Orb spotted at Pasir Ris Park

[Truthspeak]

100% observable facts but ownself cannot back it up. Hope you not 3 years old kids. Even the Youtube kids more smarter than you

 

[Hightech88]

Actually I have never make claims that I am right. I am asking you to verify your own claim lol

100% observable facts?

Where and how?
Your house or videos from internet? Lol

Seems to me you have a difficulty to prove your own claim lol

Whatever scientific evidence presented to you is also useless as you will still think it is fake. Note, that I never force you to believe that Ball Lightning is real, you like anyone has the right not to believe in anything. Here are some documented scientific evidence. Again, you can choose not to believe and can always say all are fake etc. But do care to read up as well. This is an open forum for discussion.

---

Key Scientific Evidence​

1. “Observation of the Optical and Spectral Characteristics of Ball Lightning” (Cen, Yuan, Xue, 2014)
   
   • Observed with two slitless spectrographs ~0.9 km away from a cloud-to-ground lightning strike. (Physical Review Journals)
   • The researchers recorded both video and spectral data of a ball lightning event. (Phys.org)
   • Spectral analysis showed emission lines corresponding to soil elements (silicon, iron, calcium) for the entire event, suggesting that the lightning striking soil vaporized material that contributed to the luminous ball. (Physical Review Journals)
   • They also tracked its motion: it drifted horizontally, then rose slightly; lasted about 1.6 seconds. (Phys.org)
2. “Study on the luminous characteristics of a natural ball lightning” (2018, applied from earlier event in Qinghai plateau, China)
   
   • Using the same or similar event as above, this study estimated the luminous intensity of the ball lightning (in the 400-690 nm range). (Astrophysics Data System)
   • They found peak brightness around 1.24 × 10⁵ candela in the initial stage, then ~5.9 × 10⁴ cd and optical power ~4.2 × 10³ W during most of its life. (Astrophysics Data System)
3. “Ball lightning observation: an objective video-camera analysis report” (Sello, Viviani, Paganini, 2011)
   
   • This paper describes a “probable” ball lightning event recorded on video, with photometric/dynamic analysis (size, motion, brightness). (arXiv)
   • Helps confirm that what was seen behaves like balls of light (luminous, moving, etc.), not just camera artifacts. (arXiv)
4. Historical and Eyewitness Case Compilations
   
   • “A brief history of ball lightning observations by scientists and trained professionals” (Keul, 2021) compiles a large number (dozens) of reports spanning many countries over many years. (HGSS)
   • These help show it's not just folklore; multiple trained observers (pilots, meteorologists, etc.) have reported phenomena matching ball lightning descriptions. (AGU Publications)

What These Studies Prove / Why Some Uncertainty Remains​

What is well-supported:

• Ball lightning does occur in nature — the 2014 Chinese spectrographic capture is perhaps the best physical evidence.
• Some physical properties (motion, color change, emission spectrum, lifetime) have been measured.
  What is still uncertain:
• There isn’t a single widely-accepted theory that explains all observations (different sizes, durations, interactions, sounds, passage through windows, etc.).
• Difficulty replicating the phenomenon under controlled lab conditions with all same behaviors.
• Some reports are anecdotal only (without instruments), which makes them hard to verify.
• ------------------

--------------------
There is scientific evidence supporting the existence of ball lightning, though it remains challenging to study due to its rarity and transient nature. While thousands of eyewitness reports span centuries, more rigorous evidence comes from prevalence surveys, rare instrumental recordings (including spectral and video data), and laboratory simulations that replicate similar phenomena. Below, I'll outline the key categories of evidence with specific examples and links to sources.

### Eyewitness Prevalence Surveys
Large-scale surveys indicate ball lightning is not just anecdotal but observed by a notable portion of the population:
- A 1960 study at Oak Ridge National Laboratory surveyed over 17,000 people and found that 3.1–5.6% reported seeing ball lightning, equating to roughly 5% of the global population based on a Scientific American summary. This statistical analysis of over 2,000 cases further corroborated consistent characteristics like size, duration, and behavior.
- Link: [Wikipedia summary with references](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning) (citing McNally, 1960, and Grigoriev, 1988).

