Talk:Earthquake light

Requested merge
Earthquake_cloud → Earthquake_light — Regarding this issue I strongly disagree. This are two distinct phenomena, even though the cause is most likely the same; the effects cloud/light are evidently different in nature. That merits two separate articles, unless a more comprehensive article integrates them such as Earthquake_signs for instance. Abestrobi (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Circumhorizontal arc
The phenomenon described here is in no way 'similar to aurora borealis'. It is the same as a circumhorizontal arc, an atmospheric optical effect that has been described and explained thoroughly, and that appears in many places. It is caused by the refraction of light in certain types of clouds, when the sun is high in the sky. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumhorizontal_arc :) 145.23.254.155 (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for videos showing a Circumhorizontal arc
I agree with the comment from 145.23.254.155 above, the youtube videos linked by this article shows (clearly in my opinion) a Circumhorizontal arc. See the wikipedia article for a good image of one and see how well it matches the videos. See also http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/cha2.htm for details. Note that the purported time of the videos was around 14:00 local time May 12 at a latitude of 34 degrees North (Tanshui is at 34°35′N 105°44′E).

If you plug that data into http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi you will find the Sun's elevation was between 63 and 68 degrees. This is entirely consistent with the observations: sun must be above 58 degrees (yes); the arc appears red closest to the sun and bluish further away (yes); the arc appears horizontal (yes); the arc appears 44 degrees away from the sun (67 minus 44 is 23 degrees above horizon, which looks about right).

The text in the article has a "citation needed" tag for the claim that it shows a circumhorizontal arc. The above should be sufficient for an intelligent layperson to at least verify that it is not a mysterious phenomenon. I do not know how else one could obtain a reliable source for the same. The paragraph appears to give weight (implicitly) to a connection with the earthquake, when I do not believe there is a reliable source. Here is the paragraph:

''On May 12, 2008, 30 minutes prior to the Sichuan Earthquake, a cell phone captured footage of multi-colored clouds in the sky (see external link below). The footage was uploaded to Youtube[5]. There is also footage from Meixian, Shaanxi province approximately 550km northeast of epicenter [6] recorded 10 minutes before the event. However, the footage appears to show a circumhorizontal arc, which is caused by refraction of the sun's light through ice particles in a cirrus cloud, and is similar to a rainbow.[citation needed]''

I feel it should be removed or substantially rewritten. Opinions? -84user (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the above, a quick look at the video shows a clear rainbow effect on the clouds and explanation given above is reasonable and much more likely than an earthquake-caused light. 1 minute typing "iridescent clouds" into google images or even wikipedia gives striking images of a very similar effect, which i have seen myself from my garden and yet the article makes it sound as if the earthquakes caused the lighting effect.

I maintain that the clouds in the youtube video are in fact iridescent clouds and their timing was coincidental with the time of day and elevation of the sun. look on astronomy picture of the day for a great explanation of this effect. This article needs rewriting from a less speculative point of view.

-de210 04:20, 13 August 2008 GMT

Merging with Earthlights
No one discussed the proposed merging of Earthquake Lights with Earthlights so I took the liberty of merging them as it's been a suggesting for a long time. I think they are more commonly called Earthlights so I made this the main article. If anyone objects then open a discussion. Cyberia23 00:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm too late to prevent your merging them, but earthquake lights are brief but huge, on the order of the aurora borealis. Earthlights or Will o' the wisps are wispy, leprechaun-sized flames produced by natural gas that hover just over the ground. Therefore I will edit this page into shape. Speciate 06:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Earthquake Lights have anything to do with Will-o-wisps which I thought were supposed to be ghosts or faeries of legend. I didn't add the "Other Names" section, someone else did. Cyberia23 22:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul Devereux link?
Is it worth adding a link to the entry for Paul Devereux? He is one of the most cited authors on the subject in terms of identification of earthquake lights/earthlights as UFOs etc. What do you think? DiabolicalMasterspy 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Earthquake in Peru
Some people have reported these lights during the earthquake off the coast. It's not verifiable but there is a video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNy6YQB8nnw which supposedly has footage of the lights. They're visible somewhere around the 48 second mark.--Zeph1 16:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That was real, here we have another video, earthquake in Peru, Aug. 15th 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5qep7TbylA&mode=related&search=

Before 05/12/08 Sichuan earthquake
Youtube videos show 'things' (rainbows or Aurora-borealis) the 12 may 2008 before the China (Sichuan) earthquake :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u43I4YRMmDM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQHY-0c1hYE

