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.
AfterInfinity
Sounds like Encounter of the Fourth kind. It classifies alien encounters under four categories.
First is a sighting.
Second is evidence of a visit.
Third is actual interaction with the entities.
Fourth is being abducted.
Ectoplasm8
Believers have claimed for decades that these are physical entities that land, interact with other humans, crash, abduct humans, etc. The answer is an extremely simple one, we demand physical evidence.
JadeStar
I thought I'd start this thread to gather together some ideas of what I and other people of a skeptical mindset would need to prove evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence on Earth.
So..... What WOULD be good evidence? Here are the top 5 things which I think would constitute undeniably good evidence of ETs on Earth. I'll start with the most obvious and move to the less obvious.
1. Habeas Corpus - Bring us the body. Or even a tiny piece of one which can be tested. I'm not talking about full on Roswell-like cadavers. Bring us an alien finger nail, scale, hair, or even saliva or other secretions. Something that can be looked at in a lab, thoroughly tested and possibly verified as being not of this earth. For instance all life on Earth uses left-sided proteins. If we found some form of extraterrestrial "DNA" using right sided proteins, that's pretty much an open and shut case provided the chain of custody of the sample went back to a verified "alien encounter".
2. Shoplifting - For all the accounts of alien abduction, no one has so much as brought us the alien equivalent of an acupuncture pin, dixie cup, screw or bolt or other small item that could go unnoticed. This is something which would be hard, scientific evidence that something was manufactured off world.
3. Alien Newspaper - For all the accounts of extraterrestrial contact with people, we almost never seem to get anything in the way of useful information outside the realm of human knowledge.
4. Show Off! - A pre-planned mass sighting of craft flying at low altitude over say the top 30 cities in the world simultaneously witnessed for several hours by people, news companies, etc would go a long way to establishing that we had company. Even better would be a landing or two in a major place like a football stadium during a match/game or a large tourist attraction.
5. Address the UN. There is an actual office at the UN which will deal with anything of an extraterrestrial intelligence nature should ETs on Earth (or even knowledge of them out in other parts of our galaxy and universe) become known. In 2010 Mazlan Othman an astrophysicist from Malaysia was appointed head of the office that would deal with any earthbound aliens. I'm sure she'd love to have a chat.
dlbott
Ectoplasm8
Believers have claimed for decades that these are physical entities that land, interact with other humans, crash, abduct humans, etc. The answer is an extremely simple one, we demand physical evidence.
Figured you could not resist to bring some sunshine in on this one. Problem is one could land in front of you and you be denying it. Just admit it. Your president of negatives anonymous and skeptics international, a paid disinformation lucky.
Sorry but it is little ridiculous.
The Bot
Ectoplasm8
I'm not negative or pessimistic, I'm a realist. I have a clear understanding of the enormity and impact that alien visitation on Earth would have. I refuse to trivialize that fact by so easily accepting less-than "evidence". You do nothing in the way of helping this phenomenon along by accepting and/or supporting limited levels of "evidence". You only perpetuate the tin-foil hat mentality. You should be demanding scientifically scrutinized tangible evidence of these supposed physical events.
tanka418
Ectoplasm8
I'm not negative or pessimistic, I'm a realist. I have a clear understanding of the enormity and impact that alien visitation on Earth would have. I refuse to trivialize that fact by so easily accepting less-than "evidence". You do nothing in the way of helping this phenomenon along by accepting and/or supporting limited levels of "evidence". You only perpetuate the tin-foil hat mentality. You should be demanding scientifically scrutinized tangible evidence of these supposed physical events.
What do you consider acceptable evidence?
I've been trying to pay attention to what is thought of as "acceptable evidence", it seems that many don't really know. This is an issue that feel needs some "work". We will never be able to answer the "question" if we don't properly define the question, and the criteria for a solution.
What I am trying to do is understand "why" no one ever "finds" acceptable evidence. Evidence is all over the place, and it seems that any simply ignore it.
I'd also like to get a handle on "why" everyone's idea of evidence is virtually "unreasonable"; even much of JadeStar's suggestions.
Why; for instance, are some forms of evidence perfectly acceptable when it comes to deciding the fate of a man's life, but, wholly unacceptable when it comes to deciding if that man's life originated off-world.
As I have said before; You all want answers to these questions; yet none of you have any idea "what" the question is. I'm trying to find the question.
This is another bad comparison and analogy that believers use.
