Aliens exist: Here is the proof

originally posted by: Krakatoa
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.

I took a different view from the original post - may have been my mistake. I am not talking about ET life visiting us or the proof of it. I am just saying that we are proof that life exists in the Universe. To think the life we are and witness is a very small abnormality in a minuscule corner of a vast existence... seems silly to me. It is tantamount to me saying "I saw a flower today... I bet no one else in the world did."

There has been in our history as humans this confusing - many times inspired by organized religion - necessity for humans and our planet to be unique and special. Everything we find about ourselves, our planet, our solar system, our universe tells the same story - nothing unique exists.

a reply to: ACarva

I recommend you re-read the OP then. The first sentence states:

This post is to prove aliens exist outside of our planet

So the argument of life on Earth being proof is irrelevant to this thread, and the OP's original statement.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I see that is our disagreement and I really don't think there is any need to carry it any further - would just divert from the discussion. I'm new, found the thread compelling and gave my opinion.

But for clarity when I read "This post is to prove aliens exist outside of our planet" I agreed. The discussion thereafter seemed to me get lost in some places and very semantic on others but at the end I still agree - our life is proof there is life all over the Universe. I don't think it is irrelevant proof but I'll admit my contribution to the thread may not have been appropriate.

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?

That is a total misreading of my comment because I never said probability cannot work in a probabilistic universe. What I said is that probabilistic arguments cannot be used as evidentiary proof of fact. To illustrate this, consider the black swan effect. In sixteenth century London, everyone "knew" that all swans were white. That claim was "proven" by the fact that no one had ever seen a swan that was not white. What more could you want in the way of evidentiary proof? However in 1636, a Dutch explorer discovered black swans in Western Australia. Oops. In other words, the statement "All swans are white" could not be proved by the observation that every swan observed so far has been white (the best you can claim is that you haven't seen a non-white swan yet, but that is not evidentary proof that they don't exist; it merely may be the you weren't looking hard enough). However once a black swan is seen, that is evidentiary proof that not all swans are white.

What I pointed out is that "All the swans I have seen so far are white" is a probabilistic statement and cannot be used as evidentiary proof "All swans are white", while "Ohh there is a black swan" IS evidentary proof against the assertion.

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?

Irrelevant. If it makes you happy change my phrase "The fact that..." to "The established fact that we all agree on..." I was not in any way attempting to argue what constitutes a fact. That is a whole other epistemological debate that is not part of this discussion, allbeit a very important topic outside this context.

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.

Again irrelevant. The issue of whether or not proof is evidentiary or logical is a separate question from establishing whether a given assertion is a fact or more specifically what a "fact" is. In fact, this is one of the main activities of science so... important in general but not in the scope of my original discussion.

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.

*** Disclaimer : the following statement is intended as humour

I would suggest that your last statement is probably wrong since the assertion "The universe is probabilistic" is at best probably true which you means you "might" be right.

a reply to: ACarva

Don't get me wrong, your opinion is welcome to me. I believe in healthy discussion and debate of all sides of an argument. What I don't accept are baseless definitive claims without any empirical proof to review and discuss. Opinions are fine, as long as they are not expected to be received as proof or ultimate truth. Only then do we not have a discussion, and are expected to merely parrot and nod in agreement.

I resist that vehemently, kind of a vice I guess.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I agree with you wholeheartedly - there is nothing more frustrating than talking to a wall. But on this matter there is no empirical proof - not from me at least. Observation is still valid though and has been throughout human history our greatest tool of discovery. In my observation - without any empirical proof - I conclude that it would be ludicrous if this entire Universe which laws of physics seem so determined and universal... that life would only exist in one planet on some remote solar system in the suburbs of some galaxy.

But as you said and I admit - that is not empirical proof. It is simple observation.

And - to add to my last post - what is more probable:

1- Life only exists on this planet.

2- Life on this planet resists the idea it is not unique. And by that I mean human life - not the countless other living beings on this planet - just human beings... sitting in a throne of perpetuating life, still believing they are special in the grander scheme of things.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Emerys
a reply to: Legman


So 70,000 annual reports of UFO sightings are not evidence?

If there were actual, conclusive evidence, it would be on every television station and the front page of every newspaper on the planet.

No it would not... best to keep the public in ignorance as much and as long as possible.

originally posted by: Alundra

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Emerys
a reply to: Legman


So 70,000 annual reports of UFO sightings are not evidence?

If there were actual, conclusive evidence, it would be on every television station and the front page of every newspaper on the planet.

No it would not... best to keep the public in ignorance as much and as long as possible.

Well, they've failed miserably, then, since anybody can go out and buy a telescope and see for themselves what's going on in the skies and space around our planet.

a reply to: metamagic

*** Disclaimer : the following statement is intended as humour

I would suggest that your last statement is probably wrong since the assertion "The universe is probabilistic" is at best probably true which you means you "might" be right.