The 05/02/08 7 days before there was a Volcano Erupts in Chile -after 9,000 years- meaning that earth activity is at its roof

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/photogalleries/volcano-photos/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.27.60.48 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How can we know that these videos took place before the May 12, 2008 earthquake? James Lednik (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We cannot, but I see no reason to doubt it, the elevation angles for the arc are consistent with the time and latitude claimed. See my Talk:Earthquake light above. -84user (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging with Earthquake cloud
I agree with the proposal to merge these articles. Earthquake cloud should redirect to Earthquake light as it seems that they are the same phenomenon. It seems that when the earthquake is in the night, people talk about lights and when quake in is the day time, people talk about "cloud", but the "cloud" seems to produce light and is not a defraction of other light source like in a rainbow. Lpele (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they should go under the article "Atmospheric earthquake phenomena". 76.236.66.133 (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I oppose this proposal, especially if earthquake cloud is redirected to earthquake light. They are not nessecarily the same thing, see Talk:Earthquake cloud. It appears that earthquake clouds are not always luminous, and earthquake lights don't always involve clouds. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 20:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indirect citation for destruction of Helike and Boura
The following sentence is found in the History section

Records of earthquakes that were accompanied by lights can be found as far back as 373 BC in ancient Greek writings, that "immense columns of flame" foretold the earthquake that destroyed the cities of Helike and Boura[citation needed].

I have found an indirect reference to the destruction of Helike and Boura, but the portent seems to have been a comet rather than earthquake lights. (There may still be some other reference to what might have been earthquake lights.)

The citation was found on page 289 of Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision Macmillan (1950).

Statement in text: "The Hindu book of Varahasanhita sees in the meteorites portents of devastation by fire and earthquake." (2)

(2) Frazer, Aftermath (supplement to The Golden Bough) (1936), p. 312. Two Greek cities, Bura and Helice, were destroyed by earthquake and a tidal wave and swallowed by the earth and sea in the year -373, when a comet shone in the sky.

RobertFritzius (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)RobertFritzius RobertFritzius (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

HERE'S THE CORRECT SOURCE: An extended passage about earthquake precursory signs and the destruction of Helike (373 B.C.) can be found in the Greek historian Pausanias, (circa AD 110 – 180). The specific citation is Pausanias (7.24.7-8), translated as "occasionally great flames dart across the sky," is available as an e-text here: It would be a shame to cut this Greek reference as one of the earliest known recorded references to earthquake lights. Could someone more expert on the Wiki editing process please consider restoring it with the proper translation and attribution? Un Mundo (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge/Move/Redirect to Earthquake Weather
Somebody just haul off an do it. We don't need two articles for Earthquake Lights and Earthquake Clouds, and who knows what other weird in-the-sky phenomena somebody might create another redundant article for.--Mike18xx (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Earthquake in Turkey
After the August 17, 1999 Izmit Earthquake, there were countless reports of a bright white light shooting out of the ground coinciding with the earthquake. The TV channels on the scene right after the catastrophe were interviewing people reporting a large column of flame and a very bright ray over the sea. Fishermen reported that their nets had melted. Another common testimony was that the stars in the sky "jolted" (resembling a momentary distortion of the visibility of the entire night sky). The subsequent reports of an exceptionally clear night sky or numerous sightings of groups of shooting stars are probably related to the power outage, though it is known that the partially cloudy sky completely cleared within seconds after the quake (maybe due to the heavy winds reportedly accompanying the white light, or some magnetic phenomenon). Okans (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Category: Fringe science
This article is in the "Fringe science" category. Even though the causes for the lights are not fully understood, I don't think the theories listed would qualify as fringe science. Should we remove the category? PikeWake (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a good question. Personally I'd favor removal, but I can see some argument for retaining it. While the phenomenon itself doesn't seem well accepted (or at least wasn't a couple years ago (see Physic World)), it is studied seriously within the academic community, and even skeptics within academia don't dismiss it as fringe, they merely doubt the association between seismic activity and observations of electroluminescent phenomena. I think that's a shift from the 1960s, when it sounds like the mainstream scientific community dismissed such phenomena as complete bunk.


