New Triangular UFO Found: Red Lights in Pacific Ocean (2014)

a reply to: peacefulpete


Your photos of cars are not taken at 30,000 feet or whatever so what's your point? Give it up, man.

a reply to: peacefulpete

That's not how light works at all lol.

Do you always laugh at your own jokes ?

When a car has its lights on, from overhead, does the car disappear? Let's look at some photos and see. The brightly-lit street correlates with the brightly-lit water in the pilot's photos. Can you see the dark shapes of the cars?

You really shouldn't have posted this.

I was going to reply to the absolutely stupid comparison of pics you asked readers to do when you post a pic of plane from a close up and say it doesn't compere to the pics taken from the plane at who knows what altitude.

Now, this?

I was even going to mention cars in that last post and how from that altitude something that size is a dot, fishing boats will be slightly larger but not ocean liner size and still will be drowned out by bright lights from that altitude and not visible.

How about a pic of a car from the same altitude as the plane is flying and then we can compare?

Seriously the 2 comparisons you have asked us to do really indicates something lacking on your behalf.


In the other thread its perspective, this thread its contrast.

the way you explained numerous times what was done was telling readers that it was contrast then you decide to mention saturation.

Every time you tried explaining what was done to the pics with colors you were describing contrast adjustments.

The OP claims that these photos were taken in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and nowhere near land. I looked at the pilots website and he says he was flying over the Pacific southeast of the Russian Kamchatka Peninsula. The website shows the exact position.

So, it was not in the middle of the Pacific at all so one wonders why the OP claims it was.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
The OP claims that these photos were taken in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and nowhere near land. I looked at the pilots website and he says he was flying over the Pacific southeast of the Russian Kamchatka Peninsula. The website shows the exact position.

So, it was not in the middle of the Pacific at all so one wonders why the OP claims it was.

Its like many "researchers" they simply parrot or give vague explanation that can easily be interpreted as something else or in this case just claim one thing (chances are they are parroting the middle of the pacific claim) when in fact its 1000s of Km from the middle of the Pacific.


I get it if its chit chat and these things we are discussing are simply entertainment but if there we want to find out what things are that are unique or unidentified then half ass research and parroting other site sand YouTube videos only brings the ATS community confusion.

When researching anything one need to use precise language to make clear the points being made so there is no confusions or chance of misinterpretation.

I like the passion some have but the way they go about their research and how they present things sometimes hinders moving forward or finding a clear cut answer.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


But this is not bioluminescence - its floodlights illuminating it.

Truth is, your statement is false, because you don't know that it was floodlights. You think it was, but you don't know what it was. We're all just looking at the same photos and interpreting them.

For anyone to know for sure, the person would have had to be swimming in the middle of the Pacific Ocean during the sighting lol.

a reply to: InhaleExhale


Yes. No one apart from the OP has, as far as I can tell, claimed that this was in the middle of the Pacific Ocean so I wonder if this was just a made up lie to add another layer of mystery. If so, then that is pretty sad.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


Your photos of cars are not taken at 30,000 feet or whatever so what's your point? Give it up, man.

The number of feet is irrelevant.

The street photos show very obviously that similar LIGHT-conditions do not result in the cars disappearing.

I wasn't addressing elevation, I was addressing the ridiculous idea that the boats were disappearing because of the floodlights engulfing them. It's really not how light works, and my street photos show that.

The illuminated street correlates with the illuminated water in the sighting.

The cars are unlit objects which correlate to the boats (unlit objects). The car headlights correlate with the boat's spotlights.

So with all conditions parallel (re: light), the street photos show that the cars' dark mass obviously does not vanish from the headlights or from the illuminated background.

Obviously light would work the same for boats in similar conditions.

Just like we see the dark shapes of the cars, we would expect to see the dark shapes of boats, if there were boats in the photos from the sighting.

a reply to: peacefulpete


Sorry, but you are talking nonsense. 30,000 odd feet does not make a difference? Give it up, man.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: InhaleExhale


Yes. No one apart from the OP has, as far as I can tell, claimed that this was in the middle of the Pacific Ocean so I wonder if this was just a made up lie to add another layer of mystery. If so, then that is pretty sad.

Are you illiterate?

The sighting HAS ITS OWN OFFICIAL WEBSITE, FROM THE PILOT WHO TOOK THE PHOTOS.

