Magical Realist: You misunderstand how critical thinking is done. I have not retracted any possibility. Rather, I am examining three different possibilities to see which is the most likely and to see whether any of them can be ruled out. In other words, I am spinning multiple hypotheses and keeping an open mind. You, on the other hand ... well, not so much. You made up your mind right from the start. Didn't you? Right. It can't be a water droplet and a shadow and an alien spacecraft. But it might be any of those things, or something else again. Why are you not interested in trying to eliminate any of these possibilities? Is it because you decided what it was right from the start? I watched it. It has a second-hand account given in a voice-over. That's all. No documentation. No interviews with the pilots. Nothing. The "account" you refer to is hearsay at this point in time. You must be watching a different video to the one I posted above. Your "cylinder", or whatever it is, is just an ill-defined blur. Suggesting either that it is out of focus (perhaps close to the camera), or else that it is actually an ill-defined thing, like a shadow on a cloud, for example. That would be an inference, not a direct perception. If it clearly had the shape of a plane, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Though, in your case, you never know. You're quite wrong. Consider how the shadow of an aeroplane looks from the side. You don't see the wings; they are hidden in the shadow of the fuselage. Do you believe this is impossible? Do you have a rational reason for believing it to be impossible? The only "account" in the video is second or third hand. Recall that it is you who claims the object shown is extraordinary. Ergo, it is up to you to establish its extraordinary nature. The default position, as I have so often explained to you, is to look for a mundane explanation. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. You see what you want to see. You want to see an alien spaceship, so that's what you see. The problem is that you won't even consider alternatives. Your mind is closed. I've made no claim that it is a shadow. Once again, you don't understand what I'm doing here. I am suggesting mundane explanations that have not yet been refuted. If you can refute them, good luck to you. I'll happily reject any hypothesis that is shown to be flawed. How about you? A few points: 1. You did not provide the account in the video. You just found the video somewhere and posted it here. You have collected no evidence yourself, and in fact do not seem interested in examining any evidence. 2. We are both running hypotheses here. Yours is that this is an alien spacecraft, a projection from the future, a pyramid-powered anomaly, the Ghost of Fu-Manchu, or some other paranormal thing. (You refuse to specify what you think it is, other than it is not mundane.) My hypotheses are currently that it is a shadow or a water droplet. If I am "making shit up" by running my hypotheses, then you are equally "making shit up" running yours. You see that, do you not? Unless you produce sufficient supporting argument or evidence that makes it more probable than not that this is an alien craft or whatever you think it is, you have not established your claim. If you then go on to insist, despite failing to make your case, that this thing is an alien craft or whatever, then you truly are "making shit up". Understand?