THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

[CptTrips]

The video is out and the author is suggesting it's real. That is his proof.

[AKIron]

Christianity will take a big knock if there is little green men.

Care to expound on that assumption? I'm a Christian. In no way does existence of extraterrestrial life contradict my belief. Plenty of very strange creatures mentioned in the Christian Bible.

[Brooke]

I had higher belief in UFO's prior to the recent large number of government leaks.

Lots of controversies for various politicians and government agencies?


Also, why is it UFO's have a worse crash record than earthling airliners?  Do they not have our 1960's terrain-avoidance radar technology?  Are the UFO's piloted by drunk teenage aliens?  Are the alien civilizations so advanced that they have already gone through their idiocracy transition, and all their pilots are Beef Supreme?

Why is every UFO piece of evidence a blurry low-quality image or video, or a bright dot of 3 pixels, or some radar blip or IR camera blob, or a guy telling us that someone else told them something, or some guy telling us something who makes up a bunch of crap about his personal history?

Maybe UFO's are real, but the government finally figured out that the best way to suppress the information is to tell everyone it's true.

[RUSH1]

Christianity will take a big knock if there is little green men.

Why would you say that? 

[DmonSlyr]

I had higher belief in UFO's prior to the recent large number of government leaks.

Lots of controversies for various politicians and government agencies?
(Image removed from quote.)

Also, why is it UFO's have a worse crash record than earthling airliners?  Do they not have our 1960's terrain-avoidance radar technology?  Are the UFO's piloted by drunk teenage aliens?  Are the alien civilizations so advanced that they have already gone through their idiocracy transition, and all their pilots are Beef Supreme?

Why is every UFO piece of evidence a blurry low-quality image or video, or a bright dot of 3 pixels, or some radar blip or IR camera blob, or a guy telling us that someone else told them something, or some guy telling us something who makes up a bunch of crap about his personal history?

Maybe UFO's are real, but the government finally figured out that the best way to suppress the information is to tell everyone it's true.

I could definitely see it as a distraction seeing other things going on right now they'd like us not to see. That being said, I do find it important because it proves there are other ways to fly or power objects besides our (regular peoples) current understanding. If you check out the first video I posted in the thread on page 1. The first 4 minutes shows some of the clearest UFOs I've seen, plus some orbs that are pretty interesting. As I said, some of his stuff is questionable compared to others but he throws it all out there. The one flying past plane got a lot of recognition.

The second video shows very clear military footage over Iraq that was caught. These ball objects are very interesting.

I do wonder if these are advanced top secret crafts by our aerospace programs, but there are some for sure that are simply out of this world, like the orbs in the first video.

I really like this secureteam channel. He has so much out there that you have to come to the conclusion that unexplained objects are clearly out there. Knowing that, it opens up so many possibilities that could be beneficial for man kind if they'd allow it.

Also, you have your "battle of LA incident, and also the UFOs over the Whitehouse incident that is still unexplained and creepy as hell. It's always interesting to me that hearings only show military footage and never genuine footage from people's cameras.

[AKIron]

If there is a technologically advanced presence present this would seem to imply benevolence.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-air-force-personnel-ufos-deactivated-nukes/

[Brooke]

If you check out the first video I posted in the thread on page 1

The main thing for me is that I have no idea which are real videos, which are fake, (i.e., what is the solidity of provenance), and which are artifacts with mundane explanations (as in https://youtu.be/Le7Fqbsrrm8 ).  A lot are a bright dot moving around, or a blob, which aren't that convincing to me regardless.  Clearer ones, I wonder if they are just fakes, as there are tons of fakes around in the world.

I don't know.

We've got government people saying our government has whole craft and bodies.  At some point, I'd think we'd get the UFO equivalent of Blind Man's Bluff, or of JFK and the Unspeakable.

[oboe]

...Why is every UFO piece of evidence a blurry low-quality image or video, or a bright dot of 3 pixels, or some radar blip or IR camera blob, or a guy telling us that someone else told them something, or some guy telling us something who makes up a bunch of crap about his personal history?

I find this compelling.  In this day and age of cellphone cameras, 4K video, ubiquitous surveillance, sophisticated radars, why aren't we seeing some sort of irrefutable evidence from creditable sources?

I'm open to the idea of intelligent extraterrestrial life but really do need solid evidence.  I need more than personal testimonies and grainy videos.

[nrshida]

The video is out and the author is suggesting it's real. That is his proof. By not being able to prove its fake. Lends it to be proven real.

Right here buddy is an example of one of your fundamental flaws in reasoning. Thinking like this was recognised in the late 17th century as an informal logic fallacy. This means any reasoning or assertion stemming from such a proposition is not valid. This is not a personal attack, a conspiracy-theory cover up, nor in fact any commentary of the existence of aliens or not. I'm simply stating that in all domains of logical, rational, deductive or extrapolative discord, your above statement is wrong.

If you want to 'believe' aliens exist and there's been a cover up, etc. etc. that's up to you, but belief is not equatable to evidence based reasoning especially peer-reviewed, no matter what your media has conditioned you to think.

By no means.

[Eagler]

Brooke has it correct

Just the gov screaming "Squirrel "! while who knows what is really happening they are keeping out of sight...

America has grown bored with Ukraine and soon will ask them to stop sending $$$$$ we increase inflation and devalue the dollar with over there...

Eagler

[DmonSlyr]

Right here buddy is an example of one of your fundamental flaws in reasoning. Thinking like this was recognised in the late 17th century as an informal logic fallacy. This means any reasoning or assertion stemming from such a proposition is not valid. This is not a personal attack, a conspiracy-theory cover up, nor in fact any commentary of the existence of aliens or not. I'm simply stating that in all domains of logical, rational, deductive or extrapolative discord, your above statement is wrong.

