Quotes From Prominent Officials Implying An Extraterrestrial Presence On Earth

This is all great and dandy, but there's a really low amount of recent evidence. Nothing entirely notable has happened in the last couple of years.

Dead thread? Nothing? Actual sighting..plenty of fodder questioning the very integrity of you institutional types...nothing..

a reply to: Reddaysun

I don't think anyone's looking hard enough. Then again, governmental groups and agencies have most likely gotten better at covering things up and keeping us out of the loop.

originally posted by: Reddaysun
Oh, I sure do get the drift. Did you once speak to the specific subject?

The specific subject? Then after all this time and all this analysis, where is the physical evidence.? Nada! Nufink! except, everyone pushing their own agenda of what they want the anomalies to be. Selling books and Docos. to the believers of their particular paradigm. Instead of paranoia by the "Hag of death" or the "night creatures", Or the "Pixies took me" now its Alien abduction. Anyone can see its been up fashioned, to match the present day.

That's not saying their is no real effect, but as far as cloaking goes wouldn't it be more logical to stay invisible, if in fact their was an entity with that amount of control, practising camouflage deception. All we have is a pocketful of light on paper , nothing physical. If that's the case theirs no bolts as such.

a reply to: anonentity
The subject seems to be this: statements from people whose credentials are understood as being sterling, all in support of ET presence. It is an aspect of the subject of ET. In the world we live in, it is a very reasonable choice to highlight these peoples' statements to strenghten one's position. And my position is: these people aren't the first ones I'd go to for truth. I prefer my neighbor's account of some ET event.

A bunch of quotes doesn't cut it as anything more than anecdotal evidence.

Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me?
Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?

No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.

One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?

" Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.” ― Isaac Asimov

Unfortunately there is still not not one UFO case, given the evidence available, that proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was an alien spacecraft.

UFOs exist. They can become 'identified' flying objects after investigation or remain unidentified if the evidence is not conclusive. If the evidence is inconclusive it is a fallacy of logic to think that means aliens are flying around in our atmosphere. Just because there are many unsolved cases is not evidence of ET. It is most likely there are a number of different phenomenon involved.

Now that doesn't rule out an extra-terrestrial civilization travelling to earth. But think about this :

Say there are 1 million spacefaring civilizations in our galaxy existing at any one time amongst the 500 billion star systems. Now even if only a tenth of those star systems were deemed as 'interesting to visit', then each civilization would need launch 50,000 starships annually with just one of those starships reaching our own Solar System per year.

More conservative numbers would produce much fewer visits. Similarly if advanced life is not so abundant or faster than light 'interstellar' travel impossible the chances are that if an alien species has ever sent a probe/craft here then it would be a very rare event.

It is not enough to just accept that if someone wearing a suit in a position of power says something to affirm your belief then it must be true and if they say the opposite they are a part of a cover-up.

We need to continue to search for definitive proof. Because one indisputable find changes everything.

originally posted by: mirageman

Say there are 1 million spacefaring civilizations in our galaxy existing at any one time amongst the 500 billion star systems. Now even if only a tenth of those star systems were deemed as 'interesting to visit', then each civilization would need launch 50,000 starships annually with just one of those starships reaching our own Solar System per year.

More conservative numbers would produce much fewer visits. Similarly if advanced life is not so abundant or faster than light 'interstellar' travel impossible the chances are that if an alien species has ever sent a probe/craft here then it would be a very rare event.

There are some things you're not taking into account here.
One of those being the age of Earth and the age of these other interstellar civilizations. Don't you think it's possible that some species have been around far longer than humanity and already had Earth charted as a planet capable of sustaining life? Those "50,000 starships launched annually" could've began 100s of thousands of years ago, maybe even millions of years ago. That's plenty of time for Earth to have been discovered or even seeded and designated as a planetary body which could support intelligent life.

