Aliens exist: Here is the proof

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

I agree, maybe it is harder to get out of the solar system than everyone keeps thinking. Are there other planets with intelligent life that are not space-faring? Like tribal nations or maybe like the wild west? Probably!

a reply to: 3n19m470

This is assuming all species are as self-destructing as ours. Other species might actually work together to prosper. They may have a completely different society than ours. One we could learn from. Man that sounds familiar. Oh thats right, its what Dr. John Mack said his patients were told by the beings who abducted them.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

There is other proof aliens exist besides the countless eyewitness testimony, photos, crop circles, etc. Is this more scientific for you? Or will you still find ways to troll this theead?

www.express.co.uk...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

There is other proof aliens exist besides the countless eyewitness testimony, photos, crop circles, etc. Is this more scientific for you? Or will you still find ways to troll this thread?

www.express.co.uk...

a reply to: Emerys

Other species might actually work together to prosper.

and live long. Lets not forget about living long....

Aliens exist: Here is the proof!

Obviously, there is no proof, only supposition and probability statistics. Rather than say aliens, why not state it as 'intelligent extraterrestrial life forms', because that is closer to what you mean. There may well be other planets orbiting within star systems that have a life-sustaining environment on their surface, which in itself would be a wonderful discovery, but to come across another planet supporting intelligent life forms similar to ourselves or even more advanced, would take it to another level completely.

Here on earth, we seem to be pretty much sheltered from a competing planetary intelligence, but solar systems having one or more intelligences developing separately on different planets, within the same system, might well lead to the inevitable doom of one or both intelligences due to war and strife and competition? We should be grateful for the immense distances involved between us and potential systems where other intelligent life might be.

Obviously, our own space travel - as limited as it is, is dependent on our technology, but the most important determinant is the length of our life span. Now, and foreseeable future, we can only travel in space within a distance that would cover 1/2 or 3/4 of a human life time. We are not going to get very far. Yes, we can send probes, and have done so, but it is not the same thing.

For an intelligent life form to become a successful colonizer of its space locality, it would need to be able to travel much further than a single entity's full life time, they would need to overcome the obstacle of their natural life limit. This might entail such an entity being born and growing to full maturation and mental capacity and then downloaded into a more sustainable form of body that will far outlive the biological form. This would extend space travel considerably. The new body could be mechanical, bio-mechanical, or a more easily maintained simplistic form of biological body, capable of indefinite self-regeneration.

An intelligent civilization might well prefer to ‘go dark’ and hide itself from other intelligences actively seeking signs of life. This cautionary step might prove prudent as there is no knowing how a ‘first contact’ would actually go, and to what it might lead to…conquest or cooperation?
One thing is certain, if there is another earth-like or earth-type planet out there, life will abide there.

originally posted by: amazing
Great thread. Well said. You put it much better than I usually do.

Mathematically, it would seem probable that there are billions of planets with life on them and Mathematically it would seem probably that millions of those planets would have evolved life. It would also appear mathematically probable, that of those millions of planets with evolved life on them thousands would have had a head start on us and it would then also appear probably that hundreds of those could have avoided catastrophe and have civilizations millions or billions of years old.

This would then lead us to speculate that it is highly likely that these advanced civilizations with their technology millions/billions of years ahead of us could know we are here have sent robotic craft out for centuries if not millennia and have telescopes and other technology that would appear as magic to us. They could see and go anywhere given enough time.

Hypothetically it's highly possible that these advanced civilizations have come to earth or at least know of our existence.

Fascinating!

I always find this argument quite compelling, but is it really? Crocodiles, Aligators, hey even cockroaches have had a head start of millions of years, and have arguably advanced to the level they need to - don't see much evidence of them launching a space program. I know that may sound facetious, but we assume intelligence on any other planet would have the same aspirations as the human race does - that to me messes up the logic of where people use the Drake equation and then postulate further.

Whether or not there are intelligent alien life forms elsewhere in the known universe is like a Mexican Stand-Off to me. One cannot explicitly prove aliens exist, nor can one explicitly prove aliens do not exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The problem we have here is what can we undeniably consider to be 100% concrete evidence of life outside of Earth? No doubt in my mind that mathematically there are millions, if not billions, of habitable life form. I don't know if their is an "alien" race but I firmly believe that humans did not originate here on Earth. I believe we are in many places as we continue to expand the human race.

a reply to: NightFlight

One cannot explicitly prove aliens exist, nor can one explicitly prove aliens do not exist.

Its impossible to prove a negative but you can certainly prove the positive existence of something that is physically here abducting people and landing spaceships everywhere.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

If you don't see any mouse droppings, you probably dont have mice

The truth is We've been here trillions of

years. We have built and destroyed many civilizations. On earth We have been experimenting for the last 6000 years with the making of a man, a caucasian man or mankind. Within the last 6000 years Our advance people ,darker people of the earth, suppressed the advance technology to give mankind room to build a world. They will not allow mankind to spread out to other I don't why they are trying to go to mar, the quran says flame of fire waiting on you. But I say all of that to say this, those so-called UFOs have bombs on them, your government knows this, they are going to destroy mankind civilization with those bomb dropped from so-called UFOS 225000 square miles will be destroyed mainly cities and those have gas in em.... HAHA!

