Neil DeGrasse Tyson: ET and DNA

a reply to: JadeStar

UFOs exist. But there is no evidence they are extraterrestrials.

Extraterrestrials may exist but there is no evidence they come here in UFOs or even would want to.

Folks, these statements are untrue, and I can establish them to be false in a few sentences.

First, what exactly is evidence?

Here's the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Full Definition of EVIDENCE

1
a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2
: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

Okay. testimony;. bear witness;

So that would mean that there are vast amounts of evidence that extraterrestrials come here in UFOs.

Any report regarding an extraterrestrial or alien abduction is evidence. And there are many.

By way of example, just this week in England, the West Midlands police department revealed very recent alien abduction reports under FOI request. The department says it has received twenty-three alien-related reports in the past four years.
Two reports were from people who were either being attacked by aliens, or were reporting an alien home invasion.
Three emergency calls were from people seeking police help because extraterrestrials were in the process of abducting them, or coming to abduct them.
Fourteen calls were from people reporting that they had seen extraterrestrials in West Midlands.

So there we go. The witness statements and police reports are evidence of extraterrestrials.

We don't have to go any further than that to establish the opening quotes as false.

Now, of course, we can have any opinion we want on evidence. You can find it to be unconvincing, or inconclusive, you can find it to be ridiculous. But what is and is not evidence is clearly defined.

To say there is no evidence has been established as untrue already, but the evidence goes far beyond what I have mentioned. How about documents mentioning the recovery of alien bodies? No point in going further.

Again, I have to wonder about those who deny alien contact. If their position is so strong, then why do they insist on making untrue statements such a key part of their argument? They shouldn't have to twist the facts that do support alien contact.

Thank you.

a reply to: Scdfa

Your use of the euphemism "story" reveals bias; it's an attempt to dismiss the credibility of these accounts of events by demoting them to "stories", as if they were Mother Goose, or some other fictional tale told for entertainment purposes. Deniers do this a lot, and usually get away with it.

Of course there's a bias. That's based on the *ad nauseam* lack of physical evidence for these physical claims.

Folks, testimony IS evidence.

Simple as that.

So there goes all that nonsense about there being no evidence. Don't take my word for it, here is The Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Definition of EVIDENCE

1
a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something
legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2
: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

I won't even address how it's been shown that eyewitness testimony is unreliable given that people lie, etc. I'll just go with your apparent unshaken belief that witnesses all tell the truth without fail. Also I won't comment on the inadmissibility of lie detector tests (which you allude to with Walton's buddies) in a courtroom situation.

Most of that definition of evidence is in a legal context. So to you, eyewitness testimony of a crime is equal to and holds the same weight as eyewitness testimony of extra terrestrials?

Let me make this simple and personal for you with an example to show how ridiculous that is in a legal sense-
A- Your family member was murdered by a man with a knife.
B- Your family member was murdered by an extra terrestrial with a laser.

The same crime, the same wounds with two different scenarios and both have witnesses to the crime. Are you going to put equal belief and weight into the extra terrestrial murdering, as you are to the man murdering? You or anyone would be a fool to do so given the fact-
- Human beings exist as a proven physical fact.
- Murders happen as a proven physical fact.
- Knives/weapons exist as a proven physical fact.
- Anger/revenge/burglary/self defense exists as a proven physical fact.

To start out with, accusing any man of murder already has an established undeniable physical history of- men existing, men murdering, men covering up that fact, etc. The foundation is already set in place to accuse plaintiff X of a crime. With an extra terrestrial, there has been zero established physical facts of an alien being even existing. There's not even a foundational physical basis to show an ET is anywhere in the universe. You're still stuck in the gate having no physical evidence of ET which has to be overcome to proceed to show any further evidence of an ET committing murder. Or outside of this example, ET abducting humans.

