There's PROOF that Extra-Terrestrial and Extra-Dimensional beings exist

This thread is almost the same as one with "Flat earth theory" ... claiming the thinf without any evidence .... and if you're so sure that the government or something hiding those aircrafts ... how is that taht you know it ? ...it's just speculations .... like a witch hunt ... claiming the thing without any evidence based on speculations

I actually do believe that there're ET's but there's no any physical (known) evidence of it ... and you can just speculate the thing as you think it would be ... every theory needs an evidence and explorations to prove the theory ...... till now you didn't post single one ....

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by polomontana

 

UFOs do not mean ETs. It simply refers to an object the common man cannot identify. Do you have any proof to refute Jung's claim that they are archetypes? Where's your proof that craft in the video posted is piloted by an ET? I didn't see it land and a being walk out and tell us where he's from. A variety of other theories have just as much evidence backing them as the ET theory, so there is no way to claim without a shadows of a doubt that these crafts are piloted by ETs.

Xcalibur,

U.F.O.'s do mean extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings.

When a skeptic tries to seperate the two, that's just a red herring.

Take this CNN poll taking in 1997.

While nearly three-quarters of the 1,024 adults questioned for the poll said they had never seen or known anyone who saw a UFO, 54 percent believe intelligent life exists outside Earth.

Sixty-four percent of the respondents said that aliens have contacted humans, half said they've abducted humans, and 37 percent said they have contacted the U.S. government. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Poll question

Have you or anyone you know ever seen a UFO?

They were not talking about flares and comets.

When you say UFO, extra-terrestrials are implied.

A skeptic will use this in a debate to try and split hairs.

When a skeptic says a UFO is fake, fake opposed to what?

What's the difference between a fake and real UFO? How can a skeptic tell the difference?

This is how you know that most skeptics are not seeking the truth.

How can you call something fake, when you don't know what a real one looks like?

Just go through this board and see how quickly you hear the word fake when it comes to UFO videos, pics or sightings.

This is freethinking?

www.cnn.com...

reply to post by polomontana


UFO will never mean ET ... if it will it won't be an UFO anymore but IFO (identified) ...

reply to post by polomontana


Last time I checked UFO stood for Unexplained Flying Object, not Extraterrestrial. As I said in my last post the ET theory is just one theory amongst many that have evidence backing it. There is no absolute proof that UFOs are linked to ETs, there are simply theories based off of existing evidence. The reason the ET theory is so popular is because Ufology grew up in a period where science fiction stories involving races from other planets were popular and so the two became linked. Even Jacques Vallée, the man often regarded as the greatest ufologist to live, has disregarded the ET theory in favor for one he feels fits the facts better. It's sad really. Advocates of ufology often claim to be open minded and yet time and again they dismiss cases that don't fit in with their accepted belief that all UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by polomontana

 

Last time I checked UFO stood for Unexplained Flying Object, not Extraterrestrial. As I said in my last post the ET theory is just one theory amongst many that have evidence backing it. There is no absolute proof that UFOs are linked to ETs, there are simply theories based off of existing evidence. The reason the ET theory is so popular is because Ufology grew up in a period where science fiction stories involving races from other planets were popular and so the two became linked. Even Jacques Vallée, the man often regarded as the greatest ufologist to live, has disregarded the ET theory in favor for one he feels fits the facts better. It's sad really. Advocates of ufology often claim to be open minded and yet time and again they dismiss cases that don't fit in with their accepted belief that all UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin.

Of course U.F.O.'s can be flares, balloons or a hoax.

Most people who follow ufology accepts this.

The skeptic does not accept that some of these U.F.O.'s can be of extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional origin.

That's because they start with a pre-existing belief that these things can't or don't exist.

With ufology, they want absolute proof before they can come to a reasoned conclusion.

That's why these things have to remain "open."

You don't have absolute proof that you have an objective existence because you or those in science don't know the origin of life. You can come to a reasoned conclusion because your typing on your computer but you don't have absolute proof. You could be a hologram of a higher dimensional reality reflecting into our 3 dimensional universe.

People don't have absolute proof about the big bang, evolution or black holes. Yet they can reach a reasonable conclusion about these things based on the evidence.

This happens in every field of study accept in areas like ufology and the paranormal.

People want ABSOLUTE proof before they can make a reasoned conclusion.

This is because of belief. Black holes and the big bang don't challenge a person's belief system like ufology and the paranormal.

Originally posted by polomontana

U.F.O.'s do mean extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings.

Originally posted by polomontana


Of course U.F.O.'s can be flares, balloons or a hoax.
...snip

ok.. im going to ignore this thread after these 2 statements...
and the guy is giving us CNN links to "poll" ....
get real.

true, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
however, you have to be equiped with a bit more than some random c-bloody-nn polls...

do your homework before trying to establish the next "T.O.E." on ETs

and no, a "UFO" is simply an object -yet- idientifyable by the naked, or digital eye. savvy?

The two things that get me the most upset about the original poster and his subsequent posts are as follows:

He seems well versed in the taxonomy of logical fallacies (his usage of red herring comes to mind), yet he commits two big ones himself:

The appeal to the majority: (i.e. something that is said by a lot of people must be true) when it comes to correlating UFO's with ETs. Because a lot of people connect the two does not make them the same. A lot of people don't know Band-Aid is a trademark and yet they connect the small store brands with the term Band-Aid. This does NOT make it so.

The appeal to authority: (i.e. several government HIGH RANKING officials say it's true, therefore it's true) when used to argue his case. Politicians and astronauts can (and do, quite impressively at times) lie, be mistaken, or intend to deceive. The fact that someone famous has proclaimed it so does not make it that much more sincere.

