Aliens (Etraterrestrials) Exist

I never did put forward any photoes as evidence, so this is a strawman claim Con is using when he says the pictures were proven forgeries. When I gave a link to Wikipedia I argued only on the basis of what was shown to be fact in the Wikipedia article, not the forged photo. Con keeps latching onto the forged photo as if I ever used it as evidence. It reminds me of the agnostic who rejects the 66 pages of the Bible just because there are some apocryphal works proven to be forgeries. Those reading this debate can see that so I need not go any further on that point. "As for object flying fast, well 45 years ago the USA made a plane that goes 3000 miles per hour, is it possible we could have advanced our technology in 45 years?" Does Con deny that travelling 9000 miles in 2 seconds would kill a human being? That's the kind of speed we're talking about here. "Notice none of the pilots saw anything," The whole reason they sent out pilots was because they got VISUAL CONFIRMATION ON THE GROUND OF WHAT THEY WERE PICKING UP ON RADAR! "however they can lock onto certain types of lights and if they were to fly past these lights whilst stationary then it would appear they broke lock." Con wants us to believe that these military professionals were simply mistaken, and not one, but 2 F-16 pilots couldn't tell the difference between flying past an object and the object speeding away to break lock; he also wants us to believe that the Cheif of the Belgian Air Staff who was observing on the radar at ground leve was also duped! We see him in the base with his air staff showing them the recording of the radar they picked up; which shows both planes and the UFOs, so from such a neutral vantage point (not inside the plane) they could all look and see if it was that the planes flew past the objects and the pilots were mistaken. That's not what they saw. Watch the footage yourself! The UFO darts away from plane and changes altitude tremendously in a shot space of time. Was the radar on the ground not working too? "Also another wild assumption is that technology in the early 1990's was completely fault free." Fine Con, so you're telling me that each radar on each of the 2 F-16s malfunctioned, so did the one on the ground, and at the same time people were having a mass hallucination which corroborated the faulty radar readings? I'll simply leave it up to the readers to decide if all that was a coincidence. As for his car inllustration, I really wonder if he believes its very likely that 3 cars would malfuntion at the same time on the same road at random, which witnesses were hallucinating about flying cars. Some coincidence. "My opponent wants you do believe a small minority that they have seen aliens over the notion of millions upon millions are creating a great big cover-up." I never said millions are involved in a cover up, he's putting words in my mouth. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," Then God should appear over New York City and and hold a press conference to prove his existence. Please define "extraordinary." "I asked for one peer reviewed journal on this subject from ANY University or Professor and I am still waiting." So if Con can't show me a peer-reviewed artilce showing the Devil's existence that means he doesn't exist? That means that there is not sufficient evidence for beief in the Devil? How then could he call himself a Christian? I asked him in the comments section of another one of his debates if he "knows" God exists, or if he only "believes." He told me that he knows for sure; so how can he know this without peer-reviewed proof? How can he know the demons exist without peer-reviewed proof? He doesn't believe the voice of God speaks to men now, yet he is sure it spoke to men back then! The very Bible he believes in has never been peer-reviewed; so how does he know the Bible is true and scientifically accurate? Can he show me a peer-review of the Bible? Nevertheless, despite his double-standard strawman, I'll refer him to a peer-reviewed article showing that crop circles are caused by "UFOs," albeit the scientists now don't even want to call the "balls of light" by that name in the journal. Sounds like a conspiracy, does it not? These same balls of light we UFO's before, but as soon as they appear in a peer-reviewed journal they aren't called by that name even once, even though they are still by definition "unidentified flying objects." I'll have Con know that since this is peer-reviewed, by his standards, he has to admit the witnesses really did see what they say. And the effects of the UFO's on the soil and crop defy all known natural phenomenon. In fact, "hoaxters" are explicitly ruled out by the evidence. But I'll bet that even now with a peer-reviewed article Con will find another excuse not to believe. So let me ask him; if its not nature and its not humans, who or what is it? The peer-reviewed journal says that only an "intelligence" could accomplish the kind of complexity and geometry in the time span given for forming these crop circle patterns. Sounds like aliens to me. (W C Levengood, N P Talbott, ‘Dispersion of energies in worldwide crop formations', Physiologa Plantarum 105: 615-624 (1999); E H Haselhoff, ‘Comment to Physiologia Plantarum 105: 615-624", Physiol. Plant. 111: 123-125 (2001). http://www.google.com...) Con doesn't trust UFO sites; yet, the same peer-reviewed arcle is cited on this UFO cite: (http://www.google.com...) Does tht somhow make it any less peer-reviewed? It just goes to show how Con would reject good evidence just because it is associated with something he doesn't beleive in; but the hypocrisy comes in the fact that the same peer-reviewed journals also hold to Darwinian Evolution, Abiogenesis, and a host of other things Con rejects. If they are peer-reviewed, why doesn't he believe them? It seems he's very picky about what he considered good evidence even from peer-review periodicals. Hmmmm. "That is not true there are literally HUNDREDS of peer reviewed journals in history and philosophy that support the existence of God," Name one single peer-reveiwed journal that proved God existed, and tell us why the guy who wrote it didn't win the Nobel Prize for discovering God? "My question goes out to my opponent, what would it take for him to stop believing in his imaginary friends from the outskirts of the universe." Same thing it would take for Abraham to not believe God spoke to him. If God hadn't spoken to him, and if I hadn't seen aliens. Also, I never said they were my friends. Nor did I argue on the basis of personal experience. The fact is, it is hypocritical to say aliens must be peer-reviewed to be true, then reject peer-reviewed articles on evolution as false. It's also hypocritical to believe in demons (which he mentions frequently in this debate) which are not peer-reviewed, then say I can't believe in aliens because they aren't. Con is inconsitent! Con also makes false claims about my claiming to know certain things about the aliens which I never did; only I presented possible reasons for what he considers lack of evidence for aliens, just as he presented possible reasons why radars malfunction. Let me ask Con this; what would convince you that aliens exist? If the Govenment said they captured a ship full of them, would you not say the Devil decieved them? They are all hallucinating or tricked by the Devil? If they appeared in peer-reviewed journals would you not reject them as you do evolution, which by the way, is indeed peer-reviewed? hmm