UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[DaveC426913]

LOL That it vanished into thin air. Mundane objects don't do that.

"LOL." Yes they do.

Airplanes do it. Balloons do it. Flocks of birds do it. A million other things do it every day. In fact, pretty much anything doing what the witness described - slowly moving off to the East - will eventually vanish into thin air.

Don't be a fool.

 

[Magical Realist]

"LOL." Yes they do.

Airplanes do it. Balloons do it. Flocks of birds do it. A million other things do it every day.

Don't be a fool.

In fact, pretty much anything doing what the witness described - slowly moving off to the East - will eventually vanish into thin air.

Uh no, Mundane things recede into the distance and get smaller and smaller until they are too far to be seen or over the horizon. And this gradual recession takes several minutes. They don't vanish in a matter of 30 seconds, particularly a 3 story bldg-sized metallic disc lit up with 3 rows of windows and lights moving at 5-10 mph.

 

[DaveC426913]

Uh no, Mundane things recede into the distance and get smaller and smaller until they are too far to be seen or over the horizon. And this gradual recession takes several minutes. They don't vanish in a matter of 30 seconds, particularly a 3 story bldg-sized metallic disc lit up with 3 rows of windows and lights moving at 5-10 mph.

Or they simply can't be seen against the sky. It happens all the time for multiple reasons.

I explained ome way how, above.

 

[Magical Realist]

Or they simply can't be seen against the sky. It happens all the time.

I explained how, above.

It had 3 rows of lighted windows and other lights. Ofcourse it would still be seen.

 

[Magical Realist]

More details by eyewitness:

"Michael Lehmann confirmed to the Denver Gazette that he was the Red Rocks worker who contacted the NUFORC about the sighting. He explained that the incident happened while the workers were breaking down the equipment following a June 5th concert by the band All Time Low. According to Lehman, they were able to observe the object because there was very little moonlight that evening. That said, he also noted that the dark color of the anomaly "blended in with the sky pretty well." Easily the most tantalizing detail shared by Lehman, who described himself as a "hopeful skeptic," was that one of the workers shined a flashlight at the sizable disc, which led to the UFO vanishing in a manner that he likened to something activating a "cloaking device."

As for why nobody in the group thought to take a picture of the odd object, he attributed this to the brevity of the sighting, which only lasted 30 seconds, and that everyone was initially busy tending to the concert equipment when the anomaly first appeared. Lehman also revealed that the incident continues to be the talk of the team of workers at Red Rocks, though as of now he is the only witness from the group to come forward to share the wild story. It remains to be seen whether he will be joined by any of the others or if the case will simply fade away like the object that mystified the group that night."---- https://www.coasttocoastam.com/arti...es-forward-with-new-details-on-mass-sighting/

 

[DaveC426913]

lighted windows .

No it didn't. You made that up.

Here is a binary question for you: did you lie deliberately about that? Or did your mind betray you into adding that tidbit to your memory of the report? It's one of the two.

 

[DaveC426913]

there was very little moonlight that evening. That said, he also noted that the dark color of the anomaly "blended in with the sky pretty welwell.

There you go. The witness himself explains how was able to "vanish". It was night and the object was dark. Who knows what the lights were, but lights are pretty mundane. And apparently they went out.

It could have been a hot air balloon that turned off its burner to descend. It could be any number of things. It could have been a dirigible like that we discussed a few weeks ago, which is described almost 'to a T' by his description.

As for why nobody in the group thought to take a picture of the odd object, he attributed this to the brevity of the sighting, which only lasted 30 seconds

How does this explain anything? There are a million cases of people whipping out their phones to catch an image. 30 seconds is a lifetime. And multiply that by 12.

 

[Magical Realist]

Balloon or dirigible ruled out because:

1) it was described as disc-shaped and metallic..

2) hot air balloons are very obvious. They are balloon-shaped, usually very colorful and light up when the fire goes off. Workers at that venue would also be well familiar with balloons in that area. And I checked, There are no dirigibles in that area. And they would never be that close to the ground,

3) 1 am? I doubt balloon rides go on that late.

4) described as having 3 rows of windows..

5) just vanished when flashlight was pointed at it.

6) Eyewitness quite adamant about what it wasn't:

"Then it started fading away until it was invisible. It didn't shoot off into the distance. It simply dissolved into the ether. We all watched it vanish," the worker said in the report. "This was not a plane. It wasn't a satellite, a drone, or anything like that. There was no mistaking what this was."

No it didn't. You made that up.

The windows would have to have been lit up or the eyewitness would never have seen them.

 

[DaveC426913]

The windows would have to have been lit up or the eyewitness would never have seen them.

You admit then that you made that up.
It suited your argument so you embellished the account with your own addition.
Yes or no?

 

[DaveC426913]

1) it was described as disc-shaped and metallic..

