Aliens exist: Here is the proof

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: tanka418
Anyone who is a true/real "ufologist" is not a skeptic, he is a scientist.

"Scientist" must have a different meaning where you're from...

Oh? How is that?

What is YOUR definition of scientist?

Mine of course is; One who investigates the universe using scientific method and principal...you can look that up since it is a sort of standardized definition.

So you do know what it means. Good. Now please name one "ufologist" who fits that description.

Your correct countless aliens exist, reguardless of what some closed minded people may think it doesnt change the reality. Some people are just not very intelligent. . . . ..

originally posted by: SuspiciousTom

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
What I don't understand is if they are here, what's up with the hiding? Why so silent? I'm not falling for the "we're not ready yet" crap. I don't expect them to land on the white house lawn, but you would think that some of these craft would always be in plain site. Besides, if they are so much more advanced than us why would they care if see them all the time. It's not like we can stop them or anything.

Why would you expect they make open contact? The point is, they do what we do, and all we can do, is speculate on the reasons. Maybe some folks on the government know a bit more than we do. Or do you honestlly believe they will not get involved after unknown spaceships violate your air space, abduct civilians against their will and display far beyond technology comparing to ours? Yeah, right, because the military stopped researching on UFOs after they finished Blue Book... makes perfect sense.

"Unknown Spaceships violate your airspace" - Capable of intergalactic travel but can't stay undetected, Aliens.

Have you read on the news massively about an alien contact with the human race? Have you hear about the goverments speaking about their presence? How was the general view on people who claimed to had contact with them, to ridiculize them, to ignore them, correct?

There you have. It doesn't matter if we can detect some of those ships with our instruments, it doesn't matter if they violate the air space of every country, it doesn't matter if they abduct people against their will. The sheep simply expect to receive the 'official' news on channel 6. If not, it simply doesn't matter, or it's non existent, not relevant, because, you know, Obammy isn't on a press conference giving the announce.

They act furtively enough, evasive enough, to, as most, cause some momentary controversy. Clearly, the victims that are abducted are faced with a complete new reality, and sadly, the institutions that should give them some closure, some answer, are or either ignoring them, or simply hiding them from the truth. But they're lying, right? They're just mentally unstable people, correct? See, let's just dismiss the whole thing. Who cares?

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Your correct countless aliens exist, reguardless of what some closed minded people may think it doesnt change the reality. Some people are just not very intelligent. . . . ..

Indeed. This thread (and this forum) is full of just such people.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Your correct countless aliens exist, reguardless of what some closed minded people may think it doesnt change the reality. Some people are just not very intelligent. . . . ..

Indeed. This thread (and this forum) is full of just such people.

For someone who doesn't believe that EBE's are interacting with our planet and does not have respect for members of this forum as indicated above you sure spend much time here, in the Aliens and UFO forum.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: JackHill

originally posted by: Krakatoa

The incredible and boundless imagination of the human mind. That is how I explain beliefs without hard evidence and non-repeatable experiences.

Seriously, there's a disinformation campaign going on here or what? Boundless imagination? What the heck are you even talking about? 'Beliefs'? What beliefs? Witnesses testimonies is now a religion? Witnesses that will hold their version until their very deaths, witnesses that used to be regular folks, parents, family people, normal people, respected members of their communities. How about multiple witnesses that describe the same event? How about the radar echoes? How about the testimony of professional pilots, military personel, etc? How about the electrical disturbances and radiation effects related to some UFOs?

You don't get to dismiss ALL the cases because some idiots, like Adamski, Meier and others did their nasty work. That's a very irresponsible and lazy way on seeing things.

Lazy way? Really. Let us look at who is lazier, shall we? Here is one way to attempt to identify an odd light seen in the sky. It starts out as a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object), then......

Skeptic

1. Rule out a planet by checking an astronomical database (i.e. Google Sky, etc..)
   
2. Rule out a regular commercial airline by checking a flight database (i.e. FlightAware, etc...)
   
3. Rule out an illumination of balloons or Chinese lanterns by seeing if there are any celebrations or holidays from other cultures occurring at that time
   
4. Rule out a case of personal mental breakdown or hallucination by checking for other people reporting the same experience at the same time
   
5. Bring it to ATS to discuss, explaining the steps taken to rule out the obvious causes...
   

Believer

1. Determine it is an extraterrestrial visitor
   
2. Bring it to ATS to discuss, only accept viewpoints that match your preconceived notions on the origin
   
3. Claim disinformation when someone disagrees with your viewpoint
   
4. Begin personal attacks on the person
   

Now, which one it the laziest here? Who makes the wild leap from observation to determination without investigating the obvious first?

Let me guess, you're one of these guys who will agree with the vision of CSICOP on the Pascagoula case, I'm right?

I wish you could use that so much wasted energy into helping to give some light on the INTELLIGENCE behind some of these UFOs.

