(You wont get in trouble for disagreeing with a mentor, you will only get in trouble for breaking the rules).
No there is not any evidence that UFOs are aliens. That is the point I am making. The logical fallacy is that there is an unknown phenomenon for which people are providing an un-evidenced explanation. Do you see? It's almost circular logic;
"What are these UFOs?"
"How do you know that aliens exist?"
"Look at all these UFOs"
To put it another way look at this example;
I take Box A and Box B and plug them together. When this happens we get phenomenon X occurring. We do not currently know how Box A and Box B are causing phenomenon X, the reason is an unknown. Alice says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, we should do more research before concluding". Bob says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, it is likely that aliens are causing it".
Do you see the problem now?
Spooky.You don't get in trouble for disagreeing with a moderator. You get in trouble for making unsupported statements, like "but there is evidence."
What you're providing as evidence isn't good enough for two reasons:
- When you provide a single piece, it gets picked apart for lacking quality
- When your single piece lacks quality, you make an appeal to quantity
You follow this pattern:
Mazulu: What about this case of a flying cigar monkey?
Forum: Doesn't seem to be much evidence... could just be a balloon.
Mazulu: But there are thousands of reports, surely they can't ALL be balloons!