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.

 

Best Proof

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Did anyone notice the OP is not asking about UFOs?

The best proof of the existence of UFOs is statistical evidence, and credible multiple witnesses. Both of which there are plenty. But UFOs are not proof of aliens.

I do believe UFOs are visiting the Earth, and most if not all of them are operated by aliens, BUT I have NO proof.

[edit on 2008-3-30 by nablator]




posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Recent advances in science and technology that are moving forward too fast for the natural evolution of such. The odds that in 100 years we would go from horses to space travel has to be a trillion to 1. IMHO



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I was going to say that seeing a UFO for yourself is pretty convincing, however that doesn't prove the existance of aliens, only UFO's which don't neccessarily have to be from another planet, just unidentified. I suppose for me, seeing would be believing, but due to the technology today that allows photoshopping to be done so easily, and graphics to be convincingly created with little effort, the evidence would have to be live for me to entirely believe that I am genuinely looking at an alien. However, I find it impossible to think that we are the only life in the universe, to simply deny that is a possiblity is total ignorance to me.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
If you ask me it's Lunar Lizardz Moon Research. It's up to the individual to convince themselves. NASA photos can be pretty convincing.

Lunar Lizardz



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Let's keep in mind the difference between evidence and proof. They're two different things. The former supports the latter, but does not necessarily constitute it on its own.

There is evidence in support of assertions of alien visitation (though many disagree with respect to how strong such evidence is,) yet there is no proof. Proof would only be constituted by irrefutable, unequivocal evidence observed by verifiable and unimpeachable witnesses in the total absence of any other explanations. Thus far there is evidence, but most of it is not irrefutable (at least potentially,) and that which is cannot verify with absolute certainty the exclusion of alternative explanations, however probable or improbable. Proof allows for absolute certainty, and nothing can provide that... so far.

That doesn't mean that alien visitation isn't happening. It most certainly doesn't mean that people aren't having experiences that are inexplicable, whether alien in nature or not. It just means that we can't yet prove any specific assertions with regard to the causes and natures of those experiences. As such we have three options:

1) Remain open minded and take the position of not knowing one way or another, and refraining from disallowing consideration of any potential explanation - however mundane or fantastical - until such time as proof becomes available. This is called (genuine) skepticism.
2) Adopt absolute belief without proof, choosing to assert that alien visitation is occurring based solely upon personal experience, choice, or evidence. This is called belief.
3) Adopt absolute disbelief without proof, choosing to assert that such phenomena are not occuring despite the lack of proof to support such an assertion. This is called pseudoskepticism.

I've chosen the first (genuine skepticism,) because I simply don't know what's going on one way or the other. I do believe that something is happening, however. My own experiences tell me that much. What it is isn't something anyone can prove yet, though, myself included.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


I can't tell if I agree with you or not on your 'types' of viewpoints.

I would class myself as a genuine skeptic but according to your list I'm not, because I will still take a viewpoint unless the jury is totally out on both sides.

Eg. I think that the LHC will be safe based on the evidence I have, although I do admit there is the chance something will go horribly wrong. I'm just as open to the possibility of both, but the evidence does allow me to make an educated guess on which way things will turn.

I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I'm just saying I'm having a hard time fitting myself in. Especially when you consider that almost nothing is set in stone! It's hard for me to ever say "this is now proven" without allowing for at least the tiniest possibility it will be disproved any time.

So yeah, I hope that made sense.


---------------------------------------------------------

I might as well make an on-topic post too. I think the best 'proof' I have of UFO's existing (that is, not neccessarily aliens) is simply that they've been proven to exist already. Haha...


Nobody seems to mention the aircraft that were once UFO's, but are now in common use by (predominantly) the US. And isn't that all the proof we need of UFO's? I mean UFO's as the name suggests not extra-terrestrial UFO's.

So yeah... The proof is that Unidentified Flying Objects are seen by people that can't identify them!
Then the government eventually admits that what was once a 'mysterious object' is now the UltraPlane9000.

That's all I can contribute!

[edit on 31/3/08 by Duality]

[edit on 31/3/08 by Duality]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01

Do you consider Mars to be a potentially habitable planet? Except for the addition of a little oxygen and maybe freeing some water, that is.

Do you know of any other planets or moons in our Solar System that would also make habitable planets?



habitable for who or what?

Mars would be an excellent choice for human settlement. It would require the least amount of terraforming, which I'm all in favour of.

Life in general though is a different matter. Once life has a foothold, its hard to extinguish. So where could life exist in our system? Using Earth as a basis, then the best candidates (in my opinion) would be Mars, Europa & Titan.
If you consider extremophiles, then anywhere that liquid can be found.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by realanswers
 


That cant be substanciated though,that is less circumstancial that the rosswell crash or dulce.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Duality
 


I think you are actually correct in calling yourself a genuine skeptic, then. I may have given the wrong impression in my post.