If you want to 'believe' aliens exist and there's been a cover up, etc. etc. that's up to you, but belief is not equatable to evidence based reasoning especially peer-reviewed, no matter what your media has conditioned you to think.

By no means.

It's a fallacy to believe that something that someone presented is false without any backup or proof to suggest what they presented is false. Its whats wrong with your reasoning, not mine. It's not a media that has conditioned me, it's me proving the media has lied over and over again that has conditioned me not to trust them. Ie, proving them to be false on multiple things. You are the one taking them at face value and not trying to prove they are wrong, therefore the one conditioned by the media....I am looking to be proven wrong on these subjects posts in order to shape my understanding. Now I do admit that there are somethings said that don't have backup that should be lookin into, like what the official on the stand had to say and perhaps they should show more documentation or people simply won't believe even though what he says is presented to be true. It's up to us to prove him wrong if we don't believe it.

There is a reason for example why men in America are innocent until proven guilty. They can say, " I didn't do it" and they are correct 100% until they are proven wrong.

[CptTrips]

There is a reason for example why men in America are innocent until proven guilty. They can say, " I didn't do it" and they are correct 100% until they are proven wrong.

OMG.  Your grey-matter is damaged beyond repair.  Seriously.  I can't believe your company lets you deal with money.  Can you tell us the name?   I'd like to short them.


In the example you are trying to use, the government is making the affirmative claim.  They are claiming the citizen committed a crime.
The negative case is assumed.  It is assumed the citizen did NOT commit the crime.
It is up to who posited the affirmative argument to present the evidence.  The negative case is assumed and requires no evidence.
The point of a trial is to test the evidence the affirmative case presents.
The burden of proof is on the affirmative argument.

If the video case, someone is making a claim that it is real footage of an alien.  They are making an extraordinary affirmative claim.
The negative case is assumed.  It is assumed the video is NOT of a real alien.
It is up to who posited the affirmative argument to present the evidence.  The negative case is assumed and requires no evidence.
The burden of proof is on the affirmative argument.
The poster cannot point to his own claim and say that is his proof.  That he claimed it is real, is not proof.  That is circular reasoning.

I claim you eat babies and drink their adrenochrome. 
What is your proof you don't?
My proof is that I claimed it.  My claim, is the proof of my claim.

Prove I'm wrong.

[DmonSlyr]

OMG.  Your grey-matter is damaged beyond repair.  Seriously.  I can't believe your company lets you deal with money.  Can you tell us the name?   I'd like to short them.


In the example you are trying to use, the government is making the affirmative claim.  They are claiming the citizen committed a crime.
The negative case is assumed.  It is assumed the citizen did NOT commit the crime.
It is up to who posited the affirmative argument to present the evidence.  The negative case is assumed and requires no evidence.
The point of a trial is to test the evidence the affirmative case presents.
The burden of proof is on the affirmative argument.

If the video case, someone is making a claim that it is real footage of an alien.  They are making an extraordinary affirmative claim.
The negative case is assumed.  It is assumed the video is NOT of a real alien.
It is up to who posited the affirmative argument to present the evidence.  The negative case is assumed and requires no evidence.
The burden of proof is on the affirmative argument.
The poster cannot point to his own claim and say that is his proof.  That he claimed it is real, is not proof.  That is circular reasoning.

I claim you eat babies and drink their adrenochrome. 
What is your proof you don't?
My proof is that I claimed it.  My claim, is the proof of my claim.

Prove I'm wrong.

Meanwhile you use an ad-hominem fallacy to try to persuade someone I'm stupid from something outside of the arguement. I'll use something outside of the arguement and suggest I'm #1 in fighter rank in AH, therefore I am smart.  does that have anything to do with money or UFO/aliens, no it does not.

Now, back to the meat on the bone. You have the argument backwards, as usual.

How is a person who posted video evidence supposed to prove that the video is real?

You are the one making the affirmative claim by saying the video is not real. The video stands on its own. It is assumed the video was made in good standing, why would anyone lie afterall? A person cannot prove the video is anymore real than it already is, and you are claiming that it's not real. Therefore you are have to prove its not real. The video maker does not need to present evidence because they have the video and that is their case that it's real. They can go and show you the footage from their phone and say, see this is what I captured. And you have to assume from that it is real. If you create a claim that it's fake, you have to prove it in order to convince followers that it's not real. It's exactly like when the media attacks people as what they say is false aka "fact checkers".

Your last arguement is not the same. You are simply making a claim that may or may not be true. There is no outside measure like a video or pictures to acknowledge that claim. I can refute that by simply by saying, "I don't". It's up to the audience to make a determination. Now, if you had more evidence like picture or video, say you used ChatGpt to create a picture. I would then have to show that it was created by AI to prove it. Do you honestly expect that you are going to come out and say "I used ChatGPT to create the image? No, so the accused will need to provide some reasoning that the video is fake in order to level the playing field for the audience or they will assume the video is real.

[CptTrips]

Dmonslyr, there are simply not enough face-palm memes on the internet to deal with you.

[DmonSlyr]

Dmonslyr, there are simply not enough face-palm memes on the internet to deal with you.

 Sigh. If someone posted a video of your last arguement, and it was not able to be determined it was faked. Or I CANT PROVE ITS FAKE. A jury would make the logical assessment that the video is real and I'd go to jail. Would I not?

Think about how many times in history evidence was faked in order to try someone they don't like. The person was unable to prove the evidence was fake. Therefore went to jail.

A really great example of this is "My Cousin Vinny".