Pentagon Has Off-World Vehicles Not Made on This Earth

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
If just one or two people make a claim, not when 1000s of credible people make the same claim.

One word is enough to defeat that argument: Religion.

Claiming something doesn't make it true regardless of how many people claim it. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence: Hitchen'z Razor.

Stawmen argument. No one en masse are making those claims.

I didn't claim that it is being claimed en masse. I said those claims cannot be disproven regardless of how ridiculous there are. My point that you completely ignored is that: Just because you cannot disprove something, makes no claim towards the likelihood of is existence.

Enough circumstantial evidence exists to back those claims up.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that indirectly points towards a claim, on its own, circumstantial evidence is not enough to prove a claim. Direct evidence on the other hand, does not require additional evidence to prove a claim.

Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are still evidence such as finger prints and can be studied independently. Claims of sightings of flying saucers are not evidence as they cannot be verified independently.

There is zero evidence, direct or indirect to support the idea that Earth has been visited by alien life forms. If you think I am wrong, show me any piece of evidence that can be studied and verified by third party.
 

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
One word is enough to defeat that argument: Religion.
Only for an agnostic like you.


Just because you cannot disprove something, makes no claim towards the likelihood of is existence.
I think its the other way round unless evidence comes into light disproving it. Many many years ago people thought there could be intelligent life on mars, now we know thats not true because now we have evidence to the contrary. Unless all as in 100% of all UFO sightings can be explained away with evidence or very plausible explanations, it is still in the realm of possibility that they are extraterrestrial vehicles. Because there is a strong possibility of life out there and that it is more scientifically advanced than us.

Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are still evidence such as finger prints and can be studied independently. Claims of sightings of flying saucers are not evidence as they cannot be verified independently.
Wrong! UFOs have been painted on civilian and military radar. Nuclear weapons going off line when UFOs were sighted, same UFOs sighted by 100s of people over a very long periods of time. All of it independently verified.

Like I said man the bar you have set for what constitutes as "evidence" is unrealistically high.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Only for an agnostic like you.

Lol what does that have to do with agnosticism? 1 billion people think Christianity is true, 1 billion people think Islam is true, 1 billion people think Hinduism is true. They cant all be right which is proof that simply because alot of people believe something doesn't make it true.

I think its the other way round unless evidence comes into light disproving it. Many many years ago people thought there could be intelligent life on mars, now we know thats not true because now we have evidence to the contrary.

Uhhh.... Thats not how evidence works. You need evidence to prove a claim not to disprove it. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim not on the person disproving it. This is basic principle and I honestly expected better from you. You are literally throwing all logic out of the window just because you insist on your conspiracy theory.

What you are proposing is a logical fallacy called 'shifting the burden of proof'.

The obligation or burden of providing evidence is always on the party making the claim, not on the party that is rejecting the claim


The default position on any claim is disbelief before evidence is provided to support the claim. If I tell you that I am superman and I come from a planet called Kryptonite. Would it be reasonable for me to tell you to disprove me or else I am true, or is it more logical for you to not believe me until I provide you with evidence to support my claim?

You cannot disprove Santa Claus, it doesnt mean that Santa Claus is true. Thats why we have concept of Burden of Proof.

We do not believe that there is no life on mars not because we disproved the claim, but because we didn't find sufficient evidence to support the claim that there is life on mars. It was never a widely accepted idea that mars has life, it was just a speculation. No science class or teacher taught students that there is life on mars as a fact.


Wrong! UFOs have been painted on civilian and military radar. Nuclear weapons going off line when UFOs were sighted, same UFOs sighted by 100s of people over a very long periods of time. All of it independently verified.

UFO is just an unidentified object. It doesn't mean an alien space ship. Where is your evidence for alien spaceships visiting Earth?
 
Last edited:

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
Lol what does that have to do with agnosticism? 1 billion people think Christianity is true, 1 billion people think Islam is true, 1 billion people think Hinduism is true. They cant all be right which is proof that simply because alot of people believe something doesn't make it true.



