For the skeptics: What would it take to make you believe in alien visitation?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
A little green/pink/red/orange whatever being zapping me with a ray gun to fix my broken back and reverse the effects of aging would be a start




posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Would you be willing to u2u me. im very interested. Dont get me wrong i believe there is life out there and maybe here. I have had an experience that i have only mentioned once on ats and have only told my girlfriend about. This experience is beyond just seeing something,i think, because im not sure if it really happened or not.


Peace


Oh lichter, you have my heart aflutter, you have only toldats and your girlfriend. we are that important to you. (heart thumps wildly)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Diablos
 


I respect your view, but I must differ

This is the argument from induction saying that since we cannot traverse these distances no other intelligent beings can either and will never be able to. First of all we have to prove that no future scientific theory or technology will ever allow us to traverse the vast distances - which we can't do.

Second, there are many theories in pre-quantum gravity that do allow for wormholes, and other physical situations that could allow material objects to traverse large distances without taking too much time.

Third, without a complete and verified theory of quantum gravity we cannot rule out or rule in wormholes and such.

Fourth, even if wormholes and other such devices cannot exist there are many other methods to traverse large distances, for example von-neumann probes, artificial intelligent machines, etc.

So it is very possible that intelligent being that are much older than humanity may have figured out a way to traverse large distances.
edit on 29-1-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-1-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by deloprator20000
 


It doesn't matter who or where the testimony came from in that report, in the end project blue book was controlled by the gov't who are the same people that you claim are lying? Besides the Burden of proof is on those who believe that aliens exists or on those who claim that they don't exist. I'm on the side of truth, I don't know. There is not enough information on either side as of yet to confirm or deny. Mathematically, its unlikely for no other civilization to exist in the universe and if they exist who is to say they are not more advance to be visiting us. However, there is no definite proof either way.

At best there are enough statements and evidence to suggest that SOMETHING doesn't add up. However, anything beyond that is pure speculation. There is no physical evidence as I know of yet to confirm the existence of Aliens.

Verbal testimony (hearsay) might be enough for you to believe but I need physical proof with scientific backing to take that leap of faith.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


I respect your opinion, but I must respectfully disagree

See the problem is that there is a difference between people who file the reports and people who present the reports. It may be true that the people who present the reports may give "inaccurate" information, or bias the analysis, BUT this doesn't mean that the individual reports are inaccurate. For some of the reports were filed by civilians and military personnel not connected to Project Blue Book in any way, so one cannot conclude that they too were trying to deceive.

Presenting the report is very different from taking and analyzing data.

There is far more evidence than just "heresay", how about the 1952 UFOs flying over the White House, we have radar data, pictures of the radar scope, radar logs, we have testimony from radar operators, testimony from the pilots.

The 1988 Japan Airlines case has testimony from the pilot, radar data from both the aircraft and ground control.

In some cases there is video, photos, radar data, eyewitnesses, etc.

The key thing is that conclusions should be based on analysis of the data, most of the time skeptics don't look at or dismiss the data without giving a reason why.

edit on 29-1-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-1-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-1-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by greatfriendbadfoe
 


oh, the sarcasim. Anyway i only brought it up here because another member had very similar experience. Otherwise when i do see strange things i dont make threads about them anymore, might post something if i can relate to what somebody else saw, but thats it. Thats just me ,no big deal.


Peace

Ps. Did you seriously just stop to say that or do you have something to add about the topic at hand?
edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by deloprator20000
reply to post by Diablos
 


I respect your view, but I must differ

This is the argument from induction saying that since we cannot traverse these distances no other intelligent beings can either and will never be able to. First of all we have to prove that no future scientific theory or technology will ever allow us to traverse the vast distances - which we can't do.


While that may be true, at this time I remained unconvinced and skeptical that such a thing is possible. There is no scientific reason based on current scientific trends that rapid interstellar travel is possible, let alone feasible.


Originally posted by deloprator20000Second, there are many theories in pre-quantum gravity that do allow for wormholes, and other physical situations that could allow material objects to traverse large distances without taking too much time.

Problem with this is we would have seen evidence of wormholes in our solar system, unless of course you'll now invoke more space magic and claim that the green men can hide evidence of their wormholes. Even then, we would easily be able to observe the interactions of the wormhole with matter nearby, and yet despite years and years of searching for naturally occurring wormholes, not one has been observed.


Originally posted by deloprator20000Third, without a complete and verified theory of quantum gravity we cannot rule out or rule in wormholes and such.

Wormholes don't require quantum gravity, but rather something known as "negative matter" or rather matter with antigravitational properties. Of course, if such a thing existed would allow for the construction of a perpetual motion machine and violate the most basic laws of physics, namely conservation of energy.


