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

a reply to: peacefulpete

Those are.pictures of a fishing BOAT where.fishermen arw using rods. The last is a jetty or pier.

Like comparing candles to torches.

Speaking of which, look at all those weak battery powered lights and the glow they are creating!

Seeing my point? I've illuminated it well enough.

a reply to: peacefulpete

What are you trying to prove with pictures of cars from a maximum of a few hundred feet up on a well lit road?

It's a laughable comparison to further your case. A better picture would've been a city from 30,000 ft up and trying to spot individual buildings... On a foggy day at ground level.

You wouldn't see buildings in that scenario.

a reply to: peacefulpete

I really wonder why I respond

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.

actually yes they would assume it was in the middle of the street or at least very close to it.

Since you bring it up as an analogy to compare lets look at it.

a human being and a street, even if its a highway with multiple lanes. the size comparison for this analogy is just way off.


one would not say they were in the middle of the street if they were on the street but close to the curb,

one would say they are in the middle of the street if they are .... in the middle of a lane or literately in the middle between 2 lanes.

going back to the size of a human and how wide streets are compared to a size of plane and the pacific ocean.


You should have said ....a microbe standing in the middle of the street and that would be a more accurate comparison for your analogy.

You know the logic is sound

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
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.

You think that's an experiment?

How about instead of screwing around with a torch, I use this amazing thing called Google, and see if I can find images of things in front of the sun (to see if objects disappear when engulfed by a bright light).

Can you see the planes in these photos? Or do they vanish from the bright light behind them?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
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?

Actually maybe you are confusing GLARE, when light is too bright for the human eye to see properly.

However, that's the limits of the human eye, f*ckhead. It's not the limits of the properties of light. If you had extremely dark sunglasses (or welder's glasses) then you would always see perfectly clear when an object is in front of a bright light.

a reply to: peacefulpete

You were their with your sunglasses?

BTW, you keep jumping to ad hominem attacks to a poster who hasn't shown any Ill regards to you. They've merely debated a topic, one you happened to bring to ATS.

This isn't the mud pit, show a bit respect and decorum. There's no need for your attitude.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
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.

You think that's an experiment?

How about instead of screwing around with a torch, I use this amazing thing called Google, and see if I can find images of things in front of the sun (to see if objects disappear when engulfed by a bright light).

Can you see the planes in these photos? Or do they vanish from the bright light behind them?

Clearly using a lense of some sort or the pictures have been edited.

Meh. I've seen bats disappear when passing over the moon, planes too. That's an object just reflecting the sun (the moon).

Honestly, research what you speak of and actually go out and do some perceptive investigation. You'll find you are speaking of fact about a topic you have little to no foreknowledge of.

Not that I'm any expert... I don't need to be, I'm rather perceptive and have enough experience with illuminated sights to speak from experience.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete

Those are.pictures of a fishing BOAT where.fishermen arw using rods. The last is a jetty or pier.

Like comparing candles to torches.

Speaking of which, look at all those weak battery powered lights and the glow they are creating!

Seeing my point? I've illuminated it well enough.

a reply to: peacefulpete

What are you trying to prove with pictures of cars from a maximum of a few hundred feet up on a well lit road?

It's a laughable comparison to further your case. A better picture would've been a city from 30,000 ft up and trying to spot individual buildings... On a foggy day at ground level.

You wouldn't see buildings in that scenario.

Can you please post better pictures for both examples?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

I really wonder why I respond

Me too. Please stop responding to any of my posts, and please stay out of the threads I make. I haven't read the rest of your post because I'm assuming it's the same empty, meaningless garbage that you are known for, in every single one of your posts.

originally posted by: RAY1990

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
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.

You think that's an experiment?

How about instead of screwing around with a torch, I use this amazing thing called Google, and see if I can find images of things in front of the sun (to see if objects disappear when engulfed by a bright light).

Can you see the planes in these photos? Or do they vanish from the bright light behind them?

Clearly using a lense of some sort or the pictures have been edited.

Meh. I've seen bats disappear when passing over the moon, planes too. That's an object just reflecting the sun (the moon).

Honestly, research what you speak of and actually go out and do some perceptive investigation. You'll find you are speaking of fact about a topic you have little to no foreknowledge of.

Not that I'm any expert... I don't need to be, I'm rather perceptive and have enough experience with illuminated sights to speak from experience.

That's nonsense. The pics are not special or unusual, and they don't need to have been edited to look like that.



They only needed a camera with the ability to photograph the sun, without the bright light overwhelming the eye of the camera (which is what happens with our eyes when we look at the sun).

Essentially the pics required nothing but a camera taking pictures through a darkened lens, and it even could have literally been sunglasses that the camera was shooting through, but most likely the camera just had a dark-tinted lens.

There's nothing special or exotic about those pics, and nothing that suggests editing (any more than any other general photo).

You seem to also be confusing the limits of the human eye, with the actual properties of light.

Every pic I posted shows that light does not engulf objects and make them invisible.

It only looks like that to our eyes because of the limits of human visual perception.

That's why the camera can take photos of planes in front of the sun, and they're crystal-clear.

The only difference is that the camera's eye doesn't get overwhelmed and blinded by bright light, the way our eyes do.

A person looking through a very dark tint would also be able to see the planes in front of the sun.

Duh.

a reply to: peacefulpete

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 Kamchatka Peninsula is in the middle of the Pacific? Must be a Mandela Effect because in my reality it isn't.

The map on the pilot's website that you posted shows that it isn't in the middle of the ocean so as you still maintain this in page after page it seems that there is little point arguing the toss with you, particularly when you descend to shouting at other posters in capitals and calling anyone who disagrees with you "trolls".