### Instrumental Recordings
Direct scientific observations are scarce but include video and spectral data:
- In 2012, researchers from Northwest Normal University in China captured the first instrumental recording of natural ball lightning on video during a thunderstorm on the Tibetan Plateau. The 5-meter-diameter orb traveled horizontally at 8.6 m/s for 1.64 seconds, with high-speed footage (3,000 frames/sec) showing oscillations at 100 Hz. Spectral analysis revealed emission lines from neutral silicon, calcium, iron, nitrogen, and oxygen (temperature <15,000–30,000 K), suggesting soil vaporization—distinct from typical lightning spectra. This is considered the strongest direct evidence to date.
- Link: [Physical Review Letters study](https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.035001) (Cen et al., 2014).
- A June 2025 analysis in the *Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society* evaluated video footage of objects captured <10 m from a camera, estimating their velocity and brightness as consistent with ball lightning descriptions, lending support to authenticity.
- Link: [Journal article](https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.5038).
- A July 2025 video from Alberta, Canada, shows a glowing orb near a home during a storm, analyzed as potential ball lightning by researchers. While not yet peer-reviewed, it aligns with prior recordings.
- Link: [YouTube footage and discussion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMsGHmGxyxo).

### Laboratory Simulations
Labs have created phenomena visually and physically similar to ball lightning, providing mechanistic insights:
- At the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP), researchers generate plasmoids (glowing plasma balls) via high-voltage discharge (4.8 kV, 50–130 A) over water, producing 20 cm yellowish-red orbs lasting ~0.5 seconds at 4,000 K. These rise slowly, hiss, and glow intensely, matching many eyewitness reports, though they extinguish on contact rather than penetrating objects.
- Link: [IPP experiment description](https://www.ipp.mpg.de/2977926/kugelblitze).
- In 2007, Brazilian physicists vaporized silicon wafers with electricity, creating long-lasting luminous balls via oxidation, supporting the "vaporized silicon" hypothesis for natural formation.
- Link: [Physical Review Letters study](https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.048501) (Paiva et al., 2007).

These pieces build a case for ball lightning's reality, though no single theory explains all aspects, and skeptics note the lack of reproducible field experiments. Scientists continue seeking more data, such as via citizen reports correlated with radar. For deeper dives, see the International Committee on Ball Lightning's resources or journals like *Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics*.

----------------

 

[Truthspeak]

Whatever scientific evidence presented to you is also useless as you will still think it is fake. Note, that I never force you to believe that Ball Lightning is real, you like anyone has the right not to believe in anything. Here are some documented scientific evidence. Again, you can choose not to believe and can always say all are fake etc. But do care to read up as well. This is an open forum for discussion.

---

Key Scientific Evidence​

1. “Observation of the Optical and Spectral Characteristics of Ball Lightning” (Cen, Yuan, Xue, 2014)
   • Observed with two slitless spectrographs ~0.9 km away from a cloud-to-ground lightning strike. (Physical Review Journals)
   • The researchers recorded both video and spectral data of a ball lightning event. (Phys.org)
   • Spectral analysis showed emission lines corresponding to soil elements (silicon, iron, calcium) for the entire event, suggesting that the lightning striking soil vaporized material that contributed to the luminous ball. (Physical Review Journals)
   • They also tracked its motion: it drifted horizontally, then rose slightly; lasted about 1.6 seconds. (Phys.org)
2. “Study on the luminous characteristics of a natural ball lightning” (2018, applied from earlier event in Qinghai plateau, China)
   • Using the same or similar event as above, this study estimated the luminous intensity of the ball lightning (in the 400-690 nm range). (Astrophysics Data System)
   • They found peak brightness around 1.24 × 10⁵ candela in the initial stage, then ~5.9 × 10⁴ cd and optical power ~4.2 × 10³ W during most of its life. (Astrophysics Data System)
3. “Ball lightning observation: an objective video-camera analysis report” (Sello, Viviani, Paganini, 2011)
   • This paper describes a “probable” ball lightning event recorded on video, with photometric/dynamic analysis (size, motion, brightness). (arXiv)
   • Helps confirm that what was seen behaves like balls of light (luminous, moving, etc.), not just camera artifacts. (arXiv)
4. Historical and Eyewitness Case Compilations
   • “A brief history of ball lightning observations by scientists and trained professionals” (Keul, 2021) compiles a large number (dozens) of reports spanning many countries over many years. (HGSS)
   • These help show it's not just folklore; multiple trained observers (pilots, meteorologists, etc.) have reported phenomena matching ball lightning descriptions. (AGU Publications)

