The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

reply to post by jkrog08


So, you contributed another false flagged thread, "Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life." No clinchers, no proof. I'm sure everybody's impressed with that.

I will be happy to debate REAL TOPICS(and not opinions of a 'false flagged thread' knocking me as a member) with anyone else.I welcome all input as long as it is rational and mature and worthy of debate.

reply to post by jkrog08


So, ignoring the problems with your theories is a good way to establish your street creds here? Very interesting.

I think this discussion can be far more productive if the parties involved can get over the hangover with "proof" It is not possible to provide proof for the assertions

1) The Nazca lines are made by ET
2) The Betty Star map is map of Betty's ET's home
3) The NASA radio transmission is genuine

Unless you can

1) Go back in time and see the lines being made by ET
2) Go to the indicated star system and find Betty's ET
3) Had been present in space listening in on the conversation

As none of the above are practically possible, it follows that demands for proof are unreasonable. So we must settle for the available evidence alone and provide explanations that can reasonably explain them.

1) Th OP explains the cave drawings with the ETH. While, there is certainly some similarity, the ETH explanation is not valid because it lacks evidence to support it. These cavedrawings can just as easily be explained as artwork, imaginative drawings. To support the ETH, the OP must find more evidence which can refine the interpretation of these drawings, until that is not forthcoming, I am afraid this evidence must disregarded as evidence for ET.

Ditto for the Nazca lines.

2) The OP explains Betty's map and her abduction with the ETH. There is strong reason to suspect the ETH here because the witness reports an ET abduction and she gives a star map which has shown to correspond to an actual star system found later. The critic argues that this map is just a coincidence and alludes Betty has made this up or copied it from a starmap. There are two problems here:

1) If it a coincidence, then the critic should be able to demonstrate that they too can draw random dots and lines and find a new star system. It should be left to the critic on how they plan to demonstrate this.

2) It should be noted that Betty revealed her abduction encounter and drew the map under hypnotic regression and these are suppose to be actual memories. If it be objected that these could be false memories, then this does not make a case against Betty, because then the critic must demonstrate how could such definite false memories arise.

3) The OP explains this radio transmission as being genuine and thus if we can find corroborating evidence that it is genuine, it is the closest to proof of ET we can get and thereby definitely a clincher. I have not reviewed the entire thread, so I am not sure if any corroborating evidence has been provided to corroborate the transmission. Until that is not forthcoming this evidence will be unfalsifiable.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


"I think this discussion can be far more productive if the parties involved can get over the hangover with "proof" "



IF you hadn't noticed, the subject of this thread is "The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life"

So, where's the Proof? Or is it unreasonable to ask for Proof when the OP says he has Proof?

reply to post by Gawdzilla



My request was directed at both yourself and the OP. Note I said, "parties involved"

I am afraid "proof" is so pervasive in our vernacular that many people use it without realising the philosophical and logical problems with it. Most of the time people use it just to show that they have very strong evidence, which cannot be easily denied.


[edit on 12-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


I won't give up on proof. That would be a very silly thing to do. Pretty soon you'd start believing anything people told you without considering whether it could be proved. Not a pretty picture.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla


So, where's the Proof? Or is it unreasonable to ask for Proof when the OP says he has Proof?

He has provided "proof", even if you don't consider it as such. "Proof", unless you are discussing mathematics, is relative and subjective.

Further, what level of proof do you expect? Do you want to have a "reasonable doubt" threshold applied, or a "shadow of a doubt" threshold applied?

To JKrog, it is proof. To you, it is nothing. To me, it is evidence. All subjective, all relative.

RE: JKrogs "ATS Cred"...don't worry, bud. He has it. He recently returned from a 3-4 month hiatus and has resumed providing some outstanding material for the member of ATS to read, research, and consider.

He is not trying to FORCE you to believe anything. He is presenting information. For you to spend so much energy getting caught up in the semantics of his thread title, and ignoring the discussion surrounding his material, smacks of trolling.

I have watched brilliant threads on this site for a few years now. Zorgon, John Lear, JKrog, Mike Singh...one thing i notice is that there is no shortage of newbies (those with low point/post counts) that seem to pop up out of nowhere to troll good threads.

Perhaps "Bad Astronomy" would be more to your liking?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I think in probablistic terms. I consider all information, and mull it all over as if it were true. If it is blatantly illogical, then i discard it. If it isn't, then i continue to consider it against new information i find.

Doing this, i have various views on reality, each with its own probability.

I am trying to see things from the big picture. In so doing, the more i can consider, the more i can develop a framework of reality that matches what is observed.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Well as I have already demonstrated that it is practically impossible to provide any proof for the claims, your demand for proof is demonstrably unreasonable.

There is no such thing as proof for anything and this is especially admitted in science. Post Godel, it is admitted even in maths. Thus if you want a productive discussion on these matters, you must deal in terms of evidence and not proof. As the situation stands the evidence provided for clincher 2 is quite strong, and if you cannot refute this evidence succesfully, then the OP is not wrong in asserting it as a clincher(Please also review the other thread on Betty's star map)

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


"He has provided "proof", even if you don't consider it as such. "Proof", unless you are discussing mathematics, is relative and subjective.

Further, what level of proof do you expect? Do you want to have a "reasonable doubt" threshold applied, or a "shadow of a doubt" threshold applied?"

Okay, then, all these threads are just train wrecks if proof is relative and subjective. So why bother? The posters are just going on faith in that case, and that's not worth the time.

