There's no evidence that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred

neoholographic

lovebeck
reply to post by ThinkingCap

 

Didn't you hear? They are chinese lanterns that got caught up in a weather balloon and there was swamp gas, too!

In my OPINION, you have to be open minded to witness the extraordinary. Those with closed minds and a debunk-or-bust agenda will likely never experience anything extraordinary. I don't need an ET to poke with a stick to know that there is something out of the ordinary going on, on a daily basis, all over the globe.

Being closed minded sounds dull as hell to me. Thankfully, I have an open mind.

Exactly!

What's really sad is that they think if you don't agree with them then you must have a lower standard of evidence than they do. It's just silly. They're not comfortable in their own belief and they then make the leap about the conclusions you're allowed to reach.

It's like Plato said, a prison.

At the end of the day, there's mountains of evidence to support the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred. I will post these 3 links yet again:

If you don't mind me saying, you sound like a child stamping their feet because people don't agree with you. You've twice provided links to sites that by their very nature carry a level of bias and show statements from people saying they saw something. Let's leave the question of if they actually did to one side (personally, given the timings of some of the sightings to other events in the media - the release of a major sci fi film for example, I have my doubts) but to then say it is evidence of ET visitation is not the case. At best it's evidence that perhaps something happened that the witness/es could not explain and have put forward their theory on what it was,

If it was to be treated as evidence, then you would need a method of balancing it to admit it as such - what is that method in your opinion based on the fact we have no conclusive baseline against which to measure it? Without one, using the courtroom analogy people are so fond of, it would surely have to be classed as inadmissable - wouldn't it?

intelligenthoodlum33
Nice thread. Every thread with UFO in the title attracts the same skeptics with the same excuses. The feeling of superiority must be like a drug.

I believe that aliens exist and have/are visiting this planet. I also think that most of the time they don't want to be seen...why? We can only speculate, but to discount so many viewings and testimonies is a bit closed-minded in my opinion.

Your statement is kind of funny, for I feel the same way but from the other side. I find "believers" to hold that superior attitude.

You have a couple of interesting words in your post… “Belief” as in you have faith they are here, but you have no solid proof to support your belief. You also suggest we can only “speculate”, since the proof is just not there, but you only need people’s witness accounts as enough proof for you to believe.

For me witness reports should not be seen as “proof positive”, but as support to backup physical proof and empirical data.

As example Mexico’s UFO incident: This was where 1000s of people saw something in the sky and many were able to take pictures/video of it. The witnesses provide the validity that something was actually in the sky. The many different pictures/video also support the validity that the occurrence was real. Compare this to some guy that posts one video on YouTube with only his witness statement as support.

In both cases there is no proof of aliens, but the witnesses provide support that something really happened with very high validity on one and questionable validity on the other. What was in the sky is pure speculation, and so this leads me back to point of how do we move further along than just belief and speculations?

We can sit on my porch drinking 18 yr scotch and smoke good cigars speculating all day long, but at the end of the day it is still just speculations.

reply to post by Xtrozero


I am a believer that SOME ufo's are indeed extra terrestrial in nature, and I do NOT have a superior attitude, esp. as it relates to skeptics. At least thats what I feel for what its worth. I am not out to try to turn skeptics into believers as well. They are entirely welcome to express their opinions freely as am I. What I look for in comments from skeptics is, if possible, is an open mind to the possibility that we MAY have been, and possibly ,are still being visited, and that there is the possibility of life out in the cosmos as I believe there is, in varieties. But if a skeptic doesn't want to go along with this, I have no problem with it.

Please read Circumstantial Evidence vs Direct Evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

That's mainly where the misunderstanding comes from I believe.
Many people get these two forms of evidence mixed up when we should be differentiating them.

data5091
What I look for in comments from skeptics is, if possible, is an open mind to the possibility that we MAY have been, and possibly ,are still being visited, and that there is the possibility of life out in the cosmos as I believe there is, in varieties. But if a skeptic doesn't want to go along with this, I have no problem with it.

Life is most likely a common occurrence throughout our universe. When conditions are right I would think it happens and to not have life on a planet with the right conditions would be a true enigma.
Intelligent life is also out there too with us as proof that it does happen, but many take a huge leap to say that life is common in our universe to assume that also means advance life too and even intelligent advance life is common too. And not only common, but have the ability to travel impossible distances and find us on our little planet.

That is asking for a lot, don’t you think?

Life is hard to kill, but species come and go all the time and we will come and go too. Life gets reset even here on earth where conditions are about as perfect as they can get for advance life, but even on our perfect planet it took 4.5 billion years to get that one intelligent life form, us. When we look at the universe it has been about 9 billion years since the first solar systems were formed and we are talking that ½ of that time was used up on our planet before we came along. This doesn’t show a lot of support that intelligent life is common in any way, and as we add more and more discriminators as to what that life is like (i.e. advance intelligent life, physically able to build and go into space, able to travel vast distances etc) We really start to limit the chances for that to happen.