 * Among fringe conspiracy theorists, earthquake lights seem widely accepted as evidence of ionospheric disruption caused by the United States' HAARP which (according to believers) targets areas of the atmosphere over specific geographic areas to trigger major earthquakes around the world. There are no reliable sources covering this, so it's not in the Wikipedia article, but it does seem like a widespread belief based on Google. A New Zealand Herald column discussing the lights mentions the amount of conspiracy theories and other "rubbish" on Google, but doesn't go into detail about them.


 * There has also been a belief at least since 1998 that earthquake lights may explain some reported UFO sightings, and while it seems speculative, it also seems like a reasonable topic of scientific inquiry regardless of prevailing academic opinion, just like the the association between earthquakes and the lights. Three sources on this:
 * USA Today last month mentions the recent journal article (Thériault et al. 2014) that suggests the lights may explain some UFO reports, proposing this photo as a possible example.
 * Includes earthquake lights among a variety of earth light phenomena that could explain reports of UFOs around earthquakes; plausible, though the book seems to wander into fringe territory suggesting that the electromagnetic effects may also explain alien abduction hallucinations.
 * Brief 1998 discussion of the the same topic from a fringe publisher, with a more fringe-sounding origin, sounding very similar to Thériault's recent journal-published hypothesis: "several researchers in the UFO field have discovered that some UFOs might actually be ‘earthquake lights’ caused by this same piezoelectric phenomena. Lights leaping away from mountain peaks have been seen and recorded since ancient times, and could be a similar type of discharge.”


 * ––Agyle (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * After eight years of inactivity on this topic, I have removed the category. Matthyis (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Lighten up
Originally posted to my talk page; I have moved it here as the more appropriate venue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC) What's with your removal of my addition to Earthquake light on the grounds that it was too upbeat? The given source was NASA research reported by The Economist. And you call that 'fringe'? I'd appreciate your elaboration - or a reversal of the revert. Onanoff (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My edit summary specified: ″Reverting "upbeat" material from a non-RS that is fringe and non-NPOV. Discussion at Talk:Earthquake prediction.″ But I will be happy to explain here.
 * Your sole source for the added material was from The Economist. For all that its reporting is deemed reputable regarding finance and world affairs, it is not considered a reliable source in regard of scientific matters.  (Is there any aspect of that you do not understand?) So it is no surprise that in an article about animals predicting earthquakes (a view entirely discredited scientifically) they have relied on Dr. Freund, whose views are rejected by most seismologists, and are generally considered WP:fringe.  For all that there might be some validity to his views (and other material in this article), that has not been established, and can only be considered speculative. Reports of such phenomena does not establish existence, they must be verified. This has not happened.
 * Note that I did not remove your material because it was "upbeat", but because it is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, the latter being the part of WP:Neutral point of view ("NPOV") regarding the weight to be given to differing viewpoints. (I commend that for your study.) In brief: to promote an upbeat view where several decades have demonstrated otherwise gives undue weight to that view. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was three sentences in one paragraph, and gave explicit attribution to the theory's proponent. If you removed the material because you felt it was giving the theory undue weight, perhaps shortening it, rather than removing it, would have been more appropriate. If you removed it because you feel The Economist is not a reliable source for scientific matters, I disagree; it lacks the strength of scientific journals, but it covers a wide variety of topics, just like The New York Times, and I don't think it's unreasonable to rely on their coverage of Dr. Freund's theories. While The Economist doesn't explain just how controversial the theory is (“The same clouds are also thought to be behind the startling phenomenon of ‘earthquake lights’...”), they do accurately convey that it's just a theory. I agree that it's a fringe view in the Wikipedia sense, presumably rejected by most seismologists, but as was discussed in the section above this, that seems true of the entire subject. I also don't see how the theory is upbeat, or why that's intrinsic to the removal of its coverage. If it's because the theory, if validated, would explain a decades-old question, all hypotheses in the article would suffer the same criticism.


