Pilots see mystery glow over Pacific Ocean

[Astra.]

Bio luminescence wouldn't really hit the clouds would it?

.

Good question, and I have no idea.....it just adds further curiosity to this story.

[Silent Trinity]

Now THAT is a truly unexplained mystery. I am of course with the vast majority here in assuming that it is some form of volcanic activity, but what about the lightning bolt seen prior to the appearance? That part I cannot explain. The photographs do paint a breath taking picture nonetheless and I can see why the pilots were unnerved to say the least Would love to see anything further on this one. I can't imagine what the occupants of a surface vessel would have witnessed or experienced...although it would have involved a change of underwear all round i'm sure!

[qxcontinuum]

Here is the same thing but in blue. This is known to be produced by a luminescent creature.

http://www.oneworldoneocean.com/blog/entry/ocean_stemulation_uses_for_bioluminescence

[Astra.]

Here is the same thing but in blue. This is known to be produced by a luminescent creature.

http://www.oneworldo...bioluminescence

Very beautiful, but I doubt that any bioluminescent ocean creature caused this type of light show in the water, let alone in the clouds.

[qxcontinuum]

yeah, it should have been blue in orer to be explained ... the orange color remains unexplained...

Edited August 29, 2014 by qxcontinuum

[seeder]

Update!

Were the mystery Pacific lights caused by an 'energy bubble'? Solar winds or a scientific experiment could be to blame, Nasa expert claims

Earlier this week unexplained lights were spotted near Kamchatka, Russia

However a Nasa researcher has offered his explanation, suggesting an energised bubble in the atmosphere could have been the origin

He says this may have been cause by solar wind or a microwave beam

But it also could have resulted from the Haarps research station in Alaska

The sighting was made by pilots flying from Hong Kong to Alaska

The glow came about 20 minutes after a vertical lightning bolt was seen

Dutch pilot van Heijst ruled out squid-fishing-boats as the origin

He said the cause may have been an underwater volcano

An ongoing investigation is taking place to find out what happened

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2736535/Did-ENERGY-BUBBLE-cause-mystery-lights-Pacific-Seti-astronomer-says-cause-solar-wind.html#ixzz3BqzZB2Ze

[Astra.]

It seems that Dr. Fruend's opinion is based more on a speculative one, than a proven scientific fact thus far.

[qxcontinuum]

It seems that Dr. Fruend's opinion is based more on a speculative one, than a proven scientific fact thus far.

That is what Nasa does...

[Astra.]

That is what Nasa does...

Yes, and it's good to see that a researcher from NASA has given his theories as to what these pilots saw.

But, keep in mind that they are still only theories.

Was the phenomenon an 'energised bubble' in the Earth's Atmosphere caused by 'solar winds' that caused these strange red/orange lights and glow ?

Or was it Haarp (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) in Alaska who was responsible for some powerful microwave beam that was discharged into

the ionosphere that caused the lightning bolt, and the red/orange lights and glow.

So.. basically...we have either a natural phenomenon ie: 'Solar Winds'?

Or possibly a man made experiment ie: 'Microwave Beams' ?

Edit to say - It all smells a bit fishy to me

Edited August 30, 2014 by Astra00

[+DieChecker]

Supposedly HARP is powered down now. And being dismantled.

[taniwha]

Supposedly HARP is powered down now. And being dismantled.

Did the HAARP ever do anything useful?

[Astra.]

Supposedly HARP is powered down now. And being dismantled.

If that's the case then DieC.....don't you think it rather curious as to why Dr Freund speculated that Harrp may have had something to do with this? Edited August 31, 2014 by Astra00

[+DieChecker]

If that's the case then DieC.....don't you think it rather curious as to why Dr Freund speculated that Harrp may have had something to do with this?

Maybe he's just badly informed?

EDIT: Humm.... Apparently it is not dismantled yet....

http://www.arrl.org/news/haarp-death-sentence-stayed-but-facility-being-dismantled-piece-by-piece

The US Air Force has given the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) facility in Gakona, Alaska, a death row reprieve of sorts. The Secretary of the Air Force told Alaska Sen Lisa Murkowski July 2 that it is “willing to slow the closure process and defer irreversible dismantling of the transmitter site” until May of 2015. Those pushing for HAARP to remain open as a scientific research facility include several radio amateurs. HAARP proponents claim, however, that despite the delay, the Air Force has been picking the plant apart piece by piece, and that critical research instruments already have been taken off site.

