Upcoming Pentagon report will detail ‘difficult to explain’ UFO sightings

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Images of things in the sky are not proof of aliens. They just aren't. They may be evidence of something, but no one really knows exactly what (or at least they're not telling).

It's a really huge jump from "we don't know what that is in the sky" to "aliens." No one has made it yet.

No it's not a huge leap. It's the only logical explanation that explains the accumulation of evidence.

Logically, "I don't know what it is" never equates to "aliens." It means that whoever saw the thing didn't know what it was. What you're basically saying is that you know what every flying thing on the planet looks like in all situations, and therefore it must be something not of this planet. Do you see where you're at least going to have to prove that you know what every little bird, airplane (including the secret ones), drone, seed pod, Chinese lantern, garbage bag, balloon, etc., etc., etc., looks like in all circumstances. If you can prove that -- prove that nothing on Earth, natural or artificial, could make the same movements or look the same way -- then you are by all means free to proclaim them to be alien.

But what you're trying to do is prove a negative, and that is impossible. We need to have positive, affirmative proof for aliens, and in the history of the world so far, nobody has been able to provide it.

a reply to: neoholographic

My argument is one based on logic and reason.....

No it's not.

Because there isn't one single case proven to be alien visitation. Therefore, all the others can't be either. It's pretty simple. But, in lieu of this proof, please keep on proving this is beyond your comprehension by posting the same things and the same pictures as if something will change.

a reply to: mirageman

The problem with pseudoskeptics is that you speak in absolutes. So of course you can't grasp this but I'm sure most people do. This is why there's been the same handful of pseudoskeptics making the same illogical arguments since I've been on ATS.

I didn't say it was CONCRETELY PROVEN that alien visitation has occurred. There's very few things concretely proven in science. This is because another theory can come along and upend what everyone thought was concretely proven like people did with Newton until Einstein and others came along.

I'm saying, if you put 100 people in a room, show them the accumulation of evidence and ask them to explain them without saying I don't know or unidentified and I bet the majority will say alien spacecraft as you did.

It's the most logical and only explanation that explains all of the evidence. I have presented case after case and you haven't refuted any of them. The most you did was call Fravor an idiot and a liar as the last resort. That's not logical.

So there's evidence of U.F.O.'s from close encounters, pictures and video. This is circumstantial evidence that supports alien visitation. What's circumstantial evidence?

Circumstantial evidence, in law, evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. If a witness testifies that he saw a defendant fire a bullet into the body of a person who then died, this is direct testimony of material facts in murder, and the only question is whether the witness is telling the truth. If, however, the witness is able to testify only that he heard the shot and that he arrived on the scene seconds later to see the accused standing over the corpse with a smoking pistol in his hand, the evidence is circumstantial; the accused may have been shooting at the escaping killer or merely have been a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer had dropped it.

www.britannica.com...

We saw a circumstantial case with Scott Peterson.

It was circumstantial evidence that led jurors to decide that Scott Peterson murdered his wife. They agreed it was premeditated, first-degree murder even though prosecutors did not prove where, how or exactly when Laci was killed.

www.eastbaytimes.com...

So, we have direct testimony of a material fact. U.F.O.'s that are described by eyewitnesses as cigar, cylinder, tic-tact, disc and rod shaped are what we see in pictures and video. These U.F.O.'s evade our best planes and cause nuke sites to malfunction. I saw 4 myself.

We have circumstantial evidence that the accumulation of evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s like close encounters, trace evidence, exoplanets, water on other planets, extremophiles and the building blocks of life found in comets, to make a logical inference that alien visitation has occurred. Here's Dr. Michio Kaku talking about the overwhelming evidence.



Watch pseudoskeptics call Kaku a liar, idiot and everything but a child of God in 5, 4, 3, 2....

So Kaku gives you some of the evidence but pulls some at the end. We're at a place where the evidence is overwhelming but the stigma attached to U.F.O.'s is still present. This is because U.F.O.'s are logically associated with alien spacecraft as you stated.

Look at the female pilot with Fravor. She has her face hidden and she's talking about Unidentified Flying Objects. She has her face hidden because U.F.O.'s are logically associated with alien visitation and sadly the skeptics have used ridicule and name calling when people talk about this subject. Thankfully, some progress is being made.



Also, why did you attack Fravor as an idiot and a liar? He's just describing his experience of seeing an unidentified flying object? He even said I'm not saying it's alien.

This shows you how illogical pseudoskeptics are and how they associated U.F.O.'s with alien visitation because it's logical to do so. You have pseudoskeptics attacking Fravor for describing an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT!!

IF U.F.O.'s are not alien spacecraft as pseudoskeptics say, then why attack people as liars and idiots for just describing the UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT that they saw?

It's because the logical inference to make based on the direct testimony and circumstantial evidence is that alien visitation has occurred.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

Scott Peterson was convicted without knowing how or when Laci was killed. The Jury made a logical inference based on the evidence. As mirageman has shown, he too makes a logical inference that U.F.O.'s are alien spacecraft and this is why he attacks people as idiots and liars just for descring the UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT they saw. You said:

Not when it comes to those who claim they've seen alien spacecraft or lifeforms.

Fravor never claimed he saw an alien spacecraft. In fact he said I'm not saying it's alien! He was just describing an unidentified flying object he saw! Why do pseudoskeptics attack people as idiots and liars for describing a U.F.O.? It's because the logical inference is U.F.O. = Alien Spacecraft based on the accumulation of evidence.

a reply to: neoholographic

Goto Previous Post