 * If it would help to cite the primary source, Freund's publications around 2002 include:
 * Freund has also published articles about earthquake lights and related phenomena since then, including the 2014 study already cited in the Wikipedia article. Agyle (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Freund has also published articles about earthquake lights and related phenomena since then, including the 2014 study already cited in the Wikipedia article. Agyle (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Freund has also published articles about earthquake lights and related phenomena since then, including the 2014 study already cited in the Wikipedia article. Agyle (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Freund has also published articles about earthquake lights and related phenomena since then, including the 2014 study already cited in the Wikipedia article. Agyle (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Upbeat" is the term that Onanoff used at Talk:Earthquake prediction regarding the same material. Which I think is rather apt, because it is that kind of hopeful expectation that drives a lot of the popular enthusiasm for topics like this. (And especially for prediction.) Which also drives the mass media's tendency to favor such "upbeat" stories (such as "new initiatives!") rather than more prosaic reports of (say) their failure. That The Economist is non-RS in respect of scientific topics is not because they mis-report Freund's views, but because their favoritism of such stories misrepresents the mainstream scientific view. Like you said: they don't explain how controversial Freund is. At any rate, I believe you do understand it is "a fringe view in the Wikipedia sense" (right?), but perhaps Onanoff is not so sure.
 * I think that shortening the material would be incorrect, as Freund seems to be a principal proponent of earthquake lights. The problem is (as suggested in the section above) that the topic itself is fringe. Which is not say that it can't be covered, but its status should be clear. (E.g., like how phlogiston theory and Steady State theory start with a disclaimer they are obsolete.)
 * In order to describe or present Freund's theory it would help to cite the primary sources, and I have no objection to that. (Just don't use The Economist!). However, to assess its significance or how much weight it should be given in the overall scientific context you really have to go to suitable secondary sources. (The alternative is to review the literature yourself, which is tricky because you need some expertise to assess matters, and it skirts WP:OR.) Suitable secondary sources could be difficult to find, as this topic seems to have attracted more enthusiasts than dispassionate critics. But I'll wish good luck to anyone that wants to dive into that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I have to say that I find this entire discussion bizarre to say the least! Dr. Friedemann Freund's research is published, peer-reviewed work of the highest caliber. No reasonable, unbiased observer would entertain the notion that Science, Journal of Geophysics, Acta Geophysica, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Journal of Applied Physics, Journal of Solid State Chemistry, Nachrichten aus der Chemie, are all somehow "fringe" publications. Yet in a career spanning nearly 300 fundamental published papers, Freund's work has been welcomed in all these journals and many more.  There's nothing "light-weight" or "fringe" about this kind of rigorously interdisciplinary work in solidstate physics, solid solution chemistry and quantum physics that Freund and his late son Dr. Minoru Freund, have carried on for decades. This is about as hard-headed as science gets. The notion that Dr. Freund's views are "rejected by most seismologists" is offered without support or qualification as if it had dropped from the heavens? Has there lately been a survey I've not heard of? Also peculiar is that one would rely solely on a discipline which has virtually no grounding in solid state physics. Seismologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Un Mundo (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Something feels wrong about this articles tone
First, don't come saying "You don't give proof" because that's why I posted this. This articles voice makes me feel like i was reading a transcript for a conspiracy theory/paranormal show. Any one know how this could we could get rid of some of the pseudoscience here, or at least make it clear to readers? This isn't the kind of content you expect from wikipedia. WikiWisePowder (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that this article is even labeled as interesting to project paranormal and skepticism on the talk page, but there's no "warning" in the article. WikiWisePowder (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Worcester Earthquake, 26 September 1969
I was a geologist in Cape Town when this quake occurred, after dark. It was centred in the Cape Fold Belt, one of the greatest accumulations of nearly pure quartzite on the planet- thousands of square kilometres of it, thousands of metres thick. There were many reports of lines of lights appearing along major bedding planes in remote mountainous locations, far from buildings, fences, power cables, telephone lines, gas pipelines or the like. Many bushfires erupted along the lines where the lights were seen. It is a remote possibility that the fires were started by rockfalls but I have been a mountaineer for over fifty years and have never seen or heard of a blaze started by falling rocks. I believe that a piezoelectrical effect was involved. Quartz is know for its tendency to generate these effects but it is also a good electrical insulator. It seems to me possible that great wads of quartzite, shocked to the core, generated instantaneous static electrical charges that could not readily be dissipated through the great mass of non-conducting country rocks but leaped from one isolated body to another across the insulating bedding planes. Prof. Arthur Fuller, who was trying to conduct electrical logging down boreholes the day before the earthquake, reported "crazy readings". He suspected that his equipment was faulty and quit his work. For what it is worth, I believe that similar phenomena are responsible for ball lightning. The unequilibrated surge of electrons into (or out of) the ground from a normal strike into what is essentially a giant semi-conductor creates a static electrical field that ionizes the air and produces balls of reactive plasma that follow the attempts by the static bolus to find a way of "escape". This explains why ball lightning can pass through glass. The field is the same on both sides because it come from below in the rock. The fact that ball lightning can pass through glass is fatal to the theory of "atomization of silicon" but nobody seems to have acknowledged that.... Captainbeefart (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but you misunderstand the purpose of article talk pages. Per the WP:Talk page guidelines: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." More specifically: the article talk pages are "for editors to discuss changes to its associated article [and] .... should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." WP is not a blog, nor does it publish original research. Observations of possible phenomena are best reported in the appropriate journals. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Does this mean that Wikipedia dismisses anything that is not in a published article? This is dangerous. One example will suffice. When the Titanic sank, several VIPs reported that the ship had gone down intact. Their opinions were reported. A young boy averred that the ship had broken in half. He was ignored. It turned out he was right but how would he have fared on Wikipedia and how would the encyclopedia have benefited from his claim? If Galileo had come to Wikipedia with his initial observations, he would have been shown the door. Wikipedia has in my opinion become too officious. There must surely be some middle ground here. Why should recollections that are potentially verifiable not be aired in some forum or other? There is a potential starting point for further research into my memories. To suggest that I did not see the plaster fall from the walls and read the newspapers in the morning in 1969 is bizarre. It seems more than reasonable that my recollections might provide an inspiration for somebody closer to the action, who could look into these things at the Tavern of Seas. Without the "heads up", the informal transmission from the past, otherwise unrecorded, will be lost. Perhaps I am a dinosaur and just making waves in the wrong cellars of Wikipedia. If so, please show me they way.... Captainbeefart (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Essentially, yes – Wikipedia "dismisses", as a matter of fundamental policy, pretty much "anything that is not in a published article". Your consternation arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of an encyclopedia, and how encyclopedias differ from journalism, history, and other forms of information determination and archival. We don't do oral history, we don't do "first report" (journalism), we don't do original thought, we don't do speculation. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia strives to present human knowledge as currently best understood. So yes, if in 1610 Galileo had walked in and said: "I saw the strangest thing last night", sorry, no, we couldn't use that; he would have to be published first. Nor do we rely on first-hand reports, neither of VIPs nor little boys. If you have something to contribute to human knowledge you will have do it elsewhere, as Wikipedia is not a forum. If you have further questions please ask at the WP:Help desk. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I hear you and I acquiesce. Thanks for your time. But maybe there ought to be pages entitled "Wikispeculation", which might serve as a starting point for others. Captainbeefart (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That is an intriguing idea. But, alas, hardly encyclopedic. You could mention it at one of the "Village pump" pages; perhaps it might lead to something. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earthquake light. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100301224159/http://www.peru.com/noticias/portada20100228/83581/Registran-enormes-luces-en-el-cielo-durante-terremoto-de-88-grados-de-magnitud-que-destruyo-Chile to http://www.peru.com/noticias/portada20100228/83581/Registran-enormes-luces-en-el-cielo-durante-terremoto-de-88-grados-de-magnitud-que-destruyo-Chile

