Credible UFO witnesses not sufficient proof

I have an open mind and will read anything no matter how 'far out' it sounds. But I feel with some people that you can get them every bit of evidence and even proof (such as an alien right in front of them) but they would still dismiss it. For many years to come we will all still be laughed at and called insane. I don't know if this is from how some people are (i.e. accept what they see, and don't think about other possiblitys) or the popular media making people laugh at people who talk about this by saying things like 'oh you think there a green men on mars' etc...

I couldn't agree more, Mikomi.

I think the reality is that no amount of proof will convince these people of the existence of ETI. A closed-mind doesn't want proof that ETI exists. They fear the day that proof will be given but believe that day will never come.

Only when the Government (and NASA) acknowledge the truth will they begin to accept it. Once again, this isn't a question of proof it's a question of credibility.

Unfortunately, the evidence that exists-that we have access to- falls into the circumstantial category. Even when that kind of evidence is abundant, it is "only" circumstantial. So we are stuck in a kind of circular argument.

[edit on 14-10-2004 by Der Kapitan]

Originally posted by Deckard_BR26354
Once again, this isn't a question of proof it's a question of credibility.

Not necessarily. Remember, there have been MANY high ranking gov't officials who have made statements of there personal knowledge of ETI. They could have had a flawless record in their job and have had the respect of all their coworkers, but, once they do come out, they are deemed "in-credible".

...once they do come out, they are deemed "in-credible".

I agree, that's sort of related to the point I'm trying to make. Once they leave the service, retire or whatever, they're no longer seen as putting forward an 'official' version of the truth. They no longer have the support of the organisation that they once worked for. They lose their credibility.

In some cases, as you probably already know, a lot of the their service history is discredited. After all, how can you work for an organisation/black project that isn't officially acknowledged?

But, I really do think that closed-minds simply will not accept any amount of proof. If a ship landed in their back yard, several greys emerged and carted them off to the moon before dropping them back into their beds they still wouldn't believe it. Every other explanation would be accepted before the reality - it was a bad dream or an hallucination brought on by too much cheese or a freak electrical storm that managed to stimulate the visual cortex in their brain kicked off a series of fictional events influenced by movies and books.

Time and again I hear Ockham's Razor used to explain UFOs - it's a bogus argument and doesn't prove anything. It's a piece of philosophy that says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. This is based entirely on probability - most of the craft seen in the sky are terrestrial therefore the likelyhood is that any unidentified objects are also terrestrial. Does not prove anything. Ockham lived in a time 100 years before Copernicus - a time where the accepted 'truth' was that the Earth was flat. Ockham's way of thinking supported that view. It was the simplest explanation.

Searching for evidence, we found dead, mutiliated bodies of humans and animals proven to be done by aliens... that was found a lot. So we know that aliens are examining the bodies of creatures, and they end up killed...

But do people really get abducted, then come back alive... so often? I believe, that person is damn lucky to come back alive. In this cases what really happens then? We know, that the human brain is an open book for the aliens, it is easy to read and write. What if all those "abductees" experienced the abduction only in their mind, and they were never really abducted? They could have been examined by aliens from a distance, but never really abducted.

Today in the world of high technology it should be possible to have at least one famous recording of a real abduction through a survellience camera or a webcamera, or done by a distant neighbour. But up to date we have nothing, but we have thousands of abductions, and even more.

Isn't this really strange?!

I seem to have pushed this off the topic - sorry.

But, about abductions, even if you think it's a load of rubbish (I haven't made my mind up), aren't you worried that thousands of people think that they're being abducted? Even if you don't believe in the possibility of alien abductions, I think it's worrying that so many people are experiencing this.

Originally posted by Quest
(snip)
What I don't get is why anyone would activly argue with people who have first hand experience. Billions of people claim to talk to God...why not go crusade against them... or the ghost believers, etc.
(snip)

Or why not argue with people who say the government no longer
observes the Constitution of the United States. Now THERE is a group
of REAL nuts! (humor intentional)

Originally posted by Deckard_BR26354
Time and again I hear Ockham's Razor used to explain UFOs - it's a bogus argument and doesn't prove anything. It's a piece of philosophy that says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Well the use of Ockham's razor in that way does meet my burden of proof on one thing, some people refuse to deny ignorance.

