The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

"When you try to belittle eyewitness testimony it makes no sense because we use it everyday in all walks of life as we gather evidence."

I don't belittle hearsay evidence myself, I just don't see any value in it unless it's in support of hard evidence. Marcell, Jr, for instance, can talk about what he saw when Dad brought his collection of junk home, but he can't talk about the origins of that junk, he wasn't there when it was created, nor was he at the "crash" site.

one last post on this thread for me. great thread btw.


Our biggest issue with the unknown, is if Alien life does exist, it not for us to decide if it does or not. Its up to them. To discuss it until were blue in the face does not get closer to finding the truth. At least for advanced life forms, in this thread is really focusing on. How do we deal with this? How do we deal with the fact we don't have any control over it? We have to except the fact that we are humans not the masters of the universe, we think that most of the time, but were not, and to be proven we are not the masters of the universe could be detrimental to our evolution. have you ever thought of that?

God bless ladies and gentlemen.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Adrifter]

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
"When you try to belittle eyewitness testimony it makes no sense because we use it everyday in all walks of life as we gather evidence."

I don't belittle hearsay evidence myself, I just don't see any value in it unless it's in support of hard evidence. Marcell, Jr, for instance, can talk about what he saw when Dad brought his collection of junk home, but he can't talk about the origins of that junk, he wasn't there when it was created, nor was he at the "crash" site.

It's not hearsay evidence, it's direct evidence.

Direct evidence is testimony/other proof which expressly or straight-forwardly proves the existence of a fact. It is different from circumstantial evidence, which is evidence that, without going directly to prove the existence of a fact, gives rise to a logical inference that such fact does exist.

Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. It is evidence which comes from one who speaks directly of his or her own knowledge on the main or ultimate fact to be proved, or who saw or heard the factual matters which are the subject of the testimony. It is not necessary that this direct knowledge be gained through the senses of sight and hearing alone, but it may be obtained from any of the senses through which outside knowledge is acquired, including the senses of touch or pain.

State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.

So when you look at something like the Travis Walton case or the case of the 62 kids in Zimbabwe, it's direct evidence because they describe what they saw.
www.travis-walton.com...
www.youtube.com...

This is Direct evidence.

If eyewitnesses see a bank robbery and they identify the bank robbers that's direct eyewitness testimony.

From this direct evidence you can then build a hypothesis.

The so called skeptic and debunker is the one saying the eyewitness didn't see what they said they saw. They are the ones knee deep in hearsay and opinion.

The person who supports these things is building a hypothesis based on the eyewitness account. We are not saying "it had to be something else."

So these are not just stories. It's direct evidence and it's up to you wether you believe the individual or not. This is why we weigh the credibility of the witness within reason.

If you start with the priori that extra-terrestrial and or extra-dimensional beings can't or don't exist then of course your not going to weigh the eyewitness accounts within reason because to the so called skeptic and debunker these are all the same. There just stories but there not. It's direct evidence because the eyewitness is describing what they saw.

Here's another definition of Direct Evidence

DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

www.lectlaw.com...

So we have direct evidence of extra-terrestrial visitation. If you choose to think that all these accounts are from people who are lying or their mistaken then that's your choice. I think it's closed minded in a universe where we don't know what constitutes 96% of the universe or a universe where there could be 100 billion of earth like planets in our galaxy. So I choose to weigh these things within reason instead of dismiss them based on a pre-existing belief about these things.

"It's not hearsay evidence, it's direct evidence."

The first person to say something is recounting an event they witnessed. Everyone who repeats that story is giving hearsay evidence.

And "eyewitness" evidence is not much use in a scientific inquiry. The eye can be fooled by endless variables. The current "hoaxer" thread shows that.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
"It's not hearsay evidence, it's direct evidence."

The first person to say something is recounting an event they witnessed. Everyone who repeats that story is giving hearsay evidence.

And "eyewitness" evidence is not much use in a scientific inquiry. The eye can be fooled by endless variables. The current "hoaxer" thread shows that.

Wrong again.

The person who repeats the story is not hearsay evidence because we are not claiming that the account is true or false but we are weighing it within reason and saying what's most likely or less likely.

We do this in court rooms, police investigation and yes science. This is why the standard for a conviction is a reasonable doubt. When a jury convicts a criminal it's not hearsay, even though they didn't witness the crime. It's based on reason and evidence.

