the Belgian UFO Wave is best Explained as Aliens

Much thanks to daley for the fun and engaging debate. In this final round, I won't be making any new arguments, merely responses and summary. I'm disappointed that Pro is "regretting that [I, feverish] was the one who accepted the challenge". I apologise if my opponent resents my modest attempts to add a touch of humour to some of my arguments, but I think I have given objective and, for the most part, serious arguments throughout. "Chief of the Belgian Air Force comes live in a news report and says that the speeds these things were travelling at would kill any human being. That rules out man-made planes, choppers, and so forth." This argument relies entirely on the assumption that the short-lived bizarre radar readings represent exactly the movements of actual objects in the sky. This has not been established by any means. All of Pro's assertions about speed rely on this unsubstantiated assumption. Pro has ignored the evidence about the radar readings not making sense, as the relative direction remained the same while the aircraft on which the radar system was based was itself turning. He also hasn't commented on my other link about radar failure and the various types of "clutter" or interference that can show up on radar. He says the radar information is true because so many people on the ground saw similar stuff, but I've already shown how he has grossly misrepresented the numbers of witnesses and not provided evidence of how many statements support each other, let alone support the radar data. "I will address all of Con's suggestions one by one: "Light beams operated by human hand" etc. In the previous round Pro asked a series of questions asking what would be able to perform some of the different capabilities he has attributed to these UFOs. I responded to each of these questions individually and provided lists of different known earthly phenomena that could display such attributes. Pro seems to have interpreted each of these responses as me suggesting actual plausible and complete explanations for the events he's been referring to, rather than the individual responses to his individual questions about what could move so fast, or what could manoeuvre so well etc. Obviously I don't think fish were flying over Belgium, or that people on the ground were looking at leaves, these were simply examples of earthly things that can manoeuvre better than an airplane, as my opponent asked for. It is in this section of the debate that daley seems to get a little frustrated and complain that I'm not taking things seriously. If this stems from a misunderstanding of what I intended by my lists of examples, then I apologise for not being more clear. As I have stated from the beginning and daley hasn't disputed, it is not my burden to provide the most plausible explanation, rather to rebut his assertions about why we should accept the alien hypothesis as the most likely. "The answer for the design in nature "is" other-worldly, God! The answer for the UFO's in Belgium is other-worldly too, aliens." I'll have to congratulate daley here for his skilled exploitation of the semantic loop hole I unwittingly left for him. Good answer. "On one off tangent point, let me just say that abiogenesis is the evolution of life from non-living inorganic material; abiogenesis is merely the beginning stage of evolution but is evolution non-the-less; hence, the term, "the evolution of life." Maybe Con hasn't heard it." I'm afraid that Pro is misinformed here. Go on Wikipedia (a great site as me and my opponent both agree) and search for "evolution of life". You won't get a page about how life began; instead you'll be redirected to the main evolution page: http://en.wikipedia.org... This is a very large page, full incidentally of great links to evidence of how evolution works. Halfway down is the section "evolution of life", which isn't about origins of life at all, but starts off with how prokaryotes developed into other simple life forms and tracks the history of evolution all the way up to mammals. It is only right at the bottom of the whole evolution page that anything whatsoever is said about the origins of life, two sentences, right next to the link for the abiogenesis page. The above two paragraphs are totally irrelevant to the debate anyway. "it is difficult to imagine the all-wise, omniscient God having nothing better to do than fly around the Belgium skies at night!" Well since he's also omni-present, anyone who believes in this God would surely have to acknowledge that He was indeed in the Belgian sky that night, just as He is here with me now. Also refer back to my previous point about God moving in mysterious ways. One man's miracle is another man's mystery. I encourage voters not to vote according to their beliefs about UFOs but rather according to who they think performed best and fulfilled their burden in the debate. Thank you.