Originally posted by deloprator20000Fourth, even if wormholes and other such devices cannot exist there are many other methods to traverse large distances, for example von-neumann probes, artificial intelligent machines, etc.

This is speculative, but certainly at least more plausible than little green men cruising around the skies in tiny little disk, only coming to abduct people and mutilate animals, and then fly off to their planet thousands of light years away in the same night. It's certainly plausible that some UFOs could be the self-replicating probes of some civilization that is long dead by now.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Diablos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
edit on 29-1-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diablos

Originally posted by deloprator20000
reply to post by Diablos
 


I respect your view, but I must differ

This is the argument from induction saying that since we cannot traverse these distances no other intelligent beings can either and will never be able to. First of all we have to prove that no future scientific theory or technology will ever allow us to traverse the vast distances - which we can't do.


While that may be true, at this time I remained unconvinced and skeptical that such a thing is possible. There is no scientific reason based on current scientific trends that rapid interstellar travel is possible, let alone feasible.


Ok point well taken, but still the assertion is unproven


Originally posted by deloprator20000Second, there are many theories in pre-quantum gravity that do allow for wormholes, and other physical situations that could allow material objects to traverse large distances without taking too much time.


Problem with this is we would have seen evidence of wormholes in our solar system, unless of course you'll now invoke more space magic and claim that the green men can hide evidence of their wormholes. Even then, we would easily be able to observe the interactions of the wormhole with matter nearby, and yet despite years and years of searching for naturally occurring wormholes, not one has been observed.


How do you know evidence of wormholes has not been observed? Also how would you know how the signatures would look like? If we don't have a valid theory of quantum gravity, which is required to adequately describe the dynamics of wormholes, how well can we trust our predictions? Could there be other methods of traversing space that we are unaware of?


Originally posted by deloprator20000Third, without a complete and verified theory of quantum gravity we cannot rule out or rule in wormholes and such.


Wormholes don't require quantum gravity, but rather something known as "negative matter" or rather matter with antigravitational properties. Of course, if such a thing existed would allow for the construction of a perpetual motion machine and violate the most basic laws of physics, namely conservation of energy.


You are correct wormholes don't requires quantum gravity, BUT in order for us to describe how such wormholes could be created and how they would evolve a theory of quantum gravity would be needed. Not to mention negative matter isn't strictly ruled out by the laws of physics, it does not violate conservation of momentum or energy:

en.wikipedia.org...

Most of the schemes to "bend" space are limited by our knowledge of how gravity works at the quantum level, not to mention once again, we cannot predict future scientific theories to the point were we can rule in or rule out certain processes, especially if those processes are not adequately addressed by our current theories.

Also the 2nd law of thermodynamics, is not a law of nature, but a statistical statement of how we have seen nature to behave. It only applies to systems in equilibrium and it seems to make statements about future technology, basically that no scientific theory will ever arise that could construct a machine that would violate the 2nd law, -- a statement that theory cannot make logically:

en.wikipedia.org...

Unless this theory can somehow predict future scientific discoveries?


Originally posted by deloprator20000Fourth, even if wormholes and other such devices cannot exist there are many other methods to traverse large distances, for example von-neumann probes, artificial intelligent machines, etc.


This is speculative, but certainly at least more plausible than little green men cruising around the skies in tiny little disk, only coming to abduct people and mutilate animals, and then fly off to their planet thousands of light years away in the same night. It's certainly plausible that some UFOs could be the self-replicating probes of some civilization that is long dead by now.


Some UFOs may be small, but many UFOs have been reported to be very large. The UFOs seen by the Japan Airline pilots are very large about the size of a 747. In some case UFOs have been seen to be even larger about 6x the size of a 747, and in yet other cases the UFOs are even larger 1/4 of a mile. So it is not true that the ALL UFOs are a couple of meters wide.


edit on 29-1-2013 by Diablos because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-1-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-1-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-1-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-1-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-1-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-1-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
It would take multiple credible witnesses corroborating each other, and some forensic evidence.

Diogenes



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 



personal experience. .all the things we dont have.


Well I had a personal experience. A long time ago. And while I acknowledge it could have been a dream I don't believe it was.

There are so many personal testimonies. Not saying you have to believe most, half, or any at all. But at least acknowledge the existence, there are lots.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by IBelieveInAliens
 


Your examples do just fine, and while I'd find it hard to believe, I would accept it, yes.

Of course, I wouldn't jump to the immediate conclusion of aliens until it was verified that what was in the sky was not of this earth. I would want to see proof of speeds and abilities beyond what is capable from the human built craft we are aware of, for a start.

