Aliens (Etraterrestrials) Exist

>>My point was that "we" have no known technology which can detect their transmissions, assuming they do use transmissions at all.<< You missed my point completely I was saying how can you know there are any transmissions if there are no known method of picking them up. Its pure speculation based on no evidence, you required me to prove they didn't exist and if any one reads this please go back and see who my opponent was requiring proof from on several aspects of the "lives" of Aliens. >>Belgian UFO Air Wave: 150 witnesses including police. (see link) All natural phenomenon dismissed as impossible. (see Youtube links) << First of all, please don't get your education from YouTube and I await the scholarly articles and PEER REVIEWED journals. Lets take a step back and have a look at the incident called the "Belgium UFO Air Wave" Wikipedia has a very illuminating article on the subject. The photos which were taken and we have today and the picture relations to the first video if we look at them, they were found to be frauds. Taken by an admitted fraudster and this is not the end of the blatant misconceptions of my opponent of the incident in Belgium [1] >>Con's is assuming aliens have to transmit the same kind of messages we could pick up with our technology, then using the fact that this "assumption" hasn't been realized as proof that they don't exist.<< The only assumption is on the part of my opponent that assumes aliens exist, by talking about various attributes and ideas of these aliens as a reason why they exist, then he puts the burden of proof on me to prove, for example, "how do you know they do not have telepathic abilities?" >>Was the first radio ever made able to pick up "every sort" or signal?<< Again my opponent is assuming there are other radio signals other than man made. Every man made signal was able to be picked up by a man made radio at the time. Otherwise how would one know it even existed? >>So the Col and his entire team were suffering from delusions?<< Now coming to the lights and the sightings of some sights. First I would like to add that some people said they saw 3 lights others said for. I also await the evidence that the Col saw anything other than radar blimps on a radar screen. Furthermore my opponent is essentially arguing that technology never fails or gives false readings, especially old 1990 technology. What did the people see on the ground such as the Police etc, they saw lights and now every crazed UFO hunter says those lights were Aliens. Please lights are lights, to put it in my opponents words "do you think they will leave evidence around?" >>They took pictures of this thing for crying out loud!<< Please proved these pictures the only ones I have are the ones taken by an admitted fraudster. Please dont respond "well they are confiscated" because then they are void from any scholarly discussion if you are using them to support your argument. >>Why did they make it classified?<< Notice my opponent makes wild accusations without the slightest bit of evidence, I want to see these credible sources that say these photos were confiscated? >>You can't dismiss the testimony of a witness in court by saying "you're crazy," you have to prove it, or show some good reason why he'd be lying, motive<< Being a lawyer I can show discrepancies between the witnesses and that is just what we find. No two accounts of abductions are the same. Furthermore I never denied they hadn't experienced anything and my opponent never answered the question if it were possible they were demonic encounters, which the bible does talk about. >>Based on the evidence and the claims, do you believe they were lying, yes or no?<< Mere rhetoric, how about I ask my opponent does he believe every single American Administration has lied, millions upon millions lying and conspiring to hide something. My opponent cant perceive that a few can lie and make up stories for various reasons but prefers to believe millions upon millions around the world, governments made of citizens just like you and me are lying. >>Con's double standard will be shown in that he can't produce any better evidence for demons than I have for aliens. << That's my point I am saying I hold it by faith with no evidence other than the Word of God says. I am not claiming to know what they want and what signals they are using, whether they are telepathic, how they view humanity and running around telling everyone about demons. >>Con's double standard<< I think the blatant double standard is that my opponent takes the testimony of a few, over millions upon millions. >>Even a group of police officers were cited and passed lie-detection tests; is that "credible" evidence Con?<< I was hoping at this stage my opposition was going to post a link to a peer reviewed journal or an official website, instead he posts website stating these so called "facts" that police passed lie detector tests? How can we even check half of this is true. The fact is we cant we have to take his word and the "blog" it is. >>but even if he were to refute "Christianity" he has not refuted my case that aliens exist<< Considering that I never used the argument to prove Aliens did not exist I simply used it as an argument that in Pros view the bible is a lie and that he does not hold to biblical authority as that authority would be seriously undermined as false as my opponent is suggesting. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...