I see from the pilot's website that when these photos were taken he was flying at a height of 34,000 feet. Which makes it even more unlikely that you would be able to see a fishing boat from that height at night.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

I really wonder why I respond

Me too. Please stop responding to any of my posts, and please stay out of the threads I make. I haven't read the rest of your post because I'm assuming it's the same empty, meaningless garbage that you are known for, in every single one of your posts.

NO thanks,

I will respond as freely as you post.

You don't want a certain posters posting in threads you author on a public forum then the solution is extremely simple, don't post on a public forum if it upsets you.



WOW, I just saw this beauty

you really must be a joy to have around

However, that's the limits of the human eye, f*ckhead.

This type of language only shows the level of intelligence a person is dealing with when interacting with you.

Not even going report this vulgar breach of T&C

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

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 Kamchatka Peninsula is in the middle of the Pacific? Must be a Mandela Effect because in my reality it isn't.

The map on the pilot's website that you posted shows that it isn't in the middle of the ocean so as you still maintain this in page after page it seems that there is little point arguing the toss with you, particularly when you descend to shouting at other posters in capitals and calling anyone who disagrees with you "trolls".

I quoted the airplane pilot's sentences. And I embedded his own map of his location of the sighting.

I wouldn't think there'd be any ambiguity after that lol.

The phrase still works to call it "the middle of the Pacific Ocean."

Is English your second language?

When someone says they're in the middle of something, do you automatically argue about exact measurements?

You must be a really fun person to know in real life lol.

I can imagine your buddies inviting you to drink beer with them: "Hey oldcarpy come help us kill these beers. We're in the middle of drinking this 12-pack."

oldcarpy: "You're in the middle of drinking the 12-pack?! Did you drink exactly 6 beers because if you drank a drop more or a drop less than 6 then you're technically not in the middle of drinking 12 beers." LOL

originally posted by: oldcarpy
I see from the pilot's website that when these photos were taken he was flying at a height of 34,000 feet. Which makes it even more unlikely that you would be able to see a fishing boat from that height at night.

What would be awesome is if someone could find an equivalent photo, showing what fishing boats really do look like, from that height.

The phrases are too vague and general to really Google it very well.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

I really wonder why I respond

Me too. Please stop responding to any of my posts, and please stay out of the threads I make. I haven't read the rest of your post because I'm assuming it's the same empty, meaningless garbage that you are known for, in every single one of your posts.

NO thanks,

I will respond as freely as you post.

You don't want a certain posters posting in threads you author on a public forum then the solution is extremely simple, don't post on a public forum if it upsets you.



WOW, I just saw this beauty

you really must be a joy to have around

However, that's the limits of the human eye, f*ckhead.

This type of language only shows the level of intelligence a person is dealing with when interacting with you.

Not even going report this vulgar breach of T&C

I can't imagine the mods would care about the phrase "f*ckhead." It's the same as calling someone "stupid," which I also don't think the mods would care about.

I also think it fits for someone arguing that the limits of the human eye (being blinded by bright light) are somehow an indication of how light waves travel.

a reply to: peacefulpete

This is what you actually said, as you appear to have forgotten:

It's also the middle of the Pacific Ocean. It's nowhere near land. Fishing boats are not going to spend hours and hours driving to the middle of the ocean. There's no point, and they would have no time left for fishing.

There is not much ambiguity in what you said. Unfortunately for you, to coin your favourite phrase, it's garbage.

Nowhere near land? Not true. For your information the Kamchatka Peninsula is land. Nice try, sunshine.

Yeah, I'm sure having a pint with you would be absolutely hilarious.

a reply to: peacefulpete


Well, pretty much how they look in the pilot's photos of them, at a guess.

a reply to: peacefulpete


It would appear that you have no concept of manners then.

Here is a photo of a squid fishing fleet taken at sea level at night. Can you see the boats?

Squid Fleet

Here's the source.

Source

Each boat can produce 300 kilowatts of light, apparently.

Case closed, I'd say.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete

This is what you actually said, as you appear to have forgotten:

It's also the middle of the Pacific Ocean. It's nowhere near land. Fishing boats are not going to spend hours and hours driving to the middle of the ocean. There's no point, and they would have no time left for fishing.

There is not much ambiguity in what you said. Unfortunately for you, to coin your favourite phrase, it's garbage.

Nowhere near land? Not true. For your information the Kamchatka Peninsula is land. Nice try, sunshine.

Yeah, I'm sure having a pint with you would be absolutely hilarious.

The pilot himself makes the statement that he was flying over the Pacific Ocean WITH NO LAND ANYWHERE AROUND.

Quoting myself:

I quoted the airplane pilot's sentences.

And I embedded his own map of his location of the sighting.

I wouldn't think there'd be any ambiguity after that lol.

The phrase still works to call it "the middle of the Pacific Ocean."

Is English your second language?

When someone says they're in the middle of something, do you automatically argue about exact measurements? You must be a really fun person to know in real life lol.

One thing that would be worth figuring out is how far away that peninsula is, from the sighting. How many miles away is it? How many miles would it need for people to not consider it nearby?

The pilot said there was no land anywhere near the area.

You also can't possibly be familiar with English for you to focus on arguing what being "in the middle of" something means.

Hey I'm in the middle of the street. Does that mean that I'm standing in the exact center of the painted line? And even if I was, then you could argue that I didn't measure out the exact number of millimeters to find the exact center of the painted line. This is just madness lol.