to the topic of this thread - so which is it? They can either be coincidental or related (ie "causality"). They can't be both!

Originally posted by Olivine
The research Westcoast linked in her original post isn't bunk.

Did I say it was?

Originally posted by Olivine
Here is a NASA blog post describing hopeful prediction methods based on InSAR, infrared radiation, and small magnetic field fluctuations.

All very well, but could you please point out where it says there is a direct connection between ice halos and earthquakes?

And that is where this thread fails... no one has posted a single bit of evidence showing that there is a connection. People saying it is so is not evidence, especially when those people have extremely limited experience with halos/arcs over a short period of time as I tried to point out in the thread I started.

In my thread I also posted many more examples of halos I have personally spotted/photographed in the last one and a half months than the OP has in the last 2-3 years. I live in the UK, well away from any earthquake prone zones, so if there is a link, would you not expect there to be fewer displays here than where the OP is?

Seeing as the people on this thread have it all figured out, someone should be able to explain why this is surely? Or is it just a case of "let's ignore this since it doesn't fit with the theory"? Judging by the lack of response so far it seems to me that it's the latter.

Originally posted by Olivine
Because earth scientists are fearful of losing funding or being ridiculed by their peers

Which is what keeps scientists from making wild claims that have no evidence to back them up.

Originally posted by Olivine
many are afraid to look outside the mainstream orthodoxy for answers.

Scientists are free to look wherever they like for answers. The point is that if they find those answers, they have to show evidence that those answers are correct, and that evidence needs to be reproducible. Without this science would resemble this forum - a mess of mostly pseudo-science that doesn't help anyone.

reply to post by FireballStorm


Well then. I guess you know it all and really don't need me to answer.

All I have to say is that I was the first to point at that this is a THEORY. Not even one that I necessarily believe in, but am only speculating about. Nowhere did I ever state that it is SCIENTIFIC fact. I simply made a proposal and invited others to chime in on their thoughts. You have done so.....but no need to be so rude.

Nice pictures on your thread...but you can back off of all the ignorance references. You are also incorrect to say that you posted more. While this is in no way a competition, I made it clear that those in the OP were examples, certainly not all of them. I think you must have missed my second post of the very rare rainbows I caught the next day. They are actually some of the ones you yourself linked as rare in you own thread.

Yes, rainbows are believed to be created by the light refracting off of either water or ice crystals, depending on which layer of atmosphere it is occurring in. As I explained earlier, this involves light both visible and not visible in the electromagnetic spectrum. It is not such a stretch to suggest that if there WAS either radon released or electromagnetic discharges occurring prior and during quakes, that could have an affect on what we are seeing in said atmosphere.

It is a theory. That is all.

Ignorance is when you believe your answer is the only possible one.

Am I only noticing these more while their occurrence remains the same? Like I said in the beginning....that is possible.

cool article on the electromagnetic spectrum

Visible light is just one type of electromagnetic radiation. The 'rainbow' colors are visible spectrums of white light being refracted. Where does this light come from? The sun. What does this pass through? The atmosphere. I am particularly interested in the ionosphere.

To think that our atmosphere and radon or electromagnetic pulses from the earth might be interacting is NOT ignorant. To suggest that it may possibly have an affect on the visible electromagnetic radiation is NOT ignorant. It is called using your imagination and awareness...it could be totally wrong. BUT...if we all thought that way, we certainly wouldn't have computers to be typing on right now.


Keep looking up, keep taking cool pictures, and keep an open mind.

I live in Whatcom county (north of OP's resident county) and have been seeing the exact same atmospheric events. Especially alot of sun and moon rings, which I have never noticed in the past.

Whatever the case, Skagit County is definitely charged with a different type of energy than most places I have personally been to and lived in. I think the mountains have a very large effect on these events.

Great posts!

reply to post by westcoast
I have also been getting some great photos of the clouds and other phenoms- so good I can now calim to have had 6 cameras stolen and have been forced to go back to film only.
Now on the rainbows - One major factor is the change documented in the early 1990's caused by both pollution overload and some large volcanic expulsions which changed the way clouds form over North America - while we used to enjoy watching towering "Thunderheads" march across the Great Plains, "Anvil Tops" used to reach 40,000 feet and then be swept forward by the Jet Stream, the massive particlat load started limiting weather and clouds to only 20,000 feet. Now we get "embeded thunderstorms" and very different distribution of rain and snow.
Out where you are the clouds no longer sail in off the ocean and over the Rockies but drop lots of the rain on the West slopes and farther South.

