It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

As I have not yet researched this case in it's entirety, I'll direct you to someone who has. Palasheea is her ATS username. She is the one who reported that incident in the thread I recommended. I would U2U her, she has all of the relevent data on the Dorothy Izatt photos.

Hope this helps, Palasheea is really great and I'm sure she'll be able to steer you in the right direction!


posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 03:16 PM
reply to post by Wasco

Yea those dare I say "freaks"at the ufo conventions give us all a bad name,they seriously have watched to much star trek or have some mental issues.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by Jezus

For credible evidence.................

The Rendlesham Forest Incident IMO shows that
A) Unknown technically advanced craft from an unknown country were spying on U.S/British weapons facilty; or
B) The craft in the forest observed/analised for a brief period were from another world.

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 08:52 PM

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

Originally posted by rocksarerocks
Congratulations, we are alone.

Congratulations yourself! It seems you've debunked the Battle of Los Angeles! Mind explaining to me exactly what makes you think we don't have any solid evidence in that case?

I look forward to reading your 7 page reply, outlining each piece of evidence and including the math and physics behind your arguments.

Here's the thread, see you there


yo witness. i think the battle of LA is the reason why we dont have that many sightings anymore. they come here, we blow them away!
on a serious note, the battle of LA is what keeps me in too. but i saw some article way back (can't find it anymore, but will try), that the LA incident was preceded by a jap-submarine sighting 3 days before at long beach. thats 1 coincidence that we should follow-up more.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by beastamerica]

[edit on 31-3-2008 by beastamerica]

[edit on 31-3-2008 by beastamerica]

[edit on 31-3-2008 by beastamerica]

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:09 PM
reply to post by beastamerica

You are absolutely right beastamerica, and nice to see you again!

There was an incident just before where a Japanese Submarine emerged off the coast and fired unchallenged on an oil-refinery. This was the beginning of World War 2, and one of the major reasons we fired on this object was because the Southern California Coast was ready for war. Anti-Aircraft Batteries lined the coast.

If I were an Alien species, assuming for a moment that's what it was, even though my craft had proved impervious to assault, I would steer clear from entering the atmosphere of that world again

On a side note, nice to see your compilation thread on old UFO photos back up on the main page. Good on you for keeping that project going!
I'm off to find an old pic for you online, I'm inspired. Surely there must be more out there than what we've found so far.


posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:10 PM
For me its Sgt. Jim Penniston's account of his experience in Rendalsham forest when he states he actually touched a UFO.

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 06:42 AM

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
[This was the beginning of World War 2


As for the battle of LA, certainly it remains unsolved (mainly because there was very little interest or follow up on it at the time, results could have gone either way) but to jump straight to it being evidence of aliens it quite the jump indeed!

I remember on the original thread for the LA case that there were quite a few theories both for and against alien involvement. It's been a long time since I went to that thread but I remember it hitting a brick wall (for myself anyway) when the name of the photographer could not be found, nor could the paper itself provide such information. Without the original negatives or the photographer being able to explain the circumstances behind the picture it's absolutely worthless to me, it could be a matte painting for all anyone knows. Although there's lots of recollections around the story of what went down it all mainly hinges on that picture, of which no background information on it whatsoever exists.

(If this has changed then I might need to revisit that thread.)

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Badge01

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.

Sorry I should have layed out my post differently and added another dash to the sentence after

-The Drake equation.

Since that was a single reason and thought.

The following sentences were a different thought. I wasn't trying to explain the Drake equation, just basically expand on it, with my own personal views on the entire universe, if you were to take the D.E. to the highest level, it's guaranteed there are infinite civilizations in the universe, not just the 10,000 I believe is the average of all the best guesses made by scientists when trying to solve the Drake Equation. At least I believe that's what they've settled on last i heard, I'm not an expert on it. however, I'm well aware the Drake equation refers to our immediate galaxy, and not the entire universe. Sorry for the confusion.

Anyway I'm dissapointed that the majority of the replies haven't even addressed the OP's question. As such, this thread has turn into your bi-weekly thread of,whats the best proof earth has been visited? -thread.

Instead I believe the Original Poster originally asked what we thought was the best proof of just the existence of ET's/aliens (which imo can make for a more interesting discussion but, oh qwell, it'd be the OP's job to clear that up, and apparently they don't want to?).

So what could have been a little twist on an old and boring topic, has turned into another whats the best evidence aliens have visited earth, *yawn*.

