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

a reply to: peacefulpete

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.

I guess I am illiterate as I cant find the Pilot mentioning 'in the middle of the Pacific Ocean' anywhere on that site where its describing the event.


So please show me I am illiterate so I can do something about it or stop making up stuff.

I glanced at the pilot's website again and it's full of information that we should have been discussing all along, instead of all the banter.

For you guys thinking that he was close to the peninsula, based on the map:

The pilot states, in no uncertain terms, that when he saw the lights and took photos:

There was supposed to be nothing but endless ocean below for hundreds of miles around us.

He was literally HUNDREDS OF MILES away from land, over the Pacific.

And this is meaningful not for the banter about what it means to be "in the middle of the ocean" (although being 100's of miles at sea would certainly qualify for the phrase), but this is actually more meaningful for the idea of these lights being fishing boats.

Boats don't travel 100's of miles into the "middle" of the Pacific Ocean, just to catch fish, that's just ridiculous lol. Boats are slow. They would take all day just to get out there to fish during the night.

Also the pilot says:

They initially appeared as a distant city or group of typical Asian squid fishing boats, but this did not make sense in this area.

That means implicitly that he knows the area, and know that boats don't go there.

He also explains THAT HE KNOWS THAT THE LIGHTS WERE NOT BOATS:

The lights we saw were much larger in size than your average city or group of boats, but they also glowed red and orange, instead of the normal yellow and white that cities or ships would produce. The closer we got, the more intense the glow became, illuminating the clouds and sky below us in a scary orange glow that you would expect with a massive fire on the ground. In a part of the world where there was supposed to be nothing but water.

He even states that he could tell that the lights were coming FROM THE WATER SURFACE ITSELF:

together with the very creepy unexplainable deep red/orange glow from the ocean’s surface we felt everything but comfortable.

Also enlightening is that:

In 2015, Discovery Channel featured this sighting and photos in their show 'Nasa's Unexplained Files', hinting towards a possibly military source of the lights.

Discovery Channel thinks it's probably military.

Further down the page, he goes over possible explanations, including ALL THE REASONS IT'S NOT A FISHING FLEET.

Fishing fleet Could explain the overall size of the group of lights and the stability of them. Does not explain the red color and the size of the individual lights. Also, the position so far out in the Pacific does not make sense.

It's an awesome website.

It's also an awesome sighting.

We have multiple photos, plus written description, from the pilot / photographer.

jpcvanheijst.com...

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

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.

I guess I am illiterate as I cant find the Pilot mentioning 'in the middle of the Pacific Ocean' anywhere on that site where its describing the event.


So please show me I am illiterate so I can do something about it or stop making up stuff.

What an obnoxious and stupid response lol.

oldcrappy and InhaleExhale, you guys can consider your response to be found in my post above, a giant list of information and QUOTES FROM THE PILOT/PHOTOGRAPHER'S WEBSITE ABOUT THE SIGHTING.

Therein you will find your "middle of the ocean," and you'll find your conviction of it being a fishing fleet destroyed by the pilot/photographer himself.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

Boats don't travel 100's of miles into the "middle" of the Pacific Ocean, just to catch fish, that's just ridiculous lol. Boats are slow. They would take all day just to get out there to fish during the night.

This sighting caught a lot of attention for a couple of months when it first happened and to my knowledge hasn't been adequately explained.

I dont believe the photos show fishing vessels either but you are incorrect in a few of your assumptions.

Many commercial fishing vessels go to sea for months at a time and often travel literally thousands of miles to reach productive fishing grounds.

Asian fishing vessels regularly travel to the edge of the economic exclusion zone in the Pacific Northwest, European and American vessels fish the Grand Banks of Newfoundland etc.

Larger modern vessels are capable of 20+ knots in heavy seas, that is covering some 550 statute miles in a day.

is that your youtube channel?
sorry but plugging is angaist the rules

originally posted by: Drunkenparrot

originally posted by: peacefulpete

Boats don't travel 100's of miles into the "middle" of the Pacific Ocean, just to catch fish, that's just ridiculous lol. Boats are slow. They would take all day just to get out there to fish during the night.