I would expect contact to be made with these beings. Proof would be quite easy and undeniable in such a scenario.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
There's a fascinating amount of ignorance in some of these remarks about the amount of evidence available for the reading; it's like you've got an opinion based on government obfuscation and ridicule disseminated by government owned and compromised MSM and that's good enough.

Funny how a child can be told a god exists at a young age, and everyone around him agrees with this assertion so it seems the most natural thing in the world. And when the possibility of alien visitation is brought up, the general consensus is, 'well that's silly' and so most don't take their research or thought processes any farther than that. So now we have a population that believes in god(s) and disbelieves in life on other planets being far enough ahead of us technologically to pay a visit.

Trouble is, there's far more evidence, technological (radar returns of objects moving at incredible speeds, turning without stopping, hovering silently, etc.), personal testimony offered under oath by government employees, highly experienced pilots, and the general public to the tune of thousands if not millions of observations, and yes, photographic, of some kind of unusual technology than there is of any god, anytime throughout human history.

If I were them, I'd come down and take genetic samples of the DNA of this incredible jewel of a planet, warn the inhabitants in no uncertain terms to clean up their act or else, and no, I wouldn't bother much with communication. What kind of intelligent life forms trash their only home and allow psychopaths and sociopaths to determine public policy?

To answer the OPs question, Disclosure already happened. It's in every library in the country. But like someone said, I think during Watergate, 'The American People Don't Read...'.

Read Richard Dolan's amazing books, Leslie Kean's similarly incredible compendium of unexplained sightings (mostly written by the top level military personnel who experienced them) and then see how skeptical you are.

I actually think the initial decision to hide alien visitation reality from the American people was a good idea. One wonders what we would do with unlimited free energy. Probably blow the place up over some old religious feud. Dolan is probably right; there's ample evidence (in the form of missing trillions if nothing else) of a Breakaway Civilization that is already far ahead of what's considered 'modern' life.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


Didn't mean to offend Lichter, just harmless banter. sorry if it did. But in reality, if you have had some sort of contact, then how awsome. Ever time I go outside of a night I look up at the numerous stars (no interference where we are from city lights) and get frustrated that I've not seen or experienced anything. Heck, even when good ol stevie greer was claiming he could bring em down at will, I offered the use of any useful part of our 1100 acre bush block for "them" to use. I guess his aliens didn't like trees but preferred sites where certain individuals could properly stage manage the so called contact. But my offer is still there to anybody who wants to call down any ET friends. Heck, they can even set up a "secret base" in one of our hillsides if they want.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I've said it many times.

* Multiple images/photos/videos of the same thing from different non-anonymous witnesses.
* Physical evidence (bodies would be good) linked by chain of evidence to above images.
* Confirmation by numerous independent labs/experts that the evidence is "alien."
* Announcement by governmental/military/religious leaders.
* The ability, if I really wanted to, to personally experience it in some way.

Basically, the same kind of evidence that would convince me anything existed, if I had doubts. From Hoover Dam to the chair you're sitting on.

"Oh, those standards are too unrealistically high."
Why? If something truly existed, all the above would be reasonably possible.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by deloprator20000

How do you know evidence of wormholes has not been observed? Also how would you know how the signatures would look like? If we don't have a valid theory of quantum gravity, which is required to adequately describe the dynamics of wormholes, how well can we trust our predictions? Could there be other methods of traversing space that we are unaware of?

Well, if you could cite some evidence published in peer-review journals, otherwise there is no observational or experimental evidence that they even exist. As for your second question, we know from general relativity that wormholes are not too unlike black holes and would at least distort spacetime around it. Such distortions in our own solar system would be so obvious that astronomers would have to literally be blind to miss it. And no, that is patently false. Classical wormholes, the types of wormholes that little green men would use to get from Zeta Reticuli to our own solar system, are described completely by classical general relativity. What you may be talking about are microscopic wormholes, which is true that they may not be as understood due to a lack of quantum gravity. However, these wormholes are on the scales of planck lengths and exist randomly (connecting different points in space and time). It would be completely out of question to enlarge something as small and use it to get to another part of the galaxy, especially seeing as if you could, you would have no idea where you would end up. And this is still just speculation at best, as there is no evidence wormholes, both classical or quantum, can exist in the first place. But of course, with sufficient space magic, the little green men could overcome just about everything, including the laws of physics, can't they?



Originally posted by deloprator20000You are correct wormholes don't requires quantum gravity, BUT in order for us to describe how such wormholes could be created and how they would evolve a theory of quantum gravity would be needed. Not to mention negative matter isn't strictly ruled out by the laws of physics, it does not violate conservation of momentum or energy:

en.wikipedia.org...