What These Studies Prove / Why Some Uncertainty Remains​

What is well-supported:

• Ball lightning does occur in nature — the 2014 Chinese spectrographic capture is perhaps the best physical evidence.
• Some physical properties (motion, color change, emission spectrum, lifetime) have been measured.
  What is still uncertain:
• There isn’t a single widely-accepted theory that explains all observations (different sizes, durations, interactions, sounds, passage through windows, etc.).
• Difficulty replicating the phenomenon under controlled lab conditions with all same behaviors.
• Some reports are anecdotal only (without instruments), which makes them hard to verify.
• ------------------

--------------------
There is scientific evidence supporting the existence of ball lightning, though it remains challenging to study due to its rarity and transient nature. While thousands of eyewitness reports span centuries, more rigorous evidence comes from prevalence surveys, rare instrumental recordings (including spectral and video data), and laboratory simulations that replicate similar phenomena. Below, I'll outline the key categories of evidence with specific examples and links to sources.

### Eyewitness Prevalence Surveys
Large-scale surveys indicate ball lightning is not just anecdotal but observed by a notable portion of the population:
- A 1960 study at Oak Ridge National Laboratory surveyed over 17,000 people and found that 3.1–5.6% reported seeing ball lightning, equating to roughly 5% of the global population based on a Scientific American summary. This statistical analysis of over 2,000 cases further corroborated consistent characteristics like size, duration, and behavior.
- Link: [Wikipedia summary with references](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning) (citing McNally, 1960, and Grigoriev, 1988).

### Instrumental Recordings
Direct scientific observations are scarce but include video and spectral data:
- In 2012, researchers from Northwest Normal University in China captured the first instrumental recording of natural ball lightning on video during a thunderstorm on the Tibetan Plateau. The 5-meter-diameter orb traveled horizontally at 8.6 m/s for 1.64 seconds, with high-speed footage (3,000 frames/sec) showing oscillations at 100 Hz. Spectral analysis revealed emission lines from neutral silicon, calcium, iron, nitrogen, and oxygen (temperature <15,000–30,000 K), suggesting soil vaporization—distinct from typical lightning spectra. This is considered the strongest direct evidence to date.
- Link: [Physical Review Letters study](https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.035001) (Cen et al., 2014).
- A June 2025 analysis in the *Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society* evaluated video footage of objects captured <10 m from a camera, estimating their velocity and brightness as consistent with ball lightning descriptions, lending support to authenticity.
- Link: [Journal article](https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.5038).
- A July 2025 video from Alberta, Canada, shows a glowing orb near a home during a storm, analyzed as potential ball lightning by researchers. While not yet peer-reviewed, it aligns with prior recordings.
- Link: [YouTube footage and discussion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMsGHmGxyxo).

### Laboratory Simulations
Labs have created phenomena visually and physically similar to ball lightning, providing mechanistic insights:
- At the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP), researchers generate plasmoids (glowing plasma balls) via high-voltage discharge (4.8 kV, 50–130 A) over water, producing 20 cm yellowish-red orbs lasting ~0.5 seconds at 4,000 K. These rise slowly, hiss, and glow intensely, matching many eyewitness reports, though they extinguish on contact rather than penetrating objects.
- Link: [IPP experiment description](https://www.ipp.mpg.de/2977926/kugelblitze).
- In 2007, Brazilian physicists vaporized silicon wafers with electricity, creating long-lasting luminous balls via oxidation, supporting the "vaporized silicon" hypothesis for natural formation.
- Link: [Physical Review Letters study](https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.048501) (Paiva et al., 2007).

These pieces build a case for ball lightning's reality, though no single theory explains all aspects, and skeptics note the lack of reproducible field experiments. Scientists continue seeking more data, such as via citizen reports correlated with radar. For deeper dives, see the International Committee on Ball Lightning's resources or journals like *Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics*.

----------------

Yes it is FAKE since YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROVE ITS AUTHENTICITY lol
And yet got cheek to say 100% observable facts.

Ask where and how?