This sighting caught a lot of attention for a couple of months when it first happened and to my knowledge hasn't been adequately explained.

I dont believe the photos show fishing vessels either but you are incorrect in a few of your assumptions.

Many commercial fishing vessels go to sea for months at a time and often travel literally thousands of miles to reach productive fishing grounds.

Asian fishing vessels regularly travel to the edge of the economic exclusion zone in the Pacific Northwest, European and American vessels fish the Grand Banks of Newfoundland etc.

Larger modern vessels are capable of 20+ knots in heavy seas, that is covering some 550 statute miles in a day.

^Thank you. These are good points.

I can basically only defer to the pilot's description of the area as not a place that boats go.

But I do appreciate the list of general boat facts.

a reply to: peacefulpete


You will also find his coordinates and a map showing his exact location. I suggest that before you accuse me and others of being illiterate you put on your glasses and have a look at these and then perhaps you would kindly stop making stuff up.

"Oldcrappy"? Enough of the juvenile insults, please.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

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.

I guess I am illiterate as I cant find the Pilot mentioning 'in the middle of the Pacific Ocean' anywhere on that site where its describing the event.


So please show me I am illiterate so I can do something about it or stop making up stuff.

What an obnoxious and stupid response lol.

oldcrappy and InhaleExhale, you guys can consider your response to be found in my post above, a giant list of information and QUOTES FROM THE PILOT/PHOTOGRAPHER'S WEBSITE ABOUT THE SIGHTING.

Therein you will find your "middle of the ocean," and you'll find your conviction of it being a fishing fleet destroyed by the pilot/photographer himself.

Thanks for showing you either lie or are just so ignorant of things you read because no where does the pilot say on that website that he was in the middle of pacific ocean like you said he did.


He says "While flying over the vast Pacific Ocean, somewhere southeast of the Russian Kamchatka Peninsula"


Is this what took to mean in the middle and that is how you expresses it?

I can see how you would with the pilot saying this as well,

"There was supposed to be nothing but endless ocean below for hundreds of miles around us."



You said the Pilot said it but I cannot find him saying it in the link you supplied.

I may have missed it but glanced over it twice and couldn't see the pilot saying what you said he did.


Changing what was said and using expressions that can be interpreted wrong doesn't help research.

You want to get to the bottom of things you need to use precise language and not Chinese whispers and misquotes or made up quotes.

a reply to: peacefulpete


Typing in capitals is regarded as shouting and is rude. I am neither deaf nor stupid so please calm down and show some civility.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


You will also find his coordinates and a map showing his exact location. I suggest that before you accuse me and others of being illiterate you put on your glasses and have a look at these and then perhaps you would kindly stop making stuff up.

Look, you're either illiterate or you're pretending to be illiterate.

I already just posted the answer to your post, before you just posted it.

Want to try reading it?

oldcarpy, here I'll re-post it for you.

Try reading it, you might understand that the sighting happened in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, with nothing around, FOR HUNDREDS OF MILES:



For you guys thinking that he was close to the peninsula, based on the map:

The pilot states, in no uncertain terms, that when he saw the lights and took photos:



"There was supposed to be nothing but endless ocean below for hundreds of miles around us."


He was literally HUNDREDS OF MILES away from land, over the Pacific.

And this is meaningful not for the banter about what it means to be "in the middle of the ocean" (although being 100's of miles at sea would certainly qualify for the phrase), but this is actually more meaningful for the idea of these lights being fishing boats.

Boats don't travel 100's of miles into the "middle" of the Pacific Ocean, just to catch fish, that's just ridiculous lol. Boats are slow. They would take all day just to get out there to fish during the night.

Also the pilot says:




"They initially appeared as a distant city or group of typical Asian squid fishing boats, but this did not make sense in this area."


That means implicitly that he knows the area, and know that boats don't go there.

He also explains THAT HE KNOWS THAT THE LIGHTS WERE NOT BOATS:




"The lights we saw were much larger in size than your average city or group of boats, but they also glowed red and orange, instead of the normal yellow and white that cities or ships would produce. The closer we got, the more intense the glow became, illuminating the clouds and sky below us in a scary orange glow that you would expect with a massive fire on the ground. In a part of the world where there was supposed to be nothing but water."


