Strange light formation filmed over Minnesota

[stereologist]

15 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I have put no effort into learning about this particular case to make  your overreaction above seem silly. It may or may not be what  you claim for all I know.

My point was that our friend the Stero 'case closes' a bit quickly on cases I have studied more seriously. I hold to my point.

Unfortunately your idea of studied is not serious at all.

Evidence comes from your comment "The readout is...……...61% something unknown to science  and 39% something known to science" and your admittance that "I have put no effort into learning about this particular case".

Thanks for showing how your thinking operate.

Then comes this comment 

Quote

Papa did study the OP and gave an honest estimate.

Papageorge1 are you claiming that there was enough material in the OP to form a conclusion? Well that certainly begins to cement the case that your claim of ever having "studied" a subject is well below the level that skeptics study a subject. No wonder you lean to the paranormal.

Edited April 11, 2019 by stereologist
read more of thread

[papageorge1]

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

 

Papageorge1 are you claiming that there was enough material in the OP to form a conclusion? 

This is where your thinking goes wrong, Stereo. The Papameter never reaches a conclusion (unless in the very rare case of a 0% or 100% reading). It is always my judgment of likelihood from all I know. The more I know (and case studies can be infinite) the more accurate the reading.

[moonman]

Give up George. You walked into the thread, spouted some bad readings without getting the facts, and you were completely wrong. These lights are 100% explained whether you can admit that or not.

I know you'll spout some nonsense like "we don't know for sure if THESE 12 lights in a circle on clouds are the same lights as the hundreds of other examples and explanations of the 12 casino lights in a circle on clouds that people in the area see all the time" to make yourself look correct, but everyone else knows a sure thing when they see it.

It's ok to admit being wrong, everyone does it from time to time. Well, most of us...

Edited April 11, 2019 by moonman

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

This is where your thinking goes wrong, Stereo. The Papameter never reaches a conclusion (unless in the very rare case of a 0% or 100% reading). It is always my judgment of likelihood from all I know. The more I know (and case studies can be infinite) the more accurate the reading.

A conclusion does not happen to require a 0% or 100% value. That is where your thinking goes wrong papageorge1. 

So where does your judgment of likelihood sit now?

[Timothy]

@papageorge1, if you had a spotlight in your own garden pointed directly up, and you saw the light directly above it in the clouds, what would you think? 

Because that’s pretty much this thread. 

It should be very close to a 0%, no? 

[papageorge1]

43 minutes ago, Timothy said:

@papageorge1, if you had a spotlight in your own garden pointed directly up, and you saw the light directly above it in the clouds, what would you think? 

I would think that my light is reflecting off a cloud. But I wouldn't assume  every unknown light is a spotlight.

43 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Because that’s pretty much this thread. 

It should be very close to a 0%, no? 

I'm going way higher than 0%. The people involved must have some intelligence to consider if that explanation fits.

Secondly, I will always consider explanations from those that want everything to have a 'normal' explanation but with a healthy skeptical attitude though.

Edited April 11, 2019 by papageorge1

[moonman]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I would think that my light is reflecting off a cloud. But I wouldn't assume  every unknown light is a spotlight.

I'm going way higher than 0%. The people involved must have some intelligence to consider if that explanation fits.

Secondly, I will always consider explanations from those that think everything has a 'normal' explanation but with a healthy skeptical attitude.

You are a basket case with eggs in your brain. Not sure why I took you off ignore but back you go.

Edited April 11, 2019 by moonman

[XenoFish]

On 3/3/2019 at 12:10 PM, EnderOTD said:

It's reasonable to assume that they may have changed the the pattern or maybe it was undergoing maintenance that night. 

If you look at the clouds in the original video they look illuminated from the ground. Rather than through the clouds. Could be a search light test.

Saw some freaky lights a few years ago. Weird as hell, found out a week are so later than a concert had been held. Lights and everything.

[papageorge1]

Just now, moonman said:

You are a basket case.

You are a closed-minded individual driven by prejudice.