Can’t even provide an answer lol

 

[Truthspeak]

Whatever scientific evidence presented to you is also useless as you will still think it is fake. Note, that I never force you to believe that Ball Lightning is real, you like anyone has the right not to believe in anything. Here are some documented scientific evidence. Again, you can choose not to believe and can always say all are fake etc. But do care to read up as well. This is an open forum for discussion.

---

Key Scientific Evidence​

1. “Observation of the Optical and Spectral Characteristics of Ball Lightning” (Cen, Yuan, Xue, 2014)
   • Observed with two slitless spectrographs ~0.9 km away from a cloud-to-ground lightning strike. (Physical Review Journals)
   • The researchers recorded both video and spectral data of a ball lightning event. (Phys.org)
   • Spectral analysis showed emission lines corresponding to soil elements (silicon, iron, calcium) for the entire event, suggesting that the lightning striking soil vaporized material that contributed to the luminous ball. (Physical Review Journals)
   • They also tracked its motion: it drifted horizontally, then rose slightly; lasted about 1.6 seconds. (Phys.org)
2. “Study on the luminous characteristics of a natural ball lightning” (2018, applied from earlier event in Qinghai plateau, China)
   • Using the same or similar event as above, this study estimated the luminous intensity of the ball lightning (in the 400-690 nm range). (Astrophysics Data System)
   • They found peak brightness around 1.24 × 10⁵ candela in the initial stage, then ~5.9 × 10⁴ cd and optical power ~4.2 × 10³ W during most of its life. (Astrophysics Data System)
3. “Ball lightning observation: an objective video-camera analysis report” (Sello, Viviani, Paganini, 2011)
   • This paper describes a “probable” ball lightning event recorded on video, with photometric/dynamic analysis (size, motion, brightness). (arXiv)
   • Helps confirm that what was seen behaves like balls of light (luminous, moving, etc.), not just camera artifacts. (arXiv)
4. Historical and Eyewitness Case Compilations
   • “A brief history of ball lightning observations by scientists and trained professionals” (Keul, 2021) compiles a large number (dozens) of reports spanning many countries over many years. (HGSS)
   • These help show it's not just folklore; multiple trained observers (pilots, meteorologists, etc.) have reported phenomena matching ball lightning descriptions. (AGU Publications)

What These Studies Prove / Why Some Uncertainty Remains​

What is well-supported:

• Ball lightning does occur in nature — the 2014 Chinese spectrographic capture is perhaps the best physical evidence.
• Some physical properties (motion, color change, emission spectrum, lifetime) have been measured.
  What is still uncertain:
• There isn’t a single widely-accepted theory that explains all observations (different sizes, durations, interactions, sounds, passage through windows, etc.).
• Difficulty replicating the phenomenon under controlled lab conditions with all same behaviors.
• Some reports are anecdotal only (without instruments), which makes them hard to verify.
• ------------------

--------------------
There is scientific evidence supporting the existence of ball lightning, though it remains challenging to study due to its rarity and transient nature. While thousands of eyewitness reports span centuries, more rigorous evidence comes from prevalence surveys, rare instrumental recordings (including spectral and video data), and laboratory simulations that replicate similar phenomena. Below, I'll outline the key categories of evidence with specific examples and links to sources.

### Eyewitness Prevalence Surveys
Large-scale surveys indicate ball lightning is not just anecdotal but observed by a notable portion of the population:
- A 1960 study at Oak Ridge National Laboratory surveyed over 17,000 people and found that 3.1–5.6% reported seeing ball lightning, equating to roughly 5% of the global population based on a Scientific American summary. This statistical analysis of over 2,000 cases further corroborated consistent characteristics like size, duration, and behavior.
- Link: [Wikipedia summary with references](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning) (citing McNally, 1960, and Grigoriev, 1988).

### Instrumental Recordings
Direct scientific observations are scarce but include video and spectral data:
- In 2012, researchers from Northwest Normal University in China captured the first instrumental recording of natural ball lightning on video during a thunderstorm on the Tibetan Plateau. The 5-meter-diameter orb traveled horizontally at 8.6 m/s for 1.64 seconds, with high-speed footage (3,000 frames/sec) showing oscillations at 100 Hz. Spectral analysis revealed emission lines from neutral silicon, calcium, iron, nitrogen, and oxygen (temperature <15,000–30,000 K), suggesting soil vaporization—distinct from typical lightning spectra. This is considered the strongest direct evidence to date.
- Link: [Physical Review Letters study](https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.035001) (Cen et al., 2014).
- A June 2025 analysis in the *Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society* evaluated video footage of objects captured <10 m from a camera, estimating their velocity and brightness as consistent with ball lightning descriptions, lending support to authenticity.
- Link: [Journal article](https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.5038).
- A July 2025 video from Alberta, Canada, shows a glowing orb near a home during a storm, analyzed as potential ball lightning by researchers. While not yet peer-reviewed, it aligns with prior recordings.
- Link: [YouTube footage and discussion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMsGHmGxyxo).

