What are your standards for "proof"?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


The reality most people would need to see one up close before they believe. Take my OBE for instance: I asked the medical crew and doctors if I was given any drugs or pure oxygen. I was informed negative on both fronts before I believed it myself. I had dizzy experiences before so I could personally rule it out.
Some people believe I had the experience while other members of my family do not. Since I really cannot prove it, I have to tell people they need to have the same experience as I did.

That is also another reason I do not immediately detract what people claim now, as I have had a similar type of unknown experience. The tables have been turned on me and now I know how many of them feel.

On the other hand, I still would like to see more physical evidence so the scientific community would stop laughing and helping study the phenomenon of UFOs. Lonnie Zamora is a good case of credible witness (trained law officer) and the photographs of the landing and footprints of the occupants.

For me, the necessary proof seems to change as I become more convinced.
Now that there seems to be plenty of believers, footage and supposed 'trace' evidence like depressions left in the ground by landing gear, radiation effects and scorch marks, it seems relatively obvious that there are non-conventional flying objects that appear to be using some form of nuclear or other radiant propulsion technology that occasionally create crop circles and land, fly or hover near spectators leaving the after-effects of radiation or irradiating people and/or surfaces/material.

At this point, it seems clear that whatever it/they is/are, they don't seem to be cooperating with people's desire to properly and convincingly record their qualities for a more compelling body of evidence.

As we know, hoaxes have can be as campy or as sophisticated as one can imagine leading a real skeptic to be unable to come to any specific conclusion which, no doubt, is why the term "unidentified flying object" was coined as not much else can be concluded aside from these certainties.

In the end, what it boils down to for me is weather or not it is relevant to my existence and experience of the world around me.
Fleeting glimpses of something I can't explain don't really do much for me except confirm that there are things out there that I am unaware of and don't want to be known. Could be aliens or it could be secret human technology or even a combination of both like back-engineered alien tech being used by humans.

I know ferarris exist and think they're super cool. Even seen em in person, but I don't obsess over them at the moment because aside from observing them in action or up close, they are not really part of my reality. Nobody's gonna pull up to my house with one, hand me the keys and ask me if I wanna take it for a spin and even if they did, that's all it'd be...a spin and then back to where it came from. Out of my present reach.

Fleeting glimpses are one thing, but full-on social/academic contact and communication/knowledge sharing is another. The later is what is needed at this point and until then, it could all be a hoax for all I know/care.

When dealing with paranormal or borderline paranormal phenomenon, the only thing that truly convinces me are numerous corroborating trustworthy sources (ie/ people who have more to lose than they have to gain), with some form of mechanical instrumentation recording the event, and where all the data has been analyzed by experts in their appropriate respective fields. Regarding UFOs (please see my definition of the word) this would come in the form of multiple ground/air radar contacts along with air/ground visuals, studied by committees such as the AIAA & the military - or to be more specific the '56 Lakenheath/Bentwaters UFO incident.

I have to admit I have a hard time with most forms of "physical evidence." What if the "saucer" someone toted out was simply, for example, Moller's latest aeronautic design? The only way I'd accept a saucer-shaped craft as alien is if it was analyzed by engineers and checked over by the worlds militaries to confirm that it was or wasn't of their making.

Bob White's object is probably the most compelling piece of physical evidence I've read of to date. It's been analyzed by many different labs and based on my own understanding of material science has a bizarre composition.

Frankly I'm not even sure I'd trust my own eyes.

Originally posted by Hawkwind.
Anyhow, what I DON'T count as proof is

...

2. Testimony from people I don't know, doesn't matter how high up the ladder they are or where they've worked. I do believe people see things they can not explain so I'm not calling everyone a liar but I do think there's usually an earthly explanation for what people see, like in this link for instance www.abovetopsecret.com...

The stick I usually use to measure credibility of human testimony is the amount of supporting evidence (additional testimony counts so long as the other witnesses can be confirmed as having no connection to the source) in conjunction with how much the person has to lose.

The former FAA Head of Accidents & Investigations, John Callahan, is my best example of trustworthy testimony. He has the raw JAL-1628 radar print-outs, the FAA report, the flight-tapes, his testimony is corroborated by the pilot, co-pilot, the flight-engineer, the AARTC controller, and the ROCC controller. Not to mention he's gone before the National Press Club and flatly stated he's willing to provide this data, along with testimony, before Congress under oath.

