Aliens exist: Here is the proof

originally posted by: 321Go

originally posted by: Alundra

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Emerys
a reply to: Legman


So 70,000 annual reports of UFO sightings are not evidence?

If there were actual, conclusive evidence, it would be on every television station and the front page of every newspaper on the planet.

No it would not... best to keep the public in ignorance as much and as long as possible.

But WHO is keeping the public ignorant? There are journalists, scientists, astronomers and a whole wealth of (trustworthy, professional and respected) people waiting to find out and actively seek out proof every day. Nobody has broken the news yet with definitive, unequivocal and undeniable evidence. The 'MIB' can't silence the world, despite what they say in the movies.

Don't expect the mainstream media or other well known outlets that have been corrupted by TPTB to break the news with concrete evidence. It would seriously damage their power structure when national security becomes an issue and people start to wonder about possible affiliations between these entities and the gov./global elite. And according to some researchers like Steve Greer, the availability of things like free energy stemming from the advanced technologies of ET would then be out in the open, exposing how those in control are still capitalizing on the public using unnecessary resources to fill the elite's pockets. Take a look at what ex C.I.A. official Victor Marchetti has to say about the importance of keeping this lid on:

My theory is that we have, indeed, been contacted--perhaps even visited-- by extraterrestrial beings, and that the U.S. Government, in collusion with other national powers of the Earth, is determined to keep this information from the general public. The purpose of the international conspiracy is to maintain a workable stability among the nations of the world and for them, in turn, to retain institutional control over their respective populations. Thus, for these governments to admit there are beings from outer space attempting to contact us, beings with mentalities and technological capabilities obviously far superior to ours, could, once fully perceived by the average person, erode the foundations of the Earth's traditional power structure. Political and legal systems, religions, economic and social institutions could all soon become meaningless in the mind of the public. The national oligarchical establishments, even civilization as we know it, could collapse into anarchy. Such extreme conclusions are not necessarily valid, but they probably accurately reflect the fears of the "ruling class" of the major nations, whose leaders (particularly those in the intelligence business) have always advocated excessive governmental secrecy as being necessary to preserve "national security." The real reason for such secrecy is, of course, to keep the public uninformed, misinformed, and, therefore, malleable.

Makes sense doesn't it?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: 321Go
Nobody has broken the news yet with definitive, unequivocal and undeniable evidence.

You realize that this is an unreasonable expectation of the data, right?

To begin with; any evidence can be rejected, regardless of it's nature. We see it right here on ATS all the time...

Any conclusion or interpretation based on that data is typically not accepted until and unless its been peer reviewed.

Most of these difficulties are the result of a lack of convention and structure...

Again, most of the real reason there are is not news of this nature is because of an environment of inappropriate/unreasonable expectations.

Perhaps, but consider this; the world's governments continue to deny alien visitations, but one day an astronomer says he has seen a ship heading to Earth, and here's the picture! More astronomers substantiate that claim with their own pictures and live images – everyone can see them, no one is in doubt as to their authenticity or the claims being made. The government's conspiracy can no longer exist. I would believe in that.

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: metamagic

*** Disclaimer : the following statement is intended as humour

I would suggest that your last statement is probably wrong since the assertion "The universe is probabilistic" is at best probably true which you means you "might" be right.

Actually you are 99.999999999999999% correct (sorry had to do that

That is the best thing about probability, and the universe...its not certain...it becomes a sort of love/hate thing.

Humour aside, you seem to be saying that probability is the way the universe must operate -- that by its nature, the universe is uncertain, and this is what we see as probabilistic. A counter argument could be made that the universe is actually totally certain or deterministic so that the pattern of unfolding of events is fixed and immutable; what we call uncertainty is merely our limited perception and inability to see the pattern. A little though experiment. I shuffle a deck of cards and then memorize the order of the shuffled deck. I then ask you to wager with me on what each card is. For you, not having knowledge of the order of the deck forces you to treat the turning of each card as uncertain, although you can compute the probabilities of what each card "might" be. On the other hand, the turning of each card is certain for me because I know exactly what card is next and don't have to deal with probabilities.

