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

originally posted by: Phage
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.

Phage I think the best conclusion we can come to is that this simply must be dialect misunderstandings.

And the same conclusion for pointing out that you're not Hawaiian... after you just said you live in Hawaii (or I thought that was meant by what you posted)...

The airplane pilot was HUNDREDS OF MILES INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN.

Hundreds of miles away from land. He stated exactly that.

And at least in the everyday speech that I'm familiar with, that is completely legitimate to call it "being in the middle of the Pacific Ocean."

If you guys honestly disagree then it must simply be dialectical misunderstandings. I'm sorry for any honest misunderstandings about the phrasing.

It's not exaggerating or

a distortion of the facts for effect. Something that some UFO "researchers" are prone to do.

It's not a distortion because the phrasing is accurate to normal everyday speech. And I apologize if this is honestly unclear to you guys.

If I had been flying in that same location, 100's of miles into the sea, then of course I would later tell my friends and family that I had been flying through the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

And then I would show them the map. And everyone would understand lol.

The only unclear thing about the guy's map is that there is no SCALE so at first glance, the plane does look close to the peninsula.

However, we only have to read the pilot's description to know that he was hundreds of miles away from any land.

a reply to: peacefulpete

I speak American English.

I live in Hawaii, I am not a Hawaiian. I have no Hawaiian ancestry though I am 5th generation here.

Hundreds of miles away from land. He stated exactly that.

Not exactly, but close enough. Why not stick with exactly what he said instead of putting words in his mouth?


Odd, he said nothing about a triangular UFO.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: peacefulpete

I speak American English.

Well then you know that this whole tangent is about normal everyday phrasing. Which does not equal exaggeration or distortion etc.

I never meant anything about the guy's specific location; I was referring to him flying... well, you know. I was referring to what actually happened.

There's no exaggeration intended, or anything like that.

The guy provides his own map so it's not like I could be deceptive about his location if I tried lol.

I live in Hawaii, I am not a Hawaiian. I have no Hawaiian ancestry though I am 5th generation here.

Alright. I would have thought "Hawaiian" also applied to people born in Hawaii (or even just people who live there), regardless of their genetic ancestry.

But if you don't consider yourself Hawaiian then OK.

If you're saying that the term is reserved for those of indigenous ancestry, then I didn't know that.

It certainly doesn't work that way in the US where we are "Americans" without most of us being of Native American descent, of course.

Yes. Why not stick with exactly what he said instead of putting words in his mouth?

Okay?

...Maybe you just happen to be passionate about people using very specific language? And avoiding common speech with might be less specific?

Odd, he said nothing about a triangular UFO.

^True, and I actually emailed him recently to ask him, if he noticed it, in his photo.

I sure as hell hope you were not implying that the triangular image was hoaxed.

You can actually go to the pilot's website and see the same triangular artifact, in the pilot's official photo, on his own official webpage about the sighting.

Just to make sure that's clear.

The triangle artifact is in the original photo, right there on his website. (I've already linked to his site multiple times.)

a reply to: peacefulpete

Well then you know that this whole tangent is about normal everyday phrasing. Which does not equal exaggeration or distortion etc.

Cool. Then stop saying he was in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

I sure as hell hope you were not implying that the triangular image was hoaxed.

Nope.

We've seen lots of examples of reflections being called UFOs.

^Ah OK.

The triangle shape could be blamed on a reflection, as the most plausible mundane explanation.

Points against that idea are:

-- The seemingly 3D shape of the thing (as it seems to be showing its side, with black marks on it.

-- And there's no triangle shape anywhere else in the photos.

Also the pilot DOES mention a UFO shooting up out of the water, and into the sky.

He saw it before he started seeing the glowing lights in the water IIRC.

So he DID see a UFO, just not specifically that one in that photo, apparently.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Also the pilot DOES mention a UFO shooting up out of the water, and into the sky.

You're doing it again. He did not say that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: peacefulpete

Also the pilot DOES mention a UFO shooting up out of the water, and into the sky.

You're doing it again. He did not say that.

OK. I will quote him.

He didn't literally say the word "UFO" but he describes an unknown object shooting out of the water, into the sky. And being an unknown object, it is quite literally a UFO. But right, he didn't say the acronym, he only described the literally unidentified flying object.

I'll post with his quoted words in a minute.

a reply to: peacefulpete

He didn't literally say the word "UFO" but he describes an unknown object shooting out of the water, into the sky.

