Red and white lights in the sky over Las Vegas spark UFO reports

[UM-Bot]

Dozens of witnesses took to social media to post photographs and video clips of the unusual aerial phenomenon.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/362901/red-and-white-lights-in-the-sky-over-las-vegas-spark-ufo-reports

[the13bats]

Its fun to see an explained natural phenomenon and a camera person insisting it can only be aliens.

[Cupid Stunt]

...just as fun as it is to see somebody jump on the first assumed "natural explanation"  for any kind of phenomenon and berate anyone who doesn't do the same.

[the13bats]

13 minutes ago, Cupid Stunt said:

...just as fun as it is to see somebody jump on the first assumed "natural explanation"  for any kind of phenomenon and berate anyone who doesn't do the same.

Its not "assumed" it is real proven natural phenomenon, and rather stunning.

I didnt berate anyone i made light of an over zelous camera person.

Of course if you have evidence that the phenomenon in this thread is not natural please do post it up as there are countless shows in vegas who knows might be man-made.

[Cupid Stunt]

light pillars are a real thing, i know that. But up there it merley reads that "they are the most likely culprit" and not the explanation of the event. I have as much evidence for it being not as stated as you have for it being the explanation. I was just as amused by your post as you were with what that camera guy said....

Edited January 3, 2023 by Cupid Stunt

[the13bats]

10 hours ago, Cupid Stunt said:

light pillars are a real thing, i know that. But up there it merley reads that "they are the most likely culprit" and not the explanation of the event. I have as much evidence for it being not as stated as you have for it being the explanation. I was just as amused by your post as you were with what that camera guy said...

I see what you mean by amusing posts.  

Oh dear you werent that canera guy were you?

Lets see your evidence that its not light pillars, ( which are as you admit a real thing ) post your evidence, no cop out, no turning it around on me. Just post your evidence.

[Cupid Stunt]

Oh boy. I wish i had the money to go to Las Vegas one day, but no, unfortunately....

And i did not admit anything, i acknowledged a fact. But you know how i like my facts best? Presented comprehensible and convincingly. In a "here's why"-way rather than "that's that, because i say so. End of discussion."

I have no horses in this race in one or the other way, so why would i have to prove anything to you that you seem to be certain of anyway?

 

 

[the13bats]

16 minutes ago, Cupid Stunt said:

Oh boy. I wish i had the money to go to Las Vegas one day, but no, unfortunately....

And i did not admit anything, i acknowledged a fact. But you know how i like my facts best? Presented comprehensible and convincingly. In a "here's why"-way rather than "that's that, because i say so. End of discussion."

I have no horses in this race in one or the other way, so why would i have to prove anything to you that you seem to be certain of anyway?

 

 

 

As we both knew you had nothing.

 

[Cupid Stunt]

Did you expect me to make unsubstantiated claims about Aliens or UFOs? If so, then yes: I got NOTHING.

For all i know, this could be anything: light show, natural phenomenon, CGI publicity stunt....

but you seem to have figured it out. Good for you. Just don't expect something of me that you are either not willing or able to do yourself: showing proof for one definite answer.

 

[the13bats]

7 minutes ago, Cupid Stunt said:

Did you expect me to make unsubstantiated claims about Aliens or UFOs? If so, then yes: I got NOTHING.

For all i know, this could be anything: light show, natural phenomenon, CGI publicity stunt....

but you seem to have figured it out. Good for you. Just don't expect something of me that you are either not willing or able to do yourself: showing proof for one definite answer.

 

I didnt expect anything from you.

( correct this was natural phenomenon)

You made a claim...

19 hours ago, Cupid Stunt said:

I have as much evidence for it being not as stated as you have for it being the explanation.

I asked you to back up your claim post that evidence and not side step and make excuses, fine you have nothing ill move on now.

[Cupid Stunt]

39 minutes ago, the13bats said:

You made a claim...

 

maybe this is a language problem, since english is not my mother tongue.....I meant that i can not prove that the phenomenon isn't light pillars. But neither are you able to back up your opinion that it definetely is.

you quoted the assumption mentioned in that article and for you that's a "case closed".  Anyway, i'm not holding you up. See you 'round, i guess....

[Zontar]

I've seen a second video, taken from a different angle and much clearer. Whatever it is, it's definitely not

[the13bats]

16 hours ago, Cupid Stunt said:

maybe this is a language problem, since english is not my mother tongue.....I meant that i can not prove that the phenomenon isn't light pillars. But neither are you able to back up your opinion that it definetely is.

you quoted the assumption mentioned in that article and for you that's a "case closed".  Anyway, i'm not holding you up. See you 'round, i guess....