They're all lying! They're all mentally affected/unstable! Thay're all mistaken! Case closed! Moving on!

Don't you get that it doesn't matter how many twists you can do on certain cases, there's NOT another explanation besides what the witnesses actually lived? Why is this so hard to accept? It's amazing, honestly. You're so mentally structured that nothing will shake you off of it. It's actually sad.

***ATTENTION***

How about instead of arguing about who does and doesn't believe in aliens, and who spends what time in what forums, we actually get back on the topic at hand?

This will be your only warning. Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: tanka418
Anyone who is a true/real "ufologist" is not a skeptic, he is a scientist.

"Scientist" must have a different meaning where you're from...

Oh? How is that?

What is YOUR definition of scientist?

Mine of course is; One who investigates the universe using scientific method and principal...you can look that up since it is a sort of standardized definition.

So you do know what it means. Good. Now please name one "ufologist" who fits that description.

You have made a rather simple mistake...I originally said; "Anyone who is a true/real "ufologist" is not a skeptic, he is a scientist."

Now then, I'm sorry if you took that to mean there was such an animal was/is extant on Earth. Perhaps that is my bad, perhaps language simply failed...don't know.

However, IF I ever find one I'll try to let ya know...

There are however some that come to mind...like Stan Friedman, J. Vallee. Not that I subscribe to their hypotheses...but, both are trained in science, as am I, and at least a couple others around here (ATS)...

originally posted by: JackHill
Let me guess, you're one of these guys who will agree with the vision of CSICOP on the Pascagoula case, I'm right?

No!

I wish you could use that so much wasted energy into helping to give some light on the INTELLIGENCE behind some of these UFOs.

I do waste plenty of energy and time arguing and trying to shed some light on these things...here is an example...www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have and will continue to use science and mathematics to demonstrate the realities of Extraterrestrials, and their presence on Earth.

You need to do as I tell the skeptics; Due diligence, application of science, logic, common sense, and of course research...

There are no substitutes!!!!

originally posted by: Emerys
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I was waiting for one of you to post! Let's define "proof"

proof
1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

I think I have established an argument helping to establish a fact?

Not at all. Arguments based on probability cannot be used to prove or disprove assertions of fact, only how possible or probable those facts might be. I think it is also important to recognize that there are two related but different definitions of proof being mixed here. Generally, there are multiple meanings of the word proof:

1. Factual evidence that established the truth of a factual statement "The fact that my client was in jail at the time of the robbery is proof that he did not commit that crime." Establishing a fact as evidence may require logical argumentation but it is still about facts. We can call this meaning "evidentiary proof"

2. A logical argument intended to demonstrate that a conclusion follows from a set of premisses. "The proof of the Pythagorean theorem is taught in high school geometry." We can call this "logical proof"

The other meanings which aren't really important here are (a) Measure of strength of alcohol (100 proof rum) (b) A trial or test (He proved himself in battle) (c) An initial copy of a printing of something (We are looking at the proofs of the new magazine)

The problem is that people often create a proof in the sense of the logical proof -- a chain of reasoning -- and then erroneously conclude that it is evidentiary proof.

In logic, to establish logical proof ensures that an argument is valid. If all the premisses are true, then the valid argument is sound and can be used as a basis for evidentiary proof.



"All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore all men are Socrates" is not valid because the argument fails in establishing logical proof.

"All men can fly. Socrates was a man. Therefore Socrates could fly." This argument is valid and has been proved logically, but it is not sound because the first premiss is not true, there for it cannot be used to establish evidentiary proof, which does not mean that argument is not useful as guide to further investigation (maybe there are flying men somewhere).

However, I would also add that something being probably true is not the same as being true so that arguments based on probabilistic truth values for the premisses should not be taken as evidentary proof.

a reply to: tanka418

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I did misunderstand your earlier post.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: 321Go
Life exists, but that doesn't automatically mean it drives spaceships.

I never said it did...

However, right here on lil ole Earth microbial life is 87.5% of species, so us macro creatures are 1 in 8...that probability is rather good, and if we are looking for advanced complex life on another world; we are likely to find it. The intelligent thing however, is as you said, not so good since Earth has 1 in 8 million species that is advanced space faring. But, in the face of all the other probabilities standing in the way, even 1 in 8,000,000 seems rather certain...given enough time.

I used Tau Ceti as an example, but as it turns out the probability of advanced sentient space faring life on either of Tau Ceti's planets is rather low. One planet is on the inside edge of the HZ and is thus quite hot, though still a good probability of life, probability for what we are looking for is reduced somewhat. The other is on the outside edge, if it has some greenhouse gases there may be liquid water, though, some bacteria is known to live within ice.

There are other stars in Earth lore that actually do have some supporting data in regards to visiting extraterrestrials. Though I would add that the data is currently deemed "unacceptable"...for no real reason other than willful denial. But, that is something else...

