Irrefutable UFO evidence. ( Nobody can say prove it ever again! )

I witnessed a UFO encounter as a child and it has always been one of the hardest challenges to convince others UFOs are real. Often times believers and witnesses are charged with lack of physical evidence.

This UFO case in France has eyewitness testimony and physical evidence left behind. The evidence was determined by some of the best scientists in France as being not of this earth. This is the best physical evidence case I have ever seen.

Part One


Part Two


In these video's the French government identifies physical evidence of a UFO and the impossibility of a hoax. I'm not sure if anyone else here has heard of the Valasco UFO but I found it to be the best physical evidence case yet.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts? My thoughts are that this thread will fail. Whenever someone is ignorant enough to use the words "irrefutable" and then go on to say "Nobody can say prove it ever again" they are doomed to failure for obvious reasons of debate.

I have looked into this case in the past, and it is nothing more than standard Ufology fodder, that can be found on many other cases as well. And none of them has solved any riddles yet, neither will this one. Ah, the "docu-drama" format, lol, got to love it. A case so strong, the evidence so overwhelming, they had to make a "docu-drama" about it that deals with recreations and not scientifically dealing with the "irrefutable" evidence in a more responsible manner. One would think if there was iron clad evidence of something substantial, a "docu-drama" would not be the way to present it to the community if it is to be taken seriously?

I have no problem logically discussing such things such as this case and others, but when you approach it in the manner that you have, there is no point.

Assertiveness and flexibility must go hand in hand if we ever want to get this thing on the right course.





[edit on 18-6-2009 by IgnoreTheFacts]

very cool

never saw this one before

I see no reason why anyone involved would need to lie as there is nothing to gain but ridicule from the non-believers

thanks for post

I'm flagging the thread, and i've not watched any of the videos.

That makes me a man.

I'll watch them alter, but I'm too angry about MPs expenses, and wishing them a painful death to worry about ufos for the moment.

reply to post by libertytoall
my parents and siblings saw the same thing happen way back when...

in fact, I will be e-mailing the links to one of them if any of it looks familiar.

what year did this happen again?

[edit on 18-6-2009 by reject]

Originally posted by Acidtastic
I'm flagging the thread, and i've not watched any of the videos.

That makes me a man.

No, that makes you someone who is, by admission, undermining the ATS flagging system. And that is more indicative of a child. You're supposed to examine the content, and then decide to flag it or not. The admins entrust ATS members with that responsibility, and this site depends on you treating that responsibility with some kind of respect. Please don't do that again.

As to the OP: Great story. But unfortunately all it proves is that there were some kind of weird biological changes in the vegetation, which over time, started returning to normal. Do I believe this story? 99%. Pretty damn good!

Now I will flag it myself, thank you very much, after at least watching the videos.

Edit: OP: Sorry, no star though because of your presumptuous thread title. Content flag worthy imo.

[edit on Thu Jun 18th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

i am going to refute the evidence...

prove it

I haven't watched the videos, but if it is what I think it is, a documentary about some of the best French cases, there's nothing irrefutable about them.
GEIPAN's investigations have been harshly criticized by French skeptics for their biased analysis and bad methodology. BTW, the "authority" J.-J. Velasco is not a scientist.

Originally posted by Acidtastic
I'm flagging the thread, and i've not watched any of the videos.

That makes me a man.

I'll watch them alter, but I'm too angry about MPs expenses, and wishing them a painful death to worry about ufos for the moment.

Brilliant - that made me laugh and forget about the thread momentarily...

If there were actual evidence of an alien presence, we would know it already

reply to post by libertytoall


Hi libertytoall, this case was important enough to put it in the excellent France Cometa rapport.

On Friday July 16, 1999 an important document was published in France entitled, UFOs and Defense: What must we be prepared for? ("Les Ovni Et La Defense: A quoi doit-on se préparer?"). This ninety-page report is the result of an in-depth study of UFOs, covering many aspects of the subject, especially questions of national defense. The study was carried out over several years by an independent group of former "auditors" at the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defense, or IHEDN, and by qualified experts from various fields. Before its public release, it has been sent to French President Jacques Chirac and to Prime Minister Lionel Jospin.

www.cufos.org...

Close encounters in France:
• Valensole (Maurice Masse, 1965)
• Cussac, Cantal (1967)
• Trans-en-Provence (1981)
• Nancy (the "Amaranth" case, 1982)
• Counter-examples of explained phenomena (two cases).

For those who want to read the whole rapport are here the links.

Part 1;

www.ufoevidence.org...

Part 2;

www.ufoevidence.org...

This is more properly called the "Trans-en-Provence" case.

Far from proof, it's still a controversial case, with UFOlogists on both sides of it. Eric Maillot, a French UFOlogist investigated and concluded it was a practical joke that had gotten out of hand and grown proportionately....

If you want more on the case, I'd recommend searching under the case name above, vs. Velasco's name.

I haven't watched the videos, but if it is what I think it is, a documentary about some of the best French cases, there's nothing irrefutable about them.
GEIPAN's investigations have been harshly criticized by French skeptics for their biased analysis and bad methodology. BTW, the "authority" J.-J. Velasco is not a scientist.

Yep, it's the case you're thinking of....

