Question/observation

The Westall incident was quite interesting.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ObservingYou
I agree with the OP.

We have evidence in abundance - and to be asked to present it is an insult to common sense.

Where should we start?

FOIA Files from each and every government?
Radar and radiation readings from all military investigations?
Video evidence of UFO's in the sky - acting intelligently?
First hand witness accounts?

Can the skeptics settle this once and for all and enlighten us as to what constitutes as 'proof'.

what constitutes as proof is not your overgeneralized list. The things from your list are missing something; Actuality. There is not one case that can not be explained or interpreted in earthly ways. 5000 zeros added all together still equals zero and not 5000.

Originally posted by ObservingYou
I agree with the OP.

We have evidence in abundance - and to be asked to present it is an insult to common sense.

Where should we start?

FOIA Files from each and every government?
Radar and radiation readings from all military investigations?
Video evidence of UFO's in the sky - acting intelligently?
First hand witness accounts?

Can the skeptics settle this once and for all and enlighten us as to what constitutes as 'proof'.

Even if Aliens landed on the Whitehouse, the skeptics would probably want to see these creatures dissected and biologically studied to prove they weren't some how man-made.

reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt
You're right. Even if aliens landed on the WH lawn, gave interviews, took photos and performed magic tricks for all to see, we would have 100 skeptics say the stories were inconsistent, accounts of the aliens witnessed were varied and vague, no skeptics were present to verify proof and the aliens were actually actors with deformed shapes.

reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt


It would seem some of you have fallen into the slippery sloped trap of a close minded view on what skepticism actually is.
Many, it would seem, think skepticism is about making a knee-jerk party pooper response of negativity when it comes to anything magical and wonderful.

This view is in error. The skeptical point of view follows a logical path of inquisition, usually starting with a question like "can this be explained by something mundane?"
It's a process of elimination, and critical examination of data provided.
There isn't any "I believe it because I see it" because in reality, the human machine, our eyes and minds can be fooled quite easily.
We require hard unambiguous data.
Something that would give good indication of non-terrestrial life is a sample of DNA, or whatever the alien visitors use that expresses molecular right-handedness.
Right handedness?
Yes.
If I recall correctly, ALL life on earth is molecular LEFT handed. (someone please correct me if I've the two reversed)
Such a thing would not require dissection.
Another good indicator would be an element base other than Carbon.

There are long lists of means by which any supposed non-terrestrial visitors could be verified as such without any requirement for dissection.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

 

We require hard unambiguous data.
Something that would give good indication of non-terrestrial life is a sample of DNA,

You're making the assumption that their DNA would be different. What if the human race has been genetically engineered by these dudes using their own DNA.

I neither believe or disbelieve, I find the phenomena interesting that includes studying the behaviour of people like yourself.

Originally posted by Druscilla
It would seem some of you have fallen into the slippery sloped trap of a close minded view on what skepticism actually is.
Many, it would seem, think skepticism is about making a knee-jerk party pooper response of negativity when it comes to anything magical and wonderful.

Thank you. It's this swinging of the pendulum all the way over making skeptics out to be irrational and unrealistic seekers of answers and the truth. Which is a wrong assumption. Easy to try to use to ridicule, but wrong.

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt

You're making the assumption that their DNA would be different. What if the human race has been genetically engineered by these dudes using their own DNA.

I neither believe or disbelieve, I find the phenomena interesting that includes studying the behaviour of people like yourself.

edit on 29-6-2013 by BullwinkleKicksButt because: (no reason given)

You are also making assumptions, but, I would like to think my assumption is a little more practical given any given set of data, that data can be examined to come to a conclusion.

In your proposed scenario, for instance, it would be a simple matter of mapping Y-Chromosomal Haplogroup and Mitochondrial Haplogroup for comparison. The Haplogroups and Types extent throughout the course of human history are well documented and recorded as a traceable map to ancestry.
Any non-terrestrial Human would quite readily express an entirely new Haplogroup, or exhibit Root Haplogroup characteristics.
Please feel free to read about Haplogroups.
The more you know, the better you can understand and examine the universe around you.

Thus, regardless of how similar or dissimilar, just from the biological standpoint there's methodologies available for ready verification/confirmation/comparison for any non-terrestrial claimants.

That's just biology. Materials science also has ready means by which to examine artifact/material samples.
Aliens could give us an alien coffee cup, or Alien ashtray to examine and we could accurately identify if the materials used in the construction of these things originated on Earth, or, somewhere else, even if they looked just like a regular Earth coffee cup or regular Earth ashtray.

reply to post by Druscilla


So are you saying that implants removed from people studied to contain materials not found on earth is evidence to suggest Alien contact?

.something tells me it's: 1- more advanced than we can understand.

Perhaps it is more than you can understand. Lets not be inclusive of everyone by using "we".

reply to post by Druscilla
I find it fascinating that a hard core skeptic like you claim to be has read about Haplogroups but admittedly has not read one single book on UFOlogy.

How can you be taken seriously with your beliefs and assumptions if you have not done your homework thoroughly?

Originally posted by Druscilla

You are also making assumptions,

edit on 29-6-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

What assumption have I made?

When SETI spends multi millions and shows no evidence, not a drop...well.

or maybe thats another conspiracy.

I cant imagine the money that would be donated if SETI came up with evidence.

Originally posted by borntowatch
When SETI spends multi millions and shows no evidence, not a drop...well.

or maybe thats another conspiracy.

Maybe this is part of the problem:

"SETI projects necessarily make assumptions to narrow the search, the foremost being that electromagnetic radiation would be a medium of communication for advanced extraterrestrial life"

If scientists and the people that fund the SETI project didn't believe in the high probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy/universe then the project wouldn't exist in the first place

Just because you haven't found something yet doesn't mean it's not there.