You're spinning the real life Earthly definition of evidence and including your own belief (or whatever you want to call it) of ET to that definition for the sake of the argument. Evidence of human beings, and further, testimony of humans committing a crime, doesn't even come close ET existing and ET abducting humans. The courtroom analogy/eyewitness testimony is a poor argument. Unless you can provide us all with equal overwhelming evidence of ET??

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

a reply to: Scdfa
I disagree. The witnesses underwent an investigation to determine if there was fowl play involved with a disappearance.
This is why statements like this are misleading.

Eventually, all six witnesses even submitted to polygraph examination to determine if they were telling the truth. After the polygraph examination, Sheriff Gillespie announced that he accepted the UFO story, saying "There's no doubt they're telling the truth."

My quote is completely accurate. The polygraph examination was to determine if they were telling the truth.

But if this poster says there may have been "fowl play" involved, we must not be too chicken to duck.

Thank you.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I won't even address how it's been shown that eyewitness testimony is unreliable given that people lie, etc. I'll just go with your apparent unshaken belief that witnesses all tell the truth without fail. Also I won't comment on the inadmissibility of lie detector tests (which you allude to with Walton's buddies) in a courtroom situation.

Now you're moving the goalposts. Your claim was that there was no evidence. So I established that testimony is indeed evidence.

You can have any opinion you like on how reliable that evidence is, I have no issue with your opinion.

The admissibility of polygraphs in court has no bearing on the matter, either. But just so you know, polygraphs are still admissible in New Mexico.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: JadeStar

UFOs exist. But there is no evidence they are extraterrestrials.

Extraterrestrials may exist but there is no evidence they come here in UFOs or even would want to.

Folks, these statements are untrue, and I can establish them to be false in a few sentences.

First, what exactly is evidence?

Here's the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Full Definition of EVIDENCE

1
a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2
: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

Okay. testimony;. bear witness;

That's nice. Now look up the definition for scientific evidence. Because that's what we're talking about here.

The standards of science are a bit more rigorous than those of a court of law where hearsay and circumstantial evidence if often used and accepted by groups of untrained interpreters called "jurors".

So that would mean that there are vast amounts of evidence that extraterrestrials come here in UFOs.

There are vast amounts of stories. This is called "anecdotal evidence" and it is is scientifically useless because it is untestable.

Any report regarding an extraterrestrial or alien abduction is evidence. And there are many.

Assuming stories are truly what the people believe them to be (a huge assumption without corroborating physical or other scientifically testable evidence to support it) how would you, they or anyone else deduce something is extraterrestrial?

Seeing a light in the sky and not knowing what it is doesn't make it the product of an extraterrestrial civilization nor would the act of seeing it be evidence in support of that conclusion.

Having a weird dream about beings taking you aboard a ship does not make it evidence of an extraterrestrial civilization nor would the act of telling such a story make it any sort of scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence can not be self referential, anecdotal or otherwise untestable.

To say there is no evidence has been established as untrue already, but the evidence goes far beyond what I have mentioned. How about documents mentioning the recovery of alien bodies?

Which documents would these be? Assuming they were not a hoax but rather, actual real documents from some authority with a researchable chain of custody, named people, places and dates they too would not constitute anything which rose to the level of irrefutable evidence of extraterrestrial visitation unless they were corroborated by physical or other non-anecdotal evidence which could be repeatedly tested.

For something not known to exist, a document is no different than a story without any further corroboration in the form of better evidence.

Extraterrestrial visitation if it were true would be one of the most important discoveries ever made on Earth. And the more important the discovery, the higher the quality of evidence would be needed to support it.

Stories in this case are not suitable evidence. Eyewitness testimony is the lowest form of evidence that fits the definition you quoted. Documents telling such stories wouldn't be suitable evidence either unless the events within them could be corroborated with physical or other scientifically testable evidence which could indicate the events detailed within had a non-natural, extraterrestrial origin.

The most important discovery on Earth will not be discovered nor confirmed with only the weakest, lowest form of evidence in support of it. If the Earth were really being visited we'd have much better than that.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Starting at the 6:30 mark of the video you posted, Mr. Tyson borders on absurdity with his comments in relation to producing verifiable evidence.

