It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There Is No Proof Good Enough

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
After following the subject of UFO's and aliens for awhile I've come to a conclusion about this subject. Belief in aliens is almost like a religion when I think about it. It is almost impossible to change one's initial opinion of UFO's being real or not. If one side feels threatened, they attack the other. And NEITHER side likes to admit when they are wrong.

Ok so what I'm getting at here is that NO piece of evidence will ever be good enough for the skeptics, ever IMO. Nothing short of shaking hands with an alien themselves is going to convince them that their beliefs are wrong.

This question is for the skeptics out there. What would you consider to be proof of alien existance? IMO real proof would be unattainable online, you would have to see it for yourselves to believe it.

If this is the case, then why bother trying to debunk evidence on here if the evidence itself will never be good enough? Hypothetically, if a picture of a UFO or alien were to be proven to be authentic, would that be proof enough for you? Probobly not, and you would just investigate further to prove it to be false.

Can believable info be presented online, or is this just a "gotta see it to believe it" kind of subject?

PS- I'm not attacking any skeptics here, I would just like to hear your thoughts, thanks.




posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by acesinthehole
This question is for the skeptics out there. What would you consider to be proof of alien existance? IMO real proof would be unattainable online, you would have to see it for yourselves to believe it.


I've never seen Iceland, in fact most everything I know about it I know from sources that are online, yet I accept it as "proven" that Iceland exists, without ever having seen it with my own two eyes.

I can buy plane tickets to Iceland. I can see photo and video of Iceland. I can talk to MANY people who've been to Iceland, and I've listened to music from Iceland. If Iceland doesn't exist, it's a HUGE and INCREDIBLE hoax.

Now, we have some very compelling photos, even some good videos, and some pretty credible first hand accounts of ETs/UFOs. But it's still a somewhat fleeting phenomenon, given to a lot of subjective interpretation, and made problematic by some obvious hoaxes. It's certainly not Iceland, or even %1 of Iceland.

The only thing I think has been "proven" is that something is up. And I'm certainly in favor of investigating it.

It's "proven" that people have witnessed events that are difficult to explain as part of how we generally think the world works. I'm not sure we've "proven" much else...


Ack

posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
The title of this thread is really counter-intuitive. At face value, it states that if there was proof, proof being the undeniable and provable evidence of something, it wouldn't be enough. If there was proof how would that not be enough?



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ack
The title of this thread is really counter-intuitive. At face value, it states that if there was proof, proof being the undeniable and provable evidence of something, it wouldn't be enough. If there was proof how would that not be enough?


What is proof to one person, may not be to another. I'm not here to argue the meaning of proof. If the title is wrong the mods will change it.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
The basic trouble is that a very very large amount of the "proof" that is offered up is either deliberate hoax, or vague and inconclusive.

In such an environment, everything has to be looked at with a critical, skeptical eye. There are too many opportunities to be taken for a sucker in this game.

"It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you"

[edit on 26-6-2007 by emjoi]



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Originally posted by acesinthehole

Belief in aliens is almost like a religion when I think about it.


Bingo.


It is almost impossible to change one's initial opinion of UFO's being real or not.


I disagree. UFO's are real. There are quite a few pictures and video
of Unidentified Flying Objects.


And NEITHER side likes to admit when they are wrong.


I can ONLY speak for myself, but I've yet to meet an E.T.


Ok so what I'm getting at here is that NO piece of evidence will ever be good enough for the skeptics, ever IMO. Nothing short of shaking hands with an alien themselves is going to convince them that their beliefs are wrong.


Hmm. Shaking hands is a bit of a reach. Actually seeing an E.T. would
be satisfactory. Other than that, what kind of evidence did you have
in mind ?

Those claiming to be "in contact" via meditation, medication or because
they are "chosen" ?


What would you consider to be proof of alien existance?


To physically see an E.T.


IMO real proof would be unattainable online,


Sorry to break-up your quote, but you have an excellent point, here.
Thank you.


you would have to see it for yourselves to believe it.


In my case, yes.


If this is the case, then why bother trying to debunk evidence on here if the evidence itself will never be good enough?