I feel, on the whole, we are arguing the same point. Life exists outside of our solar system, but what life? I think it's very small, with some perhaps a little larger, I fully concede that. But to create us, at least on our planet, took a very long string of very fortunate events. Those odds are enormous to replicate. Of course, that doesn't mean it could have happened easier elsewhere, I concede that too, but it still would be an incredibly rare event. Many people seem to think it is bound to happen – destiny, almost – that if a planet can harbour life then it will harbour advanced, intelligent life and that visit here. That is absolutely not the case.

I'm afraid your mathematics are slightly skewed by what exists now. What you've not included, for it to be a plausible ratio, is the amount of species that have existed, not only those ones that exist at this time. This reduces your odds considerably, by a factor of several hundred million or more, as we have no idea how many species have existed.

In addition, planets that reside in the Goldilocks Zone are not automatically included as prime candidates for life – at least carbon-based life. Apart from many other factors which are too numerous to list, one of the most important is that they are volcanically and/or tectonically active. Without a functioning carbon cycle no life will persist, even if it did get started. The recycling of carbon is vital. Luckily, we have just found one about 40LY away – certainly within travelling distance for a probe or survey vessel. It is a prime candidate for the existence of life.

I don't doubt that advanced life exists, and very probably in our galaxy, but we'll never meet. And the reason why is a whole new story.

a reply to: metamagic

That is a concise, yet fully descriptive argument. Well done.

originally posted by: metamagic
Not at all. Arguments based on probability cannot be used to prove or disprove assertions of fact, only how possible or probable those facts might be. I think it is also important to recognize that there are two related but different definitions of proof being mixed here. Generally, there are multiple meanings of the word proof:

1. Factual evidence that established the truth of a factual statement "The fact that my client was in jail at the time of the robbery is proof that he did not commit that crime." Establishing a fact as evidence may require logical argumentation but it is still about facts.

"Arguments based on probability cannot..." Bold statement there...

So, please tell us why. Why can't probability work in a probabilistic universe?

In your example; Was your client actually "observed" and of course definitely identified at the time of the robbery within the jail? Now, by that I don't mean "he was seen on security cameras", or some other person who doesn't know you client from "Jack" says he was there. But an identification of the client and his actual location that will stand up to scientific scrutiny. In other words, is that "identification" repeatable with other observers?

Now than...the only correct answer here is actually NO. The presence of your client in jail at the time of the robbery can not be proven in the manner you think. It is actually a one-shot event and can't be repeated...so...you have no other option than to rely on probability. Which, based on your original statement, is an almost certainty...that's good for your client...bad for your argument against probability.

The reality is that there are many instances where we can not have "absolute evidence", and in those instances we have no option but to rely on probability. This reliance on probability is even "built in" to how we think and behave...we all use probability all the time and don't even think about it. For instance when you drive your car, you use probability and Bayesian inference to a very large extent; and you are usually successful in your driving. So, it does seem to work quite well.

But, at the end of the day; it is still a probabilistic universe, and we all must rely on probability to make it through the day.

I think the greatest proof that life exists throughout the universe is in plain sight - Earth.

The universe doesn't do "rare" or "special" or "unique". If something exists here it exists everywhere. Therefore if life exists here... life exists all over the place.

originally posted by: ACarva
I think the greatest proof that life exists throughout the universe is in plain sight - Earth.

The universe doesn't do "rare" or "special" or "unique". If something exists here it exists everywhere. Therefore if life exists here... life exists all over the place.

That reasoning is flawed. You could just as well spin it to say that because no life exists on Mercury, than it does not exist anywhere.

originally posted by: ACarva
I think the greatest proof that life exists throughout the universe is in plain sight - Earth.

The universe doesn't do "rare" or "special" or "unique". If something exists here it exists everywhere. Therefore if life exists here... life exists all over the place.

I don't think anyone here has argued against that. What is under discussion is what type of life.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I don't think so. In that proposal I'd be saying what happens on mercury happens everywhere. Which we know from personal experience does not. But I will say that what happens on Mercury... happens all over the Universe. Just as I say what happens on Earth... happens all over - do you see what I mean?

a reply to: ACarva

That may be most probable. However, it still dos not constitute proof, as the OP has claimed in his original thread title.
Its been 18 pages now, and I still await the claimed proof....I want that proof to be independently verifiable and repeatable on-demand. That would constitute empirical proof to me.

originally posted by: 321Go

originally posted by: ACarva
I think the greatest proof that life exists throughout the universe is in plain sight - Earth.

The universe doesn't do "rare" or "special" or "unique". If something exists here it exists everywhere. Therefore if life exists here... life exists all over the place.

I don't think anyone here has argued against that. What is under discussion is what type of life.

Not only what type of life, but the odds of proposed life visiting us here on Earth.

But you're correct, I don't think anyone is trying to claim that no life exists elsewhere in the universe.