Here is the question that experiment leads to: "Does "uncertainty" reflect an underlying property of the universe or does it describe the nature of my incomplete perception of a universe which is in reality totally deterministic?"

Don't forget, the central question of epistemology for millennia has been "How certain can I be about what I know?" It is still a open question.

We seem to have a difference of opinion on the definition of "proof"...so, you will have to understand that except for stars I am sort of "type antagonistic"...in that I don't take "Type" into account. With the exception of spectral type of stars, and of course data (data type in a computer science sort of way).

The meanings of words are not fixed, nor are they arbitrary. Even a simple word like "mother" has no fixed meaning (are you referring to the woman who have birth to you, or the woman whose egg was fertilized to implant in the woman who gave birth to you, or are you referring to the woman who raised you as her own, or the wife of your father?... and so on). Meanings are a form of agreement by a speech community on what word means for them at a given point in time, but it is pointless to have my own personal definition of a word because it would defeat the whole purpose of using a word -- you wouldn't understand me when I used it. So this cannot be a dispute about "my" or "your" definition of the word proof, instead I am pointing out that the word proof is used to mean different things in different contexts. I identified two of those meanings as relevant to the request by OP to define proof. As for those definitions, they are not mine but come from the Oxford English Dictionary.

I really have no idea what "type antagonistic" means so I cannot comment on that. Similarly, the rest of that paragraph makes no sense to me so you will have to excuse my not commenting on them.

Things like life, proof have a more binary property to them...

I have no idea what this means

Proof, by the way, is; compelling evidence. And, typically is rather subjective in nature.
Finally, probability most certainly can be used as evidence.

That sounds like a definition of proof that would work in a legal setting "The preponderance of evidence..." or "Beyond a reasonable doubt.." However it still is evidentiary as opposed to the logical definition of truth. A logical argument is proof of a logical assertion but in no way does it resemble compelling evidence. Within the scope of even this definition of proof are problems of defining what is meant as "evidence" -- if you say facts then I have to point you back to your previous post in which you argues against the idea that facts were definable. And compelling to who?

I will agree that proof or evidence or even what constitutes compelling have a subjective and affective component to them, but those terms also have a social agreed upon (not perfectly agreed upon) set of meanings so that we can all communicate effectively. If we let each person decide which hand they will call right or left, the first day of accidents as people drive on their right hand side of the road will probably convince us that for all of us to agree on what the terms mean is expeditious, effective and necessary.

a reply to: Jonjonj

No need to apologize. It is my opinion that inhabited planets are as common as anthills on Earth. Sure not highly civilized star trek planets as one would hope but that life is not an isolated abnormality but one of the many expressions of our universe's existence. Even today we're still investigating the possibility of life in planets on our own solar system with relevant clues.

I truly believe that as we go forth in our knowledge of the existence beyond our planet we will more and more realize that life is not rare but abundant. But that is just a conclusion that I derive from observation and speculation. I refuse to think that what we are is rare because existence does not do "rare" or "unique". What happens in one place... happens everywhere. But I have no proof of it.

originally posted by: 321Go

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: Scdfa


Emerys, don't worry about the criticism, you're absolutely right on several points.

Eyewitness testimony is a foundation of all societies, and it remains the primary form of human communication.

To suggest that witnesses "just don't count" when it comes to UFOs and alien contact is absurd.
Of course they count, nearly all the information we have on UFOs and alien beings, both physically and behaviorally, comes solely from eyewitness testimony. Not from scientists, but from the people who were there to witness these events.

I ask any reader here, try this:

Close your eyes, and tell me the first image that comes to mind when I say "UFO and alien".

Now: What did you see?