Because discussion and debate are healthy, and keep the people
searching.


Hypothetically, if a picture of a UFO or alien were to be proven to be authentic, would that be proof enough for you?


First, look above. There ARE pics and vids of UFO's. It's when you
bring in the E.T.'s that you hit that slope. I've never seen a pic or
vid that convinced me that it was an ACTUAL E.T.

Some did make my hair stand on end (I have long hair, too) but to
date, I'm not convinced.


Probobly not, and you would just investigate further to prove it to be false.


Actually, it's the process of proving them true, that prove them false.


Can believable info be presented online, or is this just a "gotta see it to believe it" kind of subject?


For me, I need to see.


PS- I'm not attacking any skeptics here, I would just like to hear your thoughts, thanks.


I didn't take it as an attack, and I appreciate your curiosity.

Regards,
Lex



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by acesinthehole
This question is for the skeptics out there. What would you consider to be proof of alien existence? IMO real proof would be unattainable online, you would have to see it for yourselves to believe it.


You're right about there being no single piece of evidence that would provide proof. However, multiple pieces of evidence that back each other up might do it.

I always like to say that I would like the same level of proof that ET exists that I would require for somebody to prove to me that the Eiffel Tower exists. I've never seen ET, but I've also never seen the Eiffel Tower. Why do I accept that the Eiffel Tower exists, but not aliens? Simple.

Multiple descriptions from a variety of independent witnesses, none of them anonymous.
Multiple photos and videos from similarly non-anonymous sources.
Documented verification by experts and authorities.
The ability, if I wanted to, to actually go to the Eiffel Tower and touch it.

Is that asking so much? I don't think so.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Yeah, I feel for you. But look at the environment we're faced with. These last couple of days GhostRaven entertained us with a 'False Flag" thread that was screamingly popular. He just admitted the whole thing was a hoax. Not that anyone here is going to go back and read the 1600 or so posts there, but it might be worthwhile to analyze what happened here. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but given that we know, look at the arguments. Toss out the single sentence, derisive and sometimes immature "Hoax!" posts and look at the ones which were more substantive. Especially look at those which were derisive of skeptics. Look at the abuse skeptics took over this. I'll trim some of this example. It was also edited by the mods for name calling:



What is wrong with you people. You sit here and say 'I can't believe stupid hoaxers have all this free time and boredom to do this' blah blah blah. What are you doing? You must be pretty bored to sit here and be a pest all day to someone who won't give you every bit of smoking gun evidence you fantasize about...

Some of YOU need to get a life and get off your high horse, like you are some master debunkers just waiting to say "told ya so" if these things don't come to pass in the next few months... Personally I think the last post was just so he could say "told ya so" when the events do come to pass. Maybe then all you arrogant grandmaster conspiracy experts will taste some foot. If the last post is true then I guess the test really shows how stubborn you can be.


There are several more more or less like this. And yet, the skeptics were right, no question. The hoaxer confessed. There are lots of open questions in ufology. This isn't one of them.

For myself, I don't want to be a skeptic , but I keep getting forced into the skeptical corner whereupon I get treated as per the above. Time after time someone decides to 'fool the community' and launches one of these stories. If people did not regularly do this, I think you would find a lot of skeptics willing to accept stories at face value before doubting them. Alas, we have this hoax climate to deal with. It's too bad.

There are plenty of things that would convince me, not that I expect it to happen. There's an open field across the street. Come on down. Land. Get out of the ship. Let me take pictures. Let my neighbors take pictures, all from different perspectives. Leave some 'presents' of exotic materials. When the cops show up, take off and do your interdimesional escape routine. that's okay. I don't blame you. I know, I know, I know. They don't want to act like that and I shouldn't expect them to and I'm being antropomorphic and ethnocentric if I expect that yadda yadda. Okay. They apparently don't give a rat's patootie about proving their own existence and may be intentionally avoiding it. That's a problem. It surely is. Nevertheless, that kind of proof would have me right there.

