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.

 

When does evidence become proof?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Evidence and proof are two very different things. Evidence is evidence, and proof is proof. No amount of evidence will ever constitute 'proof', especially when it's as weak and full of holes as most evidence for UFOs is.




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Evidence is evidence, and proof is proof.


Thanks for clearing that up.


Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
No amount of evidence will ever constitute 'proof'


This new learning amazes me! So what is proof if not the sum of the evidence? Oh yes, you said. Proof is proof.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Armour For Victor
I dont see why we should be debating the existance of extraterresterial life.
That should be a given. At least I would hope so.


That's why people race horses, I guess. There's always a different opinion. I think we pretty much all agree on the possibility of the existence of ET life, but there has yet to be one iota of evidence found to prove it. Absolutely none. As far as we know right now, we're the only game in town. We have no idea how a clump of chemicals falls together to create a conscious, living thing, and with gamma ray bursts methodically sterilizing large sections of the galaxy, ET life is looking less and less likely. We know we exist, so we know it's possible. But anybody else? Who knows?

Some people say that opinion is "arrogant," but it can just as easily be seen as "sad." Depending on what you think of humanity, and how you think it would deal with either cute little ET babies or predatory, acid-blooded carnivorous ET snakes.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


For the sake of the thread, I'd start at 11. However, I don't know why we continue to ask about belief, like it's a question of religion or intelligence. The "dragon" analogy is trying to beg the question anyway, when hundreds of thousands of "answers" exist, and have for at least 60 years. And if you check the reporting group CMS, for MUFON, they report 4-500 UFO sightings, landings and entities, every month around the world, most in the US. We have a preponderence of circumstantial evidence. When will we reach a 'critical mass' point when we will receive 'disclosure' in some physical way?

Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Canada, Argentina, Russia, Norway, have released 10's of thousands of Officially investigated reports from credible sources, of UFO's, encounter's from 1, to the 5th kind, in the last few years, and months. Yet, the US gov continues to hold out, as if we were the only arbiters of reality that mattered! I think we will soon be outnumbered, and will end up irrelevent in the "proof" category, if we don't stand up with the rest of the world.

I think some of these countries who have physical evidence, probably Russia, Argentina, and Great Britain, should display what they have, like we would expect with any important museum piece. Let these countries fight it out on a capitalist level, as to who has the best physical evidence, and how the public will pay to see it. Think of the money that could be raised. Think of a world-wide tour, "King Tut" style! Billions of dollars could be raised, as well as the consciousness of every one. The US could stand up, or go penniless, as we probably have the best and most evidence/artifacts, right here. The public, and financial pressure might be able to overwhelm the "# hoarders" in the government who think they have a real little secret. When we see it elsewhere in the news, all over the world, what will happen next?

Let's cut to the chase, stop hoping and believing in the dream of nothing. General Hillenkotter, in his famous '52 memo, declared the phenomenon 'real'. We have plenty of credible people, still alive, who will state the truth to Congress and the American people today. There is no fantasy anymore, so let's get to it! I want a sample of alien DNA to see how close we are to them, or the chimp's. What if that 5% that doesn't match the chimps, matches Uncle Big Eyes? Are we the result of a conspiracy in a test tube? There are bigger philosophical, evolutionary, and developmental questions to be asked than, "Are they real?". Hell, the UFO's are real enough. I've seen two. But how many humans fly the "earth models", and how many fly the "intergalactic" alien one's?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Evidence and proof are two very different things. Evidence is evidence, and proof is proof. No amount of evidence will ever constitute 'proof', especially when it's as weak and full of holes as most evidence for UFOs is.


And I wonder if you apply this ridiculously strict formula to everything you hear about, for which evidence is presented? If so, you would have 'proof' for almost nothing and consequently could accept or believe almost nothing that was reported to you, no matter what the source or subject matter.

Let's be honest. The bar is suddenly raised impossibly high when it comes to proving the existence of ET piloted craft. When it comes to UFO's, the 'goal-posts' are suddenly moved in order to rig the game (hey two sporting based phrases in a row LOL). It's inconsistent and illogical.

Why, it's almost like some people simply don't WANT to accept the existence of ET/UFO's, no matter how much of evidence is presented. LOL


[edit on 11-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MarrsAttax
 


Evidence is like cow manure...

You can build up a huge pile of it, but no matter how much you build up, it still won't turn into gold (proof).

