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: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete





Physical tinted objects (like tinted windows or lens) are not "editing" the photo. 



I never said the photos were edited, I said they were either edited or taken using filter/lens in order to get that effect.

It's you that is going to unusual lengths to put words in my mouth, seemingly a trend...




You're attempting to conflate things that have nothing to do with each other. 



More than one way to skin a cat, yes editing a picture or taking a picture with a specialized lense has a lot in common. Especially if the key is to eliminate unwanted levels of light.




Unless you think sunglasses are "editing" your eyesight lol. That's the logical extension of what you're arguing. 


No. I think sunglasses filter out unwanted light, not a clue what you're arguing about but I've been fairly clear.

The picture you provided of a plane crossing the sun cannot be replicated with a standard camera. It needs a lense to filter out extremely bright light that would naturally "blind" the camera from the image. It's called glare and is totally natural when high levels of light and contrast are present in a image.




Photos of the sun, taken through a dark window or a dark lens, does not amount to being "edited."


I never said it did, I'll say this as simply as possible so you don't misconstrue what I say or attempt to twist my words.

The picture you provided can only look the way it did via 2 methods.

1. A lense or filter that lessens GLARE.

2. Taking a picture and then editing it later.

One of the two methods were used, potentially both. I don't own the image and neither do you, I'm not an expert in photography but then neither are you.



POST REMOVED BY STAFF



Weak.
edit on Wed Jul 11 2018 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 8 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

He's wrong. Fishing fleets are typically found out at sea or the ocean.

It could be military vessels, you still wouldn't see the vessel at 36,000 feet. Which is what you claimed. I'll put some words into your mouth... You said.

"OMG if they were fishing boats you'd see them at 36,000 feet"





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



Now that you say that I believe them, don't even need evidence. They told me we never visited the moon once too... They so smart.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


The map on the pilot's website shows the location and regardless of all your stuff about English phrasing etc a map is a map and the location is nowhere near the middle of the ocean so just give it up.



posted on Jul, 9 2018 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete




"Being in the middle of something" is normal American English phrasing.




Something?

'In the middle of nowhere' is what you must be thinking off


Once you place a name for that something like Pacific it means in the middle or close too it because the Pacific Ocean is extremely large flying across the north part of the Pacific ocean is not in the middle of the Pacific, you could say when looking around as the pilot describes that they are in the middle of nowhere but when you give a name to that something then saying in the middle of it is in the middle to repeat myself.




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


Its not the readers that are confused.




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



I was replying to what you said about lightening.


The pilot never said that either.


are you referring to the pilot saying this


Suddenly, a long way off in the distance ahead, an intense light flash shot up from the ground, just at or beyond the horizon. 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. I have seen countless thunderstorms, shootings stars, lightning bolts and stars but never a flash like this.


Is this what you say is upside down lightening and that lightening like this from the ground up has never been documented?

You quoted the same part as I have from the web site and then posted this




What do you think of that description? It's not like upside-down lightning bolts are a thing lol.



I guess there is no arguing or even attempted discussion with such ignorance


The only response is





Good luck being a troll. I hope they pay you good lol.










posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete





Physical tinted objects (like tinted windows or lens) are not "editing" the photo. 



I never said the photos were edited, I said they were either edited or taken using filter/lens in order to get that effect.

It's you that is going to unusual lengths to put words in my mouth, seemingly a trend...




You're attempting to conflate things that have nothing to do with each other. 



More than one way to skin a cat, yes editing a picture or taking a picture with a specialized lense has a lot in common. Especially if the key is to eliminate unwanted levels of light.




Unless you think sunglasses are "editing" your eyesight lol. That's the logical extension of what you're arguing. 


No. I think sunglasses filter out unwanted light, not a clue what you're arguing about but I've been fairly clear.

