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

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete

Well if my scale is wrong then enlighten me. How big is a fishing boat’s circle of light? The only photos I could find, make the radius look around 40 feet.

And the idea of not being able to see a 40-foot object from a plane is just a joke. Haven’t you guys ever actually been on a plane? You can see cars lol let alone boats.

The best proof would be for someone to find a pic from that elevation, flying over boats, and see how it looks.

Until then it’s just a joke to say that boats can’t be seen from a plane.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
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.

Re-phrasing things is legitimate. Calling it lying or whatever is not legit.

Please someone post a video or even a photo from that elevation flying over boats. It would prove or disprove the repeated insistence that boats vanish from that height, while their circle of light is visible.

In the last part, are you saying that you think lightning bolts fly off the water, into the sky?

There’s no way you really believe that lol.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Well if my scale is wrong then enlighten me. How big is a fishing boat’s circle of light? The only photos I could find, make the radius look around 40 feet. 

Impossible to say. It would depend on so many factors. Such as the wattage and type if lights to the atmospheric conditions in the day.

And the idea of not being able to see a 40-foot object from a plane is just a joke. Haven’t you guys ever actually been on a plane? You can see cars lol let alone boats. 

A few times, it depends on height. But even in ascent, at around 15k feet I couldn't see cars I saw highways and light, night time flying I glcould see brighter spots on said highways, I'd assume this would be groups of cars at traffic lights and junctions. Making out individual cars was way beyond my perception. From experience and interaction with others I'm led to believe I have good eyesight.

The best proof would be for someone to find a pic from that elevation, flying over boats, and see how it looks. 

There's not much in terms of pictures, not public anyways. I can conclude many reasons for this but ideally it would need testing, I ain't got the funds for multiple flights, cameras and the research to find out when fleets of fishing boats will be at sea whilst using lights as a lure and picking flights that happen to fly over said boats.

The likes of squid fishing is a seasonal thing.

Until then it’s just a joke to say that boats can’t be seen from a plane. 

Maybe I was being rash with my words. From experience it's extremely difficult making things out at ground level from 30 thousand feet. One would need prior knowledge of measurements of the things one would be looking at.

Contrast, lighting, power of lights... All sorts of things to be considered. As it is I haven't travelled by plane for a while and don't plan to in the future. We do have resident pilots here though I suspect they'd be in no hurry to involve themselves in this conversation.

You actually had at least one pilot involved in this thread.

I'll be backing out of this thread too, all the best and hope you find answers to your questions.

a reply to: peacefulpete

As said, I don't think a pilot would be so silly to differentiate one wave to another. I'm not a pilot but I do know that once all the modern equipment of flying is took away and a pilot relies on landmarks and obstacles his/her job becomes.a.lot mor difficult.

To say there's anything other than water above the ocean is rather silly. Too many pilots lost their lives above the English channel and the North Sea in WWII. I was being tongue in cheek but realistic.

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. 

Tit-for-tat, you've been rather rude in this thread also. Sometimes a persons reactions can become bitter from the experience.

I'm not a fan of arguing. I do love a bit of debate... I'm at ATS to learn, always have been.

a reply to: peacefulpete

When all else fails, there’s always the brilliant solution of insulting people who we don’t know,

You are the only to insult people because you think they are trolls.

You use vulgar language and go on about having sex with mothers like a 15 year old, that makes sense actually considering everything else you post.

In the last part, are you saying that you think lightning bolts fly off the water, into the sky? There’s no way you really believe that lol.

Believe what?

I am asking you a question, I have been this whole time about your 'lightening bolt lol' comment that I quote each time like I will again below

On page 6, just you and Phage were posting.

You posted this

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.

So I am asking about your lightening bolt comment that you think the pilot said but he didn't if read the whole paragraph you quote,

the pilot is describing a bright flash that would look like a lightening bolt in a faraway thunderstorm,

that is describing what an explosion would look like but only bright white (lightening bolt color) which is why the pilot also says "as though something had exploded".

Upside down lightening:earthscience.stackexchange.com...

Re-phrasing things is legitimate. Calling it lying or whatever is not legit.

If you wish to obfuscate purposely or are simply ignorant that you will when you change whats said, then yeah, too legit, to quite.

However

You were going on about the pilot saying he was in the middle of the pacific ocean for a while then you slightly changed your tune and posted this that shows you are ignorant that what you post is deceitful or you are purposely posting like this to do what you say a majority of other posters are doing.