Also who's to say that an advanced civilization's quickest and most effective method of travel is light speed? That's only a limit imposed by current humanity. We have to stop thinking that our limitations apply to everyone else by default. The reason I say this is because we as a species are not at the end all be all of everything there is to know about all possible methods of navigating space. Something such as the use of a stargate or wormhole would render FTL travel obsolete to an advanced species. Just because we haven't figured out something like that yet doesn't mean an advanced species hasn't. There's still room for growth in these areas for humanity so I don't think the notion of these concepts can be dismissed. Things like this have to be taken into consideration.

They could be very near yet we can't see them coming. They could be from another dimension..probably a whole new reality of existence. They may exist right on this planet. This is where consciousness plays a huge role. Some even tied this phenomenon with nature spirits. To explain it away with human interpretations is leading us to nowhere. We don't understand much about life yet so we can't think for 'them' or day dream about their technology.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

Those "50,000 starships launched annually" could've began 100s of thousands of years ago, maybe even millions of years ago. That's plenty of time for Earth to have been discovered or even seeded and designated as a planetary body which could support intelligent life.

Yes that's a perfectly valid point and one I totally accept. I was trying to use my point above to illustrate how large the galaxy (let alone the universe) is and how Earth probably wasn't being visited every day by aliens. So we should consider that not everything labelled as UFOs are necessarily craft piloted by aliens. It probably wasn't a very good example!

I still think, that despite all these quotes from 'important' people we should keep sorting the wheat from the chaff and maybe one day that will lead to irrefutable proof. Otherwise Ufology ends up like a religion rather than a proper scientific pursuit.

a reply to: mirageman

Ok cool.

As far as the quotes go, I'm not alluding to them being the "icing on the cake" so to speak but rather a important ingredient in the cake, if that makes sense.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

It does. Appreciate the effort you put into creating the thread and totally see where you are coming from now.

What if Isaac Asimov found himself facing down some exotic ET? What if he could suddenly speak mind-to-mind with Ray Bradbury? What if Isaac got swept up in the Bermuda Triangle vortex, or whatever it is? Would these conditions that offer immersion into these experiences satisfy Isaac Asimov's scientific rigor?
Would he dismiss all he observed because Arthur C Clarke wasn't there with him?
Isaac Asimov did not bring back with him some physical evidence from his wild trip in the Bermuda Triangle, so is he to forget the wormhole ride he took? Is it all tough luck for Isaac that through all these personal experiences, he failed to secure that one souvenir that would prove he was there?
When Isaac lets on to the public of his unsubstantiated adventures, will he be waved through, on the weight of his reputation, and credited with discovery of truth?
My guess is that he would be thoroughly satisfied that his solitary experience, his one-off experience, trumps the need for further evidence or ability to repeat, all of it. Isaacs fives senses training in on some exotic ET will be plenty for Isaac to draw a conclusion.
Not the same for you and me. We can have the same wild ride I just put Isaac through, and our account of it is less than credible, it's incriminating.

originally posted by: mirageman
Say there are 1 million spacefaring civilizations in our galaxy existing at any one time amongst the 500 billion star systems. Now even if only a tenth of those star systems were deemed as 'interesting to visit', then each civilization would need launch 50,000 starships annually with just one of those starships reaching our own Solar System per year.

Carl Sagan used similar arguments in one of his books. But the argument does not hold water..

There are 500 cities in Europe and 500 cities in the US. If I want to travel from each European city to each American city and back once every three days, there would need to be 2 x 500 x 500 = 200.000 transatlantic flights every three days.
Yet there are only 3000 transatlantic flights every three days. And I am still able to reach every American city from every European city and vice versa every three days. How is that possible?
The answer of course is the use of a network instead of a point to point connection for each city pair.
(The same analogy holds for the Internet: If every computer was connected to every other computer via a separate wire, all the copper or glass in the world would probably not be enough to connect them all).