Unfortunately these hoaxes divert us from the real deal. We have lots of GOOD cases that have not been sufficiently studied: Cash/Landrum is one of my favorites. JAL 747, etc. But instead we have to deal with Billy Meier, Mothra, and our new friend, GhostRaven.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Thanks for the feedback, Lexion. To clarify, when I was referring to "both sides" I was talking about believers and non-believers. So if I'm understanding you correctly, your saying debate is good, but take these matters with a grain of salt.(until we can see for ourselves) I couldn't agree more.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Unfortunately these hoaxes divert us from the real deal. We have lots of GOOD cases that have not been sufficiently studied: Cash/Landrum is one of my favorites. JAL 747, etc. But instead we have to deal with Billy Meier, Mothra, and our new friend, GhostRaven.


Very true
It always seems to be that the wacky stories grab more attention than the seemingly credible ones. I guess more people are looking for entertainment than truth



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
In my opinion, the only reason there are skeptics out here is due to the annoying *yet helpful* Program solely named Adobe Photoshop, one of the most annoying thing to deal with when faced with anything extraterrestrial. That and there are people who go out of their way to make fake documents... There is so much information out there that get's debunked that it gives the appearance that your crazy if you believe in aliens. Which in my opinion, is what the government wanted from the get go... Anyways I do believe in E.T.'s if I ever do get to meet one or just see one i'll be the happiest man on earth, until then, I'll just keep waiting... We can't be the only ones in the universe, there are hundreds of thousands of other galaxies with millions upon millions of planets that could support life like our planet does... I just keep hope that some day an image or video will come out that isn't photoshopped or tampered with, or just a plain hoax, but until then, i'm going to keep debunking.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
schuyler makes some valid points there. I too am open minded and have an active interest in all esoteric and offbeat subjects including ufology. I've attended meetings, conferences and all sorts on many subjects but ufology definitely has a significantly higher proportion of folk ummm how to put this... that I am not comfortable around. Hoaxers yes, but also out and out believe anything types. This makes it even harder for the open minded, curious minded to find out facts from fiction. And yes quite often turns them unwillingly and unwittingly into skeptics. As a truth seeker hoaxers and such get right up my umm... nose because they obfuscate and waste time and so u have to take them on as part of the sifting for truth.

Evidence can be presented even testimony that holds up under peer scrutiny and sometimes it does. Plus a greater proportion of those coming forward are likely to be less than kosher as there's probably a great many who have seen or experienced things that don't come forward at all for a great many reasons.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaxPineapple
...There is so much information out there that get's debunked that it gives the appearance that your crazy if you believe in aliens. Which in my opinion, is what the government wanted from the get go...


This actually brings up an interesting point. I often wonder why UFO's, JFK, 9/11, etc. are commonly lumped together as "conspiracy theories" It is promoted as such on TV and in the media. Therefore, if anyone is found to be questioning any of these things, it would be easier for the common person to label them as a "nut" or a "crazy."



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   
It does seem to be a little like a populariy contest to some...

If I can present anything first that might cast a shadow of a doubt, i win!
I am the great debunker, and people here strive for that. And their should be debunkers/skeptics, but look at this whole drone thing now!!

Everyone was screaming cgi/fake, but now someone has come out with blueprint and damn near a novel with explanations!

I'm not saying its real, but that was alot of *snip* for someone to just come up with.

But yet the chase for "homecoming king/queen" continues!

If I had a picture of an alien eating my wifes cat, someone could "debunk it"

It will never change, just go and try to fight your position on abortion!!

Same *snip* different title!!



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
It's not just that but rather like certain kinds of Evangelist who have an absence of faith but not of zeal there is money to be made and people concoct their magic potions to sell.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I would either have to meet an alien, or actually see one at close range.

The dozens upon dozens of blurry pictures, flying lights and such just doesn't do it. If ET's are visiting us based on the current amount of evidence, then Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster are real too.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
"There Is No Proof Good Enough"

Speaking only for myself, proof good enough, irrefutable proof, would have to be hands on or eyes on for a period of time long enough for me to be able to ascertain that the observation/experience I am having could be undeniably, unarguably real and not be explained as something terrestrial. No glances, or "out of the corner of my eye" kind of observations. Something I could either touch or observe for tens of minutes, long enough to give my mind time to wash out all of the feeble attempts to explain it away as something mundane, to come to a fantastic conclusion. Personal observation would go a long way to giving a truckload of credence to many other peoples experiences as more than likely true and real, but not necessarily all of them.