Sure, there will be some snarky replies. But if most folks were being honest, I bet they have very similar ideas come to mind.

That's because of eyewitness testimony. The thousands and thousand of witness reports, that are overwhelmingly corroborative, have built a societal understanding of grey aliens traveling in flying disc shaped.
Despite the tireless efforts of those who deny or decry the value of eyewitness testimony, the experiences of witnesses and contactees have painted a clearly defined picture of what an alien encounters is.

The truth is getting out, despite debunkers, scientific cowardice, and a seventy-year long near-official policy of ridicule and secrecy.

Believing eyewitnesses is an evolutionary trait, our survival usually has depended on it, and still does.

If you're a Cro-Magnon, and three other Cro-Magnons tell you they saw a sabre-tooth tiger, you had a better chance of surviving if you took them seriously. Even if their accounts varied on the details of how big he was, the smart play is to believe them.

Smart move when they believed Paul Revere.
Good thing Boston didn't demand Paul Revere provide some physical proof for Ben Franklin to test before they decided to believe the British were coming.

So why would we suddenly stop believing other people only when it comes to aliens? And what kind of person would want us to?

Not the smart move, even to a Cro-Magnon.

Excellent post my friend.

Cool analogy there with the Cro-Magnon. Contrasting that analogy with the alien phenomenon, there would be thousands of sightings of the saber-tooth instead of the 3 you used. All the more reason eyewitness testimony (especially concerning ET) needs to be taken more seriously. Good job.

That is a very poor analogy. Sabre Tooths were prevalent and every Cro-Magnon would have seen one. In that case, if someone shouted "TIGER" everyone would have ran (not that they spoke English, of course...). The two are not comparable.

It works in the sense of one never being seen before by the Cro Magnon, this would be before they became obvious and everyone started seeing them constantly, especially upon venturing into unknown territory. Basically any previously unseen or unknown threat would fit the bill in that context.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

Not in the least does it make sense. Edward Snowden had access to everything but came up with nothing. Of course, according to your theory, he could be in on the conspiracy too. Yes, he reveals that the US and UK are covertly spying on everyone, but he must not tell us about the aliens!

originally posted by: 321Go

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: 321Go
Nobody has broken the news yet with definitive, unequivocal and undeniable evidence.

You realize that this is an unreasonable expectation of the data, right?

To begin with; any evidence can be rejected, regardless of it's nature. We see it right here on ATS all the time...

Any conclusion or interpretation based on that data is typically not accepted until and unless its been peer reviewed.

Most of these difficulties are the result of a lack of convention and structure...

Again, most of the real reason there are is not news of this nature is because of an environment of inappropriate/unreasonable expectations.

Perhaps, but consider this; the world's governments continue to deny alien visitations, but one day an astronomer says he has seen a ship heading to Earth, and here's the picture! More astronomers substantiate that claim with their own pictures and live images – everyone can see them, no one is in doubt as to their authenticity or the claims being made. The government's conspiracy can no longer exist. I would believe in that.

You know that there will be a campaign to come and swiftly debunk and question the validity of every video and/or photo taken right? And guess who's leading that campaign? The gov./intelligence community. Once presumed and deemed "hoax" it will be soon dismissed and forgotten. They will then await for the next piece of evidence they can shred apart.

originally posted by: 321Go
a reply to: TrueMessiah

Not in the least does it make sense. Edward Snowden had access to everything but came up with nothing. Of course, according to your theory, he could be in on the conspiracy too. Yes, he reveals that the US and UK are covertly spying on everyone, but he must not tell us about the aliens!

Sorry but I'm not following you here.
The discussion was about the importance of eyewitness testimony. How do we know if Snowden knew anything about aliens at all?

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: 321Go

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: 321Go
Nobody has broken the news yet with definitive, unequivocal and undeniable evidence.

You realize that this is an unreasonable expectation of the data, right?