Ockham's Razor: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

It has nothing to do with the simplest answer being correct.

Of course, over the years there have been many variations and related rules including the simplest answer is correct. But it is not Ockham's razor.

For example, this is a related rule I apply to conspiracy theories:

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity''.


Concerning evidence and proof:

In order for something to be "proven" the level of evidence must meet or surpass a "burden of proof". This is the way we come to believe anything. The burden of proof varies from person to person, and in regards to UFOs it is high.

"Proof" is when the majority of people can look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion. That is to say, that a certain amount of evidence meets their burden of proof.

Originally posted by Deckard_BR26354
I seem to have pushed this off the topic - sorry.

But, about abductions, even if you think it's a load of rubbish (I haven't made my mind up), aren't you worried that thousands of people think that they're being abducted? Even if you don't believe in the possibility of alien abductions, I think it's worrying that so many people are experiencing this.

I am trying to think the way the aliens would in such situation. They don't really need to take people to a laboratory to examine their mind, they can do that remotely. This also prevents them from being seen by people. Flying to your house with a UFO is always a risk, even for them, because they don't want to be seen. There could be thousands being remotely examined, and these abduction experiences could well exist only in the victims' rewritten memory, but not in reality. Even if they were really abducted , aliens have the chance to completely wipe out everything from the victims' memory, so they won't remember anything.

But in all these cases the victims remember many things, and can even give full details about what happened. Ask yourself the question: why the hell is this good for the aliens?

"Proof" is when the majority of people can look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion. That is to say, that a certain amount of evidence meets their burden of proof.

This stilll looks like credibility over proof. People will believe NASA; they won't believe anyone else.

Originally posted by mwm1331
For the same reason that eyewitness accounts are usually wrong. Becuase people dont see what is, they see what thier brains interpert of what is. The fact is that while eyewitness reports and testimoney are the most powerful they also have the least mount of evidenciary value. Have you ever seen some of the perception exoiriments that prove that people will see what they expect or are prepared to see in a visually ambiguos situation? Did you know that 90% of what you see is actually created by the brain and is not based on the actual visual stimuli you receive? Did you know that if the brain is presented with a situation where visual stimuli contradicts what it expects it will actually ignore the stimuli?

www.wcupa.edu...
psylux.psych.tu-dresden.de...

[edit on 14-10-2004 by mwm1331]

And all this coming from a person who makes numerous refrences to "GOD" in his signature. You believe in some invisible omnipotent being, yet scoff at people who swear up and down with their own eyes, that they saw is a trick of the brain, ect.

And you believe said invisible being in the sky has chosen one landmass of people as his favorites...........

I could go on and on, but I am going to be really nice.....for now.

I can only say, you, Iron skeptic, Philip Klass, and others, are not the men who "killed Santa" but the clergy and govornments who wanted to condemn Galileo, Da Vinci, and others, as heritecs.

Its people like you who fear the implications of the study of such an amazing phenomina, who block its legitimate exposure, research, study, and possible conclusion, because they may shatter that dim, locked little world of yours.

Its people like you who create a culture of fear for people who have had experiences and sightings, but fear that they will be proverbialy crucifed, losing everything, by comming forward, because you stigmitize people as being incompetant observers who are seeing things.

I am grateful, that we have visonary scientists who basically ignore folks like you and trek onward ninto the research of the unexplained, to try and find out what is really going on, as any good scientist and visonary would do. Though people like you, with your incapability of handling the possibility that something outside your view of the universe might exist, continue to try and make a culture of disgust and fear regarding the unknown, I can be thankful that, those of us who are willing to graze that "lunatic fringe" are joined by the ranks and likes of such folks like Hynek, Friedman, Mack, Jacobs, Hopkins, Wilkins........just to name a few.

Someday, when we discover some answers to this whole thing, people will look back upon people like you, and scoff.......like we did for the paranoid church who tried to silence crazy "heretics".