Another MAJOR factor is that the Northern Polar Ice Cap, RIP, which in the 1960's was so solid it was considered the 8th continent, is now just a lot of ice chunks blowing around. This means we no longer get the cleansing "Northern Clippers" and polar and fronts; the storms come in off the North Pacific and sweep south over the Rockies - the Snow Belt now ends at about Minneapolis (very sad for us who live to ski and skate) and in 2011 they got more snow in Texas than in Minnesota, for much of the winter.

Big news for Rainbow fans is - about 20 years ago I saw a huge rainbow in New Mexico that had the Purple band that we do not get here in the North, or not anywhere but that magic state, yet now I see the rare purple band below rainbows coast to coast to North Coast, and even in your pictures, where the thick moist atmoshpere used to block that out. This may be because the thinning upper layers now allow more ultra-violet and higher freq.'s to come thru'. No one has studied or documented this yet - mostly because the big money iis in denying all the changes. One other pattern emerging, or now standard, is many places go weeks and months with no precip. - punctuated with large storms and downpours; flooding. (I have suffered flooding INSIDE motel rooms, but that is another story, storms chase me, it's a Sitar thing)

For Blazing Sunset Fans there is bad news, that the News Media did do stories on - I worked a Ren. Fair in AZ for years in the late 80's and early 90's - and watched sunsets go from mind blowing "colors not found in Nature", turns out that was right, to dull greenish displays; because - wait for it - with the cars in LA going to less than 10% the brown particle output the air got much cleaner, and greener but not in a good way, so the spectacular colors down wind went away too.

So - clearer air equals more rainbows, fewer spectacular sunsets.

BIG NEWS - and crushingly sad, happened when I tried to move back out to the clean green hills of Northern CA, only to find them drapped in thick milky white haze. Analysis of the haze found it was heavy metal smelter exhaust from China, and points West. ONE big dirty Mao era smelter alone was bad enough that when it was shut down the whole World's air got better, but not for long as they build about 1 coal fired power plant a week - while switching to Wind and Solar would be much cheaper and cleaner.
Most everyone I talked to about this in CA, the loss of the beauty of the whole region was "serves us right for moving all those plants and jobs over there" and naturally I could not afford to stay there for the same reason. That's called getting [it] from both ends; coming and going. Wind Mills on garages charging electric cars is such a good solution - it had already been out lawed here in MN and WS, where the Evil Koch Brothers have total control. sad. sods too!

Originally posted by westcoast
Well then. I guess you know it all and really don't need me to answer.

Well it's your "theory". You came up with it. If you have that much experience to say with conviction that these displays are increasing in frequency, and you are that knowledgeable about the subject to come up with a "theory" that even experts in the subject have not proposed, surely you should have an answer?

No where did I say I knew it all, however I have been observing these phenomena for quite a bit longer than you have, so I would say I have a better perspective of the frequency of these phenomena over the past few years would you not agree?

The answer is actually probably very obvious, and I stated it in my thread. It even fits the facts, unlike your "theory".

Originally posted by westcoast
but no need to be so rude

I was not being rude, although perhaps I'm guilty of being brutally honest. If I wanted to be rude, you'd know about it. If anyone is being rude it's you - I took the time to explain in your other thread why what you saw/photographed could not be NLCs, give you some tips on photography, and even some encouragement, but you completely ignored me. If that same situation had been played out "in person", would you not consider it being rude? No real difference on a forum, except that people seem do do it as a matter of course.

Originally posted by westcoast
You are also incorrect to say that you posted more.

I beg to differ.

I counted a total of 15 examples of halos/arcs in your OP in your thread. I'm not counting rainbows, crepuscular rays, , hole punch clouds, iridescence, or your sun pillar, all of which are considered different optical-atmospheric phenomena.

I posted a total of 18.