The only thing you will achieve is to drive people away, since most don't like being associated with a big steaming pile of BS (at least those in their right minds).



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

 


Evidence is like cow manure...

You can build up a huge pile of it, but no matter how much you build up, it still won't turn into gold (proof).

The only thing you will achieve is to drive people away, since most don't like being associated with a big steaming pile of BS (at least those in their right minds).


Hmm. It does turn into proof in a courtroom. You could be executed on the basis of evidence which is deemed to constitute proof. It has worked for establishing evolution, which is taught as fact in our schools. And so on. Why the gross inconsistency when it comes to ET/UFO's?

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Let's be honest. The bar is suddenly raised impossibly high when it comes to proving the existence of ET piloted craft.



Not really.

If you want to prove to me that we are being visited by "ET piloted craft", then show me proof.

We can look at shaky footage of Venus, mylar balloons, etc all day, but it's not going to do anything to convince me that we are being visited by "ET piloted craft", and neither is anecdotal evidence. It's not the same as proof.

If something is as real as people keep saying it is, then there should be hard physical proof - but there is none. How could aliens be visiting us (since day 1 if you believe some people), living amongst us as people claim and there not be a single scrap of hard proof?

Nice try, but no cigar I'm afraid...



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Hmm. It does turn into proof in a courtroom. You could be executed on the basis of evidence which is deemed to constitute proof.



Two things:

1. Courtrooms generally deal with witnesses that observe events in terrestrial situations, and on the ground. These are things our brains/eyes are good at observing since they are familiar to us, and we rarely make mistakes. UFOs on the other hand are usually lights seen in the sky, and identifying them correctly and judging size/distance are notoriously difficult, and it's easy for even experienced observers to misinterpret the signals sent from eye to brain.

So they are two totally 'different kettles of fish' in that respect.

2. People have been wrongly put to death based on 'evidence' before.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Well, as the old saying goes, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Was it Carl Sagan who said that?)

That to me means that unfortunately, it will have to be #18 for most people. If the phenomena does exist, it is obviously kept secret by both sides for what could be a myriad of reasons. These reasons could be sinister, benign, or even both, depending on the party in question.

I think I read into the main point of this thread, though. Just because this phenomena sounds crazy, it does not mean that it is not happening.

I am a believer because I have been #18. I saw something in the sky two times in my life that I can't explain. I have seen other explainable phenomena;Satellites, shuttles,(including the horrific Challenger explosion.) airplanes, blimps, hot air balloons, etc.etc. Nothing can compare to what I saw on two occasions ten years apart in my life. All it takes is enough people to see something, and then a movement starts. It annoys me that people do not believe me when I tell them my story, I get weird looks like my sanity is being called into question. All I did was see something. I can only imagine trying to tell someone that I was abducted. It really comes down to faith for most people though, only those who have seen can rely on evidence. People are literally trained to be skeptical about new and strange sounding ideas that do not seem to be set in the confines of the strict, sociological order of the world right now. So we need great evidence, contact, to even prove or disprove that these craft, (if that is what they even are) are even extra-terrestrial in origin.

The only way to solve this problem is by solving the problem of secrecy at the governmental level, and we could see the obvious problems with that. It would not be in our best interests to have the government relaying classified intelligence of our weapons systems to foreign powers by way of a freedom of information act request. This leads to a problem. We (the rabble)know the technology exists, we simply do not know if it is ours.(Human)



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


The question is , would you know proof if you saw it ? I think the problem we all have , wether believer or skeptic , is that we are dealing with a subject that involves massive unknowns. For example, we dont know where UFO are supposed to come from, how many different sorts there are (because there isnt an official report into every sighting obv.) or any other particulars. All we know , is that every once in a while, someone sees something in the sky they cant explain, or decides that they are being probed on a nightly basis by the interstellar bum rustlers, or some such. Every now and again we get a photograph. Even more infrequently we get a photograph or video that is undoctored , and EVEN rarer, we cant explain something we see in the media "evidence" provided.
But I put it to you that the artefacts of alien culture may be in the simplest and basest of things. So normal to us , and so mundane that no one even thinks about it . If they have been here for millions of years then it might be that some of the vegetation on earth was originaly planted here by something else. Some think its the hand of God, and thats my personal opinion , but there again playing devils advocate, it would be pretty funny if all the evidence was hidden in the simple organic process of life on earth .