THE PILOT SAID IT WAS THE MIDDLE OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN.

Here's the link to his OFFICIAL WEBSITE ABOUT THIS SIGHTING.

jpcvanheijst.com...

I should have posted the link sooner, but I didn't really think of it, since THE LINK TO THE PILOT'S WEBSITE was in the video description, all this time.

Here's the start of his writing on that website:

Red lights over the Pacific - August 2014

In the night of 24-25 August 2014, I flew one of our 747-8s from Hong Kong to Anchorage. While flying over the vast Pacific Ocean, somewhere southeast of the Russian Kamchatka Peninsula, I had one of the strangest experiences of my life. Around five hours into our flight with Japan a long time behind us, we were cruising at a comfortable 34.000 ft with about four and half hours to go towards Alaska.

Um do you still have trouble understanding that he was flying over the middle of the Pacific Ocean? He was halfway between Japan and Alaska.

a reply to: peacefulpete

The number of feet is irrelevant.

Yes distance and perspective is irrelevant in observation, you made that clear in another thread when in fact they the very important factors when observing something.

I wasn't addressing elevation, I was addressing the ridiculous idea that the boats were disappearing because of the floodlights engulfing them. It's really not how light works, and my street photos show that.

Light doesn't travel in all directions?

Objects passing in front of the sun are still visible?

Yes, because of the elevation at which the plane is flying the boats will disappear when looking down on illuminated surface, if the lights are bright enough they engulf any small objects when viewing from afar, as you get closer you will start to see the objects that were engulfed by the light.

The cars are unlit objects which correlate to the boats (unlit objects). The car headlights correlate with the boat's spotlights. So with all conditions parallel (re: light), the street photos show that the cars' dark mass obviously does not vanish from the headlights or from the illuminated background.

Is the photo we are discussing at street level like the pics you comparing too or are they where planes fly, high in the sky?

Just like we see the dark shapes of the cars, we would expect to see the dark shapes of boats, if there were boats in the photos from the sighting.

The logic is astounding.

a reply to: peacefulpete


I said earlier that I looked at the pilots website. It gives the location at the end in map form and its not the middle of the Pacific. Your quote also says it was just off the Kamchatka Peninsula so it seems to be your literacy skills that are lacking, sunshine.

a reply to: peacefulpete

For anyone to know for sure, the person would have had to be swimming in the middle of the Pacific Ocean during the sighting lol.

You have be a troll.

Um do you still have trouble understanding that he was flying over the middle of the Pacific Ocean? He was halfway between Japan and Alaska.

or simply just ignorant of very basic things.


Half way between Alaska and Japan is no where near the middle of the Pacific.


Thanks for proving my point by the way of how you express yourself to cause confusion or misinterpretation.


Just look at a map for crying out loud.

InhaleExhale:

Do you always laugh at your own jokes ?

I was laughing at your joke. The one about bright lights shining on solid, unlit objects, causing them to disappear. The same logic would mean that at nighttime, when you turn on the lights in your house, then your house disappears lol. And that cars driving at night, would disappear, because of their headlights and the streetlights.


Light works exactly the opposite of how you described it. Light illuminates objects and makes them MORE VISIBLE.


You are funny for a troll.

a reply to: peacefulpete

The same logic would mean that at nighttime, when you turn on the lights in your house, then your house disappears lol.

Yeah because my house is soo big the ceiling is 10km high.

And that cars driving at night, would disappear, because of their headlights and the streetlights.

Look its OK you don't get basics things.


I tried asking you questions to make you think, but its all just game to you.


Light cannot travel in all directions?

Light works exactly the opposite of how you described it. Light illuminates objects and makes them MORE VISIBLE.

try reading the questions asked and if still don't get it then not to worry.


try this,


get a small coin and place it infront of a lit torch.

at 1 meter you will easily see the coin,

start moving further away, yes I know you think distance has no relevance but just try it. Just give it a try, you might learn something new.

Once you get far enough the coin wont be visible but you will still see the torches light,

what happens to the coin?

Does it disappear or is the light simply too bright and at a distance the light bends back around the small object and you can not see it only the light?

You are funny for a troll.