It would be like if I said life in general… ok, 100% chance, but then I say that life needs to be a 1000 pound purple hippo that can fly, has 6 eyes and covered in yellow dots. As we keep adding discriminators as to what that life will be we really start to reduce the chances that it does exists with the ability to have a chance to locate us.
For me, without solid proof I just do not believe that intelligent life is anywhere near us much less many different species secretly flying around our neck of the woods.

reply to post by neoholographic

Agreed. The evidence is lengthy, scientifically proven and overwhelmingly positive beyond any doubt.

reply to post by neoholographic


Have you ever considered that possibility that just because you haven't had any personal experiences it in no way discredits the millions of others that have had experiences?

Lets say for argument sake that "The Law of One" is true and you choose in between each life what experiences and lessons you need to learn in order to grow spiritually and move upward toward the the one true creator of love/light (ie god, or heaven in religious terms).

Maybe ones that see them or have experiences are actually farther along in that spiritual path, or maybe they are not as far as one's that don't see them. Its a yin/yang type of thing. Like in life a positive and negative. You can't learn and grow if nobody opposes or offers other ideas right to challenge your thoughts/feelings?

Again I would say that just because you haven't had these experiences in this life doesn't mean you haven't already had them or will in the next go around. To just dismiss the millions of people in some pseudo science type thing is absurd in terms of dealing with things that you can't comprehend.

There is proof that things are occurring that are currently not explainable.

This is NOT proof that aliens from other planets are visiting earth. That is one possible theory. Other possible theories include:

Humans(ish) from an advanced society in Earth's distant past
Humans from our current society that have advanced in secret (Black Government, Nazi, etc)
Demons/Spiritual beings
Alternate Universe visitors

The UFO community jumps straight to the answer of aliens from another galaxy. With all the advances we have on detecting planets/life/sounds in outer space we still have nothing. Unless you think the govt is covering it up, which is another leap on top of the aliens. C'mon I don't look down upon people who believe it is aliens from somewhere out there we haven't found yet, just don't get mad when other open-minded people aren't sold on it.

NONPOINT21
reply to post by neoholographic

 

Have you ever considered that possibility that just because you haven't had any personal experiences it in no way discredits the millions of others that have had experiences?

Lets say for argument sake that "The Law of One" is true and you choose in between each life what experiences and lessons you need to learn in order to grow spiritually and move upward toward the the one true creator of love/light (ie god, or heaven in religious terms).

Maybe ones that see them or have experiences are actually farther along in that spiritual path, or maybe they are not as far as one's that don't see them. Its a yin/yang type of thing. Like in life a positive and negative. You can't learn and grow if nobody opposes or offers other ideas right to challenge your thoughts/feelings?

Again I would say that just because you haven't had these experiences in this life doesn't mean you haven't already had them or will in the next go around. To just dismiss the millions of people in some pseudo science type thing is absurd in terms of dealing with things that you can't comprehend.

What an interesting post. A UFO is an unidentified flying object - that's it. You are saying that you won't/can't see something that is purported to be a physical, substantial thing unless you have progressed far enough along a spiritual path and you then say someone else is resorting to pseudo science?

UFOS= unidentified flying objects.. with intelligent characteristics

I can´t believe people still arguing over whether these objects are intelligently controlled. Damn, they are!

It doesn´t matter whether they come from other planets/dimension/yada..yada. They behave intelligently which means they are directly or indirectly related to consciousness/life force. And thats the end of the story.

And what in the hell is the difference between alien/demon etc? It doesn´t mean anything

I sometimes wonder of the sightings are our own interpretation of what happened.....
That what was seen is not what was there to see......
Maybe interstellar travel is limited to souls, or pure consciousnesses........
The manifestations of these travellers could be varied and also mere projections of that consciousness which we observe...........
I have seen micro enhanced pictures of orbs which looked as if they were some form of small space ship.....complete with pilot, and engines etc.....
Perhaps we could all do with a reread of Macroscope.............the multiverse doesn't stop at our own level but continues in both vibrational directions both to the micro and the macro......
The orbs may be vehicles of smaller entities that are travelling the macroverse.....

reply to post by Xtrozero


Good points and I hear what your saying. We like to think we know most everything about ourselves, and life here and possibly in the universe as we know it. We do not, yet. I have heard recently that there are scientists who think there may be more than one universe or multiverses possible. Possibly even more dimensions as well Pretty mind blowing to me. We do not really know, yet. I am reading a book right now about the history of our robotic/probes space explorations done by the Voyagers, and the Pioneers, and Cassini and others. Great read by the way. We now seem to think there may be as many as 130 billion galaxies, with each galaxy having possibly something like 400 billion stars, and who knows how many planets.
One thing we know nothing about is life as we do NOT know it. We may find out something about this if we do find life on either Europa, or Titan, or Enceladus. I am open to the possibilities of all kinds for life as we do not know it.

alienreality

HomerinNC
There is as much evidence of UFO/aliens as there is that Christ walked the earth...

There is actually more historical evidence that Christ DID walk the earth than there is solid evidence that aliens are coming here, but I don't think that is what your biased comment was hoping for..

Wait a minute.