I expect proof that is well-thought out, carefully researched and solidly based. If the presented material fails that, it's not "proof", it's "opinions".

reply to post by Indigo_Child


The OP stated he had "proof". You say there is no such thing. Sounds like situational ethics to me. Not proof.

reply to post by Indigo_Child


"Thus if you want a productive discussion on these matters, you must deal in terms of evidence and not proof."

The evidence he provided was pathetic. It was not "proof" of anything, it was not even mildly convincing. It's been debunked countless times. So, again, what's the point?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


then perhaps you will find it to be more psychologically digestable if you just, in your own mind, replaced the word in the title to "evidence" or "opinions", or whatever you would rather see.

Whatever it takes to keep you from derailing a good thread with heavy participation, you know? It is called "courtesy".

There is quite a bit of research provided in the previous 24 pages. Do you have any comment regarding the research? An alternate opinion? It really is fruitless (and doesn't do much to help your "ATS Cred") to spend several more pages complaining about how you don't like the thread title.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

It's been debunked countless times

To debunk something is to make the claim that you have disproven something. I have not seen you disprove anything.

You have not demonsrated that the cavedrawings and the Nazca were not ET related
You have not demonstrated that Betty's star map is a hoax, that you previously claimed was made by her after studying "star maps"
You have not demonstrated that the NASA radio-transmission is a hoax.

For this discussion to continue you must show your demonstrations that disprove the above claims. Until then your words are nothing but rhetoric and adds nothing to this once fruitful discussion.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

And for anyone who is asking about my "BS" threads....I have just concluded today requesting FOIA documents from NASA,USAF,US-ARMY,and soon the USDOJ,and a local police entity.I am working in collaboration with another member of this site(a few actually).So before you go saying I come with some straight BS you should either ONE....Look at my multiple threads and post I have or TWO wait and see what is to come.

Now ON TOPIC SO THIS THREAD DON'T GET HIJACKED..........When I said 'proof' I meant the best evidence possible at this POINT AND TIME that makes a case for aliens and cover ups.I am sorry if anyone misinterpreted that but it wouldn't look to good as a paragraph long title would it now?I would like to see some members on this threads opinions on quantum mechanical observations,that don't have 'proof'......I got news for you,that word is about obsolete!

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

then perhaps you will find it to be more psychologically digestable if you just, in your own mind, replaced the word in the title to "evidence" or "opinions", or whatever you would rather see.

Whatever it takes to keep you from derailing a good thread with heavy participation, you know? It is called "courtesy".

There is quite a bit of research provided in the previous 24 pages. Do you have any comment regarding the research? An alternate opinion? It really is fruitless (and doesn't do much to help your "ATS Cred") to spend several more pages complaining about how you don't like the thread title.

I'll call "BS" "BS", thank you. A dose of reality wouldn't hurt this place.

The complaints I've lodged were in response to people telling me that no proof was needed. The poster stated he had proof and instead trotted out the same old garbage that has been rejected for decades now, ever since von D. first regurgitated it into his books.

As for "research", I must demur. I haven't seen any "research" in support of the OP, just opinions. That hardly counts as "research". I'd be stunned to read somebody's support of signs of alien life on Earth that was actually contained research. I haven't seen any in the last twenty years.

I must add this if anyone still thinks I come with BS on here....check this thread out.........www.abovetopsecret.com...'

I DO CARE ABOUT ATS AND ITS MEMBERS.......MY ONLY GOAL IS TO ADVANCE THIS SITE AND UNCOVER THE TRUTH AND ADVANCE INTELLIGENT KNOWLEDGE FOR THE BETTERMENT OF MY FELLOW HUMANKIND,I LOVE YOU ALL AS FELLOW SPECIES,REGARDLESS OF YOUR OPINION.

Now on topic once again(last time mods).........These are not the only clinchers,there is also Roswell,Kecksburg,Battle of LA,etc.....What I mean is that there is to much to be simply regarded as BS.

[edit on 4/12/2009 by jkrog08]

reply to post by jkrog08


"Now on topic once again(last time mods).........These are not the only clinchers,there is also Roswell,Kecksburg,Battle of LA,etc.....What I mean is that there is to much to be simply regarded as BS."

Roswell was a surveillance balloon with sonobouys, nothing more. Kecksburg was a meteor. Astronomers tracked it and noted its fall. The "Battle" of LA was simply war nerves. (Or a fairly funny Stephen Speilberg movie, you pick.)

All of this stuff has been debunked over and over again.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Well then in that spirit I'm afraid I'll have to "call BS" on the vast majority of your posts since you "arrived" - a few hours after your doppelganger SaviorComplex was banned. Because the "reality" is that almost all of your comments are simple sarcastic proclamations which contribute nothing and prove nothing and certainly "debunk" nothing. There is no substance to what you say - which is also to say that it is not sustantiated . It's simply negative proclamation. It plays well with those who already agree with your point of view and get a cheap thrill from seeing someone insult believers - a quick way to garner a few undeserved stars. But the logical "challenge" you claim to present is singularly absent, as is the legitimate skeptical perspective you claim to represent. You sneer and scoff, and that's about it. That's the 'reality" I see.

Roswell was a surveillance balloon with sonobouys, nothing more. Kecksburg was a meteor. Astronomers tracked it and noted its fall. The "Battle" of LA was simply war nerves. (Or a fairly funny Stephen Speilberg movie, you pick.)

All of this stuff has been debunked over and over again.

Again, mere proclamation. And to dismiss things like the "Battle of LA" and the evidence in that case as "war nerves" is frankly, laughable.



[edit on 12-4-2009 by Malcram]