The picture you provided of a plane crossing the sun cannot be replicated with a standard camera. It needs a lense to filter out extremely bright light that would naturally "blind" the camera from the image. It's called glare and is totally natural when high levels of light and contrast are present in a image.




Photos of the sun, taken through a dark window or a dark lens, does not amount to being "edited."


I never said it did, I'll say this as simply as possible so you don't misconstrue what I say or attempt to twist my words.

The picture you provided can only look the way it did via 2 methods.

1. A lense or filter that lessens GLARE.

2. Taking a picture and then editing it later.

One of the two methods were used, potentially both. I don't own the image and neither do you, I'm not an expert in photography but then neither are you.



Good luck being a troll. 

I hope they pay you good lol. 



Weak.


Look the whole topic of sun photography being "edited" or "altered" is a nonsense topic. It doesn't matter exactly what phrasing or semantics you used for the meaningless tangent.

The fact is that anyone can take a photo of the sun, or a different bright subject, without having glare ruin the clarity of the photo. It only requires a dark tinted window or lens, and it does NOT count as being "edited" or "altered."

The whole topic isn't even relevant to the thread lol.



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete

He's wrong. Fishing fleets are typically found out at sea or the ocean.

It could be military vessels, you still wouldn't see the vessel at 36,000 feet. Which is what you claimed. I'll put some words into your mouth... You said.

"OMG if they were fishing boats you'd see them at 36,000 feet"





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



Now that you say that I believe them, don't even need evidence. They told me we never visited the moon once too... They so smart.


The only way you can accuse the pilot of being wrong about that specific stretch of Pacific Ocean, is if you are MORE familiar with that area, than he is.

And you're not.

The pilot's educated analysis stands.




posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete

He's wrong. Fishing fleets are typically found out at sea or the ocean.

It could be military vessels, you still wouldn't see the vessel at 36,000 feet. Which is what you claimed. I'll put some words into your mouth... You said.

"OMG if they were fishing boats you'd see them at 36,000 feet"





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



Now that you say that I believe them, don't even need evidence. They told me we never visited the moon once too... They so smart.


Well I would trust an analysis from Discovery Channel, over an analysis by an anonymous troll lol.

And it should be easy for you guys to prove your point that boats are invisible from an airplane.

Just post a photo or video of it.

Otherwise, my analysis stands, that if you can see a circle of light (roughly 40 feet) then the boat of the SAME SIZE should also be visible, at least as a dark shape within the circle of light.

You can't clearly see one 40-ft. object (the circle of light) while the OTHER 40-ft. object turns magically invisible.

You either see things of that size, or you don't.



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


The map on the pilot's website shows the location and regardless of all your stuff about English phrasing etc a map is a map and the location is nowhere near the middle of the ocean so just give it up.


Give up what?

I was referring to the map, and the pilot's words. Which have been available since I started the thread.

It's truly irrelevant who understands the most common, most blatantly obvious idioms of American English lol.



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete




"Being in the middle of something" is normal American English phrasing.




Something?

'In the middle of nowhere' is what you must be thinking off



No, I was thinking of the phrase that I said. "Being in the middle of something."

Like, I'm in the middle of having sex with your mom. It doesn't refer to the exact length of time lol. How the phrasing is unclear to anyone, is the real mystery.



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   



I was replying to what you said about lightening.


The pilot never said that either.


are you referring to the pilot saying this


Suddenly, a long way off in the distance ahead, an intense light flash shot up from the ground, just at or beyond the horizon. 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. I have seen countless thunderstorms, shootings stars, lightning bolts and stars but never a flash like this.


Is this what you say is upside down lightening and that lightening like this from the ground up has never been documented?



Um yeah, that's the quote about the upside-down lightning bolt that he describes:




an intense light flash shot up from the ground, just at or beyond the horizon. It looked like a lightning bolt in a faraway thunderstorm


So he describes a lightning bolt SHOOTING UPWARDS FROM THE WATER.

What exactly is your point? That he didn't say the phrase "upside-down?" He obviously described it that way.