He even states that he could tell that the lights were coming FROM THE WATER SURFACE ITSELF:




"...together with the very creepy unexplainable deep red/orange glow from the ocean’s surface we felt everything but comfortable."


Also enlightening is that:



"In 2015, Discovery Channel featured this sighting and photos in their show 'Nasa's Unexplained Files', hinting towards a possibly military source of the lights."


Discovery Channel thinks it's probably military.

Further down the page, he goes over possible explanations, including ALL THE REASONS IT'S NOT A FISHING FLEET.




"Fishing fleet

Could explain the overall size of the group of lights and the stability of them. Does not explain the red color and the size of the individual lights. Also, the position so far out in the Pacific does not make sense."


It's an awesome website.

It's also an awesome sighting.

We have multiple photos, plus written description, from the pilot / photographer.

jpcvanheijst.com...

a reply to: peacefulpete

Try reading it, you might understand that the sighting happened in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, with nothing around, FOR HUNDREDS OF MILES:

You need to look at a map.
Hawaii is close to the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The sighting was not.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

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.

I guess I am illiterate as I cant find the Pilot mentioning 'in the middle of the Pacific Ocean' anywhere on that site where its describing the event.


So please show me I am illiterate so I can do something about it or stop making up stuff.

What an obnoxious and stupid response lol.

oldcrappy and InhaleExhale, you guys can consider your response to be found in my post above, a giant list of information and QUOTES FROM THE PILOT/PHOTOGRAPHER'S WEBSITE ABOUT THE SIGHTING.

Therein you will find your "middle of the ocean," and you'll find your conviction of it being a fishing fleet destroyed by the pilot/photographer himself.

Thanks for showing you either lie or are just so ignorant of things you read because no where does the pilot say on that website that he was in the middle of pacific ocean like you said he did.


He says "While flying over the vast Pacific Ocean, somewhere southeast of the Russian Kamchatka Peninsula"


Is this what took to mean in the middle and that is how you expresses it?

I can see how you would with the pilot saying this as well,

"There was supposed to be nothing but endless ocean below for hundreds of miles around us."



You said the Pilot said it but I cannot find him saying it in the link you supplied.

I may have missed it but glanced over it twice and couldn't see the pilot saying what you said he did.


Changing what was said and using expressions that can be interpreted wrong doesn't help research.

You want to get to the bottom of things you need to use precise language and not Chinese whispers and misquotes or made up quotes.

I'm really sorry that you and oldcarpy are having such a hard time trying to read words. Or pretending to.

The pilot says the exact quote about being in the Pacific Ocean with nothing around for 100's of miles.

I will re-post it for you, in my next post!

Then you could... read it... If you feel like you're up to the challenge of reading the answer to your own post?

InhaleExhale:

Here is my re-post of my post that you did not seem able to read:

In it, you will find the pilot's quote about flying over the Pacific Ocean, with nothing around for HUNDREDS OF MILES:


For you guys thinking that he was close to the peninsula, based on the map:

The pilot states, in no uncertain terms, that when he saw the lights and took photos:



"There was supposed to be nothing but endless ocean below for hundreds of miles around us."


He was literally HUNDREDS OF MILES away from land, over the Pacific.

And this is meaningful not for the banter about what it means to be "in the middle of the ocean" (although being 100's of miles at sea would certainly qualify for the phrase), but this is actually more meaningful for the idea of these lights being fishing boats.

Boats don't travel 100's of miles into the "middle" of the Pacific Ocean, just to catch fish, that's just ridiculous lol. Boats are slow. They would take all day just to get out there to fish during the night.

Also the pilot says:




"They initially appeared as a distant city or group of typical Asian squid fishing boats, but this did not make sense in this area."


That means implicitly that he knows the area, and know that boats don't go there.

He also explains THAT HE KNOWS THAT THE LIGHTS WERE NOT BOATS:




"The lights we saw were much larger in size than your average city or group of boats, but they also glowed red and orange, instead of the normal yellow and white that cities or ships would produce. The closer we got, the more intense the glow became, illuminating the clouds and sky below us in a scary orange glow that you would expect with a massive fire on the ground. In a part of the world where there was supposed to be nothing but water."