I don't see this as being "irrefutable proof" of ET presence. There are hundreds of crop circles per year that have characteristics that are not normal of regular corn/barley/wheat. If this is "irrefutable proof" of ET presence because of unusual soil readings, then the UFO phenomenon would have been broken open many many years ago.

And the videos being presented in a docu-drama format does not help in the authenticity either. I believe it happened, but to recreate the scenario does not "prove" anything. It's just hearsay in my opinion. If you really want to give "irrefutable proof," then don't post a video of a recreation and maybe you'll be taken seriously. Most of the members on this board want hard evidence of UFO's, not just some video that uses actors in order to recreate an event.

[edit on 6/18/0909 by Mookie89]

reply to post by TrueAmerican


And I will star your post because you explained how the flag/star system should be used and explained your reasons for flagging and not staring.



OP:

The title is misleading and wrong, although the case is strong it is in no way proof. I made a thread a couple months ago called The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life, while that title may have been a little presumptuous I was using the term in a more abstract format, I never said it was proof, only 'clinchers'- there is a difference, as it implied an opinion, and not a fact, which 'irrefutable' states. I still probably should have titled it different though, but IMO the evidence I presented was the strongest and broadest around. I say this to you so maybe you can learn how title your threads a little different and more proper. Good case though!

reply to post by Acidtastic


I cannot believe that you got four stars for that!!

I have not watched the videos. My router is messing up today, but I have read about this case and it is very interesting. It is not 100 percent proof of extraterrestrials on earth, but it comes 97 percent of the way for me.

Very nice presentation and acting ;-)
But where is the evidence ???

Actual pics of the site, soil test results, vegetation test results etc etc should accompany this pretty video to prove anything at all.
I won't jump to any conclusions because of lack of info here, we need more to distinguish it from an ordinary meteor impact. (which also burns the soil and spreads toxic stuff).

In the Trans-en-Provence case of January 8, 1981, discussed also in the previous section (Bounias, 1990; Vallee, 1990; Velasco, 1990; see Section 15), the Gendarmerie took one sample 1.5 meters from the center of a ground trace on January 9 and another sample, 20 meters from the center, on January 23. On February 17, 1981, investigators from GEPAN/SEPRA visited the site and took a series of samples beginning at the center of the ground trace and ending 10 meters from the center. Bounias examined the samples in his laboratory. The principal procedure for biochemical analysis was that of determining the chromatograms of the pigments. This yielded information for a number of biochemical components (chlorophylides; xanthines; oxychlorophylls; lutein; chlorophyll A; chlorophyll B; pheophytins; and ß carotene).

In samples taken from the periphery of the ground trace, the chlorophyll A content had been reduced by 33%, the chlorophyll B content by 28% and the pheophytin content by 31%. Bounias also found that the ß carotene content had been reduced by 50-57% and the violaxanthine content by 80%. The above changes, which normally occur as the result of aging of a plant, were found both in the samples removed by the Gendarmerie within one day of the event, and by the samples taken by the GEPAN/SEPRA investigators 40 days after the event. As one may see from the article by Bounias (1990), the biochemical changes show a strong correlation with distance from the center of the event. It appears that the magnitude of the effect is associated with a specific quantity (the difference in free enthalpy) associated with the biochemical change. According to Bounias, the glucide and amino-acid content of very young leaves had been changed to become nearer the content characteristic of old leaves.

Bounias carried out certain experiments to try to determine what form of trauma may have been responsible for these biochemical changes. As a toxicologist, Bounias rejected the hypothesis that the changes could have been caused by a deliberate act involving chemical poisons. Bounias also found that some of the changes could have been caused by powerful microwave radiation. However, microwave radiation by itself would not explain the photosynthetic breakdown or certain other characteristics of the injuries. Bounias found no evidence of effects that one might expect to be produced by ionizing radiation. This is consistent with the fact that there was no trace of radioactivity at the site.

Velasco also reported the GEPAN/SEPRA investigation into the "Amarante" case that occurred at Nancy on October 21, 1982. The witness, who is a biologist, reported that an ovoid object descended into his garden but did not descend lower than 1 meter above the ground. The witness observed the object for 20 minutes before it took off vertically into the sky. The witness did not hear any sound or feel any heat during the encounter, nor were there traces on the ground. However the witness reported that, just before the object departed, the grass blades stood up straight. Subsequent investigations showed that this phenomenon could be reproduced in the laboratory by using very intense electric fields (several tens of kV/m).

The GEPAN/SEPRA investigators found that the amarante plants located near the object had become desiccated whereas similar plants further away were in normal condition. The fruit of plants from the vicinity of the object looked as if they had been cooked. Further biochemical analyses of the samples gave results consistent with what one would expect of plants that had been dehydrated.

The panel was impressed by the detailed information that can be obtained by laboratory investigation of samples of vegetation taken from the location of a claimed UFO incident. It appears that a great deal more could be done in the way of laboratory experiments to study the effects of various kinds of radiation upon vegetation.

Link

Originally posted by aalien
If there were actual evidence of an alien presence, we would know it already

Oh but I thought we did.


And here a second line just for the heck of it.

reply to post by Gazrok
Just wondered why you said below Nablators quote,
"Yep, it's the case you're thinking of"since he doesn't mention any specific case other than being French cases.





[edit on 18-6-2009 by smurfy]

Prove it
(there goes that theory)