Do you guys understand the concept of re-phrasing or paraphrasing? It doesn't change the meaning of it.

Lol at trying to bust me for accurately re-phrasing the pilot's own words, which have been available since I started the thread.

You're really grasping at straws lol.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


Give up telling lies, basically. The pilot's own map clearly shows his location no matter how much you try to twist his words.

Please stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll.

I posted a photo of squid fishing boats taken at sea level where you cannot see the boats, you have conveniently ignored this. I wonder why?



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

Keep telling yourself that fella.




The whole topic isn't even relevant to the thread lol.



It is but you've got the comprehension of a peanut. As I said you CANNOT take a picture of the Sun or any bright light and hope to capture an object in front of it with a camera with normal contrast capabilities.

Won't happen.

Try that experiment a poster suggested or go draw a dot on the front of a torch or bulb, turn the light source on, walk two foot away and then see the dot.

You will not see the dot.

Don't be coy, it just shows you as an idiot. If a lense is attached to a camera and a picture is taken then of course the image wasn't "edited" the camera was modified.

Better yet, prove your position with some more silly pictures, go take some yourself. Look at a sky on a cloudy day...

Or grow up. Couldn't care less to be honest.
edit on 11-7-2018 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete

It's the ocean.

If he thinks he can tell one wave from another then good for him. I don't believe that's the case though because I don't believe a pilot could be so dimwitted.

We're not talking about Number 586 on Fifth Avenue. He doesn't know the schedule of every fishing fleet in the Pacific.

Gave up on the "boats only stuck to shore" none sense.

Whaling boats used to travel half the globe for a bit of oil, Krill fishing vessels still do today. Or maybe they have fishing ports in Antarctica?

Maybe ask the pilot, he seems fairly clued up on such matters.

edit on 11-7-2018 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete




Well I would trust an analysis from Discovery Channel, over an analysis by an anonymous troll lol. 


The only troll here is you. Yeah... You'd probably believe anything your TV tells you, I imagine you'd fabricate a load of gobbledygook too and give such channels an even worse rap than they get.




And it should be easy for you guys to prove your point that boats are invisible from an airplane. 



Not necessarily, such shots require a lot of things in order to be took. Which I'll not bother explaining to you since you can't even grasp the idea of fishing boats leaving the shore... God knows what you'll do with the reality of seasons and how fish react to them.




Otherwise, my analysis stands, that if you can see a circle of light (roughly 40 feet) then the boat of the SAME SIZE should also be visible, at least as a dark shape within the circle of light. 


Ummm, hahaha. Yeah not sure about your scale of things but you ain't seeing a 40 foot perimeter of light around a 40 foot vessel. Not from 30,000 feet. Light doesn't work like that either.

If I'm 41 foot from the vessel doss that mean I'll never see anything???

Lmao, dude you're funny.




You either see things of that size, or you don't.


Dunno I might need some glasses, then again I have 20/20 vision. I can see a knat from 15-20 foot but I can't see it from 300 foot away.

Cheers for the laughs

edit on 11-7-2018 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Quite the bickering and name-calling!!!!!




Go After the Ball, Not the Player!




You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete




And it should be easy for you guys to prove your point that boats are invisible from an airplane. Just post a photo or video of it.


Is this a joke?


Every one else is trolling but you want posters to post a video or photo without any boats in them and say that there are but you cant see them?


I cant deal with such intellect, Its way beyond anything I will every be able to comprehend.





Otherwise, my analysis stands



-translation that readers to need to picture in their minds-

a child screaming nanananananana with their fingers in their ears.




I was referring to the map, and the pilot's words. Which have been available since I started the thread.



Yes, in the link you supplied.

Why you keep changing what the pilot said is





Um yeah, that's the quote about the upside-down lightning bolt that he describes:








That is no quote.

That is you changing what the pilot says.