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Two things:

1. Courtrooms generally deal with witnesses that observe events in terrestrial situations, and on the ground. These are things our brains/eyes are good at observing since they are familiar to us, and we rarely make mistakes. UFOs on the other hand are usually lights seen in the sky, and identifying them correctly and judging size/distance are notoriously difficult, and it's easy for even experienced observers to misinterpret the signals sent from eye to brain.

So they are two totally 'different kettles of fish' in that respect.

2. People have been wrongly put to death based on 'evidence' before.


It is clear to me that you have yet to read the Battle of Los Angeles Thread. Please follow the link in my signature and do so. You're clearly uninformed on the type of evidence that exists in that case...

BUT before you do, please read this ENTIRE thread. Here, on page 1:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I laid out exactly how evidence constitutes proof according to the principles of the Scientific Method.

Frankly, how youfeel about it doesn't really much matter. You're arguments have already been defeated in this very thread before you attempted to present them.

And get this (it's the really fun part) I cited evidence to make my point.


-WFA

p.s. Malcram has also now illustrated this point for you in his own words several times. Ignoring facts don't make them go away...



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I don't think that evidence will ever be proof for some people, some people have to see it to beleive and even when they do see, they still have to find a different explantion for it i mean, these other people , could walk out of there space craft and look them dead in the eyes and they still wouldnt believe it they would think it was some kind of prank, me myself i believe alot of evidence is proof although ive never seen for myself because i live inthe backwoods of kentucky i do believe to much has occured for it not to be the truth, i dont think the whole ufo concept would have even been thought up if it werent true i mean even nasa has footage that should be about enough proof for anyone



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
The question is , would you know proof if you saw it ?


I agree, that is the question.

Also, is 'seeing' always believing? Even if you did *think* you saw something that constitutes proof, you can not say for sure that what you saw was really what was there, or even if there actually was some physical object there.



Originally posted by TrueBrit
But I put it to you that the artefacts of alien culture may be in the simplest and basest of things. So normal to us , and so mundane that no one even thinks about it .


Perhaps, but by that very definition, if something is normal/terrestrial, then it's not alien.



Originally posted by TrueBrit
If they have been here for millions of years then it might be that some of the vegetation on earth was originaly planted here by something else.


So where do you draw the line then?

Some people think that it's very possible that live here was "seeded", and came from another planet/elsewhere. So if that's true, by definition, none of us are indigenous here. We *are* all aliens.

If someone visits your home for a few days, they are guests/visitors, but if they move in, and make it their home too, are they still visitors (aliens)?



Originally posted by TrueBrit
it would be pretty funny if all the evidence was hidden in the simple organic process of life on earth .


It could very well be possible, but as said above, where does that get us... so we find out that we have been living along side "aliens" all this time, so what? We are just as likely to have got here in the same way our selves, and would be almost just as alien as those "aliens" living along side us.

One thing is for sure if this is indeed the case, then the "proof" certainly won't come from fuzzy youtube vids and anecdotal evidence.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
One thing is for sure if this is indeed the case, then the "proof" certainly won't come from fuzzy youtube vids and anecdotal evidence.


Please do try to pay attention.

I just presented for you a case with overwhelming evidence.

Did you even click the link to see the documentation from over 40 Nationally Syndicated Newspapers? The actual photo (analyzed extensively) from the Los Angeles Times? The multiple radar returns confirming the object's speed higher than Human-made craft (in 1942) could possibly travel? The fact that over 1400 12 inch shells did zero damage? The people who's homes and vehicles were damaged (and photos of the damage printed in the newspapers) by the falling shrapnel? The list goes on and on and on and on...

But I'm guessing you didn't click on the link, and that it's just more comfortable for you to refuse to examine actual evidence.

Okay, fair enough, keep on believing that fuzzy youtube videos are the best proof around.

There are many of us who know better, and many more who actually will follow the link and peruse the real solid evidence for themselves.

-WFA



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


I'm sorry, I stopped reading when I got to this part:


I Absolutely Can offer you proof in the form of a Hypothesis


Keep polishing that BS. You just might get it to shine like gold with a little more elbow grease!


Anyone else got any clever ways to try and twist the truth that they want to try out on me? Be my guest... I'll be keeping an eye on this one for the moment at least.


Edit to add: Regarding the anti-aircraft barrage, they didn't do any damage because there was probably nothing there (except air) in the first place, and you'd expect shrapnel from the anti-aircraft bursts as they went off as they reached the correct altitude. You do understand that munitions used against airborne targets incorporate altitude sensitive fuses, so they don't need to hit a solid target in order to detonate?