Actually you are 99.999999999999999% correct (sorry had to do that

That is the best thing about probability, and the universe...its not certain...it becomes a sort of love/hate thing.

We seem to have a difference of opinion on the definition of "proof"...so, you will have to understand that except for stars I am sort of "type antagonistic"...in that I don't take "Type" into account. With the exception of spectral type of stars, and of course data (data type in a computer science sort of way).

Things like life, proof have a more binary property to them...

Proof, by the way, is; compelling evidence. And, typically is rather subjective in nature.

Finally, probability most certainly can be used as evidence.

originally posted by: Alundra

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Emerys
a reply to: Legman


So 70,000 annual reports of UFO sightings are not evidence?

If there were actual, conclusive evidence, it would be on every television station and the front page of every newspaper on the planet.

No it would not... best to keep the public in ignorance as much and as long as possible.

But WHO is keeping the public ignorant? There are journalists, scientists, astronomers and a whole wealth of (trustworthy, professional and respected) people waiting to find out and actively seek out proof every day. Nobody has broken the news yet with definitive, unequivocal and undeniable evidence. The 'MIB' can't silence the world, despite what they say in the movies.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Alundra

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Emerys
a reply to: Legman


So 70,000 annual reports of UFO sightings are not evidence?

If there were actual, conclusive evidence, it would be on every television station and the front page of every newspaper on the planet.

No it would not... best to keep the public in ignorance as much and as long as possible.

Well, they've failed miserably, then, since anybody can go out and buy a telescope and see for themselves what's going on in the skies and space around our planet.

What can I say man; if you want a really good look...it's about $11k

That buys a really nice 11 inch telescope...can resolve about 1/2 mile at the moon's surface...and would have a real nice camera too...

originally posted by: Alundra

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Emerys
a reply to: Legman


So 70,000 annual reports of UFO sightings are not evidence?

If there were actual, conclusive evidence, it would be on every television station and the front page of every newspaper on the planet.

No it would not... best to keep the public in ignorance as much and as long as possible.

Actually, keeping the public in ignorance is pretty bad, if they sign what would be an intergalactic treaty and a craft was to land somewhere thinking no one is nearby and an alien gets shot, that's not going to be helping the treaty at all.

Everyone is talking about intelligent life and how it is HIGHLY improbable because, after all, look how long it took "intelligent life" to occur on planet earth and Blah blah blah.

Well then, I have a suggestion or two.

First suggestion is: I am not sure how we can be defined as the FIRST intelligent life on this planet with 100% certainty, after all, there really is rather a large gap in our historical record...like the whole of history.

Second suggestion is: What if the earth was a "retarded" planet? Who knows, maybe "intelligent life" can form after only a couple of hundred million years.

Who knows indeed.

originally posted by: Scdfa


Emerys, don't worry about the criticism, you're absolutely right on several points.

Eyewitness testimony is a foundation of all societies, and it remains the primary form of human communication.

To suggest that witnesses "just don't count" when it comes to UFOs and alien contact is absurd.
Of course they count, nearly all the information we have on UFOs and alien beings, both physically and behaviorally, comes solely from eyewitness testimony. Not from scientists, but from the people who were there to witness these events.

I ask any reader here, try this:

Close your eyes, and tell me the first image that comes to mind when I say "UFO and alien".

Now: What did you see?

Sure, there will be some snarky replies. But if most folks were being honest, I bet they have very similar ideas come to mind.

That's because of eyewitness testimony. The thousands and thousand of witness reports, that are overwhelmingly corroborative, have built a societal understanding of grey aliens traveling in flying disc shaped.
Despite the tireless efforts of those who deny or decry the value of eyewitness testimony, the experiences of witnesses and contactees have painted a clearly defined picture of what an alien encounters is.

The truth is getting out, despite debunkers, scientific cowardice, and a seventy-year long near-official policy of ridicule and secrecy.

Believing eyewitnesses is an evolutionary trait, our survival usually has depended on it, and still does.

If you're a Cro-Magnon, and three other Cro-Magnons tell you they saw a sabre-tooth tiger, you had a better chance of surviving if you took them seriously. Even if their accounts varied on the details of how big he was, the smart play is to believe them.

Smart move when they believed Paul Revere.
Good thing Boston didn't demand Paul Revere provide some physical proof for Ben Franklin to test before they decided to believe the British were coming.

So why would we suddenly stop believing other people only when it comes to aliens? And what kind of person would want us to?

Not the smart move, even to a Cro-Magnon.