The forum has folks from all over the world and even people in the same town might not understand how each other expresses themselves, in this case however you didnt like a remark i made about the camera person making the claims it was UFOs and UFOs equal aliens. Things like light pillars are real, all kinds of wild night club band nights are real, lighted advertising blimps are real i could go on and on but what isnt real real as being proven is that aliens are here or have ever been here, i admit i find it rather ridiculous when a person doesnt know what something really is so they ignore countless proven real possibilities to jump to aliens/ something paranormal that has never once been proven, it not a skeptics burden to prove a light in the sky isnt aliens its the burden of the believer making the claim, no you didnt come out and say aliens but you seemed upset i made light of the cameramen calling it aliens. Now if he can prove it was aliens i will admit i was wrong saying it was light pillars thats as fair as i can get on this one.

[the13bats]

4 hours ago, Zontar said:

I've seen a second video, taken from a different angle and much clearer. Whatever it is, it's definitely not

Please link to that 2nd video so we all can see it.

[Nicolette]

5 hours ago, the13bats said:

Please link to that 2nd video so we all can see it.

People sure are demanding around here despite never contributing any meaningful input... or really anything past heckling, derailing, and constantly demanding everybody produce personally documented proof to dispute all  their random assertions. The emphasis of the determining factor in reality being that the "webpage proof" convinces someone who already had thier mind made up without any personal knowledge of the event or evidence in any direction whatsoever though... Talk about narcism.

Wait a minute did you even watch the FIRST video? Watching it would clear that up for you. When the spotlights shine on the object it reflects the light. Pillars of light do not do that. That wasn't so hard now was it? It's called observation.

Edited January 5, 2023 by Nicolette

[the13bats]

33 minutes ago, Nicolette said:

People sure are demanding around here despite never contributing any meaningful input... or really anything past heckling, derailing, and constantly demanding everybody produce personally documented proof to dispute all  their random assertions. The emphasis of the determining factor in reality being that the "webpage proof" convinces someone who already had thier mind made up without any personal knowledge of the event or evidence in any direction whatsoever though... Talk about narcism.

Wait a minute did you even watch the FIRST video? Watching it would clear that up for you. When the spotlights shine on the object it reflects the light. Pillars of light do not do that. That wasn't so hard now was it? It's called observation.

Imagine the furor of your rant had i not said "please".

You are guilty of what you accuse me of in fact you seem in a melt down over it i hope you get feeling better.

[Cupid Stunt]

36 minutes ago, Nicolette said:

People sure are demanding around here despite never contributing any meaningful input... or really anything past heckling, derailing, and constantly demanding everybody produce personally documented proof to dispute all  their random assertions.

thanks for that. Despite the way it looks, i've been a member here for at least 15 years.(different acccount, dormant for ages.) At one point, i completely lost interest in following any discussions, because there hardly are any. It always comes down to the same kneejerk reactions. Why engage in a discussion forum like this when you have the world figured out? The often-cited "Occam's razor" doesn't relieve one of having to back up any form of opinion. "because i say so" has never been a valid argument.

 

anyway, i'd like to see that second video as well

[the13bats]

2 minutes ago, Cupid Stunt said:

thanks for that. Despite the way it looks, i've been a member here for at least 15 years.(different acccount, dormant for ages.) At one point, i completely lost interest in following any discussions, because there hardly are any. It always comes down to the same kneejerk reactions. Why engage in a discussion forum like this when you have the world figured out? The often-cited "Occam's razor" doesn't relieve one of having to back up any form of opinion. "because i say so" has never been a valid argument.

 

anyway, i'd like to see that second video as well

 

I relate to that in a way, i dont however judge why people engage here i would suspect each person has his or her reasons, as weird as it may sound the only folks ive ran into who think they got it all figured out are the ones who can not prove their claims. They seem to go full closed minded that paranormal is the only possible explanation they will accept. thats fine but it never comes with supportive evidence So sure that ends any discussion with them. "Because i say so" isnt a valid argument but its the go to of those closed door closed minded types. Actually i dont fall on occams razor in most cases because i dont think 100% of story tellers are making it up lots of other prosiac explanations have to be ruled in or out.