He even states that he could tell that the lights were coming FROM THE WATER SURFACE ITSELF:




"...together with the very creepy unexplainable deep red/orange glow from the ocean’s surface we felt everything but comfortable."


Also enlightening is that:



"In 2015, Discovery Channel featured this sighting and photos in their show 'Nasa's Unexplained Files', hinting towards a possibly military source of the lights."


Discovery Channel thinks it's probably military.

Further down the page, he goes over possible explanations, including ALL THE REASONS IT'S NOT A FISHING FLEET.




"Fishing fleet

Could explain the overall size of the group of lights and the stability of them. Does not explain the red color and the size of the individual lights. Also, the position so far out in the Pacific does not make sense."


It's an awesome website.

It's also an awesome sighting.

We have multiple photos, plus written description, from the pilot / photographer.

jpcvanheijst.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: peacefulpete

Try reading it, you might understand that the sighting happened in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, with nothing around, FOR HUNDREDS OF MILES:

You need to look at a map.
Hawaii is close to the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The sighting was not.

Phage, this is just arguing semantics, and the phrase does work for the plane being:

LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF MILES AT SEA.

It definitely fits to call it the "middle of the Pacific Ocean." It's very obvious, common usage of English, at least American English lol.

Is such phrasing not common in your part of the globe?

a reply to: peacefulpete

Is such phrasing not common in your part of the globe?

Why not be accurate?

My part of the globe is near the middle of the Pacific Ocean, btw.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: peacefulpete

Is such phrasing not common in your part of the globe?

Why not be accurate?

My part of the globe is near the middle of the Pacific Ocean, btw.

OK maybe this is a problem with regional dialect. I don't know what country you live in.

I can say with 100% certainty that in American English, saying that you're "in the middle of" something, does NOT mean or refer to exact measurements.

If there has been any honest misunderstanding about the phrasing, then I apologize. I thought the other guys were only pretending to misunderstand lol.

I know that sometimes certain phrases and idioms etc. (from American English) do not translate well, or that the words might translate fine without the actual meaning getting across.

Well so anyway, if this is really what it boils down to, then I guess you guys are learning a new quirk of American English?

"Being in the middle of something" does not at all refer to exact measurements of any kind. The phrase has a general, nonspecific meaning.

Anyone familiar with American English would know this, and never think twice about it.

And nobody would question the phrasing for this conversation lol. Dude was flying HUNDREDS OF MILES into the Pacific, so of course it's automatically "the middle of" the ocean.

This might be a quirk of dialect that just doesn't make sense to other areas?

a reply to: peacefulpete

We speak English in Hawaii. Believe it or not.

Why do you keep saying it happened in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. It didn't. Why not drop the colloquialisms and stick to the facts?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: peacefulpete

We speak English in Hawaii. Believe it or not.

Why do you keep saying it happened in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. It didn't. Why not drop the colloquialisms and stick to the facts?

Well, you and the others had me concluding that people must have been misunderstanding my very normal usage of American English.

Obviously I know that Hawaiians speak English, although I didn't know you live in Hawaii.

I also know that English is spoken around the world. However, the phrases and idioms don't always translate.

For example, one time I was explaining to someone online (from another country, I don't remember what it was at the moment) about our phrase "I could care less." She was genuinely confused. Because for us it means literally "I couldn't care less." It has the opposite meaning of the literal words. But also, everyone understands the meaning of the phrase.

So you guys had me figuring that maybe you were misunderstanding my phrasing, in a similar way.

Because if you guys are fluent and familiar, then it sounds like nonsense to criticize anyone saying that they're "in the middle of" anything lol.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Obviously I know that Hawaiians speak English, although I didn't know you live in Hawaii.

I'm not Hawaiian.

Because if you guys are fluent and familiar, then it sounds like nonsense to criticize anyone saying that they're "in the middle of" anything lol.

It's nonsense to keep repeating it when the fact is that the sighting was no where near the middle of anything. It is, in fact, a distortion of the facts for effect. Something that some UFO "researchers" are prone to do.