Ok

try to learn something and do the little experiment I just gave you to see how light can engulf objects and make them not visible at a distance.

originally posted by: [post=23551464]InhaleExhale



I was even going to mention cars in that last post and how from that altitude something that size is a dot, fishing boats will be slightly larger but not ocean liner size and still will be drowned out by bright lights from that altitude and not visible.

How about a pic of a car from the same altitude as the plane is flying and then we can compare?

Seriously the 2 comparisons you have asked us to do really indicates something lacking on your behalf.

Wow, again with the garbage, trolling nonsense.

My comparison pics (of street cars) is relevant because we're discussing how light works. Pointing out elevation is just beside the point.

You contradicted yourself by saying that boats would appear as a large dot, which is true. Then you repeated that light causes objects to vanish (rather than light making them visible), which is nonsense, and is opposite your sentence stating that the boats should be visible. Duh.

I was going to reply to the absolutely stupid comparison of pics you asked readers to do when you post a pic of plane from a close up and say it doesn't compere to the pics taken from the plane at who knows what altitude.

I could really care less what topics you respond to, or don't respond to. Your contributions are trolling garbage, so you're not contributing anything meaningful, whether you respond or not.

The plane comparison pics are again, demonstrating how light works, and again, the exact distances in the pics are not relevant to that topic.

I also qualified the pics by saying that nighttime fishing boats' spotlights are a difficult topic to Google images of, so the pics were not ideal.

But why don't you show everyone how talented you must be at finding images that are a closer comparison? (Answer: You won't do that because you're a troll, probably with no real interest in any of these topics, in the first place.)

In the other thread its perspective, this thread its contrast.

^You're referring to the thread about UFO's filmed from Elon Musk's car, floating in space? And you're referring to my lack of being convinced that partially-illuminated objects, which don't appear round, are the moon. Well, the moon is round, and the images look non-round. That's what it boils down to. Maybe it's camera distortion, but that doesn't convince me.

That thread also showed how completely disingenuous you and the other trolls are. Elon Musk's video also shows an object with a flashing pattern like the strobe-light of an airplane; it shows separate objects seeming to flash in coordination with each other; it shows what appears an object with 2 illuminated structures; it shows a UFO that appears for exactly one frame; it shows the exterior of the thruster moving, as if by wind.

It shows all that and your focus was exclusively devoted to arguing that one seemingly non-round object was the moon, while ignoring all the other anomalous sightings in the video. You obviously lack any genuine interest in the threads that you post in.

the way you explained numerous times what was done was telling readers that it was contrast then you decide to mention saturation. Every time you tried explaining what was done to the pics with colors you were describing contrast adjustments.

You can't possibly think that I care about some online troll seemingly refusing to understand what has been clearly described multiple times, including posting a quote and a link to a photography webpage WHICH DEFINES THE TERM "CONTRAST."

People who are literate, and have a genuine interest, will understand that topic.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: oldcarpy
The OP claims that these photos were taken in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and nowhere near land. I looked at the pilots website and he says he was flying over the Pacific southeast of the Russian Kamchatka Peninsula. The website shows the exact position.

So, it was not in the middle of the Pacific at all so one wonders why the OP claims it was.

Its like many "researchers" they simply parrot or give vague explanation that can easily be interpreted as something else or in this case just claim one thing (chances are they are parroting the middle of the pacific claim) when in fact its 1000s of Km from the middle of the Pacific.


I get it if its chit chat and these things we are discussing are simply entertainment but if there we want to find out what things are that are unique or unidentified then half ass research and parroting other site sand YouTube videos only brings the ATS community confusion.

When researching anything one need to use precise language to make clear the points being made so there is no confusions or chance of misinterpretation.

I like the passion some have but the way they go about their research and how they present things sometimes hinders moving forward or finding a clear cut answer.

Illiteracy.

I just posted a link to the OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE SIGHTING, FROM THE PILOT WHO TOOK THE PHOTOS.

PILOT SAID IT WAS THE MIDDLE OF THE PACIFIC.

jpcvanheijst.com...

a reply to: peacefulpete



So I take it you wont try something and just keep on calling me a troll?


If you cannot understand that if an object passes in front of a very bright light that the light may engulf the object when viewing from a distance then why not try the little experiment, you may need to do it on a football field but it will give the idea that seems to be so beyond you that you think I am trolling.