(and don't try twisting this to say I think this is a UFO)

[XenoFish]

[Timothy]

14 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

*snip*

I'm going way higher than 0%. The people involved must have some intelligence to consider if that explanation fits.

*snip*

Ahh, this may be the problem. You have seen the utter BS people post. Intelligent or not, we are highly fallible. They got it wrong.

[papageorge1]

17 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Ahh, this may be the problem. You have seen the utter BS people post. Intelligent or not, we are highly fallible. They got it wrong.

Just as a non-expert I would expect to see a beam or a hint of a beam to some extent reaching to the lights. Were they in the right direction of a known source, etc..  And the casino lights are in a circular pattern unlike these.

(and remember I am not even saying it is not spotlights)

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by papageorge1

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Just as a non-expert I would expect to see a beam or a hint of a beam to some extent reaching to the lights. Were they in the right direction of a known source, etc..  And the casino lights are in a circular pattern unlike these.

(and remember I am not even saying it is not spotlights)

 

Here is a hint about light and seeing beams of light.

Light beams cannot be seen from the side if they pass through a vacuum. Beams like corpuscular rays seen passing through clouds are only visible because some of the light encounters particles in the air that cause the light rays to change course.

The next part is the camera. It produces an image because it has a sensor that traps light. If a portion of the image is too weak to be detected by the camera then it does not appear.

There are two factors that are likely to prevent the beams from appearing in the image: the air itself and the camera.

BTW, the arrangement of the casino lights on the ground is independent of where they can be pointed.

[papageorge1]

3 hours ago, moonman said:

Give up George. You walked into the thread, spouted some bad readings without getting the facts, and you were completely wrong. These lights are 100% explained whether you can admit that or not.

I know you'll spout some nonsense like "we don't know for sure if THESE 12 lights in a circle on clouds are the same lights as the hundreds of other examples and explanations of the 12 casino lights in a circle on clouds that people in the area see all the time" to make yourself look correct, but everyone else knows a sure thing when they see it.

It's ok to admit being wrong, everyone does it from time to time. Well, most of us...

Just as a non-expert I would expect to see a beam or a hint of a beam to some extent reaching to the lights. Were they in the right direction of a known source, etc..  And the casino lights are in a circular pattern unlike these.

(and remember I am not even saying it is not spotlights)

[Timothy]

5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Just as a non-expert I would expect to see a beam or a hint of a beam to some extent reaching to the lights. Were they in the right direction of a known source, etc..  And the casino lights are in a circular pattern unlike these.

(and remember I am not even saying it is not spotlights)

It’s extremely basic physics as to why you should not expect to see a beam of light. Not a hard concept to grasp.

That is not non-expert. Wowsers.

[papageorge1]

14 minutes ago, Timothy said:

It’s extremely basic physics as to why you should not expect to see a beam of light. Not a hard concept to grasp.

That is not non-expert. Wowsers.

Papameter is at 70% on the spotlight theory now.

[Timothy]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Papameter is at 70% on the spotlight theory now.

You just need to add >29.9% - 30% at it would be reasonable. 

Time to rejig the algorithm I think. Seems a bit off still!

[the13bats]

33 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Just as a non-expert I would expect to see a beam or a hint of a beam to some extent reaching to the lights. Were they in the right direction of a known source, etc..  And the casino lights are in a circular pattern unlike these.

(and remember I am not even saying it is not spotlights)

not so fast at my club we had intelibeams and lasers that didnt show any beams until we pumped out some fog, ( before people fired up their smokes ) i have taken those lights outside and same thing, if conditions arent right no beam shows.

[papageorge1]

50 minutes ago, the13bats said:

not so fast at my club we had intelibeams and lasers that didnt show any beams until we pumped out some fog, ( before people fired up their smokes ) i have taken those lights outside and same thing, if conditions arent right no beam shows.

OK, I’ll add that to my knowledge-base.

Papameter at 77% on the spotlight theory.

Edited April 11, 2019 by papageorge1