Not sure if this constitutes as evidence, but it's quite interesting

Gosh, I really love these threads where the OP makes bold statements that need evidence or proof....then disappears.

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by skyblueworld

 

The point is there is no evidence that proves ET are visiting this planet , if there were there would be no debate as we would know because there is proof .
What we have is interpretations of events or footage that could suggest a non terrestrial explanation but that is not proof nor is it evidence .

There seems to be some confusion about the concepts 'evidence' and 'proof'. One is quite different from the other. Legitimate scientific hypothesis exist, because there is evidence to support them. These represent possible explanations of certain reports and observations. If later evidence weighs against them, they may be discarded. Proof, as such, exists only in demonstrating the validity of a mathematical proposition. Quite a few credentialed and recognized scientifically trained persons have supported and do support the extraterrestrial hypothesis as the best available explanation for some UFOs. (list available if desired).

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt
reply to post by Druscilla

 

So are you saying that implants removed from people studied to contain materials not found on earth is evidence to suggest Alien contact?

Tell me; what percentage of "implants" exhibit non-terrestrial characteristics?
Further, do any of these so-called "implants exhibit any degree of technology, or are they simply just lumps of, essentially, junk metal/material?

In regard to any percentage, whatever that percentage might be, of "implants" that might express non-terrestrial characteristics, 3 possibilities come to mind.
Of these 3 possibilities, there may even be more.

1. These "implants" are indeed alien/nonterrestrial.
2. These "implants" are self inflicted meteoric debris, potentially purpose smelted by people who, for whatever reason are desperate to bring about physical validation for their psychological delusions.
Cases like Munchausen Syndrome come to mind where subjects self harm for attention seeking. This can also be by proxy. Subjects expressing a schizotypal delusion, even high functioners, may participate in this self affirming behavior.
3. These"implants" are simply foreign materials picked up by the body through accident below the awareness level of the subject where some may contain meteoric material.

Whatever the case, there's no smoking gun and nothing definitive. We see no alien technology, no circuits, nothing that can be defined as technology in any so-called implants found, extracted, and examined.
"Implants" only stand as interesting side-show anomalous material of undetermined causation.
They can be shelves as "evidence" if one so desires, but, in consideration of any degree of possibility #2, there's enough doubt available regarding origin and cause to make them a non-relevant subject.

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by Druscilla

 

I find it fascinating that a hard core skeptic like you claim to be has read about Haplogroups but admittedly has not read one single book on UFOlogy.

How can you be taken seriously with your beliefs and assumptions if you have not done your homework thoroughly?

Tell me, what exactly is there to know about UFOs? It's an UNKNOWN PHENOMENON.
Do you or anyone else KNOW for sure exactly what they ARE?
What exactly do you know about aliens? Do you have unambiguous material confirming the existence of non-terrestrial intelligences visiting our little speck of a planet?

Until we have unambiguous confirmation regarding anything such, you can read every UFO book on the planet and it won't do you any more good than watching Star Wars or Star Trek.
Sure, you might be able to cite interesting cases, but, as I sit here, as we all sit here, none of those interesting cases confirm anything absolutely and none are sufficiently solid enough such that a mundane terrestrial attribution can't be entirely ruled out.
If anything, a number of those materials are poison and will cause a loss of objectivity in favor bias for something like ETH.
One of the biggest problems in UFOlogy are the UFOlogists, and adherents to the phenomenon as illustrated by some other members above in the incident where several score children claimed to have witnessed something spectacular.
I don't have to know what an elephant is, or what one looks like to arrive at an independent classification if I know what every other animal on the planet is.

Let's bring sasquatch into this; the best people to examine any sasquatch, if one is ever found, would be people that know absolutely nothing about sasquatch. If anything you would want people that absolutely reject the idea of sasquatch to confirm sasquatch, because then, there is no doubt.

While I don't reject the probability of aliens in the UNIVERSE, I accept that the probabilities for any number of aliens interacting with our microscopic speck of dirt out of the overall vastness of the Universe and Time to be so miniscule as to be highly improbable.

I claim no knowledge of UFOs, or aliens. I may, in actuality know a thing or two, but, in all objectivity is see no call to go reading materials that over the last 70 or more years haven't given us any confirmation on anything and could very well in some perspectives be summed up as FAILURES in investigative efforts.

I don't deny there are phenomenon.
I do, however, lay zero claim as to knowing what any of that phenomenon is, except where that phenomenon is indeed something that can be identified as something known and mundane, though to some, possibly still unbelievable just because it isn't what they want it to be.

reply to post by Ross 54

Quite a few credentialed and recognized scientifically trained persons have supported and do support the extraterrestrial hypothesis as the best available explanation for some UFOs. (list available if desired).

Opinions proof. opinions = opinions.

reply to post by Druscilla
First of all, let me give you some words of advice: go pick up a book or two on UFOs. I would strongly recommend anything from Leslie Kean or even Richard Dolan.

Secondly, I do know a thing or two on UFOs. I have witnessed them on several occasions. I don't care to get into where and when it happened. I have talked about this on many occasions. In any case, what I witnessed was most likely not made by humans.

Unlike you, I don't get into the "terrestrial vs non-terrestrial" entities or craft argument. It doesn't matter to me. There are possibly craft that are terrestrial that are not man made. So, that is a whole 'nother topic for another day.

I have not witnessed nor have anything ET in my possession BUT I personally know some people who have more information about non-human entities and I can vouch for their honesty.

So, while I can understand your ignorance on this subject please try to understand and respect opinions and evidence that are totally opposite from what you are used to.