Now, present a case of alien abduction. What do you have as real-life evidence? The word of the abductee? Is there any evidence that can be scientifically tested? Where's the foundation to build a case of abduction upon? Has there ever been a case with undeniable evidence showing an abduction previously has occurred as in fact? The answer to that, and any other subset of this phenomenon, is no.
So, the courtroom analogies are silly and not relatable.
The questions? You seem to be feigning confusion for some reason. You're confused as to what we demand for evidence, yet there's the answer in this thread. Now you're confused as to the questions that need to be answered, when the questions are obvious. It's a circle of nonsensical.... nonsense. Defense mechanism? I don't follow.
Actually, I wasn't referring to forensic processing. That is missing from abduction and other cases, obviously it should be included. Rather I was referring to the evidence criteria.
You are right, I'm less "confused" that I make out. But, you are demonstrating my point rather well; by not defining what evidence / proof is. If you can't do that, you can't get an answer.
Also, you have me confused with those who believe without reason. I can assure you I have plenty of reason; much of it mathematical, and probabilistic in nature.
While this should be considered a very serious "no-no"; I'm game. I've managed to predict UFO sightings twice, not sure if I can do it again; but...Give me a time and place. No more than 3 "space planes"...will need at least 6 week lead time. (maybe it will work) Would that work for ya?
Ectoplasm8
I see, been down this road as well with other believers. The attempt to side track the issue of having zero physical evidence, . . .
As I said, it's only the fact that your threshold of evidence is lower than mine.
No, I don't know your reasoning behind your belief. Mathematical or otherwise. Most believers have their own level of requirements which they believe is enough to tip the scales. So, however you want to approach it, it still comes down to basically the same conclusion.
You mentioned this in your response to JadeStar:
[I]"While this should be considered a very serious "no-no"; I'm game. I've managed to predict UFO sightings twice, not sure if I can do it again; but...Give me a time and place. No more than 3 "space planes"...will need at least 6 week lead time. (maybe it will work) Would that work for ya?"[/I]
Is that a serious or sarcastic comment? I hope sarcastic.
tanka418
Well, congratulations; you seem to be one of a very few. But, then, your ideas of "no physical evidence" are a bit out of place. Sorry, man, there is actually quite a lot of physical evidence. The range of evidence goes from the inorganic, metallic, and composite, to the organic, and even extraterrestrial DNA.
The only true issue here is all this evidence is scattered and not available for examination.
By the way; the analogy of the court stands as a beacon to your inability to morally judge these issues. Mainly because it remains a fact; that the Human species applies different criteria to the evidence in these cases. The evidence requirements/criteria for ET are greater than for the life of your own.
No actually, I'm completely serious.
You name a time and place; I'll provide the UFO. Or try anyway, like I said; its worked before, maybe it will again.
Ectoplasm8
Believers have claimed for decades that these are physical entities that land, interact with other humans, crash, abduct humans, etc. The answer is an extremely simple one, we demand physical evidence.
DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."
Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother
bottleslingguy
Ectoplasm8
Believers have claimed for decades that these are physical entities that land, interact with other humans, crash, abduct humans, etc. The answer is an extremely simple one, we demand physical evidence.
on a silver platter
www.starchildproject.com...
When comparing the Starchild's sequences, the search parameter ranged from an exact match of the entire base pair string, to matches that were similar to any segment of any fragment. Using these exceptionally broad criteria, many Starchild fragments could be matched to genetic sequences in the NIH database. Some of those were comparable to human sequences, which meant they were human-like, though not necessarily human.
The human genome has large numbers of corollaries in the world around us. Humans share 97% of our genes with chimps, 95% with gorillas, 70% with rats, 65% with mice, and 26% with yeast! Thus, nearly everything on Earth is, in some way, genetically interrelated with humans, so it is not unusual that some of the Starchild's nuDNA is found to be human-like.
What is unusual, and shockingly so, is that there are segments of many other fragments of the Starchild's nuDNA for which no close matches could be found in the NIH database! This is not unheard of, nor impossible, but it is a significant indicator that something about the Starchild is not entirely human. It strongly suggests that some aspects of the Starchild's DNA might not be found on Earth at all! Again, this is not absolute proof. We need many additional readings through modern sequencing machines to confirm it. However, we take this initial partial result as a strong indication that the Starchild is not entirely human.
I'd be glad to provide you with a place and time. But, you seem to qualify it with "maybe it will work". So I guess that gets you off the hook and gives you an out if you can't provide the evidence?