Remember, my 18 was in around one and a half months, compared to your 15 in 2-3 years. Another factor here is that because we are a small island, surrounded by water, and where I live is a stone's throw from the coast, we get a lot of low cloud and precipitation that often obstructs views of halos/arcs. We are also surrounded by hills and trees that obstruct them even more - sun dogs especially can only be observed when the sun is relatively low in the sky.

Yes, I don't want to get into a competition with you either - it's purely observations to lend weight to my point, and no it is not very scientific either, but it should be enough for a rough idea.

Originally posted by westcoast
I made it clear that those in the OP were examples, certainly not all of them.

Point taken.

Originally posted by westcoast
I think you must have missed my second post of the very rare rainbows I caught the next day. They are actually some of the ones you yourself linked as rare in you own thread.

The reflection rainbows you posted at the start of your thread are quite rare - I have only seen perhaps one example myself, and I can't be sure as I was driving on the motorway and could not stop. Unlike your freeways, we can only stop at the side of our motorways if there is an emergency.

But I'm guessing you mean this display you posted later on in the thread?



Yes, displays like this one are not common either. Your labels, I have to say are not all right.

Here is what I am seeing:

sun dog 1 = 22° circular halo, but there may be some (faint) tangent arc mixed in there.
first sun halo = 22° circular halo
sun dog 2 = sun dog 1
sun dog 3 = 46° circular halo fragment
sun halo 2 = 46° circular halo
tangent arc = circumzenithal arc

You can check my identification here.

All of these apart from the 46° circular halo are quite common halos/arcs, but to see them all together is not that common. I have only seen a display on par with this once.

Remember in future, tangent arcs always coincide with the 22° circular halo - roughly one outstretched hand-span away from the Sun, just like 22° parhelia (sun dogs). Much further away, and it can't be a tangent arc.

Circumzenithal arcs are not at all rare, although vivid saturated examples are infrequent in my experience. As it happens I caught a nice example earlier on which I will soon be posting in my thread.

Originally posted by westcoast
Yes, rainbows are believed to be created by the light refracting off of either water or ice crystals, depending on which layer of atmosphere it is occurring in.

No - rainbows are known (it's not a question of "belief" - it can be scientifically proved) to be created from light refracted through water droplets, and ice crystals cause halos/arcs.

Originally posted by westcoast
It is not such a stretch to suggest that if there WAS either radon released or electromagnetic discharges occurring prior and during quakes, that could have an affect on what we are seeing in said atmosphere.

It is a stretch if you can't explain the mechanism - how does radon or electromagnetic discharges caused by seismic activity interact with raindrops or ice crystals?

I'm not saying these things don't interact with each other, but how do you know they interact to result in a greater than normal frequency of displays?

And my main point (once again), how can you even be sure what "normal" is having only been looking for atmospheric optical phenomena for 2-3 years?

Originally posted by westcoast
Ignorance is when you believe your answer is the only possible one.

I never once said that. What I am saying, and perhaps I'm guilty of not making it that clear, is that my experience totally contradicts your theory. I do not live in an earthquake zone, but I do see halos and arcs very frequently, and for quite a few years. Do you not agree that this is a gaping hole in your "theory" that should not be there if the "theory" is correct?

Originally posted by westcoast
Am I only noticing these more while their occurrence remains the same? Like I said in the beginning....that is possible.

Well I have to admit I missed that, but I do think it is by far the most likely possibility, and as I said before, it fits with the facts we have as well as not having to rely on any hypothetical mechanisms that probably do not exist.

Originally posted by westcoast
cool article on the electromagnetic spectrum

Thanks, but I probably know the electromagnetic spectrum better than I know my back yard (as you'd call it). I studied it in school, university, and since then it has been an important part of many of my interests.

Originally posted by westcoast
To think that our atmosphere and radon or electromagnetic pulses from the earth might be interacting is NOT ignorant. To suggest that it may possibly have an affect on the visible electromagnetic radiation is NOT ignorant. It is called using your imagination and awareness...it could be totally wrong. BUT...if we all thought that way, we certainly wouldn't have computers to be typing on right now.