This is compelling because there's a stable of physical evidence; circumstantial evidence supported by physical evidence; as a high-ranking FAA official he's put his reputation on the line; the degrees of removal between all the witnesses is extremely high; and if he's lying he would face perjury charges.

What I WOULD consider proof is..

1. A personal sighting (I know I'm stating the obvious there) or abduction.

Are you sure you can trust your own eyes? Pareidolia is a very common cognitive bias. Maybe you experienced a stroke, astrocytoma, been drugged, or were suffering from sleep paralysis?

Even if you did in fact witness a physical, tangible flying object it's possible you witnessed a terrestrial, experimental military aircraft. As an observer you would label it as a UFO, but in reality the craft is identifiable to people with the appropriate clearance. A confirmed TRUE UFO (TRUFO) is something unidentifiable by anyone on planet earth.

An alien spacecraft / probe, a new form of atmospheric phenomenon, macro-scale quantum manifestation, etc, even though conceived by man are still unknown to man and therefore represent 'true UFOs.'

4. Testimony from people I am close to, I mean if say..my wife..for instance...told me in all seriousness that a U.F.O hovered above her head and then roared off I would believe her.

I've heard UFO / abduction testimony from people who I trust with my life and I've told them quite bluntly I have a hard time accepting their interpretation of the experience. Sure I feel a bit guilty, because I can register in their eyes "you think I'm nuts," but it's too easy for people to misinterpret solitary observations.

You're a bigger man than me.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Xtraeme]

Credit to Warrenb from another thread. Seems germane to this one........
(I edited to shorten a tad.)

Originally posted by warrenb

Definition: PROOF :
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true.
2. anything serving as such evidence.
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial.

According to the dictionary definition of the word "proof", there has never been a universally agreed upon "proof" of any of the following:

* Alien beings.
* Telepathic communication.
* Extraterrestrial life forms of any kind.
* Extraterrestrial flying craft of any kind.
* Spirits, ghosts, gods, or disembodied entities.
* The existence of any extraterrestrial flying object.
* The extraterrestrial origin of any Unidentified Flying Object.

However, a great many people believe that some or all of these phenomenon are "true", or that they "exist", or that they are "real".

Definition:
BELIEVE :
1. to hold an opinion.
2. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.
3. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
4. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
5. to suppose or assume; understand.

Therefore, by definition, the common denominator of "proof" for each individual regarding any of these items is based on the personal, subjective opinion, ability or disability of an individual as to whether or not they "believe" something is "true" or "real", either as an "objective" reality or as a "subjective" reality.

Let's look at definitions for the following terms:

REALITY:
1. That which is agreed upon.
TRUE :
1. In accordance with reality.
OBJECTIVE :
1. Relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent or subjective existence.
SUBJECTIVE :
1. relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
2. personal : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
3. arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes.

Therefore, if you "believe" that a "subjective" experience or reality can be "proof" of anything, then it can be "true" for you. There are as many "realities" as there are objective and/or personal views or perceptions.

Many people feel that they must have agreement from others in order to perceive reality. However, what is true for you, is true for you, whether or not anyone else agrees with you.

alieninterview.org...

Video or photo footage

reply to post by kinda kurious

Therefore, if you "believe" that a "subjective" experience or reality can be "proof" of anything, then it can be "true" for you. There are as many "realities" as there are objective and/or personal views or perceptions.

This nails it on the head. When it comes to subjects that are borderline-paranormal or outright-paranormal I no longer trust subjective experience. It's at that threshold that I require corroboration by many trustworthy sources backed by standardized equipment that measures and authenticates the observation. Following this data collection I then require analysis by a group of people who are supposed to be expert in a given area of study.

Following that process I 'm then willing to accept such things as plausibly true.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by Xtraeme]

Gee, when I was a kid I heard people say the government lies.
Well after growing up listening to government-Illuminati lies,
you know to think the opposite.

There are no ETs, its impossible for them to influence the Earth.

Now the real story of the reality you seek will have to extracted
on your own with your standard of proof.