[Cupid Stunt]

9 minutes ago, the13bats said:

They seem to go full closed minded that paranormal is the only possible explanation they will accept

yep, same bad attitude. At a certain degree of closed-mindedness, you won't reach people with arguments anymore. But in every bell curve, the fringes are mostly neglectable. So whether you're a "believer" or a "skeptic", you should be able to support your opinion and acknowledge the fact that you might be wrong.

[the13bats]

51 minutes ago, Cupid Stunt said:

yep, same bad attitude. At a certain degree of closed-mindedness, you won't reach people with arguments anymore. But in every bell curve, the fringes are mostly neglectable. So whether you're a "believer" or a "skeptic", you should be able to support your opinion and acknowledge the fact that you might be wrong.

Not at all and I cant speak for all skeptics only myself i would be delighted to be proven wrong with evidence of course stories are not proof. Also its not the skeptics burden to disprove a negative the person making the claim has the burden to either prove their claim or accept that to some not as credulous to believe at face value its just a story.

Look at this thread lets go on a wild unsupported  jump and say the lights are from a "craft" fine then we need to support that with a bit more than our opinion those making extraordinary claims must offer the proof to support it. And what about simple common sense, its be real if a craft was hovering silent and still over a vegas casino hotel seen by countless that hoel had its own spot lights hitting it then either the craft was known ( prosaic  blimp  etc ) or the air force would have been all over it as it would have been a major safety and security issue it would have hit headlines news. On the flip side if it was light pillars or some other man made earthly explanation then it would end up on tik tok, youtube and forums like this one.

 

[TheGoldenBoy]

11 hours ago, the13bats said:

Please link to that 2nd video so we all can see it.

Here it is sir ! I don't know why he didn't do it, it wasn't complicated

[Cupid Stunt]

2 hours ago, the13bats said:

Not at all and I cant speak for all skeptics only myself i would be delighted to be proven wrong with evidence of course stories are not proof. Also its not the skeptics burden to disprove a negative the person making the claim has the burden to either prove their claim or accept that to some not as credulous to believe at face value its just a story.

that's where our opinions differ: I don't like the expression "burden of proof". A burden is something hard that's laid upon me and i'm not willing to do. That expression shows bias/reservedness right from the start. If i want to be taken seriously claiming something i am convinced of, it's in my own argument's interest to deliver something to back it up. So proof should not be demanded of only one side of a discussion. It should be a natural thing to keep things going for both sides.

TBH, pulling the "burden of proof"-card comes off as a bit lazy...

 

 

[stereologist]

14 minutes ago, Cupid Stunt said:

that's where our opinions differ: I don't like the expression "burden of proof". A burden is something hard that's laid upon me and i'm not willing to do. That expression shows bias/reservedness right from the start. If i want to be taken seriously claiming something i am convinced of, it's in my own argument's interest to deliver something to back it up. So proof should not be demanded of only one side of a discussion. It should be a natural thing to keep things going for both sides.

TBH, pulling the "burden of proof"-card comes off as a bit lazy...

I would disagree. Burden of proof is a way of stating that each poster has to support their own story.  Posters want to stand by a position without a thought to how they came to that notion. They want to believe it as fact until proven wrong. The onus is on the presenter to back  up their story. No one has to show a story wrong. It is not lazy asking someone to back up their story.

Burden of proof is really "support your own story."

[stereologist]

On 1/3/2023 at 2:55 AM, Cupid Stunt said:

...just as fun as it is to see somebody jump on the first assumed "natural explanation"  for any kind of phenomenon and berate anyone who doesn't do the same.

The video shows a few light patches in the sky. The commentary on the video is someone making statements that are not shown in the video such as "red in the middle", "ufo", and so forth. There is no evidence of any connection between the lights or anything flying.

The first step is to compare things to what is known and not to make up stories as you look at something. Here the person is going right to UFO when no UFO is seen.

[stereologist]

On 1/4/2023 at 4:32 AM, Cupid Stunt said:

maybe this is a language problem, since english is not my mother tongue.....I meant that i can not prove that the phenomenon isn't light pillars. But neither are you able to back up your opinion that it definetely is.

you quoted the assumption mentioned in that article and for you that's a "case closed".  Anyway, i'm not holding you up. See you 'round, i guess....

I don't believe the13bats made any "case closed" statement. What they and you both acknowledge is that there is very little to go on here.

I also get a kick out of people jumping to the conclusion of UFO when there is nothing even showing anything in the sky other than light splotches.