Perhaps if I used the word "ignorant" it was too strong a word, but you don't seem to even be aware that rainbows and ice halos/arcs are separate phenomena (although they do share some similarities), and you don't even know how to identify the most common halos, yet are already "theorizing" about things you obviously do not fully understand the basics of. How about learning to crawl before you can walk? I think that is the kindest way I can put it. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I'm just trying to offer some constructive criticism, and I would like to see you walk.

Originally posted by westcoast
Keep looking up, keep taking cool pictures, and keep an open mind.

The same to you, but please do not fall into the trap of having so much of an open mind that your brain falls out, and above all, try to stay objective about what you see. Then perhaps your theories will be taken seriously by serious people as opposed to conspiracy theorists on a forum where the majority (though not all) are willing to believe almost anything if it sounds semi-plausible even though there is no real evidence to support the "theory".

reply to post by FireballStorm


*sigh*

This is how I started this thread:

In the past three years I have become increasingly aware of natures beauty. I have always been a lover of the woods, outdoors and geology. I am honestly not sure if what I am seeing is the result of simple awareness, increased observation, or a real change.

Part way through the op:

Once again, I am not saying I believe this is true, only that I think it could be a possibility. I know there are going to be those who want to slam me or talk about HARP, but I would like to request that we keep the responses in line with the OP and why you do or do not support the theory.

and this:

If my theory is crap, then all that is wasted is my time. If there is any kind of validity to it, than I would like to think that this information could prove valuable.

and finally in closing:

What do you think? Am I really just that lucky? Or could there be something going on....an electromagnetic mechanism that can't be seen, but is showing up in all of these rare optical illusions and cloud formations?

And still you feel a need to berate me with comments like this:

originally posted by fireballstorm
Well it's your "theory". You came up with it. If you have that much experience to say with conviction that these displays are increasing in frequency, and you are that knowledgeable about the subject to come up with a "theory" that even experts in the subject have not proposed, surely you should have an answer?

So I will say it again, that I am in no way claiming to know for a fact that there is an increase, only that it appears that way to me. That I am using this thread as a way to document my observations, for others to share their own and for other members such as yourself to state why you don't think the theory is a sound one.

You obviously know a lot of about halos and rainbows and as in the past, I am always appreciative for that kind of input. I am also open and welcome to the reasons why you don't think the theory is possible. I just tend to be a little bit defensive when I am basically called stupid for suggesting it, and my words twisted around.

you said:

originally posted by fireballstorm
It is a stretch if you can't explain the mechanism - how does radon or electromagnetic discharges caused by seismic activity interact with raindrops or ice crystals?

I don't know. I already said that in the OP. I am not claiming to have the answers, which is why I said that I don't even necessarily believe it is true, but only a possibility. Did you read my whole post, or the links associated with it? I presented the information that lead me to think about it, and am asking for others opinions or ideas on how it could or could not be possible. I'm not trying to prove anything, just share information.

So yeah, this was rude:

originally posted by fireballstorm
Perhaps if I used the word "ignorant" it was too strong a word, but you don't seem to even be aware that rainbows and ice halos/arcs are separate phenomena (although they do share some similarities), and you don't even know how to identify the most common halos, yet are already "theorizing" about things you obviously do not fully understand the basics of

I have thanked you before and acknowledged your input on other threads, but this does not mean I am stupid. Of course I know the difference between a rainbow and a halo. I am over forty years old, college educated and even considered smart by some peers. Just because you've corrected my label of a tangent arc to a circumzenithal arc does not an idiot make me.

originally posted by fireballstorm
The same to you, but please do not fall into the trap of having so much of an open mind that your brain falls out, and above all, try to stay objective about what you see. Then perhaps your theories will be taken seriously by serious people as opposed to conspiracy theorists on a forum where the majority (though not all) are willing to believe almost anything if it sounds semi-plausible even though there is no real evidence to support the "theory".

Woah...now you are being rude to rest of the posters on this thread, and I take more offense to that. Please be considerate. This IS a conspiracy website BTW, and a great place to post just such theories were you can discuss various possibilities and stretch your imagination a little bit. It's not like I tried to pass this as fact or even a provable theory...just in idea. I can see that you consider yourself a bit of an expert on the subject and feel a need to correct what you see as falsehoods...but while I appreciate your input, it would be great if it were given in a more collaborative nature; such is the nature of the ATS we all like