Dirigibles, seen as a silhouette can easily look disc-shaped, especially at noght with no moon and when they're dark-coloured. The usual 3-dimensional visual cues can't be discerned.

Workers at that venue would also be well familiar with balloons in that area.

Nonsense.

And I checked, There are no dirigibles in that area.

Sure. Tell us how you determined that.

And they would never be that close to the ground,

They certainly do. They routinely hover over football stadiums, for example, at a mere few hundred feet.

3) 1 am? I doubt balloon rides go on that late.

'Doubt' does not rule anything out.

4) described as having 3 rows of windows..

As established, witness can only describe what he thinks he sees. TV screens can easily look like windows.

5) just vanished when flashlight was pointed at it.

Correlation does not imply causation.

"Then it started fading away until it was invisible.

Just a moment ago you said it "just vanished when a flashlight was pointed at it". Which is it?

It didn't shoot off into the distance. It simply dissolved into the ether. We all watched it vanish

It was night. The thing was dark-coloured against a dark sky. That doesn't exactly require dissolving or ether.

the worker said in the report. "This was not a plane. It wasn't a satellite, a drone, or anything like that. There was no mistaking what this was

As before, there is no way the witness can be sure it wasn't a drone for example. That's for analysis to decide. And yes, a drone is not inconsistent with all the parameters the witnesses could reliably have determined.

The windows would have to have been lit up or the eyewitness would never have seen them.

How does that follow, considering apparently they could see it so well that they could describe it as "metallic"?

 

[Magical Realist]

How does that follow, considering apparently they could see it so well that they could describe it as "metallic"?

It was roughly a mile away. The windows would have to be lit to be seen.

 

[DaveC426913]

It was roughly a mile away. The windows would have to be lit to be seen.

You made it up. Deliberate embellishment or accidental memory fault?


It matters that that point was NOT in the account because, as previously established, they can't have known how far away it was - especially at night. Which means your assumption that those alleged windows must have been lit is faulty, and that corrupts the retelling of the account. Your conclusion is a house of cards that falls apart as soon as a couple of cards are examined carefully. You like to mix the report with your own interpretation and you think we won't notice.


So, you admit then that you made that bit up. There is no mention of any windows being lit, correct?
Last time I'm gonna ask.

 

[Magical Realist]

It was night. The thing was dark-coloured against a dark sky. That doesn't exactly require dissolving or ether.

He could definitely tell it was disk shaped. So he could definitely see its outline against the sky. Plus it had lit up windows and other lights. So yeah, it dissolved away. That's what they witnessed.

As before, there is no way the witness can be sure it wasn't a drone for example.

Drones aren't as big as 3 story bldgs nor do they have 3 rows of windows. So no...no drone here.

 

[DaveC426913]

He could definitely tell it was disk shaped.

No. As explained. Dirigibles can have the same silhouette, especially at night.

Plus it had lit up windows and other lights.

Now that you have been called out, you have no excuse for retelling this lie.

Reported for trolling.

So yeah, it dissolved away. That's what they witnessed.

As explained. Nothing unusual about dark things disappearing at night.

Drones aren't as big as 3 story bl

As explained. They can't know how big it was.

nor do they have 3 rows of windows. So no...no drone here.

As explained. They can't know they're windows.

You have been given plausible explanations for all these things. Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you can't hear the logic is not going to help. But doubling down and making the same indefensible claims over and over while sticking your fingers in your ears is what makes it trolling.

So, reported for trolling.

 

[Magical Realist]

No. As explained. Dirigibles can have the same silhouette, especially at night.

No record of any dirigibles in that area. And no,,dirigibles have a very distinctive shape and aren't disk shaped, Neither do they have 3 rows of windows. And they don't just vanish into thin air. So no dirigible.

As explained. Nothing unusual about dake things disappearing at noght.

Not with lit up windows and other lights and a distinct disk-shaped outline.

As explained. They can't know how big it was.

They were there and saw it, I trust their judgement over your baseless claims.

As explained. They cant know theyre windows.

Ofcourse they can.. They saw them . You can't possibly know they weren't windows because you weren't there.

 

[DaveC426913]

Reported for tripling down and more trolling.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist.

We're going to have a talk about windows now. Emphasis in bold from the following quotes is mine.

Takeaways: The fact that there were windows proves that, as is often denied by skeptics, that at least SOME uaps are craft of some sort.

"What we saw was a classic disc shaped metallic craft that was several hundred yards long. It had three levels of windows, almost like really long 3 story office building. ...."

Eyewitnesses seeing rectangular shapes does not "prove" they are windows. ....

Drawing such a conclusion is a rookie witness error. He can't know they're windows. Best he can say is they looked like they might be windows.