Uhhh.... Thats not how evidence works. You need evidence to prove a claim not to disprove it. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim not on the person disproving it. This is basic principle and I honestly expected better from you. You are literally throwing all logic out of the window just because you insist on your conspiracy theory.

What you are proposing is a logical fallacy called 'shifting the burden of proof'.

The obligation or burden of providing evidence is always on the party making the claim, not on the party that is rejecting the claim


The default position on any claim is disbelief before evidence is provided to support the claim. If I tell you that I am superman and I come from a planet called Kryptonite. Would it be reasonable for me to tell you to disprove me or else I am true, or is it more logical for you to not believe me until I provide you with evidence to support my claim?

You cannot disprove Santa Claus, it doesnt mean that Santa Claus is true. Thats why we have concept of Burden of Proof.

We do not believe that there is no life on mars not because we disproved the claim, but because we didn't find sufficient evidence to support the claim that there is life on mars. It was never a widely accepted idea that mars has life, it was just a speculation. No science class or teacher taught students that there is life on mars as a fact.
I'm well aware of concept of burden of proof but like I said you have unrealistic standards in regards to what constitutes as evidence, like I said there is already enough circumstantial independently verified that you cannot totally rule out visitation. If you are looking for the smoking gun, like I said one isn't available yet and in some circles one hasn't been presented to the public yet.

UFO is just an unidentified object. It doesn't mean an alien space ship. Where is your evidence for alien spaceships visiting Earth?
Doesn't also mean its NOT an alien ship hence that door stays open.

What do you think this is?



 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Its unrealistic for those who have no evidence. This is the problem when you start with a conclusion and then desperately search for evidence to confirm the conclusion. Its called confirmation bias and same problem that plagues flat earthers and religious apologists.

Rational people follow evidence to reach a conclusion, in case of UFO, none so far has been identified as an alien ship. The closest they got was something that turned out to be an army flare.

Grainy videos with unidentified objects and calling it aliens, peoples descriptions of subjective experiences (who could also be falling to confirmation bias) is not evidence. There is nothing unrealistic about it.

If there was evidence it would have been science and not a conspiracy theory.

I'm well aware of concept of burden of proof but like I said you have unrealistic standards in regards to what constitutes as evidence, like I said there is already enough circumstantial independently verified that you cannot totally rule out visitation. If you are looking for the smoking gun, like I said one isn't available yet and in some circles one hasn't been presented to the public yet.
 

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
Its unrealistic for those who have no evidence. This is the problem when you start with a conclusion and then desperately search for evidence to confirm the conclusion. Its called confirmation bias and same problem that plagues flat earthers and religious apologists.

Rational people follow evidence to reach a conclusion, in case of UFO, none so far has been identified as an alien ship. The closest they got was something that turned out to be an army flare.

Grainy videos with unidentified objects and calling it aliens, peoples descriptions of subjective experiences (who could also be falling to confirmation bias) is not evidence. There is nothing unrealistic about it.

If there was evidence it would have been science and not a conspiracy theory.
Like I said you have set the bar unrealistic high as to what constitutes as evidence.

To me clear video ( that's how clear you will get in infrared from a high flying aircraft at a good rate of speed ) of an unidentified arial phenomena doing things which defy physics and our current tech is not able to do as well as testimony of a pilot with a good and long military career who followed it is pretty strong evidence that whatever it is. 1 it's not a natural phenomena 2 not of this planet because nothing we have made can do that.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
The Bar is not high enough
It is only high for conspiracy theories like fat earth, alien visitations and religions. All of which do not have any evidence to back them up.

But if you apply it to any other real world phenomena, you will find that the bar I set is very low.

You believe in this conspiracy theory because you chose to believe the people who make these claims, in the absence of any external evidence to support those claims. Same as Christians believe who ever wrote the bible without any material evidence outside of what people say in the bible.

If you still think the bar is too high, apply it to any other phenomena that is established and see if you are unable to prove it within my criteria. You wont find any.