To begin with; any evidence can be rejected, regardless of it's nature. We see it right here on ATS all the time...

Any conclusion or interpretation based on that data is typically not accepted until and unless its been peer reviewed.

Most of these difficulties are the result of a lack of convention and structure...

Again, most of the real reason there are is not news of this nature is because of an environment of inappropriate/unreasonable expectations.

Perhaps, but consider this; the world's governments continue to deny alien visitations, but one day an astronomer says he has seen a ship heading to Earth, and here's the picture! More astronomers substantiate that claim with their own pictures and live images – everyone can see them, no one is in doubt as to their authenticity or the claims being made. The government's conspiracy can no longer exist. I would believe in that.

You know that there will be a campaign to come and swiftly debunk and question the validity of every video and/or photo taken right? And guess who's leading that campaign? The gov./intelligence community. Once presumed and deemed "hoax" it will be soon dismissed and forgotten. They will then await for the next piece of evidence they can shred apart.

Except as far-reaching as they may be, they simply can't control everything, whether they'd like to or not. Also, "next piece of evidence" would imply that they have "shredded" evidence in the past, which is not at all true. in order to "shred" evidence, first you have to have some.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Just a proposal - not every person that comes in and tries to get to the bottom of something and find the truth behind it is a "intelligence/government debunker". I've often found that very frustrating in this community (not the site but our general community). I myself have been accused of being some government's agent just for trying to analyse evidence the best I could. Not because I meant to discredit anyone but because as many I love truth.

It is a very harsh accusation and in my case made me stay away from the effort. When you join a community out of a similar interest and find truth is less important than belief - and stating so gets you slandered... it is an ugly thing to see.

a reply to: ACarva

If I had a dime for every time someone has said or implicitly implied that I was a shill/disinformation agent, well, I'd have a lot of dimes. Sadly, I have yet to see one paycheck from whatever alphabet agency I apparently shill for.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: ACarva

If I had a dime for every time someone has said or implicitly implied that I was a shill/disinformation agent, well, I'd have a lot of dimes. Sadly, I have yet to see one paycheck from whatever alphabet agency I apparently shill for.

What he said ^^^^. I haven't received my paycheck either!

a reply to: Krakatoa

I have for so long been waiting for that paycheck too.
Could use it too!

But it is true. The most disruptive side of the UFO community is not the government or the intelligence debunkers - it is the rabid way we eat our own out of strict belief systems.

originally posted by: ACarva
But it is true. The most disruptive side of the UFO community is not the government or the intelligence debunkers - it is the rabid way we eat our own out of strict belief systems.

IMHO it's keeping quiet about obvious hoaxes trying to prove your personal belief and dishonest cash grabs like the Roswell slides.


Don't get me wrong the Roswell slides got hammered. I just think if we were all Stanton Friedman like sceptics we would be taken seriously.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: 321Go

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: 321Go
Nobody has broken the news yet with definitive, unequivocal and undeniable evidence.

You realize that this is an unreasonable expectation of the data, right?

To begin with; any evidence can be rejected, regardless of it's nature. We see it right here on ATS all the time...

Any conclusion or interpretation based on that data is typically not accepted until and unless its been peer reviewed.

Most of these difficulties are the result of a lack of convention and structure...

Again, most of the real reason there are is not news of this nature is because of an environment of inappropriate/unreasonable expectations.

Perhaps, but consider this; the world's governments continue to deny alien visitations, but one day an astronomer says he has seen a ship heading to Earth, and here's the picture! More astronomers substantiate that claim with their own pictures and live images – everyone can see them, no one is in doubt as to their authenticity or the claims being made. The government's conspiracy can no longer exist. I would believe in that.

You know that there will be a campaign to come and swiftly debunk and question the validity of every video and/or photo taken right? And guess who's leading that campaign? The gov./intelligence community. Once presumed and deemed "hoax" it will be soon dismissed and forgotten. They will then await for the next piece of evidence they can shred apart.