As I explained above, even if a quantum theory of gravity says such a thing is possible (remote), it would be completely impractical. There are many things that are physically possible and work well in principle until you try to to draw up the blue prints. Also, it seems while it is true the existence of negative mass alone does not violate conservation laws, however, one can in principle build a perpetual motion machine by using a negative matter and the Earth's gravitational field. Unless you think energy is stored in the gravitational field of the Earth (which violate both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity), then you can have energy from nothing. Just for future reference, Wikipedia is not known to be a consistent source.



Originally posted by deloprator20000Most of the schemes to "bend" space are limited by our knowledge of how gravity works at the quantum level, not to mention once again, we cannot predict future scientific theories to the point were we can rule in or rule out certain processes, especially if those processes are not adequately addressed by our current theories.

This is flat out wrong. The "bending of space", if such a thing can even be done artificially, do not require any concepts from quantum theory. In fact, no one has any idea on how exactly one would cause such perturbations of spacetime. Now before you cite the Alcubierre metric, that only tells us that an already existing warp bubble of some thickness requires a certain amount of negative energy to sustain it. No where does it tell us how to cause such warping in the first place, and there is nothing in science that would suggest its even possible.
edit on 30-1-2013 by Diablos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by deloprator20000Also the 2nd law of thermodynamics, is not a law of nature, but a statistical statement of how we have seen nature to behave. It only applies to systems in equilibrium and it seems to make statements about future technology, basically that no scientific theory will ever arise that could construct a machine that would violate the 2nd law, -- a statement that theory cannot make logically:
en.wikipedia.org...


The second law is most certainly a law of nature, unless you can cite experimental evidence that is in direct contradiction of it, of course. And once again, you are flat out wrong. Thermodynamics applies to non-equilibrium systems, including systems that oscillate and vibrate. All the second law states is that once a system reaches equilibrium, it cannot deviate from its equilibrium position spontaneously. This is more of a statement of conservation of energy rather than anything else. As for technology that could violate the second law, we know for a fact that this is impossible unless the second law is shown to not be a law of nature, of course. But I won't hold my breath for that. A physical theory or law (for your education, the difference between laws and theories in science is not what you think; the theory of relativity is as factual as far as we know as the laws of conservation of energy) places a cap on possible technologies. And the fact you think a theory is going to come and completely replace the second law of thermodynamics (physical facts do not change over time) shows your complete ignorance of the scientific method. If the second law is shown to be incorrect over a certain scale, a more comprehensive theory that explains that phenomena must reduce to classical thermodynamics to account for the previous successes of the laws of thermodynamics.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


I do post about my experiences, but there is no way anyone can step into my shoes and experience the sighting or contact as I did, so everyone is left to their own questions and their own interpretation of reality. And thats true for ufo experiencers, and unusual events and victims of crimes or even the one on trial who may be innocent, but gets sentenced, these are things that are subjective and impossible to prove to another.
You are correct sir! We each have our own personal subjective experiences from which base our understanding of the world. Your reality consists of aliens and their hijinks. Mine does not. My reality is based on my beliefs and understanding of the complexity of the human brain.

So my answer to the OP would be when we can cross the threshold from the personal and subjective to quantitative data. When we actually have something to examine that is not someones personal subjective experience.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by greatfriendbadfoe
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


Didn't mean to offend Lichter, just harmless banter. sorry if it did. But in reality, if you have had some sort of contact, then how awsome. Ever time I go outside of a night I look up at the numerous stars (no interference where we are from city lights) and get frustrated that I've not seen or experienced anything. Heck, even when good ol stevie greer was claiming he could bring em down at will, I offered the use of any useful part of our 1100 acre bush block for "them" to use. I guess his aliens didn't like trees but preferred sites where certain individuals could properly stage manage the so called contact. But my offer is still there to anybody who wants to call down any ET friends. Heck, they can even set up a "secret base" in one of our hillsides if they want.



Its all good, it just seemed very sarcastic. Anyway, i would love to live in area like you do. Im stuck in a suburb for now so i drive out to a state park near my house. I walk through the woods to an open field surrounded by the forest. light pollution is bit less out there.
edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   

For the skeptics: What would it take to make you believe in alien visitation?


An actual alien visitation. Actual widespread contact. Perhaps one witnessed by sane people in the middle of the day. A mass sighting. Confirmation from scientific bodies and persons in high office.

It would lend credibility if the main stream media caught it on camera too. Make no mistake, ratings are everything and if there was a verified alien ship sighting, it would be plastered all over the news 24/7. You'd have spin-off reality shows......tshirts, stickers....you name it.
edit on 31-1-2013 by Unidentified_Objective because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join