You say

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!

you will post the exact quote in your next post.

OK

Your next 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:

Sorry but that is not quoting what the pilot said, especially the exact quote.

that is taking 2 parts of what the pilot said on the website from 2 separate paragraphs and making up your own interpretation.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete

Well if my scale is wrong then enlighten me. How big is a fishing boat’s circle of light? The only photos I could find, make the radius look around 40 feet. 

Impossible to say. It would depend on so many factors. Such as the wattage and type if lights to the atmospheric conditions in the day.

Nope.

If you guys are insisting for weeks that fishing boats turn invisible from a plane, then post proof, or it's nonsense.

I've seen cars from a plane, I've seen streets and highways full of cars, from a plane.

You guys arguing against that are full of it, or post proof, because otherwise, you're just posting nonsense garbage.

a reply to: peacefulpete


But you have already posted a photo of some fishing boats taken from a plane, at 34,000 feet. In your original post.

a reply to: peacefulpete
Nothing is invisible, just unlikely to be seen by the human eye, in regards to the pictures in your OP. Atmospheric conditions paired with extremely bright lights on a otherwise pitch black ocean. This is why you won't see any boats.

If they turned their lights off you wouldn't see them, even if spotted in daytime you'd struggle to see them. Especially if they're not moving. Ships are not typically painted in super bright colours.

The human eye can see something 0.3m big at 1km. So in theory you could see something 3.3m in size at the near 11km height this plane was at. Bit that's based on capability, I'm the real world everyone's eyes and brains are different, we have the atmosphere to contend with too, precipitation and pollution affect visibility range, contrast too. For instance when in a place with little to no light pollution we can see stars 1000's of light years away, yet we don't see them during the day.

Sometimes aeroplanes are "invisible" when atmospheric conditions are just right, the only way we see them is due to their contrail. Plenty of videos and pictures of this on the net, a commercial jumbo jet is about twice the size of your average fishing boat.

Cars seen from 36,000 feet is a bit of a stretch, especially at night. Yeah it might be possible during the day but conditions would have to be perfect, the car would need to stand out, bright car on a dark road kinda thing. Atmospheric conditions would have to be perfect. Even then you won't be seeing much more than a dot. Unlikely you can positively identity that dot as a car.

At night time you won't see cars, you'll see headlights.

Glare is very relevant btw, glare is literally the difficulty to visualise due to the presence of a bright light.

It's a contrast thing.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete

As said, I don't think a pilot would be so silly to differentiate one wave to another. I'm not a pilot but I do know that once all the modern equipment of flying is took away and a pilot relies on landmarks and obstacles his/her job becomes.a.lot mor difficult.

To say there's anything other than water above the ocean is rather silly. Too many pilots lost their lives above the English channel and the North Sea in WWII. I was being tongue in cheek but realistic.

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. 

Tit-for-tat, you've been rather rude in this thread also. Sometimes a persons reactions can become bitter from the experience.

I'm not a fan of arguing. I do love a bit of debate... I'm at ATS to learn, always have been.

I don't think I understand every single thing you meant in your post. But when I was complaining of rudeness, I meant rudeness directed at the pilot. Not me lol.

I was complaining of rudeness against he pilot because he is not part of the conversation and probably has no idea that this thread exists.

However he did create that great web page with photos and text about his sighting.

It's insulting to his intelligence (as a stranger) to assume he can't tell different stretches of 100's of miles apart.

The scale is more than big enough to identify different large areas.

To compare to my current location, in a small city, a few hundred miles would be a completely different city lol. Like think of what you're saying the guy is so incompetent, after 25 yrs flying.

Not to mention that different areas of the ocean would have their own numerical measurements of latitude & longitude. Which identify areas without even using eyesight.

For example, he could easily be able to identify that there's usually never any boat traffic higher than the line of XX latitude, and XX longitude, until he gets to a different set of numbers of latitude & longitude a few hours away (for example).

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: peacefulpete

Yeah I just can't believe you that any of this is legitimate input. You complain when I say the word "troll" but your posts just don't seem possibly honest.

Like you won't stop going on and on about my normal use of normal, obvious idioms and phrases. Re-phrasing and paraphrasing are legitimate things for normal conversations. Nothing was ever unclear, and the topic was the pilot's sighting and his website, all along. It's been available and linked all along. I don't believe you that you think anything was genuinely unclear or deceptive in this thread.

