Moontanman

I have added two phtos to this post, both are considered real, what they are is unknown... hence UFO How can evidence be given for something so extraordinary it has no way of being shown? And yet the current and past philosophy has been to assume the negative. Even though there have been sightings that were seen by multiple independent witnesses, and seen on multiple independent radars. Yet when these leaks happen the very idea of them being impossible is used to dismiss them... seems a bit circular to me. Secrets of aliens is leaked but it is this leak that is dismissed out of hand. The first photo is of a UFO taken in 1965 near Santa Ana Ca https://www.ocregister.com/2009/10/30/ocs-moment-in-ufo-history/ The second is A picture of a flying saucer photographed by farmer Paul Trent, over his farm in Minnville, Ore., on May 11, 1950. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinnville_UFO_photographs While these photos aren't without some debunkers. Others disagree. Notice the ground effect under the object. I think the demand of what such evidence would be is unrealistic, what evidence of an extraterrestrial spacecraft would be sufficient? I was once told that it had to be an actual piece of a spacecraft as though pieces of alien spacecraft would be falling off randomly. I once lived under the landing zone of an airport, large commercial airliners flew over head everyday and some were so low I could have thrown a rock and hit them but no pieces ever fell off. There have however been pieces of UFOs fallen to the ground and picked up, mostly molten metal drippings. https://www.thehistoricalsociety.org/h/ufo.html

I understand that but requiring proof only from those who claim something extraordinary but not from those who debunk is not quite fair. If you simply ask for evidence then no you don't have a burden of proof but if you claim the extraordinary cannot be such then I think you accept some of the burden. Far too long it's been ok to say things like no photos exist but those of unclear subjects or nothing but lights in the sky. But when evidence of the extraordinary turns up, clear photos, that must be either hoaxes or an extraordinary object. I don't think the debunkers get to say it can't be real simply because it's too good to be true. Seems to me this is nothing but deciding the outcome before the event. There are dozens if not hundreds of photos that are either something extraordinary or outright hoaxes, there is testimony that has to be either a lie or truth, no middle ground exists. From an astronaut who claims he saw a saucer shaped craft land at an american airbase and saw it filmed, saw the film, turned the film over to the gov and then it vanished to a military photographer who took film of a UFO destroying a missile shortly after launch and saw the film of the event after it happened. There are many examples, but these things are either true or not true and the cover up has cracks but the cracks are dismissed out of hand. These things are not right, you don't to claim they are not true without shouldering some sort of burden of proof for your assertion they are not real in the face of the very thing that is claimed to not exist. People have come out to claim the gov is covering something extraordinary, either this is meaningless or the assertion that such a secret cannot be kept without leaks is meaningless. It cannot be both ways.

I agree that an anonymous source is not credible but people have come out with such reports who were far from anonymous and yet they are always dismissed but people who come out with equal "fervor" to debunk with nothing but their word are accepted.

Yet another whistle blower that is not supposed to exist but are always dismissed as too good to be true when they do show up.

Rogue planets are fascinating, Especially rocky planets with dense hydrogen atmospheres could actually harbor life with water oceans and dry land. Sara Seager of NASA has proposed this.

You must live on a different planet than me.

Or possibly the "effect" is chemical and non biological?

Who else would have tried to catch it?

Isn't that planet so close to it's star that it makes Venus look like a ski resort?

So the punishment for every crime is the same... torture forever! The entire system of heaven and hell is immoral and unjust.

Sadly in war as in life, it's the poor and disenfranchised that suffer, pawns as you say. The better fed they are the longer the people incharge can snort coke, eat caviar off the backs of strippers and eat wagyu off... well I'll let your imagination finish that and no i don't need to know where your imagination went with that. Sadly the pawns, read true believers, will protect their leaders and lay down their lives to make sure the dear leader has his stripper banquets. The first casualty of war is the truth.