Will you try it or at least try thinking what it means and how you must have seen or experienced where a light is too bright and it engulfs instead of illuminates an object?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

The number of feet is irrelevant.

Yes distance and perspective is irrelevant in observation, you made that clear in another thread when in fact they the very important factors when observing something.

I wasn't addressing elevation, I was addressing the ridiculous idea that the boats were disappearing because of the floodlights engulfing them. It's really not how light works, and my street photos show that.

Light doesn't travel in all directions?

Objects passing in front of the sun are still visible?

Yes, because of the elevation at which the plane is flying the boats will disappear when looking down on illuminated surface, if the lights are bright enough they engulf any small objects when viewing from afar, as you get closer you will start to see the objects that were engulfed by the light.

The cars are unlit objects which correlate to the boats (unlit objects). The car headlights correlate with the boat's spotlights. So with all conditions parallel (re: light), the street photos show that the cars' dark mass obviously does not vanish from the headlights or from the illuminated background.

Is the photo we are discussing at street level like the pics you comparing too or are they where planes fly, high in the sky?

Just like we see the dark shapes of the cars, we would expect to see the dark shapes of boats, if there were boats in the photos from the sighting.

The logic is astounding.

Pure garbage. Obviously exact numbers of feet has nothing to do with the properties of how light works.

Objects passing in front of the sun are still visible?

...Yes?

Yes, because of the elevation at which the plane is flying the boats will disappear when looking down on illuminated surface, if the lights are bright enough they engulf any small objects when viewing from afar, as you get closer you will start to see the objects that were engulfed by the light.

Nope.

Light makes things visible, not invisible.

Also the scale is all wrong. If the sighting's pics are showing spotlights then the boats are almost as big as their spotlights, so the boats would be just as visible (at least as dark shapes).

The spotlights are not huge, from the pics I found, the light might be 30 or 40 feet across. The boats themselves are about that same size. You can't have one thing disappear from distance while something else that's the same size, doesn't.

"Just like we see the dark shapes of the cars, we would expect to see the dark shapes of boats, if there were boats in the photos from the sighting."

The logic is astounding.

You know the logic is sound, and that the comparison pics do correlate the relevant factors of illumination.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

For anyone to know for sure, the person would have had to be swimming in the middle of the Pacific Ocean during the sighting lol.

You have be a troll.

Um do you still have trouble understanding that he was flying over the middle of the Pacific Ocean? He was halfway between Japan and Alaska.

or simply just ignorant of very basic things.


Half way between Alaska and Japan is no where near the middle of the Pacific.


Thanks for proving my point by the way of how you express yourself to cause confusion or misinterpretation.


Just look at a map for crying out loud.

You guys are really grasping at straws, to start arguing that literally halfway between Japan and Alaska doesn't count as "the middle of the Pacific."

The presence of that peninsula doesn't mean that it's NOT the middle of the Pacific. Actually the peninsula and the plane are both in the middle of the Pacific.



The phrasing is also not referring to exact numbers of miles or something. Like if someone says that they were standing in the middle of the street, most people wouldn't assume that they meant they were EXACTLY standing on the dividing line in the middle.

a reply to: peacefulpete

I've got a few points to make.

1. Their appears to be a film of haze across the ocean, sea mist. This "suspends" light as it passes through the airborne water. Look at the appearance of street lights on a foggy/misty night. It creates a glow effect.

2. Fishing ships and fleets do go out on very deep water, it depends on the species one is wanting to land and the quality of the catch. Effective storage is key. If this was a fishing fleet it would be a large one... The exact type of fishing fleet one would find in the middle of the ocean. High quality catch such as Tuna is well worth such travels.

3. Any idea of the height of that plane? It isn't low and most fishing vessels are not behemoths that process, freeze, tin package and cook product on ship. If we were looking at such a ship it wouldn't necessarily be practicing such fishing techniques but with that being said it would still be difficult to see a sea behemoth from say 30,000 feet? Most fishing vessels are compact with height and depth. Short in length and width.

4. What kind of lights do you honestly think fishing ships would use? We're talking about tricking fish into thinking it's rising from the depths because sun light is shining, they're aiming to feed. We're talking about extremely powerful lights that shine deep into the ocean and creating a large glow around the vessel.

Go look up the average length of a fishing trawler,you'll find that such vessels would be difficult to spot from such heights even in a situation with perfect visibility.