Thank you for your time.

and everything you say is not true either so whats your point? your a liar too and?

Theres no proof in the lack of evidence. By that logic Santa is real.

First to say, it is a good analogy with the non-existant evidence of evolution, and if there's some evidence of it, it is only indirect. But the evolution is nowadays widely accepted as true. But a similar problem (either we are alone in the universe or not) has also much evidence that we are not, but this evidence is, just as for evolution, indirect. But people still think we are alone in the universe.
Now if we can come to some serious conclusion on one problem without absolute proof and only indirect evidence, why isn't indirect evidence (without absolute proof) satisfactory when discussing another problem?

There is a huge amount of U.F.O. evidence out there. And when I say U.F.O, i mean Unexplained Flying Object.
Look at projectprove.com . You will find out that on EVERY SINGLE NASA mission there are objects videotaped which can not be explained as anything we know. But guys who run that site are quite correct, when they say that these objects remain unexplained because there is no natural way we know about to explain them.
But the facts about many of these videos are that those UFOs behave in a ways that no known man-built craft can (e.g. 90° immediate turns), objects appearing out of nowhere, making bends, changing speed and so on. Then there are videos out there like a STS-80 "Formation over Africa" video that shows several UFOs forming a circle-like arrangement. There is no way anyone can explain that with ice-particles, debris and so on, and some sciencists concluded, based on the video itself, that the circular formation of object is a proof of some intelligent control of those objects. I agree with that - it is a simple conclusion based on an obvious evidence.
It is an obvious fact that these objects arrange in a circular way.
It is a known fact that there were no other man-made objects that could explain the videotaped objects.
Now, I think it is obvious, but some skeptics (debunkers) might say it isn't, but if we assume that it is not terrestrial (man-made) and it performs in a way no known natural object in a space can, we must mark it as non-terrestrial. That is my opinion based on simple thinking - if it can be terrestrial or extra-terrestrial, and it proved itself to not be terrestrial, it must be most likely extra-terrestrial.
Now here comes a debunker to tell me what's wrong with my thinking, right?

reply to post by Disney


That's the post i was waiting for .... i was mad because the original author of this thread was just telling us something without any evidence and told that there're ton's of evidence. Then he posted video as "solid proof" which could be true but you can see it's been edited ..... he made this thread based on his opinion and not on evidence ... so wow ... there're sceptics? yes they will always be there if you try to explain something exicst and won't show any evidence but just say what you mean

[edit on 1-6-2008 by baburak]

reply to post by mr. wildflowers


well.. then.. here's something to chew on .. UFO over O'Hare

U.F.O.'s do mean extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional beings.

Lets say someone sees ball lightning for the very first time but doesnt know what it is. They tell you they saw a UFO , does that mean they saw an alien spaceship?

your statement is the main reason i prefer the term UAP- unidentified aerial phenomenon. The ufo subculture has hijacked the meaning of UFO to instantly mean "flying saucer".

[edit on 1-6-2008 by yeti101]

I'm agnostic about Aliens and ET's just as i am on religion...i want to believe... but I still quesiton it...

Nice post polomontana!

Now watch how I magically use your post and change it in a way that it adresses all the people who believe aliens are real :


This is silly because theirs no way of knowing if a pic or video of a visitor or ship is REAL until they have been investigated.

People yell IT'S REAL, without any investigation.

How do they know how a real extra terrestrial or their spacecraft will look?
Exactly, and neither do you I guess!

What are people basing their judgement on? They have no idea how a real one will look, so yelling IT'S REAL on every video or picture makes no sense.

You have to wait until the video, pic or eyewitness account is investigated.



Every pic and video of an ET has not been debunked in any way, shape or form.
True, not all have been debunked. Yet I've never seen just ONE single picture or video that displays serious evidence of it authenticity.

Yet all you see is people yelling IT'S REAL without any proof

How would you know a REAL ET from a FAKE ET?


I don't think they are seeking the truth. There's NO of evidence that supports ufology.


People yell IT'S REAL on these things but they have NO IDEA how the real thing will look, so there's no basis for them yelling IT'S REAL without any investigation.

Again, how can you call something REAL when you don't know how a real one will look?

Hope you read the entire thing. You cannot know 100% if these crafts,aliens etc. are real untill you've actually had a barbecue with them or atleast have made contact and have PROOF of this (I'm not talking about some hazy photograph or some distored video) I mean real evidence that you and I can touch.

80% Of all UFO videos and photographs have been debunked so far and more and more are beeing debunked very single day.

So you better get used to it. If the ETs are out there, they'll probably stay out there and won't come to visit us .

redshirt0202

i think we get it by now, either your a believer or you just dont understand

[edit on 1-6-2008 by trewth]

Click here for more information.

I do find something the original poster said very interesting. That if a skeptic can't debunk a UFO picture or UFO footage, the case remains open. It is therefore impossible to qualify anything as real UFO evidence. A case can never be closed until it's debunked. I find that interesting and true.

Also, the skeptics on this board (and you guys know it's true) could debunk the world's first irrefutable evidence of aliens. You could find a way to "prove" a real alien or real UFO was not real. That makes me skeptical of a lot of skeptics. They seem to be in it more for the sport than the actual interest of finding UFOs.

Oh, and if you want some big time evidence, start here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've found a half dozen cases in there that convinced me, 99%, in aliens (I believe it's impossible to be 100% sure unless you're there yourself).

So have at it.

reply to post by Truther


WTF? why are you attacking me? ... and believe me .. i'm not american ... And i would like to ask mod's to remove or modify his comment cause it was very offensive and offtopic ... hahahaha

[edit on 3-6-2008 by baburak]