The issue that lies with this is 1 simple thing. We don't know what life actually stems from, we have no clue where it really originated. We may have even been created and that is simply why we can't assume there is life elsewhere. Else the other day when they scammed some 100,000 galaxies they would have surely found life, cause as you've read most solar systems now actually have a planet within the habitable zone. We assume that what we are is what aliens will also be made of and that can be completely wrong, as well as we have no clue of what really brought us about. Therefore we can't say "Habitable planet definitely means life" As it does not hold true. There always has to be a first race, and we just may be the first race. There might be a new specie just being birthed today and their evolution will take some billions of years, so this cannot be served as "proof" but more to say it's probability, but go ahead and examine, how many planets have we found life in and how many problems have we checked for life? Well currently using this 1 metric, it has been 1:EveryGalaxyEverChecked.

Until we find life elsewhere the odds will forever be decreasing.

Source for the 100,000 galaxies: www.cnet.com...

a reply to: Emerys

Its the Green Bank formula, or Drake equation.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Legman
a reply to: Emerys

Take your argument in reverse....

There 5*1022 inhabitable planets. In billions of years available for an alien species to develop evolve and create new travel technologies we have seen zero proof.

Therefore I conclude earth is the exception to the rule that there is no life in the universe.


Bad Proofs are easy without math and evidence huh?

Just to play Devil's advocate for a second, you can't say "we have seen zero proof". "Our modern civilizations don't recognize anything as proof" is the accurate statement. Just as a microbe can't recognize our cars or airplanes, we simply may not be able to recognize their technology, even if it was around us right now.

We assume aliens would use technologies which are comparable to ours. But this is a bad assumption because it projects our weakness onto them. As an example, let's look at a technology humans are just dabbling into: nanotechnology. If our civilizations are allowed 1,000 years of interrupted advances in nanotechnology, modern humans wouldn't recognize that technology either. Not just because of the literally microscopic sizes, but also because of the applications of that technology that we can't even fathom right now.

Even our modern smartphones would be considered the greatest magic trick of all time just 200 years ago. And being able to skype someone on the other side of the world in real time would make you a prophet!

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: amazing
Great thread. Well said. You put it much better than I usually do.

Mathematically, it would seem probable that there are billions of planets with life on them and Mathematically it would seem probably that millions of those planets would have evolved life. It would also appear mathematically probable, that of those millions of planets with evolved life on them thousands would have had a head start on us and it would then also appear probably that hundreds of those could have avoided catastrophe and have civilizations millions or billions of years old.

This would then lead us to speculate that it is highly likely that these advanced civilizations with their technology millions/billions of years ahead of us could know we are here have sent robotic craft out for centuries if not millennia and have telescopes and other technology that would appear as magic to us. They could see and go anywhere given enough time.

Hypothetically it's highly possible that these advanced civilizations have come to earth or at least know of our existence.

Fascinating!

I always find this argument quite compelling, but is it really? Crocodiles, Aligators, hey even cockroaches have had a head start of millions of years, and have arguably advanced to the level they need to - don't see much evidence of them launching a space program. I know that may sound facetious, but we assume intelligence on any other planet would have the same aspirations as the human race does - that to me messes up the logic of where people use the Drake equation and then postulate further.

That's a good point.

I guess the next logical argument to have is: Would every planet that has harbored life for millions of years have a dominant species? Or would every planet with similar climate, gravity and atmosphere....produce bipeds or super large species? Endless questions I suppose.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: NightFlight

One cannot explicitly prove aliens exist, nor can one explicitly prove aliens do not exist.

Its impossible to prove a negative but you can certainly prove the positive existence of something that is physically here abducting people and landing spaceships everywhere.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

If you don't see any mouse droppings, you probably dont have mice

To be fair, that's not true. That would be like saying the mice don't exist until the moment you notice them. They may be there for years before they expand into an area you notice. And you still wouldn't notice them until one made a "mistake" and was seen, or until one left droppings in an area where you choose to check.

I say that because there are mice in nearly every patch of woods, prairies, grassland, etc. Most times they stay in burrows in the ground but they can visit houses/buildings without taking up residence there. They're like bobcats in that regard: they're only noticed if we get lucky, if they make a mistake, or if they want to be seen. Just like roaches.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Scdfa
Reading comprehension is an overlooked skill.

I agree. You said it's not a matter for science, yet backed the OP who claimed we had tangible SCIENTIFIC proof.

originally posted by: EmerysOne man, a man more credited than you will ever be, more respected, educated, and open minded had evidence that aliens exist. Tangible, scientific evidence. Do you know who I am talking about?

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.

originally posted by: Scdfa

Since when did UFOs and alien abductions become a matter for science?

Work on that reading comprehension please.

You know, belligerent comments like this work best when you have a valid point to make. You do not.
Let's take a look at your attempt at "gotcha!"

You gave me a hard time for saying:
"Emerys, don't worry about the criticism, you're absolutely right on several points."