Have you ever heard of Astronomy? That whole field is based on eyewitness accounts and observation. A theory is then built based on an observation that they may see in the sky. Have you ever heard of an Observatory?

Originally posted by platosallegory

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
"It's not hearsay evidence, it's direct evidence."

The first person to say something is recounting an event they witnessed. Everyone who repeats that story is giving hearsay evidence.

And "eyewitness" evidence is not much use in a scientific inquiry. The eye can be fooled by endless variables. The current "hoaxer" thread shows that.

Wrong again.

The person who repeats the story is not hearsay evidence because we are not claiming that the account is true or false but we are weighing it within reason and saying what's most likely or less likely.

We do this in court rooms, police investigation and yes science. This is why the standard for a conviction is a reasonable doubt. When a jury convicts a criminal it's not hearsay, even though they didn't witness the crime. It's based on reason and evidence.

Have you ever heard of Astronomy? That whole field is based on eyewitness accounts and observation. A theory is then built based on an observation that they may see in the sky. Have you ever heard of an Observatory?

Courtrooms are not laboratories. I said "scientific" evidence. Please try to follow the argument.

As for astronomy, ever hear of an X-ray Telescope? Chandra? Infrared? Radio Telescopes? They're all "based on an obersvation that they may see in the sky"? Really? You're sure?

Originally posted by Adrifter
How do we deal with the fact we don't have any control over it?

I deal with it in the same way I deal with other things out of my control, like the weather, earthquakes, meteors, diseases, taxes, etc.

It's just one more thing out of my control.

Ive got your "Clincher" right here..

the name is dorothy izatt and her story will blow any skeptic into state of hushhhhhhhh..

star and flag!

Originally posted by LordThumbs
Ive got your "Clincher" right here..

the name is dorothy izatt and her story will blow any skeptic into state of hushhhhhhhh..

star and flag!

That's was certainly coherent. Does Dorothy have a little dog named Toto?

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by platosallegory

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
"It's not hearsay evidence, it's direct evidence."

The first person to say something is recounting an event they witnessed. Everyone who repeats that story is giving hearsay evidence.

And "eyewitness" evidence is not much use in a scientific inquiry. The eye can be fooled by endless variables. The current "hoaxer" thread shows that.

Wrong again.

The person who repeats the story is not hearsay evidence because we are not claiming that the account is true or false but we are weighing it within reason and saying what's most likely or less likely.

We do this in court rooms, police investigation and yes science. This is why the standard for a conviction is a reasonable doubt. When a jury convicts a criminal it's not hearsay, even though they didn't witness the crime. It's based on reason and evidence.

Have you ever heard of Astronomy? That whole field is based on eyewitness accounts and observation. A theory is then built based on an observation that they may see in the sky. Have you ever heard of an Observatory?

Courtrooms are not laboratories. I said "scientific" evidence. Please try to follow the argument.

As for astronomy, ever hear of an X-ray Telescope? Chandra? Infrared? Radio Telescopes? They're all "based on an obersvation that they may see in the sky"? Really? You're sure?

First off, science is not the only way we come to know the truth.

You are trying to debate against something that was never claimed.

I don't have scientific proof of extra dimensions.
I don't have scientific proof about parallel universes.
I don't have scientific proof about the holographic principle.
I don't have scientific proof about the universe as a quantum computer.

Yet, I can weigh these things within reason and reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and less likely based on the evidence.

I can do it as well as Professors from Oxford to MIT who accepts some of the things that I just listed.

It's called reason. We use it in all walks of life.

I never said, They're all "based on an obersvation that they may see in the sky." Of course you added that because you want to debate an absolute where one was never made.

"Yet, I can weigh these things within reason and reach a conclusion as to what's most likely and less likely based on the evidence."

You have the potential to do so, but have you used that potential? Or are you just skipping the hard part?

reply to post by platosallegory

Just ignore him platosallegory...

Don't you recognize him? .. It's pretty obvious really from the same old pattern.

Enjoy your hypocrisy Complex.

Originally posted by Majorion
reply to post by platosallegory

 

Just ignore him platosallegory...

Don't you recognize him? .. It's pretty obvious really from the same old pattern.

Enjoy your hypocrisy Complex.

I thought I was experiencing Deja Vu.

Originally posted by Majorion
reply to post by platosallegory

 

Just ignore him platosallegory...

Don't you recognize him? .. It's pretty obvious really from the same old pattern.

Enjoy your hypocrisy Complex.