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Should be updated in view of Mexico Sept. 2021 documentation
As abundant documentation is present from the recent earthquake, the skeptical over-tone is no longer adequate. The article should be focused on feasible explanations and the skepticism be removed from the header. אילן שמעוני (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

How is Earthquake Light considered Fringe Science but Ball Lightning isn't?
Considering there is legitimate documentation on Earthquake Light, including video evidence from several different sources and events, how is it considered "Fringe Science" whilst Ball Lightning is only associated with "Unsolved problems in physics" and "Unexplained phenomena" despite a lack of any video evidence of its existence? NameAlwaysTaken (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

New Video Evidence in Turkey / Syria Earthquake Aftershock
An article from guardian has an embedded video of the aftershock happened at 20.02.2023. Around Minute 0:27 the phenomena can be clearly seen via dashcam footage https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/20/turkey-new-6-point-4-magnitude-earthquake-hatay 2001:A61:B7F:A201:2DD7:46BC:A398:4729 (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

do skeptics really need a section?
is there really needed a section with quotes from 2016 on skepticism about this even after the page has been updated with abundant more evidence? 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:9DB:752F:8F12:FAB5 (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I would support removal of the section, or perhaps skepticism being folded into a "History of observation" or the Possible explanations section as superseded. Preferably I would wait until more authoritative sources, like the 2023 study by Xie et al. from Remote Sensing that I added, are added as well, as the current news sources are based on "unverified" videos and can be challenged similarly to UFO videos. 93 (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)