### Laboratory Simulations
Labs have created phenomena visually and physically similar to ball lightning, providing mechanistic insights:
- At the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP), researchers generate plasmoids (glowing plasma balls) via high-voltage discharge (4.8 kV, 50–130 A) over water, producing 20 cm yellowish-red orbs lasting ~0.5 seconds at 4,000 K. These rise slowly, hiss, and glow intensely, matching many eyewitness reports, though they extinguish on contact rather than penetrating objects.
- Link: [IPP experiment description](https://www.ipp.mpg.de/2977926/kugelblitze).
- In 2007, Brazilian physicists vaporized silicon wafers with electricity, creating long-lasting luminous balls via oxidation, supporting the "vaporized silicon" hypothesis for natural formation.
- Link: [Physical Review Letters study](https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.048501) (Paiva et al., 2007).

These pieces build a case for ball lightning's reality, though no single theory explains all aspects, and skeptics note the lack of reproducible field experiments. Scientists continue seeking more data, such as via citizen reports correlated with radar. For deeper dives, see the International Committee on Ball Lightning's resources or journals like *Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics*.

----------------

Please go verify before saying this is scientific evidence.

If these were truly scientific evidence, why are we even in post 64

Still need an AI to teach you something lol

 

[Hightech88]

Yes it is FAKE since YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROVE ITS AUTHENTICITY lol
And yet got cheek to say 100% observable facts.

Ask where and how?

Can’t even provide an answer lol

View attachment 228904

I believe that Ball Lightning is real and this fact has been well-documented throughout history. As mentioned before, of course some videos can be AI generated and fake but there are many reported in the news which does appear to be real.

If you choose not to believe in them, so be it.

It's not for me to proof it's authenticity as I have never seen one myself so have many others on some rare phenomena. But unable to proof its authenticity does not mean it is not real. Reason being, Ball Lightning is a rare natural phenomena, which is hard to observe and record and you will be lucky to be able to record one on video LOL.

Hence we can only rely on documented evidence on such occurrences and I am merely giving you whatever factual info I can find on Ball Lightning which mentioned that they are real and a factual natural occurrence. Yes, I mentioned they are facts as I believe they are, just like you do not believe at all, doesn't matter.

And now I throw the question back to you, can you proof that Ball Lightning is not real, is all a hoax? Perhaps you can explain using all your logic and let us better understand your inner world on what you think.

If you can, please show all of us here where is your scientific evidence to show that all Ball Lightning occurrences reported through history is actually a hoax and can be explain using science that all videos shown in the internet is actually CGI and AI generated.

It's the same with UFOs, some are hoax of course but some are well-documented by US navies to be real, but again as you have never seen one yourself, you will not believe.

 

[Truthspeak]

I believe that Ball Lightning is real and this fact has been well-documented throughout history. As mentioned before, of course some videos can be AI generated and fake but there are many reported in the news which does appear to be real.

If you choose not to believe in them, so be it.

It's not for me to proof it's authenticity as I have never seen one myself so have many others on some rare phenomena. But unable to proof its authenticity does not mean it is not real. Reason being, Ball Lightning is a rare natural phenomena, which is hard to observe and record and you will be lucky to be able to record one on video LOL.

Hence we can only rely on documented evidence on such occurrences and I am merely giving you whatever factual info I can find on Ball Lightning which mentioned that they are real and a factual natural occurrence. Yes, I mentioned they are facts as I believe they are, just like you do not believe at all, doesn't matter.

And now I throw the question back to you, can you proof that Ball Lightning is not real, is all a hoax? Perhaps you can explain using all your logic and let us better understand your inner world on what you think.