Except as far-reaching as they may be, they simply can't control everything, whether they'd like to or not. Also, "next piece of evidence" would imply that they have "shredded" evidence in the past, which is not at all true. in order to "shred" evidence, first you have to have some.

But they can create an aura of nothing presented being genuine. That's why we don't "have" any. That's the shredding I'm referring to. Tell me, what has officially been stamped as definitive evidence? Nothing. It's partly because of what Mr. Salla terms galactic cointelpro and it was happening as far back as the 1950s.

Galactic COINTELPRO involved three interrelated phases that culminated in a comprehensive counter-intelligence program to neutralize and disrupt the threat posed by the contactee movement.

• First was a surveillance program orchestrated by the FBI which closely monitored the contactee’s public lectures, interactions and communications. Documents released through FOIA have confirmed that the FBI conducted extensive monitoring of prominent contactees, and worked with other intelligence agencies such as the Air Force OSI.

• The second phase of Galactic COINTELPRO was a debunking and discrediting program secretly run by the CIA which convened the Robertson Panel which issued the Durant Report in 1953. Its most important finding for the counter-intelligence program was to justify an education program comprising ‘training’ the public and ‘debunking’ witness testimonies, including contactees, on the basis of the national security threat posed by the public’s belief in UFO’s being exploited by foreign enemies.

Irrespective of the merit of contactee claims, this meant that evidence and statements would be debunked and discredited on national security grounds. Intelligence professionals in the unenviable position of debunking and discrediting people who they may have privately concluded were genuinely describing actual events that had occurred to them.

FBI documents establish that FBI agents and sources played an active role in discrediting prominent contactees as part of the CIA’s psychological program against contactees.

• Galactic COINTELPRO’s final stage was to create a schism between those accepting evidence of extraterrestrial life. A group of UFO researchers advocating a scientific methodology were encouraged to disassociate themselves from contactee claims that were regarded as unscientific, and unlikely to lead to public support by academics, bureaucrats and congressional representatives.

Galactic Cointelpro

Man, no wonder why it's such a tough task trying to get anything authenticated. With things like this going on it's damn near impossible.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

It's tiring seeing people claiming 'disinfo agents' man, I'm from Jamaica and the one time I've been on a plane I went to panama. If I'm a disinfo agent I'm still waiting to see the benefits.

That's the thing I don't get, how can you expect someone to take you seriously when you are practically making the game up? No offense to christians but some of you 'ufologists' have the same mindset. "What we say is right, questioning/proving us wrong makes you a devil worker."

You want to believe so badly you make up things along the way. It's impossible to believe your personal stories if you have such a closed mind.

If we believe everything that is thrown at us then we cannot advance.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

But a document from the 1950's shouldn't excuse paranoia in 2015.

I wonder how in heavens name could anyone or anything ever believe they were the only intelligent life in an infinate universe. It is baffeling to me. . . .

But then when I see reports that 1 in 4 Americans dont know the Earth goes around the sun I kinda figure we just arent thinkking about it hard enough.

Even in our dreams when we sleep we arent the only ones walking around, there is a whole world of life created within our counsiousness. I think if we opened our minds a bit and accept that we may be part of an infinate universe we may eventually have some interaction kinds of progressive enlightening interaction with some of the more intelligent life out there.

a reply to: SuspiciousTom

I never called you a disinfo agent.

I want to believe so badly I make things up? No I just analyze everything available and carefully discern the information to see what makes sense when critical thinking is applied. And no I don't believe everything thrown at me, that's where the discernment comes in.

Tom I will admit, sometimes it's kind of hard to follow which direction you're going with some of your comments.

Oh and BTW, I often hear these members saying that if they are disinfo agents then where are their checks. Not accusing you or anybody else of being that but what makes these guys think that just saying they haven't gotten one would convince anyone who strongly suspects otherwise? Pretty amusing.