....
How did he "determine" that they were windows, as opposed to rectangular markings, protrusions or indentations?

Another rookie eyewitness error.

Well, we have what he and 11 other people saw with their own eyes and that looked like 3 rows of windows ...

He cannot "know" they are windows. Yes, they "looked like" windows. Millions of normal things in the world have rectangular markings, protrusions or indentations. Including crane and quarry equipment.
....
Because someone interpreted what they saw doesn't make it so. That is not evidence that the thing had windows, and therefore is not evidence that it was any sort of craft.

It had 3 rows of lighted windows and other lights. Ofcourse it would still be seen.

No it didn't. You made that up.

Balloon or dirigible ruled out because:

....

4) described as having 3 rows of windows..

The windows would have to have been lit up or the eyewitness would never have seen them.

It was roughly a mile away. The windows would have to be lit to be seen.

You made it up. Deliberate embellishment or accidental memory fault?


It matters that that point was NOT in the account because, as previously established, they can't have known how far away it was - especially at night. Which means your assumption that those alleged windows must have been lit is faulty, and that corrupts the retelling of the account. Your conclusion is a house of cards that falls apart as soon as a couple of cards are examined carefully. You like to mix the report with your own interpretation and you think we won't notice.

So, you admit then that you made that bit up. There is no mention of any windows being lit, correct?
Last time I'm gonna ask.

He could definitely tell it was disk shaped. So he could definitely see its outline against the sky. Plus it had lit up windows and other lights. So yeah, it dissolved away. That's what they witnessed.

Now that you have been called out, you have no excuse for retelling this lie.

Not with lit up windows and other lights and a distinct disk-shaped outline.
....
Ofcourse they can.. They saw them . You can't possibly know they weren't windows because you weren't there.

Allow me to summarise:

1. An eyewitness reported that what he saw had "three levels of windows, almost like really long 3 story office building".
2. The eyewitness did not say that the "windows" were "lit up".
3. DaveC walked Magical Realist through various issues with the report, including the problems of determining distance and size without appropriate references (which reduces the description "really long" in the witness report to little better than a guess). Importantly, DaveC told MR that there can be lots of rectangular shapes which are not actually windows.
4. MR acknowledged the window issue, merely by repeating that the witness saw what "looked like" windows. That is, MR was aware that things the presence of windows in the reported "object" has not been confirmed.
5. MR then made up the detail that the windows the eyewitness reported were described as "lit up". That is, MR added an imaginary detail of his own that does not appear in the original report.
6. DaveC pointed out that MR had simply made up the detail about the windows being lit.
7. MR claimed that he was justified in just making shit up to suit his own preferred interpretation of the story. In this case, MR told us the "windows would have to be lit to be seen". In other words, since MR had already decided that there is no possibility that what was seen could be anything other than windows, MR was willing to simply make up new details to support the conclusion he had already decided must be true.
8. MR is willing to keep lying about his addition of details that aren't present in the initial report, in the full knowledge that he simply made up those extra details.
9. MR has doubled down on his lie, even after it was pointed out repeatedly and he was repeatedly asked to retract it.

So, here's what's going to happen next:

1. MR is going to admit that he simply invented the detail that the "windows" were "lit up" or "lighted", here.
2. MR is going to apologise to DaveC and to his other readers for telling a knowing lie and then doubling and tripling down on it.
3. MR will post his admission, along with his apology, in the next post he makes to this thread.
4. Is MR does not retract and apologise for his lie, MR will be officially warned yet again.

I advise MR to carefully review his accumulated warning points and to think carefully about how he wishes to proceed from here before posting again.

To Magical Realist: You're not going to be able to nervously "LOL" your way out, this time, MR. You're going to take some responsibility again. It's shame you have to be forced to act like an adult, but this is how it goes with you, apparently.

 

[Magical Realist]

So, here's what's going to happen next:

1. MR is going to admit that he simply invented the detail that the "windows" were "lit up" or "lighted", here.
2. MR is going to apologise to DaveC and to his other readers for telling a knowing lie and then doubling and tripling down on it.

I will admit I was abit rash in saying the windows were lit as that detail was not actually contained in the report and I apologize for "tripling down" on it if it offended anyone. But as a logical inference it makes perfect sense since the eyewitness said they saw three levels of windows and that the object was about a mile away. I don't see how they could have done that if they were not illuminated, can you? In any case, can we now move on from this? There are much more fruitful things to talk about.

 

[DaveC426913]

I will admit I was abit rash in saying the windows were lit as that detail was not actually contained in the report and I apologize for "tripling down" on it if it offended anyone.

Accepted.

But as a logical inference it makes perfect sense since the eyewitness said they saw three levels of windows and that the object was about a mile away. I don't see how they could have done that if they were not illuminated, can you?

Yes. There are several ways.