Agreed Nor should you. Name a few, one at a time, a Gish Gallop will not be tolerated. The Bible is nothing but writing by men about their favorite gods, almost all so called "promises" were written about after the fact. It's not difficult to find "promises" that didn't come true, the city of Tyre comes to mind off the top of my head. If you want respect for your beliefs you should try digging up empirical evidence to support them instead of "feels".

Lazy is as lazy does. Lazy is in the eye of the asshole who thinks things should only be done one way.

No, it would be supernatural and I hold no belief in anything supernatural and I have seen no evidence to even support the possibility of the supernatural. My reason is that there is no empirical evidence of the Bible as anything but bronze age mythology. See #1

I'm in. One of the funniest films ever! The planet porno attacks the earth with the super sex beam!

Establish a usable infrastructure in space to mine asteroids and build space habitats.

"batteries not included" is a good film as is "Spaced Invaders"

The idea of helping to bring about Armageddon runs deep in much of the fundie christian community. They are very scary people IMHO.

So much the better, threat of strangulation would show Russia they need to be a part of the world community, cooperation instead of domination of the world. Speaking of Nukes... this is just weird, not sure what is going on. Is it a real movement, or just government backed crazies to try and scare the west?

This whole thing resolves down to do we allow Russia to continue its imperialistic designs or does the west decide to stand up to the not so subtle intentions of Russia to regain it's old imperial holdings? Russia is just as vulnerable to nukes as the west is, Russia has no more of a desire to see it's cities turned into radioactive rubble than the west does. The main difference is that west seems to think that allowing Russia to conquer the world it the only way to avoid the use of nukes. The first thing the west needs to do is take over the tiney holding of Russia left behind in Europe, if the people want to leave for russia so be it but allowing a hostile nation to have a foothold in the midst of Europe is intolerable. Russia must be expelled from Ukraine, Crimea included, if russia cannot act like a same nation then it must be isolated from the civilized nations of the world before our own maga chuds surrender our nations to Russia. NO I HAVEN'T HAD MY COFFEE YET!!! DAMN MACHINE IS BUSTED!

So you favor appeasement? WW2 europe would be proud. Appeasement started when the west allowed Putin to have Crimea.

Well... zebra's ass anyway!

While I was wrong about the missile attack my point about acting as though Russia must be given what they want "appeasement" was and is a bad strategy.

Evidently... I was wrong, this was an accident, Ukraine self defense missile went astray and landed on Polish soil... I jumped the gun.

Russia has denied having anything to do with it, not exactly a ringing endorsement of Russia's good intentions. I see it like this, Russia is being handled with kid gloves to the point of ham stringing the Ukraine's defence of its own territory. Ukraine is being told not to attack Russia on Russian soil yet Russia remains the aggressor on a small country on its border. Allowing a missile to land on Poland is meant to test the resolve of NATO. If this is not true then why does Russia deny any wrongdoing? If Russia really respected NATO they should be rushing in to apologize and try to make things right. Russia is being allowed to attack a sovereign state with no danger of being attacked in return. Russia has nukes so it can be allowed to do whatever it wants to smaller weaker countries. Reminds me of the appeasement tactics used in WW2 to try and calm Germany. If the tables were turned and Russia decided it wanted Alaska back and invaded Alaska would the US limit it's defense to only confronting Russia on US soil? Yes Russia has Nukes, so does NATO, a nuclear attack on anyone would put Russia in the same position as everyone else. Russia has no magical power to stop a nuclear attack so they are just as vulnerable as everyone else. Russia has the same need to avoid using nukes as NATO does, MAD was and is still a strong deterrent to using Nukes. The fact that Russia has nukes should not be reason to let them slowly snap up all territories that do not have Nukes. Ukraine should, at the very least, be attacking military targets in Russia. Any threatened use of nukes should be met with the reality of nukes being aimed at russia instead of this fear of Russian nukes! They are just as vulnerable as any other country and being able to use the treat of nukes to conquer countries with no nukes just leads to escalation as surely as the use of tactical nukes would.