Saying something is probable (such as the collider being probably safe based on available evidence,) that something is "almost certainly" true/untrue, or saying, "if I had to guess, I would say _______," isn't the same thing as saying that something is definitely and without question true or false. What you’re saying – that it’s safe based on all available evidence and data, but that you accept the possibility, however seemingly improbable, that it is not - makes you a genuine skeptic in my mind. If, however, you were to say in unequivocal terms that it was absolutely safe and that no possibility existed whatsoever of it being unsafe, and further, if you were to then set about badgering or ridiculing those who remained open to alternative possibilities, then I would term you a pseudoskeptic.

Personally, I'm very much opposed to using labels and categorizing people to begin with though, to be perfectly honest. It's completely antithetical to my personal convictions and feelings. However I use terms such as skepticism and psuedoskepticism to distinguish between what I feel are open-minded approaches and closed-minded approaches. It isn't so much that I view one as better than another, but simply that I don't feel comfortable when people claim to be one while behaving like the other. A lot of people purport to be skeptics and then, in the name of so-called skepticism, attack others for their openness to possibilities which they themselves no longer consider, despite not having proof. You aren’t doing that. In fact, your statement that there always remains a tiny sliver of possibility in virtually any situation or scenario, is precisely the hallmark of what I would consider a genuine skeptic.

I hope that makes sense.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
IMO Roswell is the best circumstantial evidence(notice I say circumstantial for every thing related to aliens-cause thats all it is)but Roswell certainly meets all but one and maybe all of Badges criteria.

[edit on 3/31/2008 by jkrog08]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
"What do you think is the single most convincing incident, event, occurrence that proves the existence of aliens. "


-The Drake equation.

Basically the sheer size of the universe proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt , and pretty much guarantees there ARE other intelligent life forms out there.

To go a step further: If the universe is truely infinite, one could even go as far to say, anything that can ever happen has happened before somewhere in the Universe.



**Now, I know this doesn't pertain to your question (in it's current wording but I'll throw it out there anyway)- Have they (Aliens) visited, or contacted earth? Well thats is whole other ball of wax, but just in case you were looking for peoples thoughts on that as well, I'll throw this out there as my opinion on have we been visited...

For now I'd have to say evidence of that is VERY, VERY scarce. I guess I'll jump on the bandwagon and say that one day after Roswell when the U.S. declared they had captured an alien disc. But they did come up with a clever cover-story for that. Project Mogul ect.

But as far as earthly encounters, I'd say that announcement, even if retracted the next day, was the closest we came to finding out aliens had visited the earth.

Even that(Roswell) is a very slim chance that an alien craft actually did crash.

So even with Betty and Barny hill, the Pheonix Lights, Kecksburg, ect, ect, ect they are all pretty much in the eye of the beholder, and I see nothing conclusive in all the research I've done that aliens have visited the earth.

I believe they are out there somewhere, just not here .....yet.

I'd say most sightings and videos can be narrowed down to top secret military aircraft and/or natural phenomena, that people aren't familiar with.


[edit on 31-3-2008 by Nola213]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 

For me, I do not require any further proof, having seen 'alien' craft on numerous occasions, but on three occasions , my wife who is not particularly interested, was also a witness.
Together, we saw four of the little 'Lunar Spheres', a teardrop shaped craft, and an enormous 'Cigar Shaped' craft with three decks of windows lit up and a bluish cone of light trailing behind, on separate occasions.
As to World wide proof, I think that the White House 'visit' is pretty convincing as there were many witnesses too.
Regards,
Horsegiver.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
If a proof of alien existence would exist, then this matter would have been handled in the universities rather than here, and then ATS would have been a forum watsoever rather than the best conspiracy one in the world.
No, there's NO proof of an alien civilization visiting us, at least NOT known by us mere mortals.

BUT

We have clues, heavy ones, very important ones.
BUT we miss the smoking gun, WE MISS it, no matter what we believe or what we don't.
All we can do is to put EFFORTS in order to find out as much as we can, no matter how long it will take, no matter if many of us will be called crazy just because they're studying a matter rather than another one. In my opinion, is MUCH MORE crazy to believe blindly whatever CNN says, whatever the government says, whatever the "official sources" say.
The truth is in our own hands, it's a matter of time:
there's just a rule: never give up.


Anyway, i'll repost one of the most convincing cases: in my humble opinion, of course.
Flying Triangle, Belgium UFO wave



Petit-Rechain, april 1990



1) Object witnessed at Eupen, Wavre, Leige and Brussels
2) Reported in over 2,600 statements to police
3) Photographed by many people on both Video and Camera
4) Detected and Confirmed by radar stations on the ground
5) Detected, Confirmed and photographed on aircraft radar screens
6) Pursued for over an hour by two F-16s.