Subjective truth vs objective truth
Alien abduction stories and many other stories like outer body experiences, experiences of talking to God. All these are subjective experiences, I am not saying that the people who are making these claims are lying. It maybe true that they actually did feel like they spoke to God or saw Santa Claus or saw Aliens, I am not arguing over what they think they saw or not. What I am saying is Subjective realities and Objective realities do not always match and unless we have any piece of evidence to objectively study the phenomena, then we cannot conclude anything from it.

Subjective claims on their own are not reliable evidence
What your witness testimonies show that people saw what they thought was aliens and they may very well be telling the truth. There is no way for us to verify whether it was actually aliens, was it something else, was it an illusion, was it a malfunction etc etc. You chose to pick one of those in the absence of any external evidence because of confirmation bias.

Have we been visited by aliens?
I don't know maybe a t2 civilization came here, saw the dinosaurs and then left we will never know. As for whether aliens are visiting us right now the answer is most probably no. Unless they have some invisible masking technology that we have never been able to have clear pictures/videos or any wreckage. Not only at government level but no one in public has any piece of wreckage of alien ships but many people have rocks from meteorites.


Like I said you have set the bar unrealistic high as to what constitutes as evidence.
 
Last edited:

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I don't think either of us is qualified to say what is in the video or what it means. You chose your conclusions due to confirmation bias. It reinforces what you already believe.


To me clear video ( that's how clear you will get in infrared from a high flying aircraft at a good rate of speed ) of an unidentified arial phenomena doing things which defy physics and our current tech is not able to do as well as testimony of a pilot with a good and long military career who followed it is pretty strong evidence that whatever it is. 1 it's not a natural phenomena 2 not of this planet because nothing we have made can do that.
 

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
As for whether aliens are visiting us right now the answer is most probably no.
And thats it right there, you cannot totally write it off.


Unless they have some invisible masking technology that we have never been able to have clear pictures/videos or any wreckage
Not true about the masking technology, fun trivia bit, after watching Predator the movie one colonel in the pentagon said I want that, referring to the cloaking technology of the movie alien and something similar was developed like a flexible screen which project on it what was behind it, but it was expensive and not very practical to implement so never taken further, but over the year many people have made similar attempts with various levels of success.

Lenticular lens are back in fashion again which can make people disappear too! So really its not a big leap of faith than someone who has the tech to travel all the way here doesn't hasn't thought of a way to keep a low profile and not to reveal too much of itself.

It's not like they drop in announced and everybody is waiting to take a perfect shot. Other than that there has been 100s of "independently verified" pictures and videos.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Yeah but there are many things we cannot write off. Based on the current evidence we have its very unlikely we have been visited by intelligent life forms from other star systems.

And thats it right there, you cannot totally write it off.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
There are many unexplained phenomena in the oceans, in space and in our atmosphere. Let the scientists do their work instead of spreading conspiracies about which bull under the earth started which earthquakes. Most of the stupid beliefs we have are a product humans speculating on phenomena they do not understand.

But we can speculate on what it's not. And its an aircraft that cannot be manufactured with know technology we posses today.
 

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
Yeah but there are many things we cannot write off.
True.

Based on the current evidence we have its very unlikely we have been visited by intelligent life forms from other star systems.
Many have a different perspective that based on current evidence its very likely,

There are many unexplained phenomena in the oceans, in space and in our atmosphere. Let the scientists do their work instead of spreading conspiracies about which bull under the earth started which earthquakes. Most of the stupid beliefs we have are a product humans speculating on phenomena they do not understand.
So lets just not talk about anything we are not qualified experts then in eh? Good luck with that! And I have no idea why you are so obsessed with this bull thing that you constantly keep bringing it up, its not even a good analogy.

I just asked you give me your best guess as what the video was about and similarly I by process of elimination stated what it couldn't be. It might be an alien space craft and it might not be an alien space craft but what we do know is it can't a natural phenomena and it can't be an aerial vehicle manufactured using the known technology we have.