It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: peacefulpete




I honestly didn't think twice about it.
Clearly.

Hilarious.

Especially because I'm sure you must think twice about EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE that you ever read or hear lol. At all times. All moments of every day of your life.

For normal imperfect humans, it's not unusual to read / hear something, and take a certain meaning out of it, that the next person might not...




Though I also can barely understand your problem with my reference to the


an intense light flash shot up from the ground


You really don't think that qualifies as an unidentified flying object?

The word "object" is what you disagree with?

Really dude? lol

You also never offered your own interpretation or explanation. You just repeated his own words. OK, so what do you THINK it was?

Do you not have a personal interpretation of what it was?








No one can do better than immediately posting the EXACT QUOTE that you questioned me about.
You could have started by doing so.

But perhaps, in your mind, that "UFO shooting out of the water" will be replaced by what he actually said. Or not.


So... does that mean that his description does not prompt any kind of interpretation in your mind?

Do you consider it unknown and unknowable, so it's not worth trying to interpret what it actually was?

Trying to understand where you're coming from.




posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 11:17 PM
link   
You know what, I'm genuinely trying to understand what you think, Phage.

Contemplating the pilot's words some more... Are you interpreting it as a general flash of light, with no clear source? (Like just purely a huge swath of light that flashed across the sky? Like aurora borealis?)

The thing is, that he mentions that the


intense light flash shot up from the ground


which to me at least, makes it sound like he was describing some kind of object, or at least, some kind of smaller flash, since he says it "shot up from the ground."

Unless you think that a huge swath of featureless light flashing across the sky, like aurora borealis, would be described as "shot up from the ground?"

Is that what you think he means?

Don't you think his phrasing implies some kind of object, at least visually, when he said it shot up from the horizon?



posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

Why ask me?

It looked like a lightning bolt in a faraway thunderstorm, but a lot more intense and of a much shorter duration, as though something had exploded.



posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: peacefulpete

Why ask me?


It looked like a lightning bolt in a faraway thunderstorm, but a lot more intense and of a much shorter duration, as though something had exploded.


OK. So what do you think he was describing?

An explosion blowing out of the water?

What kind of explosion do you think it was? What would have caused it?

Do you just choose to avoid thinking of any further interpretation? Why?

Don't you find his words a bit vague and open to interpretation? They leave me wondering what he actually saw. Not for you?


edit on 5-7-2018 by peacefulpete because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete



OK. So what do you think he was describing?

A bright flash of light.


Do you just choose to avoid thinking of any further interpretation?
Yes.


Why?
Because his words are the only available information.



Don't you find his words a bit vague and open to interpretation?
Why do you feel a need to interpret his words? I get the impression he was very careful to avoid any interpretation.


This is now getting very circular so unless you have something new to bring up, I'm done.


edit on 7/5/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: peacefulpete



OK. So what do you think he was describing?

A bright flash of light.


Do you just choose to avoid thinking of any further interpretation?
Yes.


Why?
Because his words are the only available information.



Don't you find his words a bit vague and open to interpretation?
Why do you feel a need to interpret his words? I get the impression he was very careful to avoid any interpretation.


This is now getting very circular so unless you have something new to bring up, I'm done.



Do as you please. I do have a better understanding on your perspective now so I do appreciate it.

I'll know that's your perspective in future threads, if any kind of interpretation is being talked about lol.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

I can't upload pictures from a phone but here is a link of a fishing fleet seen from space, from the ISS which is 250 miles above us.

Link

I've got pictures to upload at a later date of cars on darkened roads. The vehicle becomes "invisible" due to little to no light being shun on them other than reflected light, the lights of the vehicle all but ensure the vehicle won't be seen .



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

Which is exactly what I said. An altered lens or edited pictures.

Go take a picture of the sun and you will not be able to replicate this image without editing or a lense capable of such a shot.

Just took a picture of the Sun with a digital camera and my phone, with contrast setting on and off. The glare is actually worse in the pictures than visible with my eye.
edit on 7-7-2018 by RAY1990 because: To add



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: 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. 


None sense, that's exactly what fishing boats do, they're only limited by storage capacity and degradation of catch, which varies from catch to catch.

Another thing "limiting" range I the cost of fuel, a fisherman does not sail 300 miles for little profit bit would for the right haul. In fact they'd go even further.

The pilot isn't a fisherman. He won't know where they go... Not that fishing boats go to set locations. It's the ocean and fish move about.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: 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. 


None sense, that's exactly what fishing boats do, they're only limited by storage capacity and degradation of catch, which varies from catch to catch.

Another thing "limiting" range I the cost of fuel, a fisherman does not sail 300 miles for little profit bit would for the right haul. In fact they'd go even further.

The pilot isn't a fisherman. He won't know where they go... Not that fishing boats go to set locations. It's the ocean and fish move about.


Well again, the best description we have of the area, is from the pilot, who describes it as any empty area of the Pacific Ocean, with nothing around for 100's of miles, and that it's not a place that boats go.

When the scale of the discussion is literally hundreds of miles, then yes, of course a pilot can have a grasp on that, after repeated flight over the same stretches of hundreds of miles.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete

Which is exactly what I said. An altered lens or edited pictures.

Go take a picture of the sun and you will not be able to replicate this image without editing or a lense capable of such a shot.

Just took a picture of the Sun with a digital camera and my phone, with contrast setting on and off. The glare is actually worse in the pictures than visible with my eye.


No, it's not the same thing at all.

I was talking about physical things tinted dark, like a tinted window or a tinted lens. Pieces of physical glass or plastic etc.

It has absolutely no connection to talking about digital editing of any kind, nor with the digital settings on your phone.

