UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[DaveC426913]

I've no idea what official classification this thread slots in.

It slots in the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" classification.

Claims that point to an unprecedented and exotic explanation really need to be based on a little more than an inference that is not in evidence, especially when there exists plenty of ordinary evidence that points to ordinary explanations.

I mean, if we're going to just insert whatever implication we want, why stop at "lit" wndows? Why not just infer that there must be people at those windows, waving at us? Why have windows if not to be looked out of?

Imagine if skeptics employed such self-confirming tactics. I need simply infer that it had propellors and fins on it, because that only makes sense. Otherwise how could it turn and move away - without propulsion and control surfaces? It's a "safe inference", right?

No.

 

[Magical Realist]

Intriguing footage of an object suspended in midair captured over Islamabad Pakistan. The object is black and has a gleam on it suggesting it is metallic. The object stays perfectly still for over 2 hours until it got too dark and the witness quit filming it. Does not look like a drone or a kite. If it was a balloon it would be moving. Definitely not a bird either. Any suggestions?

 

[DaveC426913]

I'll wait for someone to verify that anything Magical Realist claims in his description is actually in-evidence in the account. Until then, it is as likely be another watermark of the Google Earth logo.

 

[Magical Realist]

I mean, if we're going to just insert whatever implication we want, why stop at "lit" wndows? Why not just infer that there must be people at those windows, waving at us? Why have windows if not to be looked out of?

There are common sense justified inferences and then there are unjustified inferences. Can you tell the difference? I can. Was your inference that the windows were "rectangular" justified or not?

 

[C C]

I'll wait for someone to verify that anything Magical Realist claims in his description is actually in-evidence in the account. Until then, it is as likely be another watermark of the Google Earth logo.

There are common sense justified inferences and then there are unjustified inferences. Can you tell the difference? I can. Was your inference that the windows were "rectangular" justified or not?

VIDEO EXCERPT: Now in the footage, we can see this triangular shaped craft hovering motionless. and I know what you are thinking, right now: Why won't he fly his drone back up to film it closer?

I wish he had done that, as well, guys. Regardless, it's an amazing catch. The witness stated that the object hovered for nearly two hours at the same spot. Eventually it got dark, and he couldn't see it anymore.

The complete original footage is over 30 minutes long. I had to trim it down. Otherwise, this video would have been too long. But I have put the link in the description. Feel free to check it out. [EDIT: But the video below, while longer, is actually 13-plus minutes]

LINK: The putative original source video the narrator references above.

_

 

[DaveC426913]

Was your inference that the windows were "rectangular" justified or not?

Not at all. Rectangular windows is a possibility, since he didn't specify. (See how I did that without being dishonest about it?) For all we know, the shapes he thought he saw might be round.

Or, if we take his "mile distant" estimate as given, they might just as easily have been a 3 line text message, a little like this:

Such signs are designed to support different text sizes. Three lines of text on such a sign would make for very small, vaguely rectilinear shapes at a mile distance.

 

[DaveC426913]

Was your inference that the windows were "rectangular" justified or not?

Not at all. Rectangular windows is a possibility, since he didn't specify. (See how I did that without being dishonest about it?) For all we know, the shapes he thought he saw might be round.

Or, if we take his "mile distant" estimate as given, they might just as easily have been a 3 line text message, a little like this:

Such signs are designed to support different text sizes. Three lines of text on such a sign would make for very small, vaguely rectilinear shapes.

It's not a certainty, but it can't be ruled out. It's certainly more precedented than whatever explanation you have in mind.

What explanation do you have in mind?

Oh, and what say you about a 30 second Google search turning up a blimp hangar a mere 20 miles away? Just how hard did you look?

 

[DaveC426913]

Thanks C C. It's good somebody is willing to fact check Magical Realist so he doesn't waste everyone's time.

VIDEO EXCERPT: Now in the footage, we can see this triangular shaped craft hoverinmotionless.

It's not actually motionless. Look at it closer against the clouds. If someone had the inclination to pop it into Google videos and add a 'steady' filter to it, you would see it moves around with respect to the clouds. It bobs a little back and forth. Slowly, but still.

If he's filiming it using a drone, and that bobbing aroumd were attributed to parallax due to the bobbing of the drone, that would indicate that the object is much, much closer and smaller than it may seem at first. Parallax shouldn't be noticeable be unless the observer is bobbing all over the place. Still, maybe it was all over the place.