Is the same old pattern that sees the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese, or the same old pattern that sees little space buddies in every light in the sky? Just wondering.

reply to post by platosallegory


Deja vu all over again, again. Check your U2Us Plato.

As to the Dorothy Izatt case someone mentioned earlier. I found it fascinating and there is a very decent documentary about it. Hynek was involved in that case and encouraged Dorothy to wait years to gather much video evidence before going public, which is exactly what she did. The documentary itself caught some interesting phenomena on film.

Originally posted by Malcram

As to the Dorothy Izatt case someone mentioned earlier. I found it fascinating and there is a very decent documentary about it. Hynek was involved in that case and encouraged Dorothy to wait years to gather much video evidence before going public, which is exactly what she did. The documentary itself caught some interesting phenomena on film.

Absolutely astonishing pictures.

Has Dorothy not had someone standing next to her filming the same sightings?
This cannot be her that is especially sensitive to the phenomena. Someone with a different camera should get the same pictures.

Must admit the pictures are really weird and interesting.



[edit on 8.4.2009 by HolgerTheDane]

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

Originally posted by Malcram

As to the Dorothy Izatt case someone mentioned earlier. I found it fascinating and there is a very decent documentary about it. Hynek was involved in that case and encouraged Dorothy to wait years to gather much video evidence before going public, which is exactly what she did. The documentary itself caught some interesting phenomena on film.

Absolutely astonishing pictures.

Has Dorothy not had someone standing next to her filming the same sightings?
This cannot be her that is especially sensitive to the phenomena. Someone with a different camera should get the same pictures.

Must admit the pictures are really weird and interesting.



[edit on 8.4.2009 by HolgerTheDane]

Squiggle of light really are astounding. Nobody could reproduce them, no way. It would be impossible to take such blotchy, ambiguous pictures. Well, maybe if you were hammered on Jack Daniels, or tripping on some good acid, or just waved the camera around a bit. But other than that, no way, absolutely not.

reply to post by ArMaP


I am replying to myself just to say that I found the book, and the image I remembered was not a cave painting, it's an image made by North American Indians much more recently, and it's in the book as an example of pictographic communication.

The book is "The Outline of History", by H. G. Wells (yes, that H. G. Wells, he didn't wrote just fiction).

Originally posted by ArMaPThe book is "The Outline of History", by H. G. Wells (yes, that H. G. Wells, he didn't wrote just fiction).

I have his "Mr. Belloc Objects: To the Outline of History." He was not a person you wanted to get mad at you.

Quoted from page 16 of this thread

Nazca Part 2: Electrical, Magnetical & Chemical Anomalies

Not too long ago, the Erich-von-Daniken-Foundation funded a research project in Nazca, led by the Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP) and the University of Dresden (Germany), gaining the help of an interdisciplinary mix of experts from many fields.

It is forbidden to enter the area because it belongs to the UNESCO so several permissions needed to be acquired by Daniken, the Universities and respective Embassies.

One thing that had (oddly) not been done up to then was to conduct geoelectrical research in the area, something Daniken wanted done.

Unfortunately, the same group of people that had published the paper Mystery of Nazca finally solved and who were in charge of certain sections of the area, had prohibited the group to make these measurements in the areas they wanted to make them. Why exactly they banned a few harmless geoelectrical measurements remains unexplained.

Fortunately they were able to conduct geoelectrical elsewhere. And they did find an anomaly: At the end of one of the "pistas" (nasca lines) they found that the geoelectrical resistance was one thousand times higher than anywhere in the surrounding areas.

As they continued their their measurements they found more anomalous areas, some of them not on the surface but subterranean.

They proceeded to do geomagnetic measurements and discovered a significant difference between the various "lines" and the untouched surroundings. At a place called "Pampa del Calendario" they discovered anomalies higher than their state-of-the-art gear could even measure.

The chemical analysis of the soil revealed unusually high amounts of arsenic (up to 17 times higher than its supposed to be) (Nowdays arsenic is used for things like semiconducters, wafers, laser-diodes).

On their drives through the area (near a place called Ilipata), the group noticed a type of soil that was lighter than the surrounding darker soil. They picked some of it up and had it analyzed by one of the scientists present. The minerological examination revealed 70% of a formless material without any clay. Another microscope analysis revaled glass-like structures that can only exist after material has been exposed to extreme heat and very rapidly cooled down.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Skyfloating]