Originally Posted by VTBike

There you go again. Shifting the burden of proof to the person who is NOT making the extraordinary claim. Nice invocation of the argument from personal incredulity, confusing currently unexplained with the unexplainable, and false analogy logical fallacies as well.

I am concerned that people here will begin to believe that you have cognitive issues if you don't understand relevancy. I'll give you a hint: Nobody has observed a frog with wings that can fly as you described. They don't exist. But you have observed motor vehicles. You have observed safe motor vehicle operation and you have observed unsafe operation. You have observed the characteristics of motor vehicle operation. So, unlike you, I am asking you to provide your opinion as to something you have observed. If you can't see the difference, I will let others here make their own conclusions as to your cognitive capacity.

Keep trying to dodge the question.... Or... you might wake up and realize that the first rule of holes is to stop digging.