Glare is, and always has been, irrelevant to the conversation.








edit on 7-7-2018 by peacefulpete because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete

I can't upload pictures from a phone but here is a link of a fishing fleet seen from space, from the ISS which is 250 miles above us.

Link

I've got pictures to upload at a later date of cars on darkened roads. The vehicle becomes "invisible" due to little to no light being shun on them other than reflected light, the lights of the vehicle all but ensure the vehicle won't be seen .


Photos from outerspace lol. They obviously have a completely different scale than photos taken from a plane.




posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
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.

Looks like a solid hit to me and to the guy dropping eff bombs come on and calling someone a !@##head is nowhere near the same as calling someone stupid, stay classy dude.



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete




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!


Yes, I quoted that and asked if this is why you maybe confused what the pilot said and expressed it in your own words as you did.


You said that the pilot said he was in the middle of the Pacific and supplied a link.

Twice now I have asked if you simply expressed yourself incorrectly because the pilot doesn't say what you claim he does on the website.





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:


So now you flat out lie. I said that and asked if you maybe mistook this with being the middle of the pacific.

here let me quote what you said




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.


Looked at the link,


Its not there, what you claim the pilot said, so I asked the first time to quote from that site.


Then on the same page you posted yelling this again




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.



Yet the link that was also supplied being the same one as the previous link still doesn't have the Pilot saying this.





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.



What reality do you live in?


Sorry but fishing vessels go out for weeks on end and travel 1000s of miles

Upside down lightening is never documented or whatever it was you said?




It's not like upside-down lightning bolts are a thing lol.



Um.....

never mind,


You keep warm and stay safe



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

Honestly. Get a new hobby, you've been nothing but rude in this thread when people challenge your bs.

I'll quote you:




Essentially the pics required nothing but a camera taking pictures through a darkened lens, and it even could have literally been sunglasses


Which is an altered lens.

Honestly you must think the people you're dealing with don't have two braincells to rub together.. I said this:




Which is exactly what I said. An altered lens or edited pictures. 



See the OR in my quote, it somewhat implies one OR the other. Since the Sun is like... The brightest and largest light source around for a few light years it be a safe assumption it has some glare.

It does. Your pictures of the sun with planes in front of it where not taken by a lens without a filter OR edited before it looked like it did when you provided it.




Glare is, and always has been, irrelevant to the conversation. 


So are aliens, UFOs, the middle of the ocean and a whole other load of none sense you've came out with.

Good luck being a "UFO researcher"

edit on 8-7-2018 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

You don't get it do you?

You claimed the lights from fishing boats couldn't be seen from 30,000 feet... 36,000 feet to be precise.

Seems they can, seems they can be seen from 250 MILES above the earth.

Granted, you can't see the boats but then NOBODY agreed with your silly assumption that we should be able to see the boats.

The boats would be enveloped by light... There's a word for this but for the life of me I don't know what it is...



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

originally posted by: oldcarpy
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.

Looks like a solid hit to me


You think it's a solid hit to assume it's fishing boats.

Funny how the pilot / photographer / website host thinks it's a solid hit that it's NOT.

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...



edit on 8-7-2018 by peacefulpete because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete




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!


Yes, I quoted that and asked if this is why you maybe confused what the pilot said and expressed it in your own words as you did.


You said that the pilot said he was in the middle of the Pacific and supplied a link.

Twice now I have asked if you simply expressed yourself incorrectly because the pilot doesn't say what you claim he does on the website.





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:


So now you flat out lie. I said that and asked if you maybe mistook this with being the middle of the pacific.

here let me quote what you said




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.


Looked at the link,


Its not there, what you claim the pilot said, so I asked the first time to quote from that site.


Then on the same page you posted yelling this again




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.



Yet the link that was also supplied being the same one as the previous link still doesn't have the Pilot saying this.





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.



What reality do you live in?


Sorry but fishing vessels go out for weeks on end and travel 1000s of miles

Upside down lightening is never documented or whatever it was you said?




It's not like upside-down lightning bolts are a thing lol.



Um.....

never mind,


You keep warm and stay safe


I never said the sighting took place in the geographical center. Which is what I would have said, if that's what I meant.

"Being in the middle of something" is normal American English phrasing. There's absolutely nothing more to it than that. The phrasing does not refer to exact measurements at all, and it certainly fits for being hundreds of miles at sea.

I acknowledge that the phrasing might be confusing to those struggling with English so I stopped using the phrase.

He was hundreds of miles at sea. That's what I was obviously referring to, all along.

The guy provides his own map so it's not like anyone could be deceptive about it, if they wanted to.

I'm currently "in the middle of" drinking a cup of coffee but guess what, it doesn't refer to exact measurements of coffee lol.

The upside-down lightning bolt idea is from the pilot himself, on his website that you obviously did not read lol.


(post by peacefulpete removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete

You don't get it do you?

You claimed the lights from fishing boats couldn't be seen from 30,000 feet... 36,000 feet to be precise.

Seems they can, seems they can be seen from 250 MILES above the earth.

Granted, you can't see the boats but then NOBODY agreed with your silly assumption that we should be able to see the boats.

The boats would be enveloped by light... There's a word for this but for the life of me I don't know what it is...


I never said anything about lights not being visible from any height.

What I did say is that the idea of lights around a boat, making the boat invisible, while the light is visible, is still just nonsense.

And you rather validated that by posting a pic from outerspace lol, instead of a plane. Which is, you know, the topic.

Anyway, above I just re-posted the pilot / photographer / webhost's extensive reasons that he knows it wasn't fishing boats.

And Discovery Channel's best guess is military, not fishing boats.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join