He's actually suggesting stealing something from a ship after being abducted. At that point, with an abductee's fate already undetermined, who in their right mind is going to potentially risk their life for that? The last thing going through an abductees mind would be generating evidence for a skeptic. Moreover, what makes him think those conditions would make a sample of evidence even assessable. On Earth we have to pass through metal detectors and security when entering and exiting facilities. What makes Tyson think that alien protocol would be any different? Especially considering the fact that these beings obviously want to remain covert in their actions. I find that part of the video you posted a complete joke.

When it comes to the subject of UFOs and especially alien contact, Neil 'Disgrace' Tyson is a fool. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's just part of the institutionalized cover-up, but when he speaks in this clip about stealing something from an alien ship, it calls his intelligence into question.

I won't bother to point out how absurd his proposal is, for an abductee to steal something from an alien ship, you did a great job of that already. But such a suggestion is so utterly ridiculous that I do tend to think he's being disingenuous.

Either way, I think it would be fair to say that Mike Tyson understands UFOs and aliens better than Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Amen to that.

i think tyson has been watching too many Rambo movies...

a reply to: JadeStar

That's nice. Now look up the definition for scientific evidence. Because that's what we're talking about here.

You said evidence. I quoted you accurately.

UFOs exist. But there is no evidence they are extraterrestrials.

Extraterrestrials may exist but there is no evidence they come here in UFOs or even would want to.

See? You didn't say "scientific evidence", you insisted there was no evidence. I established that there was indeed evidence of extraterrestrials.

Now you move the goalposts, and claim you actually meant something else.

Well, I'm glad to hear that it was not your intent to say there was no evidence that extraterrestrials come here in UFOs, and I'm sure you'll more accurately communicate your meaning going forward. The aliens that I have encountered can read minds, but, unfortunately, I can't.

a reply to: JadeStar

Jade, I'm not sure what your argument with me is at this point.

You made the claim that there was no evidence of extraterrestrials coming here in UFOs. That claim was false, I established that there was a great deal of evidence in the form of police reports, testimony, witness statements, and affidavits.

That was my point of contention, and I feel that issue was settled.

Now in your response you argue many, many different qualifications of evidence.

scientific evidence.

"anecdotal evidence"

testable evidence

anything which rose to the level of irrefutable evidence

other non-anecdotal evidence

the form of better evidence.

the quality of evidence

not suitable evidence

the lowest form of evidence

the weakest, lowest form of evidence

Wow. And just think, if you had used any of these adjectives we wouldn't be having this conversation. But you didn't, you said there was no evidence. But I do applaud your use of more accurate terminology.

As for the rest of your post, it is mostly your opinion, and you are entitled to your opinion.

Before I go, I must say your last paragraph troubles me, and I feel it should be addressed:

The most important discovery on Earth will not be discovered nor confirmed with only the weakest, lowest form of evidence in support of it. If the Earth were really being visited we'd have much better than that.

Well, Jade, I "discovered" aliens directly for the first time in 1966. The Earth is really being "visited", and the evidence you insult so thoroughly is apparently neither the weakest, nor the lowest, but the most accurate.

Thank you.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Starting at the 6:30 mark of the video you posted, Mr. Tyson borders on absurdity with his comments in relation to producing verifiable evidence.

He's actually suggesting stealing something from a ship after being abducted. At that point, with an abductee's fate already undetermined, who in their right mind is going to potentially risk their life for that? The last thing going through an abductees mind would be generating evidence for a skeptic. Moreover, what makes him think those conditions would make a sample of evidence even assessable. On Earth we have to pass through metal detectors and security when entering and exiting facilities. What makes Tyson think that alien protocol would be any different? Especially considering the fact that these beings obviously want to remain covert in their actions. I find that part of the video you posted a complete joke.