So he describes a lightning bolt SHOOTING UPWARDS FROM THE WATER.



you just quoted what he says.

Do you not know what a bolt of lightening is?

and what a flash of light is?


and what the pilot is actually saying in this short paragraph?


It sounds like white flash or bright blue flash in the distance not an actual lightening bolt, its why he said a lightening bolt in a faraway thunderstorm.

Because that looks like a white flash in the sky when seen from a distance.




What exactly is your point?



My point was you saying this which is now the 3rd time I am asking about




What do you think of that description? It's not like upside-down lightning bolts are a thing lol.




"Its not like upside-down lightening bolts are a thing lol."


Is this some sort of joke or are you under the impression that lighting only strikes from the sky to the ground and not vice versa?



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: peacefulpete


Not only does the pilot post a map showing his location he also gives his exact coordinates. If you check these, which are fairly conclusive, you will see exactly where he was and it is by no stretch of the imagination in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


Give up telling lies, basically. The pilot's own map clearly shows his location no matter how much you try to twist his words.

Please stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll.

I posted a photo of squid fishing boats taken at sea level where you cannot see the boats, you have conveniently ignored this. I wonder why?








There are no lies in this thread.

This thread is ABOUT the pilot’s sighting including his map, his words, and his website. It’s all been available since I started the thread. His site is linked in the video description and then I started posting that link in the thread too.

It’s not even possible to lie about anything when the source material has been the topic all along.

If you guys insist on conflating paraphrasing with lying then it’s just meaningless banter.

I’ve been calling people trolls who I don’t believe are expressing honest ideas and thoughts.

Such as calling someone a liar for re-phrasing words, with the original words available all along.

Re: the photo of glaring boat lights on the horizon: it’s obvious why I didn’t respond to that. It’s the wrong perspective (sea level versus airplane level), plus that photo is obviously showing glare, which is irrelevant to the conversation, and it doesn’t even resemble the lights photographed by the pilot, which bear almost no resemblance to the obvious glaring lights in your photo.

If someone posts a relevant photo then I would appreciate it and I’d discuss it.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete

Keep telling yourself that fella.




The whole topic isn't even relevant to the thread lol.



It is but you've got the comprehension of a peanut. As I said you CANNOT take a picture of the Sun or any bright light and hope to capture an object in front of it with a camera with normal contrast capabilities.

Won't happen.

Try that experiment a poster suggested or go draw a dot on the front of a torch or bulb, turn the light source on, walk two foot away and then see the dot.

You will not see the dot.

Don't be coy, it just shows you as an idiot. If a lense is attached to a camera and a picture is taken then of course the image wasn't "edited" the camera was modified.

Better yet, prove your position with some more silly pictures, go take some yourself. Look at a sky on a cloudy day...

Or grow up. Couldn't care less to be honest.


Glare is just irrelevant to the conversation.

The pilot’s photos do not even resemble glaring bright lights.

His photos show no indication that glare is a factor.

The lights look like relatively dim circles of light.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete

It's the ocean.

If he thinks he can tell one wave from another then good for him. I don't believe that's the case though because I don't believe a pilot could be so dimwitted.

We're not talking about Number 586 on Fifth Avenue. He doesn't know the schedule of every fishing fleet in the Pacific.

Gave up on the "boats only stuck to shore" none sense.

Whaling boats used to travel half the globe for a bit of oil, Krill fishing vessels still do today. Or maybe they have fishing ports in Antarctica?

Maybe ask the pilot, he seems fairly clued up on such matters.


Nice job attacking the pilot ad hominem, and assuming a 25-yr airplane pilot can’t differentiate areas that he has been flying over for decades, with the scale of hundreds of miles per area that we’re discussing.

When all else fails, there’s always the brilliant solution of insulting people who we don’t know, and who are not part of the conversation.

Bravo.



edit on 11-7-2018 by peacefulpete because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2018 by peacefulpete because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join