Glons radar confirmed the sighting of an unidentified object at an altitude of 3,000 meters. Semmerzake radar confirmed the Glons detection and passed its confirmation onto the Air Force. The radar scans were compared with the previous Eupen radar sightings (see Eupen Case) by Semmerzake and Glons and were found to be identical.
Several police patrols had witnessed the same phenomenon before. It was a massive triangular shape with the same lighting configuration as seen at Eupen four months earlier.




Colonel Wilfred De Brouwer, Chief of the operations section of the Air Force, said: "That because of the frequency or requests for radar confirmation at Glons and Semmerzake - and as a number of private visual observations had been confirmed by the police - it was decided that as these parameters had been met, a patrol of F-16 aircraft should be sent to intercept an unidentified object somewhere to the south of Brussels"

As a consequence, two F-16 aircraft of the Belgian Air Force - registration
numbers 349 and 350 = flown by a Captain and a Flight-Lieutenant, both highly qualified pilots, took off from Bevekom.
Within a few minutes - guided by the Glons radar - both pilots had detected a positive oval-shaped object on their on-board radar at a height of 3,000 meters, but in the darkness saw nothing. This oval configuration, however, caused the pilots some concern. It reacted in an intelligent and disturbing way when they attempted to 'lock-on' with their on-board radar.

Changing shape instantly, it assumed a distinct 'diamond image' on their radar screens and - increasing its speed to 1,000km/h - took immediate and violent evasive action.

This is what has been disclosed by the military




Photographs of the actual on-board radar of the F-16s recorded a descent of this object from 3,000m to 1,200 in 2 seconds, a descent rate of 1,800km/h. The same photographs show an unbelievable acceleration rate of 280km/h to 1,800km/h in a few seconds. According to Professor Leon Brening - a non-linear dynamic theorist at the Free University of Brussels - this would represent an acceleration of 46g and would be beyond the possibility of any human pilot to endure.
It was noted that in spite of these speeds and acceleration times there was a marked absence of any sonic boom. The movements of this object were described by the pilots and radar operators as 'wildly erratic and step-like', and a zigzag course was taken over the city of Brussels with the two F-16s in pursuit. Visual contact was not possible against the lighting of the city.
This same procedure was repeated several times, with this object - whenever an attempt at radar 'lock-on' was made - pursuing a violently erratic course at impossible speed and losing its pursuers.


Colonel De Brouwer added "Immediatley after the operation, the pilots said they had never seen anything like it. Certainly the flight pattern and echo on their screens was in no way that of a conventional aircraft"
The Belgian Minister of Defence in the Belgian parliament stated that "The
Government did not know what they were".



Acceleration data


Radar data


Colonel W. De Brouwer, Belgian Air Force, with the radar videos of one of the F-16s at the press conference of July 11th


Blow-up of the image on the bottom screen above.
The 990K is the speed of the object in knots.
990K = 1830 kilometers per hour = 1.5 Mach.


Clearly, some radical manuvers are occurring:

Speed changes of up to 410 knots in one second.
Heading changes of up to 70 degrees in one second.
Altitude changes of up to 3000 feet per second (1,777 knots) maintained for one second or less and typical ascent / descent rates of 1000 feet per second (592 knots).
That these manuvers are radical can be seen by comparing them to some
representative figures for commonly available fighter aircraft. For instance, the F-4 Phantom is known be able to turn at only 11.5 degrees per second, less than 1/6 as fast as the observed UFO profile.

The nature of these manuvers and their coincidence in time is also visible in this graph, which only shows the value of the changes:



Text file of the radar contacts of one of the F-16s
www.geocities.com...

Sources, more infos and references:

www.ufoevidence.org...
www.ufoevidence.org...
ufos.about.com...
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.geocities.com...
ufologie.net...
/ypsaz9

Original article related to the pics (recovered)
/2hrdam

Debunk this one ...


[edit on 31/3/2008 by internos]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
STS-48 is all the proof I need.








Peace,
~Jammer



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
The answer is that there is no proof, just like there's none about God. Just like that though the belief in aliens has become it's own religion, with "believers" and "non-believers".

Believers take bits and pieces of information and put it together to saying it's enough evidence of aliens, and that we must show faith and belief to fill in the holes.

Non-believers will not buy it until the proof is there, end of.

Ufology is it's own religion, and to be honest a lot of the time the believers come across just as crazy and scary as those fundamentalist Christians e.t.c.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by Badge01
 


We're also discussing this in another thread, so I'll submit:
Europa
Titan
Ganymede
Possibly Callisto

as potential places in our solar system to look for life.