When it comes to the subject of UFOs and especially alien contact, Neil 'Disgrace' Tyson is a fool. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's just part of the institutionalized cover-up, but when he speaks in this clip about stealing something from an alien ship, it calls his intelligence into question.

I won't bother to point out how absurd his proposal is, for an abductee to steal something from an alien ship, you did a great job of that already. But such a suggestion is so utterly ridiculous that I do tend to think he's being disingenuous.

Either way, I think it would be fair to say that Mike Tyson understands UFOs and aliens better than Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Amen to that.

i think tyson has been watching too many Rambo movies...

I couldn't agree more. Thanks for your post!

a reply to: Scdfa

There is is ridiculous notion that one should be able to snap pics from your smartphone while being abducted...silly aliens...you see...they dont have smartphones and would thus be easily fooled.

Same goes for mr. Tysons fantasy.

You see...they went to such trouble keeping themselves hidden....and than the most brilliant among us suggest...."get your phone man"....or even better "maybe i should steal a steering wheel of this space ship...so when i get back home safely i'll have something to prove they are real...so long suckers !!!!"

Just brilliant.

a reply to: Scdfa

My quote is completely accurate. The polygraph examination was to determine if they were telling the truth.

Your quote appears to be entirely made up and Its not accurate if you leave out key information. They weren't being investigated to determine if they saw a UFO. Its misleading which is par for the course in your brand of Ufology. All your histrionics and word play doesn't change anything except add to the confusion.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

My quote is completely accurate. The polygraph examination was to determine if they were telling the truth.

Your quote appears to be entirely made up and Its not accurate if you leave out key information. They weren't being investigated to determine if they saw a UFO. Its misleading which is par for the course in your brand of Ufology. All your histrionics and word play doesn't change anything except add to the confusion.

Yes, my quote is entirely made up, by me. You quoted me, remember? From my previous post? Who else do you imagine writes my posts? And it was you who selected a section of my post and hit the "quote" button, correct?

The facts I mentioned about the Travis Walton case in that quote are completely accurate:

The polygraph examinations were to determine if the witnesses were telling the truth.

In fact, the sole reason for administering polygraph examinations is to determine if someone is telling the truth. That simple fact shouldn't be confusing, or misleading, or histrionic.

If I make you so angry and confused by simple statements of fact like that, maybe you shouldn't keep talking to me.

And frankly, when you talk about "fowl play" being involved, it becomes difficult to take you seriously. Was it a chicken? A turkey? Was Travis Walton abducted by geese flying in a V formation?

I have politely answered you and addressed your accusations, none of which appear to be substantial. I just don't think it is a valuable use of my time to respond to posts like this one, it seems we are coming to this issue from very different levels.

Thank you.

Scdfa - How familiar are you with Peter A Sturrock?

I don't think you realize we're are investigating two different things which have a whole set of different questions and area which are applicable to it.

Me - Astrobiology....



You - UFOs


As you can see, there's not much overlap so please keep that in mind.

originally posted by: JadeStar
Scdfa - How familiar are you with Peter A Sturrock?

I don't think you realize we're are investigating two different things which have a whole set of different questions and area which are applicable to it.

Me - Astrobiology....

You - UFOs

As you can see, there's not much overlap so please keep that in mind.

Thanks Jade, but I don't think you realize I'm not investigating UFOs. I am quite familiar with some of the UFOs that are actually alien craft, inside and outside. I'm here to raise awareness of the reality of alien contact.

Nice diagrams, though. Thank you.

originally posted by: Scdfa
First, what exactly is evidence?

Here's the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

...

Here is something that needs updated...not unlike the Law of conservation of matter and energy.

So...
Evidence: Any data relating to a given hypothesis.

Evidence can be either positive or negative, and either gives strength to the hypothesis or weakens it.

a reply to: tanka418

Thank you, Tanka, very well said.

a reply to: Scdfa

a reply to: Scdfa
Heh, your comments stand on there own. I rest my case.
Thank you.