.
Ahhhhh . . . and you KNOW such things how?
.
Evidently you do not believe such 'leakers' as William Tompkins who worked in the field for 5-6 decades. His documented work record fits his narrative.
.
Evidently you do not believe folks who talk about our super black/secret Naval space fleet.
.
Shoot, even my close relative saw some of our UFO type craft on an almost daily basis when he worked at S-4.
.
Sorry but I get weary of the "Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence." bit.
.
1. Given the ultra secret nature of such projects . . . just where is this extra-ordinary evidence going to come from?
.
2. For many decades (60+ in terms of UFO tech), such 'extra-ordinary evidence' is likely to be intensely protected, kept dark, secret. Anything that comes out will be amidst plenty of disinformation, misinformation and deceptions of various kinds. There's little way around that. Folks who have tried to break through that have ended up dead in case after case . . . and sometimes, their families, too.
.
3. That old Carl Sagan farcical statement is merely an addiction to a false negative error--pretending that they are not setting themselves up for an automatic smack up-side the head accordingly.
.
4. Sagan was a liar. He was in the government employ working with the facts of UFO's and ET's etc. etc. etc. He was a paid shill and debunker. And he wasn't that good at it. He merely had lots of media support so he seemed to be sane because it was the propagandized narrative for decades. All the time he was secretly in the know and a hired goon in helping maintain the cover-up.
.
5. I don't think there is a fool proof way to wade through all the disinformation; false negative error risk on one side and false positive error risk on the other. but it is more or less doable.
.
6. There's tons of high quality information from high quality sources to sift through. Denying the quality or the tons of data is not . . . imho . . . a good survival habit.
How do I know such things?
Are you serious?
That extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is a simple matter of logic. Something even a kindergartener can figure out.
That our best launch technology is essentially the same as what the Chinese developed in the 13th Century is self-evident: you can see it on display every time we launch something.
And how do you
know that we have something better? Have you seen these things first-hand - in person - and do you have the theoretical knowledge necessary to know how they work? Or are you just taking the unsubstantiated, self-serving words of other people, words that simply happen to confirm your own biases?