Excellent post my friend.
Cool analogy there with the Cro-Magnon. Contrasting that analogy with the alien phenomenon, there would be thousands of sightings of the saber-tooth instead of the 3 you used. All the more reason eyewitness testimony (especially concerning ET) needs to be taken more seriously. Good job.

a reply to: Jonjonj

The "how long" discussion is ridiculous in itself. Life existed in the Universe way before the solar system even came into being. Again - you're right - I have no empirical proof of that but I highly doubt the Universe was just moving along void of life just waiting for that isolated solar system in the suburbs of that one galaxy for life to happen. I would say - without any empirical evidence - that if life happened here it has been happening for a long time all over the universe and countless lifeforms around the universe are much... much older than any lifeform that ever walked the earth. That leads to the speculation that there is in fact life in this galaxy that is much more intelligent, wiser and experienced in this thing we call life than we are.

Would they visit us? I think not. For this single reason - again not empirical proof just in this case speculation - would you ever consider visiting every single anthill on Earth? Every single one? In the scenario (which I humbly think is most probable) that life is not a precious jewel but a common occurrence much like what we call precious jewels... would you travel the Universe to visit all the countless anthills?

originally posted by: 321Go
Nobody has broken the news yet with definitive, unequivocal and undeniable evidence.

You realize that this is an unreasonable expectation of the data, right?

To begin with; any evidence can be rejected, regardless of it's nature. We see it right here on ATS all the time...

Any conclusion or interpretation based on that data is typically not accepted until and unless its been peer reviewed.

Most of these difficulties are the result of a lack of convention and structure...

Again, most of the real reason there are is not news of this nature is because of an environment of inappropriate/unreasonable expectations.

a reply to: ACarva


You must forgive me for not agreeing with your analogy. Anthills and inhabited planets.

Apples and...grains of sand?

a reply to: Jonjonj

That depends on your definition of 'we'. The first recorded lineage of what would become Homo Sapiens is dated about 35MA. This is denoted by the jaw, or in particular by their teeth – four incisors bordered by two canines and the same molar arrangement. No other primate species of the time had this tooth formation. From this one line all of the great apes developed, of which we are one. In fact, modern humans are only about 35 thousand years old, even though our species is about 200,000 years old.

35 thousand years ago is nothing in geological time. In fact, we were still hunting mammoths in Siberia less than 5 thousand years ago. That is a truly remarkable rate of development. Astounding, in fact, in that less than 5,000 years we have gone from hunter gatherers to Hunter wellingtons. But that, again, is not fate or destiny. It took some remarkable changes in our environment and habitat to develop us further – changes that were not planned or foreseen. The remarkable series of random twists and turns of many many variables produced what we are today. The type of intelligence we display is not forecast, inevitable or destined, but it happened. As I have previously said, it could have happened elsewhere too, but it is highly unlikely.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: Scdfa


Emerys, don't worry about the criticism, you're absolutely right on several points.

Eyewitness testimony is a foundation of all societies, and it remains the primary form of human communication.

To suggest that witnesses "just don't count" when it comes to UFOs and alien contact is absurd.
Of course they count, nearly all the information we have on UFOs and alien beings, both physically and behaviorally, comes solely from eyewitness testimony. Not from scientists, but from the people who were there to witness these events.

I ask any reader here, try this:

Close your eyes, and tell me the first image that comes to mind when I say "UFO and alien".

Now: What did you see?

Sure, there will be some snarky replies. But if most folks were being honest, I bet they have very similar ideas come to mind.

That's because of eyewitness testimony. The thousands and thousand of witness reports, that are overwhelmingly corroborative, have built a societal understanding of grey aliens traveling in flying disc shaped.
Despite the tireless efforts of those who deny or decry the value of eyewitness testimony, the experiences of witnesses and contactees have painted a clearly defined picture of what an alien encounters is.

The truth is getting out, despite debunkers, scientific cowardice, and a seventy-year long near-official policy of ridicule and secrecy.

Believing eyewitnesses is an evolutionary trait, our survival usually has depended on it, and still does.

If you're a Cro-Magnon, and three other Cro-Magnons tell you they saw a sabre-tooth tiger, you had a better chance of surviving if you took them seriously. Even if their accounts varied on the details of how big he was, the smart play is to believe them.

Smart move when they believed Paul Revere.
Good thing Boston didn't demand Paul Revere provide some physical proof for Ben Franklin to test before they decided to believe the British were coming.

So why would we suddenly stop believing other people only when it comes to aliens? And what kind of person would want us to?

Not the smart move, even to a Cro-Magnon.

Excellent post my friend.

Cool analogy there with the Cro-Magnon. Contrasting that analogy with the alien phenomenon, there would be thousands of sightings of the saber-tooth instead of the 3 you used. All the more reason eyewitness testimony (especially concerning ET) needs to be taken more seriously. Good job.

That is a very poor analogy. Sabre Tooths were prevalent and every Cro-Magnon would have seen one. In that case, if someone shouted "TIGER" everyone would have ran (not that they spoke English, of course...). The two are not comparable.