I'll post with his quoted words in a minute.

Ok.

Suddenly, a long way off in the distance ahead, an intense light flash shot up from the ground, just at or beyond the horizon.

^ Ironically, after all the posts about picking apart exact words... That quote has the pilot referring to the ocean as "the ground." lol.

On the other hand, he does not really specify his location, at that point.

It's not until 20 minutes' flight later that he saw the red lights in the water, and THAT'S the point that he specifies, "There was supposed to be nothing but endless ocean below for hundreds of miles around us."

So I'm thinking this through as I'm writing it.

But since the lights are clearly stated as having nothing but water for 100's of miles...

Then that MUST mean that 20 minutes BEFORE that point, there was also nothing around for 100's of miles.

So then he MUST be referring to the ocean horizon as "the ground" in his quote above.

...

Here is his FULL description of the sighting of the light shooting up.

I was imagining it as an actual bright object shooting up; however, his words might also be interpreted as describing sort of an upside-down "lightning bolt" shooting out of the sea. (That is, maybe it was more an anomalous burst of energy, rather than an object, but I bet it was an object simply streaking light as it flew up.)

Ok here are his full words on that:

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. And strangely enough, it was just one single flash, and we did not see any other flashes afterwards, which would be expected with a thunderstorm. As later confirmed by two independent lighting-observatories, there was no electro-magnetic activity (lightning strikes) for two hours before and after the time of the sighting, in a radius of at least 1000 kilometres.

What do you think of that description?

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

Also here is the link to the pilot's awesome webpage, which I have already linked, but it can get lost among all the different pages and posts in the thread:

jpcvanheijst.com...

a reply to: peacefulpete

What do you think of that description?

I think he says he saw a flash of light.

Also here is the link to the pilot's awesome webpage, which I have already linked, but it can get lost among all the different pages and posts in the thread:

Yeah. I linked it on the first page of this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: peacefulpete

What do you think of that description?

I think he says he saw a flash of light.

Well, alright. I posted his words right there, so at least there can't be any tangent about me distorting his words lol.

His words are a bit open to interpretation, as I did mention when I just posted his quote.

I would have thought that most would interpret his words as a bright object shooting out of the water.

That could even be government tech (like submarines shooting an experimental weapon, or something).

But yeah, it could be interpreted as an unknown freak occurrence, of static energy discharged off the water, or something.

Or, it could interpreted as absolutely meaningless, because a flash of light could be anything, which is probably what you're really getting at. Maybe the buttons in his plane were flashing and he got confused... lol.

Yeah. I linked it on the first page of this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I posted for anyone who might not want to go skipping around the different pages, looking for the link...

a reply to: peacefulpete

I would have thought that most would interpret his words as a bright object shooting out of the water.

"Most" who, exactly? I didn't. You did. But then you're a UFO "researcher" who would rather interpret than stick with known facts. And you see what happened? Your mind turned it into:

Also the pilot DOES mention a UFO shooting up out of the water, and into the sky.

He mentioned no such thing.

I posted for anyone who might not want to go skipping around the different pages, looking for the link...

And yet, you directed it at me. It's as if you ignored me.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: peacefulpete

I would have thought that most would interpret his words as a bright object shooting out of the water.

"Most" who, exactly? I didn't. You did.

I would have thought that "practically everyone" would interpret his description as a glowing object shooting up. ("Practically everyone" is the "most" that I referred to.)

It's not like there's a lot of different options anyways:

What's bright and shoots up out of the ocean?

Nothing? Freak strikes of upside-down lightning that has never been documented before?

Experimental weapons shot from secret government subs?

There are only so many different explanations for it.

I would have thought "practically everyone" would have interpreted his words as a bright glowing object.

I also would not have considered the type of explanations which would be insulting to the pilot's intelligence, such as being confused by the flashing lights in his plane lol. Or being drunk or on drugs that cause hallucinations.

Phage since you're so critical of my words and thoughts about this, please tell me what your interpretation is?

Do you just consider it absolutely nothing at all?

A totally random hallucination due to the fundamental imperfection of the human mind?


...

Also please tell me why you're coming at me with this

UFO "researcher" who would rather interpret than stick with known facts.

I haven't deviated from any facts about anything.

Please take that back, and point out anything that you have that wrong impression about. I have not deviated from facts on anything.

I also never said I was a "researcher." What are you going on about?

Is everyone who creates threads on ATS assumed to be a self-proclaimed "researcher?"