Edited August 31, 2014 by DieChecker

[Astra.]

Well if HAARP was responsible for the strange lights etc...

Then surely they would admit to any scientific experiment that took place in that region of the Pacific Ocean at that time?

They (HAARP) must be aware that NASA has 'flagged' them concerning this.....whether it be due to speculation or not.

Also, and again 'IF' HAARP was responsible for these 'microwave beams' that had been emitted into the atmosphere causing a lightning bolt, unknown

bright lights under the surface of the water, and a very strange red glow, possibly above the water.

Then I would be rather concerned if I had been a pilot flying over or near the area on that night.

How do we know that this area wasn't extremely radioactive?

EDIT - No wonder this institution (HAARP) has caused so much controversy.

http://www.haarp.net/

Edited August 31, 2014 by Astra00

[stereologist]

Well if HAARP was responsible for the strange lights etc...

Then surely they would admit to any scientific experiment that took place in that region of the Pacific Ocean at that time?

They (HAARP) must be aware that NASA has 'flagged' them concerning this.....whether it be due to speculation or not.

Also, and again 'IF' HAARP was responsible for these 'microwave beams' that had been emitted into the atmosphere causing a lightning bolt, unknown

bright lights under the surface of the water, and a very strange red glow, possibly above the water.

Then I would be rather concerned if I had been a pilot flying over or near the area on that night.

How do we know that this area wasn't extremely radioactive?

EDIT - No wonder this institution (HAARP) has caused so much controversy.

http://www.haarp.net/

Why do you speculate that there would have been any radioactivity in the area?

Lightening is quite common. It happens 40 to 50 times a second on Earth. There are all sorts of atmospheric events such as sprites that have been seen on occasion from planes. Although sprites are reddish they occur very high in the atmosphere but do originate from thunderstorms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_%28lightning%29

[+DieChecker]

One interesting idea I saw in a comments section on this subject on another site was Fishing Boats.

Fishermen put lights into the water on their nets to do night fishing.

The lights are blurry enough to conceal ships, I think.

[Astra.]

Why do you speculate that there would have been any radioactivity in the area?

Lightening is quite common. It happens 40 to 50 times a second on Earth. There are all sorts of atmospheric events such as sprites that have been seen on occasion from planes. Although sprites are reddish they occur very high in the atmosphere but do originate from thunderstorms.

http://en.wikipedia....ite_(lightning)

Yes, that's correct...I'm only speculating as far as possible radioactivity may be concerned with these strange lights.

I guess considering what HAARP has been doing, as far as emitting high Microwave beams into the ionosphere and geoengineering the climate with experiments.

Then I don't think the speculation would seem too unreasonable?

I thought Sprites were redish electrical discharges high above storm clouds in the atmosphere?

The pilots claimed that the lightning bolt shot up vertically from the ground.

Another possibility is a deep sea nuclear detination that may have taken place in the area.

I mean lets face it....it's not uncommon practice for certain countries to experiment with nuclear weapons in remote regions

on/ and or under ocean and land.

Again, this is all conjecture and theories concerning this mystery.

[Astra.]

One interesting idea I saw in a comments section on this subject on another site was Fishing Boats.

Fishermen put lights into the water on their nets to do night fishing.

The lights are blurry enough to conceal ships, I think.

Yep, possibly. But I'm not sure whether they use red/orange lights to attract squid or whatever they are fishing for.

Also, it was mentioned that fishing boats don't go that far from land....and it would be very unusual for them to be in that remote region.

I think they use green/blue lighting to attract fish, squid etc....not 100% sure though.

[+DieChecker]

Yep, possibly. But I'm not sure whether they use red/orange lights to attract squid or whatever they are fishing for.

Also, it was mentioned that fishing boats don't go that far from land....and it would be very unusual for them to be in that remote region.

I think they use green/blue lighting to attract fish, squid etc....not 100% sure though.

They might go that far out from land if they are illegally fishing. Like for protected tuna stocks. With specific kinds of tuna bringing in like $100 a pound in Tokyo, illegal fishing shouldn't be too uncommon.

But, like you, I don't know enough about what kind of lights attract what kinds of fish. So, I can't say if red does anything. I just saw it on another site and thought it an possibility worth discussion.

[Astra.]

*According to JPC van Heijst (the pilot involved) - below is part of his Blog on his thoughts concerning fishing vessels*

Squid Fishing Boats:

Proof for:

- Lights are in a symmetrical pattern, and fairly uniform size/shape/luminosity characteristics to suggest artificial lighting

- Squid fishing lights are very bright - around 30,000 watts (equal to 500 car headlights). Being diffused by a thin cloud layer would be consistent with size and luminosity of the lights you’ve photographed.