[edit on 11-3-2009 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by Malcram
Let's be honest. The bar is suddenly raised impossibly high when it comes to proving the existence of ET piloted craft.



Not really.

If you want to prove to me that we are being visited by "ET piloted craft", then show me proof.

We can look at shaky footage of Venus, mylar balloons, etc all day, but it's not going to do anything to convince me that we are being visited by "ET piloted craft", and neither is anecdotal evidence. It's not the same as proof.

If something is as real as people keep saying it is, then there should be hard physical proof - but there is none. How could aliens be visiting us (since day 1 if you believe some people), living amongst us as people claim and there not be a single scrap of hard proof?



Yes but you haven't told us what you mean by proof. How can a proof exist without evidence? Would you not believe in aliens even if you met one? That would still be evidence - the evidence of your own eyes.



Nice try, but no cigar I'm afraid...


shouldn't that be no cigar-shaped object?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 





If you want to prove to me that we are being visited by "ET piloted craft", then show me proof.

We can look at shaky footage of Venus, mylar balloons, etc all day, but it's not going to do anything to convince me that we are being visited by "ET piloted craft", and neither is anecdotal evidence. It's not the same as proof.

If something is as real as people keep saying it is, then there should be hard physical proof - but there is none. How could aliens be visiting us (since day 1 if you believe some people), living amongst us as people claim and there not be a single scrap of hard proof?

Nice try, but no cigar I'm afraid...


You have the mountain of hard evidence that constitutes proof already. Much of it was alluded to in the first post in this thread.

We have the testimony of numerous astronauts and thousands of civil and military pilots, testimony from those who worked in Government agencies, from those who visited crash sites or handled or saw alien bodies and materials, as well as radar evidence, and countless photos and videos that can't be other wise explained, etc, etc, etc, all gathered over decades. For you to try to pass all that off as merely "shaky footage of venus" and "mylar balloons" is absolutely absurd and highly disingenuous.

As for your other comment that witnesses in a courtroom usually testify to events observed in terrestrial situations, well, I'm afraid these sightings are usually of objects in the sky as that's where 'flying objects' can usually be found - but certainly not always. What of astronaut Gordon Coopers clear view of a disk that landed? He was close enough to see how many struts it's landing gear had! And in any case, there is EXPERT testimony for UFO's from countless pilots, who are certainly 'familiar' with that environment and who have had many, many, extremely clear daylight sightings of craft which cannot be explained away as "venus" or "mylar balloons" or indeed anything else man made or "natural"

Your last point that "people have been wrongly put to death based on 'evidence'" before is irrelevant. In fact, you make my point for me. Society generally is prepared to accept a certain degree of evidence AS PROOF - as in a murder case - and to sentence people to the gravest penalty based on it. Thus, society is inconsistent in it's attitude to "proof" when it comes to the UFO phenomenon.

So, Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Well I disagree, I think the same criteria can and should be applied across the board to all subjects, as part of a consistent "scientific method", as Witnessfromafar highlighted. What Sagan might as well have said is "We stack the decks when it comes to UFO's". That would have been more honest. Nevertheless, the fact is that such "extraordinary evidence" is ALREADY available, both in it's magnitude and it's quantity, and it has been for a long time.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


I could accept what you say - disagree, but accept - if I believed that you applied the same criteria of what actually 'constitutes 'proof' and substantial 'evidence' across the board to subjects other than the UFO's phenomena. But I don't believe that for one second. Which is why I feel it's a rather hypocritical and biased stance.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
How can a proof exist without evidence?


Come now, did I ever say that it could?

All I said was that evidence does not equal proof, but that is not the same as saying "there is no evidence".



Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Yes but you haven't told us what you mean by proof.

Would you not believe in aliens even if you met one? That would still be evidence - the evidence of your own eyes.


I have no preconceived idea as to what would constitute proof, and I therefore would not be able to say what form proof would have to take in order to be incontrovertible.

It could be meeting an alien face to face, but until it happened, how could I possibly say for sure? This hypothetical situation might arise and turn out to be an elaborate hoax, or perhaps I had a stroke and my brain started manifesting things that were not really there.


Originally posted by MarrsAttax
shouldn't that be no cigar-shaped object?



Either way, he still doesn't get one



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join