If you can, please show all of us here where is your scientific evidence to show that all Ball Lightning occurrences reported through history is actually a hoax and can be explain using science that all videos shown in the internet is actually CGI and AI generated.

It's the same with UFOs, some are hoax of course but some are well-documented by US navies to be real, but again as you have never seen one yourself, you will not believe.

You believe it was real but you unable to verify its authenticity and I have to prove to you otherwise

There you go.

These fake videos are just your belief system. That is why you are struggling to present scientific evidence lol

The burden of proof is always on the one who makes the claim lol

If you don’t know how to ask questions for your belief, it is not my fault lol

 

[Hightech88]

You believe it was real but you unable to verify its authenticity and I have to prove to you otherwise

There you go.

These fake videos are just your belief system. That is why you are struggling to present scientific evidence lol

The burden of proof is always on the one who makes the claim lol

If you don’t know how to ask questions for your belief, it is not my fault lol

The burden of proof is not always one-sided. You claim Ball Lightning is not real, are you able to proof it then? LOL.

I've made the claim and given the proof. Doesn't matter. All boils down to you choose not to believe despite me presenting you with documented scientific evidence.
The shit is stuck on your face and you just choose to totally ignore and don't even know how to present logical questions on your belief that they are false and brush them all as nonsense and fake. In other words, you just want to argue for the sake of argument isn't it? True or false?

So how?

I rest my case here. I think you should as well for your own mental health sake LOL.

 

[Truthspeak]

The burden of proof is not always one-sided. You claim Ball Lightning is not real, are you able to proof it then? LOL.

I've made the claim and given the proof. Doesn't matter. All boils down to you choose not to believe despite me presenting you with documented scientific evidence.
The shit is stuck on your face and you just choose to totally ignore and don't even know how to present logical questions on your belief that they are false and brush them all as nonsense and fake. In other words, you just want to argue for the sake of argument isn't it? True or false?

So how?

I rest my case here. I think you should as well for your own mental health sake LOL.

If you want to evade from proving your own belief, that is to throw the burden of proof to the ones who disproves it.

By now, it is clear if these videos are hoax or not as the ones who believed it don’t even bother to prove its authenticity lol

 

[Hightech88]

If you want to evade from proving your own belief, that is to throw the burden of proof to the ones who disproves it.

By now, it is clear if these videos are hoax or not as the ones who believed it don’t even bother to prove its authenticity lol

Doesn't matter, you happy can already. And now please move on to other topics. Thank you LOL.

 

[Truthspeak]

Doesn't matter, you happy can already. And now please move on to other topics. Thank you LOL.

It does matter when you are spreading fake news and can’t back it up lol

And then claimed this

 

[Hightech88]

It does matter when you are spreading fake news and can’t back it up lol

And then claimed this

View attachment 228905

I've already back it up with numerous documented scientific evidence and yet you chose to totally ignore.

So end of day it's only your opinion LOL.

 

[Truthspeak]

I've already back it up with numerous documented scientific evidence and yet you chose to totally ignore.

So end of day it's only your opinion LOL.

Where is your 100% observable facts?

Don’t evade. Those so-called evidence has not been verified too.

 

[Hightech88]

Where is your 100% observable facts?

Don’t evade. Those so-called evidence has not been verified too.

They are 100% observable facts according to the presented documented scientific evidence with full links in credible scientific journals some more LOL, which are recorded throughout history.

I'll quote just first two of the many examples given earlier : https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.035001, https://www.researchgate.net/public...nd_Spectral_Characteristics_of_Ball_Lightning
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD017921

I have already done my part. So now the ball is in your court.

So where is your full evidence that all Ball Lightning incidents are fake and not real? Please give irrefutable proof that Ball Lightning is fake and that all are either AI, CGI or CSB stories. Note that I've already mentioned that obviously some of these 'Ball Lightning' videos can be faked by AI CGI, but does not refute the well-documented fact that Ball Lightning itself is 100% real and has been observed for centuries as already mentioned earlier.

Don't evade the question. Present your scientific evidence with reference to credible published scientific journal that Ball Lightning is impossible to be formed in real life and ensure your evidence is documented and is scientifically verified too.

If you want to argue that all these documented evidence cannot be verified as they are already history, then there is nothing to discuss anymore and anything in this world in fake including yourself and we are living in a matrix LOL.