Cause I'd love to hear if other people share the same thoughts as me, or better yet, can prove my thoughts wrongs, because it is something that has bthered me for a long time (the idea of infinity):

But pertaining to the presumed "infinite" universe, containing "infinite amounts of life, and worlds, so many that there is possibly another earth out there, everything exactly the same, only your parents chose to give you a different name (or some very slightly minute difference, afterall there are infinite amounts of these worlds). I'm not even talking parrellel universes, either.

Because as I said, when dealing with infinity, it seems to me, anything that could ever happen has already happened. (or will happen?).

Ah well that's enough of a rant from me.

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 09:50 AM
reply to post by Nola213

I follow, but you still can not generalize the Drake equation or any other estimation of sentient life in the Universe and get a meaningful number.


Consider. If there are a billion billion to a billion trillion stars (10e18-10e21), and there is sentient life at the level of a Type I civilization on planets within only 1 in a billion star systems, then that's very sparse. Yet it's still a vast number.

So it has little meaning in answering the question of 'is there (significant) sentient life out there?

By that reckoning, it's very, very scarce, but the enormous numbers make the actual count very high.

IOW, you could diligently do a random search for millions and millions of years, more-or-less systematically visiting every star and still not find one.

In addition, it doesn't matter, since the civilizations are just Type I, and thus basically planet bound. Even Type II would have such trouble travelling outside their solar system, spending much of their time establishing a multi-planet empire (to forestall extinction events, including GRBs).

That's why it's important to keep the estimations and the DE focussed on our own Galaxy.

Make sense?

In another thread I postulate that the absence of an alien colony on the prime real estate of Mars makes the likelihood of a space faring senient alien race virtually nil. (We all know what happens on Earth when prime real estate is found, such as a great island get-away - in a few years it's a tourist trap.)

So the best proof notwithstanding, I'd guess that there's a prosaic explanation for all of them.

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:00 AM
The battle of Los Angeles is absolute proof of nothing. If you ask the normal everyday person, they have never heard of it. I did it myself to 2 or 3 people the other day and they looked at me like I was an idiot.

Don't you think if that was proof everyone would know about it?

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:03 AM
reply to post by John Nada

Hi John. I'd agree that the lack of info on the Photo is a problem. I'm currently attempting to find out some of that missing info, and I'm pretty close (I think) to finding the location where it was taken, from clues in the newspapers. I'd appreciate very much any help you or anyone else might be able to provide. I'm on the scene here in LA, doing field work, taking pictures, visiting sites in person.

The reason I make the 'jump' (and I totally understand how it may seem like a large jump) to thinking this was an alien spaceship, is that after examining all of the data in the case (there is MUCH, and I've already found many more resources) I believe it's the most rational explanation.

If the craft that was caught in those searchlights, and took all of that flak fire, was from Earth, whatever nation designed it would have used it to win WW2. We didn't see that happen. Anyway, I'm always open to hearing the arguments of others! The new thread is linked in my signature, and if you'd like to take a look, I'd love to hear your thoughts!


posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 10:11 AM
reply to post by rocksarerocks

Actually, in 1942 everyone in the world knew about it. From Los Angeles to Scotland. It was on the front page of over 40 newspapers.

I would agree that many people are unaware of history, but that doesn't necessarily negate that history from being true. Ask those same people if they know the story of Nikola Tesla? Perhaps ask them if they know what tools were used to dig the Panama Canal?

Nobody knows everything, especially about events that happened before most of us were born. I'd please ask anyone seeking to debunk the Battle of LA to do it in that thread, as many posters have mentioned this thread is about the OP's question. I merely stated the Battle of LA as my response to this question. It's okay to not agree, but lets do it in the Battle of LA thread, where all of the evidence is.

Much Love!


posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:29 AM
i agree with WFA. look into his sig for his Battle of LA thread and i think it's one of the most smartly discussed topics here. with lots of picture, article and link analysis.
i'm not a 100% believer but the battle of LA is one of the reason that makes me stick to this website everyday!

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:26 PM

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

We have no proof, not scientific proof anyway. We would require a physical piece of the craft or entities contained within it.

If you consider personal experiences as proof to oneself, then I would say that my own experiences are what I call proof to myself alone. To try and convince others using only anecdotal is naive, arrogant and possibly ignorant towards others who respect science.