1. He could see enough detail in these things to say they looked like windows the same way he could see enough detail to describe the object as "metallic".

This of course simply raises even more concerns the veracity of the account: if it were so dark and the object was likewise dark, how could he conclude that the object was metallic?


2. The markings were bright enough to look like a pattern of squares - perhaps shiny white against the already-described dark object.


3. The object is not a mile away, as he guessed, but much closer. A 300-yard object a mile away subtends the same angle as a 50 yard object a quarter of a mile away

(For reference, that's about 8 degrees - the width of your four closed fingers, held at arms length).


As detailed several times, there is no explanation forthcoming about how it was possible for him to distinguish the distance and size of the object - there is no background reference to measure it against.


4. His attempt to compare the object to something familiar: "...almost like really long 3 story office building...".
This helps us build a picture, sure, but it too is problematic.

a. It biases his and our (OK, your) idea of how large the thing likely is. Since he thinks it looks like an office building, he is pre-judging it to be office-building sized. Which is why he thinks it looks like it's a mile away. It wouldn't look office building sized if it were an small object that's only a quarter of a mile away, that would be way too small to be an office building.

b. It also explains why he describes the detail as "windows". what he says is "...almost like really long 3 story office building..." is a metaphor. (note the word "like"). He is likely extending the metaphor of an office building: office buildings have windows.

But the metaphor is not the thing. We all agree it is not actually a floating office building with office windows. Right?


Do you know how the brain tries to determine size of distant things it doesn't recognize? It tries to match using visual cues it sees with things it already knows - such as "those regular square things look like windows on an office building. That would make that thing look about three stories at all and several hundred yards long."

This is a known pitfall that must be factored in to any UAP such account.


And, finally:

5. Another thing that is square and bright and found on the side of floating objects in the sky is TV screens. Such as found on the side of dirigibles.

Here's a simple mockup of a "disc" with "rows of windows" like squares, as might be seen up in the sky.
Next to it is a mockup of a prolate spheroid (the shape of a dirigible) with rows of screens, or with one screen that has pictures or text.
Which is which?




So that's five ways he could be seeing markings that are not windows, let alone "lit" windows.

Note what we are saying here: These are five ways the witness can be sincerely attempting to describe whatever he saw, and yet still be incorrect. It doesn't mean he's lying or otherwise dishonest; it simply means that there are quite a few ways that what he has described fits within mundane parameters.

In any case, can we now move on from this? There are much more fruitful things to talk about.

You had no trouble dragging this out for a whole page. Impatience isn't the appropriate attitude. Contrition is.

 

[Magical Realist]

1.

He could see enough detail in these things to say they looked like windows the same way he could see enough detail to describe the object as "metallic".

This of course simply raises even more concerns the veracity of the account: if it were so dark and the object was likewise dark, how could he conclude that the object was metallic?

That doesn't explain why he saw or even thought he saw 3 rows of windows. People don't generally see such specific details unless they are really there.

2.

The markings were bright enough to look like a pattern of squares - perhaps shiny white against the already-described dark object.

Not likely on a dark moonless night at a mile away, Far more likely they were actually lit, as in most all windows seen at that distance are.

3.

The object is not a mile away, as he guessed, but much closer. A 300-yard object a mile away subtends the same angle as a 50 yard object a quarter of a mile away

I trust their judgment. Most people can tell the difference between an object a mile away and an object 300 yds away. And that still doesn't explain how they could see windows on the thing in the dark.

It also explains why he describes the detail as "windows". what he says is "...almost like really long 3 story office building..." is a metaphor. (note the word "like"). He is likely extending the metaphor of an office building: office buildings have windows.

It's more likely he used the metaphor of a long 3 story bldg based on his seeing the 3 rows of windows. Metaphors are based on the actual visible details of a thing and not the other way around. And he mentioned the windows repeatedly in his account. He seems quite certain of that detail.

5.

Another thing that is square and bright and found on the side of floating objects in the sky is TV screens. Such as found on the side of dirigibles.

Unlikely time of night and location and height to be an advertising blimp. Also I googled dirigibles in the Denver CO area and came up with nothing. Also, a TV screen looks nothing like 3 rows of windows. Are you now saying the windows appeared lit up because they were really a TV screen? And then there's the fact that it "vanished into the ether" when they pointed a flashlight at it.

These are five ways the witness can be sincerely attempting to describe whatever he saw, and yet still be incorrect. It doesn't mean he's lying or otherwise dishonest; it simply means that there are quite a few ways that what he has described fits within mundane parameters.

It's far more parsimonious and likely that he and his 11 other friends simply saw what they say they saw. It is a description of something unknown and based on direct sensory perception, There is no reason to think he was mistaken about anything, unless you are trying to explain it all away as something mundane and not unknown. But there are no grounds for assuming that at all.