Here you even highlight AND underline AND italicize my allegedly "incriminating" statement.

But you simply have nothing at all that invalidates my statement.

I said Emerys was absolutely right on several points and he is.
If your reading comprehension skills are so poor that you take issue with that very simple statement, and you need me to cite the several points he made that I find to be correct, I will do so.

Emerys:

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

We cannot just discount every single case. If the courts use eyewitness accounts, why can't we?

One man, a man more credited than you will ever be, more respected, educated, and open minded had evidence that aliens exist. Tangible, scientific evidence. Do you know who I am talking about?

Dr. John Mack. Pulitzer Prize Winner. Head of Harvard Psychiatric School. But, he doesnt count does he? Please troll somewhere else.

He had over 200 scientific case studies on them. But you must not believe Psychology is a science?

Except these werent just stories were they? These were psychological exams. These people were examined by one of the greatest doctors there was. It was determined that they were not crazy. That their stories were credible. Therefore tangible, scientific evidence. If there was a witness underoath on a court case. And a doctor examined the patient, ran tests, determined that this person was sane and the story credible. The courts would side with that doctor.

That's enough. I could go on, but there's no need.
I said I felt Emerys was absolutely right on several points, and there they are.

I've established that you have no point of valid criticism regarding my posts.

In the future, you may want to avoid pointless attacks on easily defined statements of opinion.
Or not, but do not expect me to indulge you further than this.
You took a very simple statement and tried to make it complicated. That's not Occam's razor.

Emerys, my man, keep up the good work, you're telling it like it is.

The likelihood that microbial life on other planets exists is quite compelling – it exists here under some extraordinary conditions. However, have any visitation believers studied the complete evolution of life on our planet? In particular, how incredibly unlikely our very own existence was likely to happen?

Ignoring the fact that life may first have originated on Mars so had to get here first to survive and evolve, life managed to make it through several massive extinction events, many catastrophic environmental changes, dominances by other more advanced species and such diverse and massive biological evolutions to enable us to be here now. That is highly unlikely, but thankfully not impossible. A similar incredible path must also be led by any other planet harbouring intelligent life.

Once a planet's inhabitants have evolved in such a way, there is no way in knowing that they are as inquisitive as us. There's no way they could definitely see stars as many planets are covered by cloud – if they can't see stars their significance would be irrelevant. Perhaps their surface conditions are incompatible for sustaining life so they live underground? There are so many variables.

What I'm trying to explain is that it is the vanity of man that assumes life like ours is bound to happen elsewhere. That is a very long way from the likely truth. I don't doubt that life exists out there somewhere, and in higher orders that than microbial. If you can for a while imagine that the KT event didn't happen, if the meteor passed us by, our planet would likely still be dominated by dinosaurs.

a reply to: Emerys

Nice argument. Convincing evidence. Viable testimony. SHOW us your proof. YOU are claiming to have it, saying, "HERE IT IS". The Burden is ON YOU to now produce it (and just tossing old grainy photos and others stale testimony doesn't count, sorry.)



The 'evidence' you've bantered about is intriguing, convincing, even. But, unfortunately, "proof" it is not. "Proof" is in the eye of the beholder. Satisfying the 'Burden of Proof', means different things to different people (and certainly to courts and rules of Law). Many have come on here stating your words verbatim. Sadly, your premise is a fallacy. It does not meet the "Burden of Proof" for this topic. S&F for the attempt, however.

By your own definition (glommed off the internet, but acceptable):

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

Yes, compelling evidence and lots of big numbers "helps" to establish, but, ultimately, has NOT YET established AS "FACT", AS "TRUTH". Not yet "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is not that we "want to doubt", we do not. We, like you, "want to believe", But "wanting" evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and "possessing" evidence beyond a reasonable doubt are two very different things.




Thousands of witnesses, countless reports, and innumerable photographs (most of them small and fuzzy) may be evidence and argument produced and digested by us minions in an attempt to discover the truth, but it is not yet "Truth".

It is not yet "proof".

What will it take? A landing on the proverbial White House Lawn? Sure, that'll work. A visit to my own bedroom, probe in hand? Undoubtedly, for me, yes, that will definitely be convincing enough. A mass arrival of ships over every major city. Umm, yep - I'm in.

None of those things have happened yet. So you can shrill at 'trolls', accuse those not jumping on your wagon of anything that makes you feel better, do all manner of thumping and screeching - but it's still not "proof".

Sure, like you're avatar, many of us "want" to believe. We're just holding such a profound matter to a higher standard is all. As Carl Sagan, the atheist-agnostic, cold-water aficionado of the recent past was fond of saying, "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence".



Evidence you may have - but it is hardly "extraordinary". When THAT evidence arrives, we'll join your party. Your OP, states, unequivocally, "HERE's THE PROOF". Well, no, you did not show us the "proof", but thanks for generating, however briefly, our interest.

Until then, Gary (I mean Emerys), keep "wanting", and "wishing" to your heart's content...



We invite you to come back again when you have something besides:

a reply to: Emerys

Not the definition of proof, actually.