On June 8, 2020, Harlan Thomas, a resident of the Canadian province of Alberta and one of the users of spaceweather.com, posted images of the rainbow that baffled him in a local gallery:
In his comments on the post, Harlan Thomas writes:
The post with this rainbow caused a certain stir on the Internet, everyone writes about it, but no one knows what to say. The most common explanation within the "scientific paradigms" involves the phenomenon of the "blood moon" type.
The so-called "blood moon" is a well-known and carefully monitored phenomenon by astrologers, although the phenomenon is inexplicable. In theory, during an incomplete lunar eclipse, the edges of the Earth refract light, like a lens and, as it were, illuminate the moon in red.
If we apply this theory to a red rainbow, then drops of air somewhere over the horizon refracted something there and therefore only the red color went to the formation of the rainbow. The explanation is very strange, when one theory is built on another unproven theory, nevertheless, the officials ordered it to be considered that way.
Promotional video:
Another proposed official explanation is stronger atmospheric scattering of blue rays and weaker scattering of red. Therefore, when the Sun went down and the light from it weakened, the blue rays scattered and were lost, and the red ones reached and formed a rainbow.
Like many other official explanations of natural phenomena, the fairy tale about rays is idiocy in its purest form. Is that why the sky, for example, is blue? From the point of view of normal logic, the atmosphere is a weak filter for red rays, but passes the blue part of the spectrum well. Therefore, if you look at something through the atmosphere, then it will be bluish - there will be more blue rays.
So says a simple experience with a blue bottle glass through which you can look at the world. But the officials say how? And they say no, that the atmosphere transmits red very well, and blue scatters, so this scattering gives the blue color of the sky.
Let's not argue with wise academic men: since they said that the atmosphere scatters blue light, and red goes straight, then this is how it is. But the rainbow was observed AFTER SUNSET, when the Sun hid behind the edge of the round Earth and therefore the red rays, which go straight, rested on the ground, and the blue ones scattered and went beyond the horizon. Therefore, the rainbow should be blue, right according to the official theory? And the sunset should be blue too.
In general, the logic of official explanations has always been lame and lame. When the moon above the horizon is visually many times larger than when it is at its zenith, we are told about an illusion and about the fact that you cannot believe your eyes. When the stars in the sky look like points, which cannot be in principle (in the Universe, uniformly filled with stars, the brightness of the sky, including the night sky, should be approximately equal to the brightness of the solar disk) - we are told about the “paradox”. That is, as soon as something cannot be explained, wonderful words appear: phenomenon, illusion, paradox, and so on. Aren't there too many paradoxes?
But in fact, with this orange rainbow, everything is elementary and understandable even to a child. So, if the sun has gone beyond the horizon, but still gives a rainbow, then some other source of light will continue to hang over the horizon. If the sun has gone beyond the horizon, but there is still a rainbow and this rainbow is red, then this second light source emits mainly in the red spectrum. And what else could there be, and even red? The Sumerians named this object with the word Nibiru.
Thus, for some reason, we do not see Nibiru and its satellites at will, and some new objects in the sky are registered only from time to time and purely by chance, nevertheless, there are already rainbows from the light of Nibiru. And if so, then soon such red rainbows will be seen very often and constantly. And one fine day people will not see the red rainbow right at night, so we follow the development of events.