- There is satellite evidence of large concentrated squid fishing operations offshore in other parts of the world. These images resemble what I've photographed, although *not red* which leads to....

Problems with the squid theory:

- I can only find green and white lighting on squid boats, and never red. The photos in question are predominately red. The satellite shots

(of other squid boat ops) are all greenish/white

- Two experienced pilots who witnessed firsthand are confident the lights were not fishing boats

- The closest large port is Petropavlovsk, 376 miles (605km) away from the lights. Hokkaido is 800 miles away. I’m not sure if commercial fishing vessels commonly go this far or not.

- Commercial squid fishing takes place over the continental plate or on the edge of it. These lights were observed very far away from the continental plate, with deep sea all around. Making squid-fishing highly unlikely.

[+DieChecker]

I just spent a little while checking out some night fishing threads in some fishing forums. Apparently green, white and to a lesser degree blue, are good for attracting most little fish and squid. It is the little fish and squid that bring in the bigger fish, if you're not just after squid. Red light apparently is next to useless down into the water, as it does not penetrate very well.

Also, if you are fishing for tuna, you don't need lights at night, as the tuna come up after the chum by smell, and lights will actually turn them away.

But.... It seems the night fishing equipment industry DOES make red shipboard lighting, so that people on the ship can see what they are doing without having bright light going into the water. So having a ship lit up with red lights would make a lot of sense if you were tuna fishing at night, since it would not scare away the tuna, but still allow the fishermen to see what they are doing on the ship.

There would still need to be fog to create the circle effect and to disguise the fishing boats.

Just an idea.....

EDIT: Looking around for tuna fishery maps, it appears that this latitude is just a hundred or two miles too far north to be a good tuna fishing hole.

Edited September 2, 2014 by DieChecker

[qxcontinuum]

Must have been some crazy huge operation of multiple fishing boats according to the pilots. The area where the lights have been spotted was very large.

[+DieChecker]

I suppose how big the area of lights is depends on how high they were flying. This was a 747, so probably they were flying at near 30,000 feet. And the area of lights appears, assuming the closer pic is at a right angle to the plane, to be about the same size across as the plane is high. So assume maybe 30,000 feet, or about 6 miles across.

Does that sound about right?

Looks like about 12 circles to get across the area, or about two circles per mile. Is 1/2 mile between fishing ships normal? I don't know.

Could someone even ID fishing boats from 30,000 feet? Maybe during the day, but at night?

Also on that pic it says 8 seconds. Is that the exposure time? The lights could be really faint with a long exposure time, or am I wrong about that?

Edited September 2, 2014 by DieChecker

[Astra.]

Also on that pic it says 8 seconds. Is that the exposure time? The lights could be really faint with a long exposure time, or am I wrong about that?

Below is a similar Q's asked by a poster on the Pilots Blog.

Pilots user ID is 'Flying Dutchman'

~ Asked by poster~

Flying Dutchman, your photos watermarks say that they were taken with extremely long exposition, 8 secs and 30 secs. I wonder how you manage to capture anything from an unstable platform like fast moving plane with exposure this long? At 30 secs there should be only blurred smudge. And how do you manage stars to appear stationary on these photos?

~Answered by Pilot~

Thanks for your honest question. As you might have seen in my other galleries I often try to take long-exposure shots from the flightdeck at night. After years of experimenting and experience I have found that when the air is at least a bit smooth, its quite possible to take sharp pictures with my 10.5mm fisheye lens. I put the camera on full manual focus/settings, place the camera (Nikon D800) on the glareshield close to the windshield/window and put my glasses-case (or anything solid) underneath the lens to stabilize it.

I have found that with my fisheye lens (180' field of view) the stars and all objects in the vast distance show up very sharp. This is because the relative movement is quite small. Imagine using a huge telelens with such a setting; you would see the movement and blurryness immediately since you zoom in so far. The more wide angle you use, the less movement you'll see.

That is one part; I experimented with longer shuttertimes, of up to 10 minutes, but then you'll quickly see the stars making trails because of the movement of the Earth. Shuttertimes of up to 30 seconds result in sharp stars.

These photos have not been edited or altered in any way, except for cropping and resizing.

[Astra.]

For those interested, below is the Pilots Blog.

http://www.pbase.com...acific_eruption