The FACTUAL Evidence of Alien Existence You Need NOW

Originally posted by PAYBACKCOMESSOON
We can throw out all the "gimme proof" replies, but I merely ask, if someone believes I am wrong, then please...Proove it!

I am not a skeptic or debunker, I tend to the side of; ufos are a definitely a very real phenomena. However I must comment on your statement above.

Its a very old fallacy to make a claim, then expect others to disprove such and such - especially when 99% of claims - with little or no evidence - cannot be disproven, which is beside the point and the logic is in reverse.

What the skeptics here are asking you for, and merely requesting; is that you provide some evidence to your conclusions and/or claims.

You bring up a good point in that crop circles (like the Nazca lines) are apparently meant to be observed from above, from the sky. However it is your personal claim(s) that crop circles are man-made, or that they are messages sent to extraterrestrials, and that the crop circle with the alien figure is an alien response -- All of this is conjecture, and to ask for something to be disproven does not prove your Theory.

As of now, I can surmise that you have offered some interesting conjecture and a framework for a Theory. What rightfully frustrates the skeptics is that you have proclaimed your hypothesis and claims as Fact, and the available evidence (none) maintains your claims as fiction still.

To the skeptics, they are not here to debunk you, the majority are curious bystanders and lurkers who want to help you and are giving you feedback. That is why you have posted your opinion on ATS, to see if it holds water.

Best regards,

yes the nasca lines and crop circles are man made.
yes all of the technology we have has come from humans who thought of and invented it.
no there is no factual or conclusive evidence to support the idea of alien intervention on planet earth.

simplicity is the key here.

Yet another thread that follows the ATS pointmaking formula. They are popping up everywhere these days.

Step 1: Make a thread based on complete speculation, yet stress (in caps) in the headline that the thread is the definitive proof that X is real.

Step 2: Refuse to acknowledge any counter arguments and simply tell people to disprove your assertions. This is a misuse of the burden of proof.

Step 3: Watch the thread turn into a 40 page grudge match

Step 4: ???

Step 5: Profit.

Funny, I can't believe the amount of negativity in the replies, demanding proof of the post.

9/11 was obvious and even today with all the PROOF as they say, Obama says "just stick to the original story", and this is why we all fail as a social structure.

As the quote from senator Roark in Sin City goes.................

"Power don't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big, and gettin' the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you got everybody agreeing with what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got e'm by the balls."

Well, all I did was post the obvious, it is blatantly obvious and then the replies are asking,"give us proof".

No matter what, there will never ever be ENOUGH proof to satisfy the critics.

Remember....... Roswell, it was a downed weather balloon, right?

Originally posted by PAYBACKCOMESSOON
Nohup, your signature says it all, "If you're not a skeptic, you're a sucker".

it's true.

i have seen a UFO with my own eyes and have no doubts it was extraterrestrial.
i approach every piece of evidence i see skeptically because most interpretations are full of wishful thinking and misinterpretations.

there are two ways to approach genuine mysteries.

the first is rational, where you need convincing evidence before you accept something. this is logical and is the path science takes.

the second is faith-based, where you start with the assumption / hope it is true. while you will find genuine evidence, your perspectives will become skewed by the hoaxes and misinterpretations you fell for. you know you follow this path when you think you 'have it all figured out' but don't have a gram of undeniable proof.

Originally posted by PAYBACKCOMESSOON
In final, best wishes to the skeptics who challenge the post. One suggestion for the skeptics however; when you reply, at least put together some type of evidence to the contrary to balance the claim I am wrong.

You are making a negative proof/argument from ignorance fallacy and along the way contradicting yourself. You acknowledge that the burden of proof lies with the claimant but then try to shift the burden of proof to others. You make a claim and present no evidence, asserting that it is true only because no one can prove you wrong. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, my inability to disprove your hypothesis is not the same as you proving your hypothesis.

Originally posted by optyk phyba
yes the nasca lines and crop circles are man made.
yes all of the technology we have has come from humans who thought of and invented it.
no there is no factual or conclusive evidence to support the idea of alien intervention on planet earth.

simplicity is the key here.

there is no factual evidence to prove otherwise, but i do agree.
it would probably be best to word it "are almost certainly". there is NO evidence to show that they are extraterrestrial in origin, but we only know for certain some crop circles are man made because we caught the people making them in the act, they admitted to it, or are blatantly obvious (such as coke ads).

that said, again, i do agree they are pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt man made.

dropping 9/11 or roswell into your post doesnt help you. neither does a movie quote.

milhouse - "Okay, here's what we've got: The Rand Corperation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires, are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner... we're through the looking glass here, people..."

while your concept may be 'obvious' to you, its not to others. to me its complex. keep it simple.

kind of thought it was simple.

Originally posted by PAYBACKCOMESSOON
Funny, I can't believe the amount of negativity in the replies, demanding proof of the post.

It is not negative at all to request proof. As I was saying earlier, the whole point of the skeptics here asking these questions and making these requests is to help you and possibly reinforce your theory and turn it into something more substantial and definitive.

Your theory is interesting, but in order to take it to the next level you need to provide more evidence for your very specific claims.

Well my friend Majorion.
You're all fairly intelligent people, and I do mean this as a complinent of truth, I do not mean this sarcastically, so I beleive any of you are more than capable of either finding the proof you seek or...the evidence to the contrary.

MAYBE THIS VIDEO WILL HELP SOME FIGURE OUT THE SIMPLE MYSTERY

Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by optyk phyba
yes the nasca lines and crop circles are man made.
yes all of the technology we have has come from humans who thought of and invented it.
no there is no factual or conclusive evidence to support the idea of alien intervention on planet earth.

simplicity is the key here.

there is no factual evidence to prove otherwise, but i do agree.
it would probably be best to word it "are almost certainly". there is NO evidence to show that they are extraterrestrial in origin, but we only know for certain some crop circles are man made because we caught the people making them in the act, they admitted to it, or are blatantly obvious (such as coke ads).

that said, again, i do agree they are pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt man made.

i agree

Just remember that Von Daniken made a lot of forgeries to "prove" his theories, and link the Nasca lines in with it. HECK... even the last Inidana Jones movie was about all this supject. i just dont see the conclusive evidence to say... "Look! there is the alien space ship, parket at the end of the nasca alien space ship runway, hidden in the mountain side"
all these are are theories...
No real evidence...just signs.... and lines

[edit on 11-6-2009 by GerhardSA]