A very advanced civilization that is able to travel interstellar distances is likely to create a network for their journeys, in the same way as we evolved from adventurous point-to-point flights with our first airplanes to an international network of flight corridors (in less than 100 years).
If Earth is close to one of the corridors in their network they may find it worthwhile to pay us a visit from time to time, especially after they’ve detected the signatures of nuclear explosions.

a reply to: Guest101

Yes I know

I admitted earlier it was probably not a very good example to explain how vast the universe is and why ET isn't visiting us every day of the week (as it at least once seemed). I didn't think it totally through.

We also haven't proved there are aliens visiting us, never mind a galactic network of spaceports or wormholes. So it's important we keep looking for something tangible and irrefutable.

a reply to: Reddaysun

Asimov 'may' be convinced in that situation. But his credibility does not really come into it. People can talk all they want about how aliens are coming to earth just like religious people can tell us how they found god. It doesn't constitute any sort of proof and so at the end of the day all you would be left with is a choice whether to 'believe' him or not.

originally posted by: Reddaysun
a reply to: anonentity
The subject seems to be this: statements from people whose credentials are understood as being sterling, all in support of ET presence. It is an aspect of the subject of ET. In the world we live in, it is a very reasonable choice to highlight these peoples' statements to strenghten one's position. And my position is: these people aren't the first ones I'd go to for truth. I prefer my neighbor's account of some ET event.

Quite so . I don't dispute the fact that their are many credible and above board people that have reported what they have seen, to the best of their ability. They may have seen what they have interpreted to look like an extra-terrestrial space vehicle. But I am suggesting what they have seen hasn't been generated by real nuts and bolts extra-terrestrials. Their are two many designs, to many different alien species. Nothing physical can move that fast in Newtonian space. Getting stuck thinking that we will soon meet our cosmic neighbours, doesn't help. That doesn't make them any less real. Or the Jet and radar interceptions any less compelling. It just seems to be a fact that most of the time they exist in a non physical place that we have no concept of, so are compelled to seek conclusions, from our perspective. Who has a sample of alien tissue, or a sample of a saucer? as each human generation progresses, they morph and change shape. Their has to be something else going on.

a reply to: mirageman
Isaac, I believe, will waive all scientific method, if he has a one-off encounter with ET, and his verdict will be: yes, ETs exist because I just met one! It will satisfy all his scientific conditions, and he will feel confident presenting this news to us. So credibility is very much in question. And it is the very thing considered in this thread, although it became a free for all, really. See? Prominent people weigh in in support of ET, which implies that prominent people have prominent amounts of credibility, more than you and I. So their personal encounter with ET matters, and as for your or my personal encounter, well we're just not prominent enough to matter.

Not a 'debunk tactic,' but a hard and fast rule of scientific proof. Your cavalier attitude to reliability of evidence is hardly uncommon, buy strikes me as the fundamental flaw in the pro-UFO argument. If the quality of evidence doesn't matter, or is trumped by quantity, how can you avoid believing in ghosts, human levitation, human-animal metamorphosis, or chemical conversion of lead to gold -- all of them substantiated by numerous stories, "only one of which has to be true to verify the phenomenon".

It's an explain-away gimmick for lousy research and scholarship. And it has crippled the credibility of UFO claims, IMHO.

I do think it works both ways, some of the reasoning(very loosely used) to explain away sightings is an embarrassment, like watching a skeptical version of Ancient Aliens.

There are several examples of multiple witness sightings like Madagascar in 54, the Ravenna chase in 66, the Trumbull police chase 94,
or the most widely seen UFO, the Belgium wave.

And Im sure you are aware of many more. If there was just one sighting like Madagascar, imo, it would be much easier to dismiss it as some weird anomaly, I for one wouldnt give it much thought. But it is just one of many.

More recent sightings like the Belgium wave could possibly be assigned to a US black project( I dont personally think so, still it cant be ruled out), but that explanation doesnt work for the earlier sightings.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

Thanks for posting.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

In the first quote, by Herbert Hoover, even though he mentions the disks from the Battle of LA, I believe he is referring to "disks" from Roswell.