(Objective analyis means looking at characteristics that DONT support a given stance, as much as looking at characteristics that DO support a given stance.)


Magical Realist, a bobbing UAP would be harder to explain than a stationary UAP, so that favours a slightly more exotic explanation than a balloon. Here is your chance to put a little money where your mouth is and try your hand at some analysis. You might find it fun!

You could take a dozen screen shots and overlay them all in a paint package like Photoshop. Align the clouds in each layer and we should see the object bob around against the backdrop.


Of course, kites bob to and fro, and come in many shapes, sizes and colour patterns...

 

[Magical Realist]

Oh, and what say you about a 30 second Google search turning up a blimp hangar a mere 20 miles away? Just how hard did you look?

LOL Any advertising blimps in it with tv screens on the side?

Justified inference here: if it was an advertising blimp flying over Red Rocks during a concert, everybody would've seen it and known about it. But they didn't. So no...no blimp there.

I have no idea what it was. So that's why we call it a UAP.

 

[DaveC426913]

LOL

No need to get emotional. Emotion is an anathema to dispassionate analysis. It's not the arena to battle in.

 

[DaveC426913]

Justified inference here: if it was an advertising blimp flying over Red Rocks during a concert, everybody would've seen it and known about it. But they didn't. So no...no blimp there.

How do you know no one else saw it? Go ahead and justify that inference.

Eleven other people who actually have been reported as seeing it apparently didn't think it was a site worth taking a pic of (in six minutes of collective observation), never mind reporting it. If they didn't, why would anyone else? Perhaps because it was a mundane sight?

All we know is that one guy made a report. And even he didn't take a pic.

I have no idea what it was. So that's why we call it a UAP.

Who classified it as a UAP?

You? Is this another one of your weasely embellishments?

 

[Magical Realist]

How do you know

no one else saw it? Go ahead and justify that inference.

I said everybody would know if a blimp was floating over the concert. But the fact that it is not recognized as a blimp by anyone nor mentioned by the eyewitness himself rules out that explanation. So no blimp. Sorry..

"One witness described the experience: "We saw a large disc-shaped craft with three levels of windows. It hovered silently and then disappeared into thin air."

Another account from an individual working at the amphitheater recounted the moment a coworker exclaimed, “Hey, what is that over there? It looks like a spaceship.”

The witness continued, "We all turned to look in the direction he was pointing, and sure enough, there was a UFO hovering about a half a mile to a mile north of Red Rocks. A dozen of us saw it. We all kept asking each other, 'Are you seeing this too?' It was a resounding 'yes' from everyone in the group."--- https://www.frontpagedetectives.com/p/mysterious-ufo-red-rocks-amphitheater-colorado

 

[DaveC426913]

I said everybody would know if a blimp was floating over the concert. But the fact that it is not recognized as a blimp by anyone nor mentioned by the eyewitness himself rules out that explanation.

How do you know it was not recognized by anyone at the concert, other than one or two of the reported witnesses?

So no blimp. Sorry..

You keep trying this silly ploy. No such vague arguments as " ... a bunch people would this or that..." can rule out a given explanation . This is obvious all, including you. It makes you look like a troll.

"One witness described the experience: "We saw a large disc-shaped craft with three levels of windows. It hovered silently and then disappeared into thin air."

Another account from an individual working at the amphitheater recounted the moment a coworker exclaimed, “Hey, what is that over there? It looks like a spaceship.”

That is called hearsay. For all we know, two minutes later, he said "Nah, its just a blimp."

This is consistent with 12 people not bothering to take any pics, and eleven people not bothering to file a report.

The witness continued, "We all turned to look in the direction he was pointing, and sure enough, there was a UFO hovering about a half a mile to a mile north of Red Rocks. A dozen of us saw it. We all kept asking each other, 'Are you seeing this too?' It was a resounding 'yes' from everyone in the group."--- https://www.frontpagedetectives.com/p/mysterious-ufo-red-rocks-amphitheater-colorado

Yep, and then eleven of them did nothing about it. Almost as if, after a few moments of reflection, they decided it wasn't extraordinary after all.

Exactly one guy has not recognized it so far as a dirigible as far as the account goes.

I note that he did not list it as one of the things he's sure it wasn't. It is quite plausible it just never occurred to him.