Don't argue for the sake of arguing lah NBCB. You are damn farking bloody irritating. I strongly suggest you don't xia suay yourself further as you will always continue to argue and repeat 'Where is your 100% observable facts?' til the cow comes home.

 

[Truthspeak]

They are 100% observable facts according to the presented documented scientific evidence with full links in credible scientific journals some more LOL, which are recorded throughout history.

I'll quote just first two of the many examples given earlier : https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.035001, https://www.researchgate.net/public...nd_Spectral_Characteristics_of_Ball_Lightning
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012JD017921

I have already done my part. So now the ball is in your court.

So where is your full evidence that all Ball Lightning incidents are fake and not real? Please give irrefutable proof that Ball Lightning is fake and that all are either AI, CGI or CSB stories. Note that I've already mentioned that obviously some of these 'Ball Lightning' videos can be faked by AI CGI, but does not refute the well-documented fact that Ball Lightning is 100% real and has been observed for centuries as already mentioned earlier.

Don't evade the question. Present your scientific evidence with reference to credible published scientific journal that Ball Lightning is impossible to be formed in real life and ensure your evidence is documented and is scientifically verified too.

If you want to argue that all these documented evidence cannot be verified as they are already history, then there is nothing to discuss anymore and anything in this world in fake including yourself and we are living in a matrix LOL.

Don't argue for the sake of arguing lah NBCB. You are damn farking bloody irritating.

You claimed 100% observable facts. So where can we observe that? If this cannot be achieved, what is there to be observed? Lol

You think those useless papers are evidence of anything? You so naive

Ball lightning (BL) has been observed with two slitless spectrographs at a distance of 0.9 km. The BL is generated by a cloud-to-ground lightning strike. It moves horizontally during the luminous duration. The evolution of size, color, and light intensity is reported in detail. The spectral analysis indicates that the radiation from soil elements is present for the entire lifetime of the BL.

This is an assumption. So where can we examine this?

Not sure if you even understand science well

Don’t evade ok lol

 

[Hightech88]

You claimed 100% observable facts. So where can we observe that? If this cannot be achieved, what is there to be observed? Lol

You think those useless papers are evidence of anything? You so naive

Not sure if you even understand science well

There is nothing to discuss with you anymore. You are completely a 100% retard, naive and a disgrace in this forum.

Please do not reply or post anything anymore as your reputation is completely ruined and everybody already can see that you a clown and like to argue for the sake of arguing when scientific facts are presented to your face and yet continue to disbelieve.

Kindly do not reply anymore as you will continue to sing the same song to disgrace yourself with nothing new. Kum sia.
And BTW you are in my ignore list already. So don't bother replying anymore. Damn xia suay.

 

[Truthspeak]

There is nothing to discuss with you anymore. You are completely a 100% retard, naive and a disgrace in this forum.

Please do not reply or post anything anymore as your reputation is completely ruined and everybody already can see that you a clown and like to argue for the sake of arguing when scientific facts are presented to your face and yet continue to disbelieve.

Kindly do not reply anymore as you will continue to sing the same song to disgrace yourself with nothing new. Kum sia.

The retarded yourself made claims ball lightning is 100% observable facts but when asked where do we observe this? Throw some useless papers and claim that is the evidence of what? “Nothing”

No mention of anywhere we can observe this phenomenon and yet still claim 100% observable facts lol

You got conned and yet want others who are illiterate with Science to fail like you lol

The paper stated “It has been observed” by who?
Either you fail science or english badly lol

 

[Truthspeak]

Your poor understanding of Science is as long as some fake scientists wrote it has been concluded, there is no need for us to know more period lol

This kind of science is science?

@Hightech88, you are a clown

Obviously, it cannot be observable 100% lol​

 

[Truthspeak]

There is nothing to discuss with you anymore. You are completely a 100% retard, naive and a disgrace in this forum.

Please do not reply or post anything anymore as your reputation is completely ruined and everybody already can see that you a clown and like to argue for the sake of arguing when scientific facts are presented to your face and yet continue to disbelieve.

Kindly do not reply anymore as you will continue to sing the same song to disgrace yourself with nothing new. Kum sia.
And BTW you are in my ignore list already. So don't bother replying anymore. Damn xia suay.

You are the real xia suay and disgrace. Having a scientific discourse can lead you to evading from proving yourself right lol