An experience like that would be a revelation for me and not something I would necessarily share with others considering the difficulty I have seen in offering up an experience like that and expecting others to understand or believe it. Others believing in my personal experiences is not needed to validate an experience as real in my mind. If someone is willing to believe my experience as I relate it to them, then fine. If not, thats fine as well.

Photos and videos will not cut it for me, even if I took them, period. Granted some are better than others and may persuade me to linger on them but in the end it is a media that can be horribly manipulated and is as a result very unreliable. I tend to use much older photos as possible evidence of something unusual happening in our skies but even they are not proof perfect. Image capture is an inexact manmade science and that leaves doubt in my mind as to the validity of using it as proof of anything. Even my own observations are not trustworthy unless I have had enough time to rationalize and determine what I have seen.

Out side of my own observations, I tend to lean towards accepting as possible proof eyewitness testimony from generally accepted credible sources (pilots, cops, military, etc.).

As cynical as my stance may appear I am very openminded about this subject but not so openminded that I compromise my objectivity. I do not carry my brain around in my hand.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by Lost_Mind]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
First let's clarify terms. Proof is a mathematical and logical concept. A proposition may be easy or difficult to prove, but everything is either proven true or it isn't. There are intriguing theorems that SEEM to be true, but haven't been proven for all possible cases.

Evidence is a different animal. Evidence comes in shades of grey. Evidence is only evidence with respect to some theory or hypothesis. Evidence for or against a hypothesis can be weak, strong, compelling, or non-existent. The quality of evidence varies widely. Evidence based upon what people remember about something is - for good reason - not considered to be very high quality evidence for scientific purposes, although it has sent plenty of men to the gallows.

In the case of UFOs, what is/are the hypothesis(es)? This is the question I keep coming back to, and the only one I can come close to formulating meaningfully is that there are anomalous aerial phenomena for which there is no known natural explanation. In my view, there is a lot of weak evidence for this, a small amount of strong evidence. and very small or nonexistent compelling evidence. Until we can really test this hypothesis and gather real ldata, there is no hope to formulate an ET hypothesis.

If we could transplant the study of the phenomena from the poisoned soil of ufology to the rich and flourishing garden of science, there might be some hope that we could learn a great deal more. I speculate that what we would learn would likely clash loudly with the prevailing mythology.

Ufology has been committing slow suicide for more than 50 years. The hoaxes, the cargo cult pseudoscience, the childish bickering and sniping, the personality cults, and the great stinking pile of red herrings make it an impossible culture for good scientists to work in.



[edit on 27-6-2007 by disownedsky]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
The problem with using terms like "evidence' and "proof" in this field of study/interest is that these are typically terms of law and the courts. They are almost never used correctly in discussing this subject. No more so than the term "UFO" is used correctly.

The only court these terms are used in this field of interest is in the court of public opinion and no one in that court will ever come to any agreement as to what constitutes evidence or proof of anything in the UFO arena, ever.

Until there is a globally agreed upon court of law or scientific consensus as to what is and isnt evidence or proof in this field, something that a majority of persons observing or experiencing these events can agree upon (which I cant see happening), neither really mean anything. At this point in time they are merely buzzwords being tossed around without thought or meaning for the most part. That is why I keep my "evidence" and "proof" very close to the vest and very personal.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I use the word evidence in the scientific sense, not the legal sense. They are quite different.

For example, the testimony of an eyewitness can carry some weight in the courtroom, but makes little impression on scientists.

The problems with the scientific study of UFOs go beyond the giggle factor:


  1. The very high noise level
  2. The sophisticated noise
  3. the fact that we don't know what class of phenomenon it is.
  4. The complete lack of repeatability.
  5. When we do have evidence, it is often so badly handled that its scientific value is lost.
  6. we don't know what hypothesis makes sense
  7. and so on



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join