The cultures with scriptures and records talking about Christ walking the earth...I think those are LESS than the number of cultures where in their beliefs and religions "star people" or "gods from the heavens" play a role. Seriously, pretty much ANY culture goes back to a point where "someone" comes down from the heavens and MANY of those accounts (for me) strongly suggest visitations from outer space, although in a far, far gone by past.

IRONY: The story of Christ, per se, is ALSO a story of an uber-being "coming from the heavens"....hey complete with angels and everything else you'd need to form a theory that it COULD have its origin in outer-space. The rest is simply interpretation. I could argue that I can freely interchange "aliens" with "angels"...and I am not the first one seeing a parallel there.

There is evidence people are seeing things, feeling things or think they're seeing things. Actual evidence of alien visitations that stands the test of the scientific process? None. Zilch. Zero. That is what it comes down to. If you ignore that, you are not seeking the truth, you are seeking a belief. You.....are doing what religions do. Truth & science demands actual evidence. Not hearsay. Not stories. Not unreliable human witnesses.

radkrish
UFOS= unidentified flying objects.. with intelligent characteristics

I can´t believe people still arguing over whether these objects are intelligently controlled. Damn, they are!

No, it does not mean they are intelligently controlled. There are God knows how many youtube videos that have fairly much been shown to be a plastic bag caught in the wind that 'appears' to be moving in a controlled way. In a similar way, Venus and other heavenly objects have also been found to be the actual root cause.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to make the definition - it's something in the sky and you don't know what it is.

reply to post by uncommitted

Nah.

Wayyyyy too many pilots, credible eyewitnesses, military folks, etc have all described these things moving in an "intelligent" manner.

Something extraordinary is definitely going on.

reply to post by neoholographic

obviously there won't be a rational discussion. What you presented is not evidence of aliens. Its evidence of of people linking together a bunch unrelated things and gullibility.

you may respond with your typical responses now.

here, I will start you off.

What?????? That makes no sense!

reply to post by Jaellma


Yep, I agree with you.

It's funny to see the posts from the skeptic. They keep talking about proof. I haven't said anything about proof or that the skeptic must believe as I do. The problem here, is the skeptic can't accept that others can look at the EVIDENCE and reach a conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred.

It's really that simple and the hysteria coming from the skeptics proves my point.

They're so scared of a little open minded discussion that they have to believe there's no evidence. Of course their is. They look at some of the same evidence to reach their conclusion that extreaterrestrial visitation hasn't occurred then they turn around and say there's no evidence to reach a conclusion that's opposite to theirs.

That makes no sense.

Theirs mountains of evidence and more than enough to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred.

Again, when you gather evidence you listen to and go over eyewtiness accounts and abduction cases. The skeptic tries to render this evidence meaningless and it's just silly. Of course we use eyewitness accounts to gather evidence. Police do it all the time to solve cases. WHY DO YOU THINK POLICE SHOW EYEWITNESS PICTURES IN A LINE UP? Do you think it's because eyewitness accounts are meaningless?

I just saw a Cold Case that was solved and you know what was one of the new key pieces of evidence? A guy's alibi changed because a key witness in a 20 year old case added new information as to what he WITNESSED.

So to act like eyewitness accounts are meaningless is just silly.

Again, we use common sense. Something skeptics just throw out of the window when talking about these things.

You weigh the evidence.

If a person says they saw a flying pink elephant it's no where near the same as the mountains of evidence of eyewitness accounts and alien abduction cases. What skeptics do is throw out logic. They don't want to weigh the evidence. They want to render all evidence in this area as meaningless. Most of them don't actually read the evidence because their minds are made up. I will post these same 3 links again. These are just simple cases. These links don't even touch the surface.

If you have noticed, the skeptics haven't responded to any of these things. They just claim all of these cases are meaningless and I guess they're meaningless because they say so LOL.


Some Abduction cases from 1950's to 2005

www.ufocasebook.com...

Close encounters of the 3rd kind

www.ufoevidence.org...

Trace evidence

www.ufoevidence.org...

If you notice, the skeptics ask for information and most of them can't even take the time to read the information when you present it because their minds are made up.

Why can't I look at this evidence and reach the conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred? All I'm doing is weighing the evidence and coming to a conclusion as to what's most likely. This is what humans do all the time, yet when it comes to these areas the skeptic wants you to throw out logic and reason and we can't weigh the evidence unless we reach a conclusion that matches theirs.

neoholographic
reply to post by Jaellma

 

Yep, I agree with you.

It's funny to see the posts from the skeptic. They keep talking about proof. I haven't said anything about proof or that the skeptic must believe as I do. The problem here, is the skeptic can't accept that others can look at the EVIDENCE and reach a conclusion that extraterrestrial visitation has occurred.

It's really that simple and the hysteria coming from the skeptics proves my point.

They're so scared of a little open minded discussion that they have to believe there's no evidence.

Ahhh, oh dear. Never mind, keep stamping that foot because you insist you are right as though others are saying you are wrong. The burden of proof for me personally is higher than it is for you - so I keep an open mind, whereas yours is already made up.

Simply untrue. Evidence is there in drives. Proof, on the other hand....