-WFA


AHA!

Now explain why these spots of PRIME REAL ESTATE have not been occupied by more technologically sophisticated, sentient, space faring beings.

I mean, think about it. If planets and solar systems which inhabit the Goldilocks zones are not that common, then I'd think by now, they'd all have been snapped up by alien speculators.

What happens on Earth, when a cool Island get-away becomes common knowledge? Everyone rushes out there, making them Tourist Traps.

So one of my theories is that absence of an alien colony on Mars is a priori evidence that there are probably not any Type II or space faring civilizations in our Galaxy (at least existing in the same temporal zone, last million ears to present).

Of course, I think it's quite likely there are a lot of near-Type I civilizations out there in our Galaxy, equal to, or somewhat less than our own. They, like we, are stuck on planet or in LEO.

If they were here, Mars (and some of the other sites you mentioned) would be colonized already.

Creating a 'multi-world' system would be a primary goal and drive for a space faring civilization, since, until that was established they are vulnerable to planetary extinction by the usual suspects. (Meteors, comets, geologic catastrophe).

2 cents.







[edit on 31-3-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


I gave you a star for a well-produced post, but there's plenty of evidence that we have the technology to reproduce the Belgian sightings.

In fact, my theory is that many of these 'triangles' which over-fly populated areas all lighted up are not craft at all, but other craft making a holographic projection to gauge reactions and other psych ops. It's pretty clear that whoever is doing it -wants- to be seen.

Just a thought. (Good post)



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213
"What do you think is the single most convincing incident, event, occurrence that proves the existence of aliens. "


-The Drake equation.

Basically the sheer size of the universe proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt , and pretty much guarantees there ARE other intelligent life forms out there.

To go a step further: If the universe is truely infinite, one could even go as far to say, anything that can ever happen has happened before somewhere in the Universe.



THE DRAKE EQUATION is NOT based on the universe. It's only talking about our Milky Way galaxy.

I think it would benefit people who talk about it to actually read up on itl.

It only talks about the potential to communicate or to send signals out there that could be received.

Pet peeve. Heh.

Carry on.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01

AHA!

Now explain why these spots of PRIME REAL ESTATE have not been occupied by more technologically sophisticated, sentient, space faring beings.

I mean, think about it. If planets and solar systems which inhabit the Goldilocks zones are not that common, then I'd think by now, they'd all have been snapped up by alien speculators.

What happens on Earth, when a cool Island get-away becomes common knowledge? Everyone rushes out there, making them Tourist Traps.

So one of my theories is that absence of an alien colony on Mars is a priori evidence that there are probably not any Type II or space faring civilizations in our Galaxy (at least existing in the same temporal zone, last million ears to present).

Of course, I think it's quite likely there are a lot of near-Type I civilizations out there in our Galaxy, equal to, or somewhat less than our own. They, like we, are stuck on planet or in LEO.

If they were here, Mars (and some of the other sites you mentioned) would be colonized already.

Creating a 'multi-world' system would be a primary goal and drive for a space faring civilization, since, until that was established they are vulnerable to planetary extinction by the usual suspects. (Meteors, comets, geologic catastrophe).

2 cents.







[edit on 31-3-2008 by Badge01]


Amazingly, there are people on here who say they already have been colonized. There is also the idea that why go to one of those planets when you can just hang out with the locals on the blue/green rock

[edit on 31-3-2008 by Mark Roazhar]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


That's a really great point Badge01.
You are correct that your prediction is A Priori, and could well be describing reality.

I think that 2 alternate scenarios are possible, to explain this lack of apparent activity,

1) There may be a sort of 'non-interference law' in play, for Type II and higher civilizations that may have passed this way. We must remember that a Type II civilization would necessarily be way ahead of us in the game of colonizing space, and may well have established rules for the respect of native life when entering a new system.

2) A Type II Civilization (or higher) might be more interested in exploration than in conquest and/or 'land acquisition'. A civililzation of this scale would already have as much 'real estate' as they need in the form of Asteroids. Asteroids are small (compared to moons or planets) easy to re-design (compared to moons or planets) and perfectly suited for protecting an inhabitant from the inherent dangers of space. In my view, terraforming the inside of an Asteroid, that isn't limited by gravity in a system, and is free to be 'steered' for space travel, makes more logical sense than planting a permanent colony. There may well be outposts, but for a species to colonize an entire system light years from their home system just doesn't seem like a logical use of Energy. Not that I'm saying this IS such an outpost (the case is still out in my mind) but Iepatus (moon of Saturn) sure does look wierd!

I could well be wrong on both of these points, but I thought I'd throw them out there for you to think about. I agree that your theory and prediction are strong arguments.

-WFA



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join