Therefore anecdotal is only useful to those who have witnessed the possible UFO or alien entity etc. And since we only have an abundance of anecdotal evidence we cannot accept the existence of any such proof of an alien encounter, not in a scientific sense anyway.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by john124]

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:41 PM

Originally posted by john124
We have no proof, not scientific proof anyway. We would require a physical piece of the craft or entities contained within it.

Why yes, that would be direct evidence, however there are other forms of direct evidence that do very well exist.

For example (once again I cite the BOLA Case, linked in my sig) Radar Returns are valid scientific evidence. What they signify is simply that a scientific instrument was used to bounce a radio wave (RADAR means Radio Detection and Ranging) off of a solid object, and that scientific instrument then recorded and analyzed the time it took for the radio wave to return to the source. This process determines location, and with multiple returns, one can easily calculate airspeed. The Air Force and Navy do this on the daily...

Another example of scientific evidence would be (in the same event, BOLA) when the Army fired over 1400 Incindiary Shells at the craft, to no effect.

That specifically serves as a documented experiment, wherein a known quantity of ammunition (enough to take down anything human-made) failed to damage the craft. Yes, war can also be science, depending upon the perspective of the observer.

Further, there are methods of prediction used in Science all the time, some of these methods are 'A Priori Predictions', and 'Hypothesis', further on this point, Occam's Razor is an acceptable scientific tool for Hypothesis formation, and is used widely in fields of Science presently, across the globe.

I'm not familiar with the term 'Scientific Proof', I think you may be confusing two separate terms here: "Scientific Evidence" and "Mathematical Proof".

In short, a Mathematical proof is essentially a prediction extrapolated from the equations supporting the physics of reality. These 'proofs' are only 'proven' so long as the supporting math doesn't contradict the prediction.

For example, Traveling back in time has been 'proven' mathematically as possible, therefore predictions can be made that one day Humans might be able to achieve that feat. However, no scientific evidence (that I'm aware of, please don't take offense if I'm simply unaware of real evidence) has arisen to support this Mathematical proof in the observable universe.

Scientific Evidence is simply evidence obtained using the Scientific Method, the VERY FIRST STAGE of which is to form a Hypothesis (or to make an educated guess).

'Proof' in Scientific terms, merely describes 'The Best Answer We Have', and that answer is constantly changing as new evidence is presented. Take for example the 'Canals' fiasco on Mars...

In 1877, Shiaparelli made direct telescopic observations of the surface of Mars, as seen from Earth. He described that he saw Canali (which was translated into English as Canals). This was scientific evidence, obtained using a scientific instrument, and it heavily influenced the era's hypothesis as to the features upon Mars' surface.

Percival Lowell (hearing of the discovery) then built the Lowell Observatory (a better scientific instrument) and performed more exact science, updating the current evidence, and therefore updating the leading Hypothesis amongst Scientists studying the phenomenon.

I hope these examples helped to clarify the distinct differences between what 'proof' means in Math and what 'evidence' means in Science, and how Science views a hypothesis that fits the observable evidence as 'Correct, until proven otherwise'.

Understanding these things will surely assist you in realizing that the Hypothesis (in the BOLA case, and in many others) of Extra-Terrestrial Craft DOES often fit with the observable evidence of a case, and therefore in the view of Science, and of the true Skeptic, the Hypothesis can not and should not be discounted until/unless refuted by observable evidence to the contrary.


posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:56 PM

Convincing incidents will have: 1. Multiple witnesses; 2. Witnesses who are not necessarily UFO fans; 3. Visual sightings corroborated by radar traces; 4. Trace evidence; 5. Professional observers as witnesses (police, airline pilots, military personnel, etc.); 6. Direct memory recall (not hypnosis acquired memories); 7. Crash recovery; 8. Body recovery; 9. Autopsy results.

In my view the Roswell is the bench mark and most of the above fit


posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:04 PM
reply to post by Jezus

My 98% Pure Silicon grains
For me extraterrestial proof enough

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 02:16 AM
Definitely ET-Man's posts are proof that EBEs are here! Oh, and Dan Tanna's thread on the fishman. Who could deny that evidence?

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 05:29 AM
reply to post by Jezus

For me personally I was convinced because aliens visited me when I was a kid 3-4 years old. People on this forum either dont believe me or say that I have imagined it, but how could I when I did not know what aliens was until I was probably 10-12 years old and I have remembered it all my life.

Why I believe in UFOs

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Acharya]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in