Why be nice skadi?
There is a big difference between god and aliens, do you know what it is?
God is unprovable, therefore requiring no proof for either belief or disbelief.
Aliens are provable, all it takes is a dead one. Therefore belief in aliens requires proof.
I neither fear nor attempt to block legtimate research into anything, neither the existance nor nonexistance of aliens wold affect my faith.
The problem is that most so called "UFO researchs" are not legitmate researchers. They are not looking to understand an unknown phenomenon but to prove that aliens exist. The frst step of the scientific method is to observe a phenomenon not as most of you seem to beleve create a hypothesis. If you begn your research with the intent of proving the existance of aliens then the research will be flawed. What I wonder is if, as those of you who beleve we are being vsited claim, EBE have been vsiting the earth for years if not centuries why is there not one single shred of physical proof? Not one piece of technolgy, not one alien cadaver, not one single hard piece of evidence. All we have to go on are the encounters of supposed abductees.
We have proof that at least some abductees are experiencing sleep paralysis.
We have no proof that any abductees have been abducted by EBE's
Thousands of sightings world wide and yet no physical proof whatsoever.
We know that at least some of the so called sightngs are hoaxes, we have no proof that any are genuine.
Now you tell me which is mre unreasonable.
In a situation where there is no physical evidence of a phenomenon, and where at least some of the evidence is known to be fake, why would any open minded person believe that the phenomenon exists?

God is unprovable, therefore requiring no proof for either belief or disbelief.
Aliens are provable, all it takes is a dead one. Therefore belief in aliens requires proof.

Perfect example of a closed-mind.

BTW, how do you know that God isn't an alien - after all, technically speaking, He is extra-terrestrial.


[edit on 15/10/2004 by Deckard_BR26354]

An open mind means being open to a possiblity.
believeing in something with no proof is just as closemnded as refusing to believe something which has proof.
I asmit the possibility that aliens may be abductng humans.
Untill there is proof that this is so, I will not believe it is happening.
Possibility does not equal existance.

mwm1331
An open mind means being open to a possiblity.
believeing in something with no proof is just as closemnded as refusing to believe something which has proof.

Yes, and I am open to the possibility that God may exist. But, I see lots of evidence that ET exists and none that God exists. You appear to hold the opposite view - somehow the less evidence that God exists, the better. To you, this means your faith is stronger because there is no evidence of God and you don't require or even need it. To me, that's an irrational position to hold.

So, by your own words, you are admitting that you are close-minded.

No deckard thats not what I said.
What I said is it is not possble to prove god exists.
It can not under any circumstances be done.
Nothing can prove the existance of god.
Therefore since there is no way to prove the existance of god than no proof is needed for ether belief or disbelief.
However if something (anything) can be proven then proof is required for belief.

Now do you understand?




[edit on 18-10-2004 by mwm1331]

mwm1331
What I said is it is not possble to prove god exists.
It can not under any circumstances be done.
Nothing can prove the existance of god.
Therefore since there is no way to prove the existance of god than no proof is needed for ether belief or disbelief.
However if something (anything) can be proven then proof is required for belief.

Now do you understand?

I understand your words but I don't agree with them.

All that God has to do to prove that He exists is show himself to the world and demonstrate how He created the universe. Shouldn't be too difficult for someone with His 'powers'.

If you pray really hard, perhaps He'll oblige us.

Really deckard?
At what precisly would constitute proof?
How exactly do you prove that God, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who created time and space actually exists?
Lets say hypothetically a being or entity came to earth which had the Abillity to alter the structure of reality, would that prove it is God?
The fact is that god is unprovable becuase our minds are incapable of fully understanding the concept of god.
What exactly could constitute proof that God is?

An alien however would be easy to prove.

mwm1331
The fact is that god is unprovable becuase our minds are incapable of fully understanding the concept of god.

That isn't fact that's your opinion - don't confuse your opinion with fact.

mwm1331
How exactly do you prove that God, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who created time and space actually exists?

More of your opinion and, yet again, no facts.

mwm1331
Lets say hypothetically a being or entity came to earth which had the Abillity to alter the structure of reality, would that prove it is God?

If it said it was God, I am sure that you would be the first to accept that as proof. I'd be a little more sceptical since I didn't believe in God in the first place.

[edit on 18/10/2004 by Deckard_BR26354]