The only interesting thing you posted is that link of a supposed upside-down lightning bolt. I never saw anything described that way but look, even your best example has the lightning shooting DOWN first, and then the upward bolt is only the reaction after that.

So that doesn't even fit the pilot's description. He only mentions something looking like a lightning bolt shooting upwards. He never mentions anything shooting downwards, which is normal, and which your link shows.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: peacefulpete


But you have already posted a photo of some fishing boats taken from a plane, at 34,000 feet. In your original post.

I could only keep re-posting all the very well-explained writings from the pilot, explaining why he knows it's not boats.

originally posted by: RAY1990
Glare is very relevant btw, glare is literally the difficulty to visualise due to the presence of a bright light.

It's a contrast thing.

Well, the pilot's photos do not resemble glaring bright lights; they look like relatively dim electronic lights in the water.

It's mainly why I say it's irrelevant, his photos give no indication that they're showing glaring or even very bright lights.

Not to mention that he does not really describe the lights that way either.

"It's a contrast thing." lol. Come on lol. You just really love throwing that word around or what. The word can mean different things in different contexts and you keep throwing it around in different contexts lol.

What I can say is that if someone was looking at a very bright light blasting in their eyes, like maybe a car's headlights on brights, in your eyes: I don't think anyone would say something like "Oh those lights are blinding me... It's a contrast thing." LOL!!

a reply to: peacefulpete

It's the ocean, not a mountain, not a valley. The ocean. All you can see when above the ocean is water.

No defining points, unless there's coast in view.

This was "in the middle of the ocean" he had nothing else to see but ocean.

a reply to: peacefulpete

I'd say from that height they were illuminating a relatively large area. It would be very difficult for even the dimmest of lights to not have glare over a pitch black ocean that's reflecting extremely dim star light. I already mentioned how stars can only be seen in full glory at the darkest spots on Earth. The ocean is typically one of those places.

Yeah contrast can mean somewhat different things in different situations but in this one it means light that happens to be bright on a very dark background (the ocean). Hence glare

What I can say is that if someone was looking at a very bright light blasting in their eyes, like maybe a car's headlights on brights, in your eyes: I don't think anyone would say something like "Oh those lights are blinding me... It's a contrast thing." LOL!!

.

Yet it's contrast causing temporary blindness. Bright light appearing in an otherwise low light setting. It's why cars are usually restricted on brightness and colour/tint of the lights. It has and most likely still will kill motorists and pedestrians alike in the future.

Meh, at least you're starting to understand glare and how it's very relatable to your thread.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete

It's the ocean, not a mountain, not a valley. The ocean. All you can see when above the ocean is water.

No defining points, unless there's coast in view.

This was "in the middle of the ocean" he had nothing else to see but ocean.

Hmm except the grid of latitude and longitude that people have used to track their location around the world for THOUSANDS OF YEARS? Which doesn't depend on their eyesight of the ocean water:

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: peacefulpete

I'd say from that height they were illuminating a relatively large area. It would be very difficult for even the dimmest of lights to not have glare over a pitch black ocean that's reflecting extremely dim star light. I already mentioned how stars can only be seen in full glory at the darkest spots on Earth. The ocean is typically one of those places.

Yeah contrast can mean somewhat different things in different situations but in this one it means light that happens to be bright on a very dark background (the ocean). Hence glare

What I can say is that if someone was looking at a very bright light blasting in their eyes, like maybe a car's headlights on brights, in your eyes: I don't think anyone would say something like "Oh those lights are blinding me... It's a contrast thing." LOL!!

.

Yet it's contrast causing temporary blindness. Bright light appearing in an otherwise low light setting. It's why cars are usually restricted on brightness and colour/tint of the lights. It has and most likely still will kill motorists and pedestrians alike in the future.

Meh, at least you're starting to understand glare and how it's very relatable to your thread.

Well no, I still say glare is irrelevant because the pilot's photos don't resemble glaring bright lights in the first place.

They look like dim LED lights in the water.

And no one has posted anything that even slightly resembles the same photos from the pilot.

AND the pilot explains all the reasons that his lights are NOT boats.

a reply to: peacefulpete

Wow! I’m super impressed with those.....













boats.

a reply to: Gothmog

vomit

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: peacefulpete

Wow! I’m super impressed with those.....













boats.

"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 knows that boats don't go there.

"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."