Don't you ever create threads?

And yet, you directed it at me. It's as if you ignored me.

...Haha? This is a joke?

I mentioned the link for you to check his words that I just quoted, if you wanted to, obviously.

ALSO for anyone who might be reading the thread now or in the future?

Do you not consider the forum as intended to be educational for people to read it?

a reply to: peacefulpete

I would have thought "practically everyone" would have interpreted his words as a bright glowing object.

Why? He said he saw a bright flash of light, not a bright glowing object. It seems he was quite careful in his descriptions. It seems that you had to "interpret" those descriptions for the benefit of the rest of us.

I haven't deviated from any facts about anything.

You have provided your interpretation of the available facts rather than stating them. That is a deviation. You did not provide direct quotes until pressed and, at that point, your deviations became clear.

Is everyone who creates threads on ATS assumed to be a self-proclaimed "researcher?"

I was under the impression that the youtube video was yours. You said that you had tried communicating with the witness.

Do you not consider the forum as intended to be educational for people to read it?

I provided the link as did you, as you pointed out, more than once.

I would have thought "practically everyone" would have interpreted his words as a bright glowing object.

Why? He said he saw a bright flash of light, not a bright glowing object. It seems he was quite careful in his descriptions. It seems that you had to "interpret" those descriptions for the benefit of the rest of us.

What can I even say.

That was how I interpreted his description. That's how I visualized it in my mind's eye.

And that's how I thought practically any reader would interpret his words.

I honestly didn't think twice about it.

I'm glad I posted the pilot's own words, as soon as you questioned my reference to it. I posted his quote immediately.

It's obvious that I was referring to his words.

And it's obvious I wasn't being deceptive or misleading or whatever.

No one can do better than immediately posting the EXACT QUOTE that you questioned me about.

You have provided your interpretation of the available facts rather than stating them. That is a deviation. You did not provide direct quotes until pressed and, at that point, your deviations became clear.

OK. So putting things in different words, will be considered "deviation from facts."

I can avoid putting things in different words.

I certainly don't consider re-phrasing things, as "deviating from facts," but whatever, I can avoid re-phrasing things.

*shrugs*

a reply to: peacefulpete

I honestly didn't think twice about it.

Clearly.

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.

I was under the impression that the youtube video was yours. You said that you had tried communicating with the witness.

Yes, I emailed the witness.

The YT channel has 25 subscribers. Twenty-five.

I don't know if this is commonly known or not, but:

YouTube channels CANNOT BE MONETIZED UNTIL THERE'S 1,000 subscribers.

ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO MAKE MONEY UNTIL 1,000 SUBS.

You might have noticed that the posted vid does not have ads.

Nor is the channel selling anything, in any way, shape, or form.

...

So with all that context, yes it's my channel. Hopefully you can see that it's not a financial venture, obviously lol.

It's a channel about things that generally interest me.

...

The direct inspiration for my channel is simply the fact of acquiring a beautiful Mac that just happens to come ready to make movies very easily.

My very first videos were the 4 vids on Elon Musk's car, floating through space, and capturing a few very anomalous sightings.

And the reason that THAT inspired my first videos, is because I was looking at Elon Musk's video, out of genuine interest.

And once I found some anomalies, I figured I might as well try capturing the anomalies that I saw. And it worked (i.e. the first vids worked for capturing the anomalies) so naturally I posted it to YouTube.

The reason so many of my videos involve color manipulation, or zooming in, and things like that, is because I'm already looking at those things, out of my own interest.

...

Also, I never put the word "researcher" anywhere, at all.

I can acknowledge that the vids from SecureTeam are a bit sensationalistic (such as their titles, and the music), and I think he does call himself a "researcher," but I am a fan of SecureTeam anyway lol. And I don't think my channel comes across as sensationalistic either. Do you think so?

What's the problem with my channel, other than assuming that it's monetized, which it's not?

I provided the link as did you, as you pointed out, more than once.

...OK. I posted it because it wasn't on that page of the thread. So it would have been helpful for you IF you wanted to check his site, and IF you didn't have the web address already saved onto your computer, and IF you didn't feel like looking for it on a different page of the thread.

And more than for you, was for other people potentially reading the thread, and potentially wanting to check that site, at that point.

What's the point dude? That you think the posted link was superfluous? You're really going to talk for an hour about how a single posted link was superfluous?

Why would that possibly bother you so much? I really wonder where you're coming from, sometimes.