Much like that guy filming the Milky Way - who knows about photography and night shooting and apparently it never occurred to him that he might have caught a commercial jet in his pics.

Just because witnesses don't recognize things doesn't mean they're not recognizable.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yep, and then eleven of them did nothing about it. Almost as if, after a few moments of reflection, they decided it wasn't extraordinary after all.

It only required one of them to call in the sighting to NUFORC the next day And that's exactly what happened. What else were they supposed to do about it?

 

[DaveC426913]

It only required one of them to call in the sighting to NUFORC the next day

Why?

Are you for a moment suggesting that multiple independent witnesses, reporting on the same incident, with their own account of it, would not lend credence to an incident?

Think carefully before you answer. Perhaps recall some of the very arguments you've historically made about multiple witness accounts.

 

[DaveC426913]

So that's why we call it a UAP.

I ask again: who classified it as such?

Or are you willing to recant your earlier assertion that UAP has a very specific meaning, that it can't be identified, "PERIOD", and the inescapable implication that the can't applies to everyone, for all time.


Do you assert that if NASA and the military brought their considerable resources to bear on this incident, they could not identify it?

Here you'd have to acknowledge that UAP is simply a broad category term, used loosely, for things that are not, as yet, identified by those who have looked at them.

 

[Magical Realist]

Are you for a moment suggesting that multiple independent witnesses, reporting on the same incident, with their own account of it, would not lend credence to an incident?

There is simply no need for anyone else to call NUFORC if the report is already called in. They're not going to record the same incident multiple times.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is simply no need for anyone else to call NUFORC if the report is already called in. They're not going to record the same incident multiple times.

So it is your contention that multiple reports from different witnesses do not lend credence to the credibility of a UAP report.

Perfect. Magical Realist now thinks a dozen eyewitness reports of an incident is no better than one. [ quote ] " There is simply no need" for more. UFO agencies just wouldn't bother to record reports of the same incident from other eyewitnesses.

Documented and on-record.

(Are you still contending that you are neither a fool nor a troll? Or are you going to flip-flop on that too?)

 

[James R]

I said everybody would know if a blimp was floating over the concert. But the fact that it is not recognized as a blimp by anyone nor mentioned by the eyewitness himself rules out that explanation. So no blimp. Sorry..

"One witness described the experience: "We saw a large disc-shaped craft with three levels of windows. It hovered silently and then disappeared into thin air."

Another account from an individual working at the amphitheater recounted the moment a coworker exclaimed, “Hey, what is that over there? It looks like a spaceship.”

The witness continued, "We all turned to look in the direction he was pointing, and sure enough, there was a UFO hovering about a half a mile to a mile north of Red Rocks. A dozen of us saw it. We all kept asking each other, 'Are you seeing this too?' It was a resounding 'yes' from everyone in the group."--- https://www.frontpagedetectives.com/p/mysterious-ufo-red-rocks-amphitheater-colorado

This report is misleading so poorly reported it should be discounted.

It says "One witness described the experience ...." and then it says "Another account from an individual..."

But there was no "another account". There is only one "account" here. It's a single witness reporting this. This is the same guy who claimed that "a dozen of us saw it". Not a single one of the other 11 people who he says saw it is on the record as having seen anything.

 

[Magical Realist]

Interesting find on the internet. Apparently there was another uap sighting over the Red Rocks concert venue back in January of 2015. The object was also round and had many colored lights. The movements it made were described as beyond what any conventional craft could perform. " Like a computer mouse." There were 5 witnesses, at least one an ex-military member, and a few photos taken as well as video. The size was estimated to be about the size of a P3 Orion aircraft, see below.

UFO videotaped over Red Rocks Amphitheater concert – Openminds.tv

openminds.tv

“The first thing I thought was, maybe it’s a drone – but this could not be the case in my opinion. I am no drone expert; however, this craft seemed to be much larger, and much faster than any drone that I have observed. I have a friend that flies drones, and after observing my limited footage, my friend agreed, that it seemed to be faster than any drone he knows of. I observed a fixed-wing aircraft in the skies immediately following the event. I could not be certain what type it was, or what its purpose was, given how far away it was. I knew that it was a plane because it had a steady green light on one wing, a steady red on the other, and a flashing red light on the nose.”

Here's the video of that same uap. Not very impressive:

And here's another possible uap spotted at Red Rocks during a Black Keys concert in 2022. It is distant, is descending, and flashes from red to green.