Honestly, What More Proof Do We Really Need?

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by dusk18

 

For the ten millionth time, please post a CREDIBLE link to Mitchell ever saying any such thing!
He has expressed his opinion, just his opinion.

Proof? Here he is in an interview in which he says, "I happen to be privileged enough to have been in on the fact that we have been visited, and the ufo phenomenon is real although its been covered up for a long time." ... "Some of us are privileged to have been briefed on some of it."... "I've also been in military circles and intelligence circles that know below the surface of what has been public knowledge that yes, we have been visited."

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by dusk18

"Someone told me something."
That is what is known as hearsay. Hearsay is not acceptable evidence and it is proof of nothing.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by dusk18

 

"Someone told me something."
That is what is known as hearsay. Hearsay is not acceptable evidence and it is proof of nothing.

remind me again how many murderers have been put away from credible eyewitness testimony or hearsay as you put it again? countless. if the ufo topic were a murder case, the debate would have been given the chair quite a while ago. i have no intention of having such a debate here and now, just a thought.

ps i have no idea what eyewitness testimony you guys are referring to, as i said just a thought to ponder.

reply to post by Phage


You are right it's hearsay and not proof. However, that doesn't mean the conclusion that we are being visited by extraterrestrials is false.

The fact something cannot be scientifically validated does not make it false.

Most people couldn't care less if something is proved scientifically. They are able to make a value judgement about the probabilities that Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Astronaut and sixth man on the moon is simply making stuff up or deluded, or whether they credit him enough intelligence to be able to discern the truth for himself when presented with it.

The 'proof' supposedly found on the programmes on channels such
as 'History' and others is rather formulaic.
It usually begins with ominous music and this follows through the
programme indicating to the viewer that something sinister is going on.

The producers wheel out 'The Roswell Incident' and then sometimes
tarry a while with 'Project Bluebook'
They show archive images of glowing objects -usually the one from
Almagordo and quick shots of a saucer-shaped craft laying on a
desert floor (although this was from moon-landing experiments)

Nick Pope implies the phenomena isn't just in the States, by telling
us he found some 'interesting' UK cases whilst working in 'The Ministry'
On rare occasions, the event with Travis Walton is shown and then we
move on to Area 51 with Bob Lazar.

It's the same stuff offered up as if they are revealing to an audience that
has never dipped it's toes into this mire.

I've noticed that recently made programmes show the Mexico sightings,
where many orb-shaped objects are seen by supposedly hundreds flitting
among the clouds.
These -as you know, aren't that recent!

Entertainment... and we eat it up like candy.

Originally posted by thedeadlyrhythm
remind me again how many murderers have been put away from credible eyewitness testimony or hearsay as you put it again?

With no body???

www.nj.com...

But Risinger was at a loss to recall a New Jersey murder case that lacked the victim's body.

"It could be that we have never had a prosecution or conviction without a body available," he said.

George Thomas, a Rutgers Law School criminal law professor, was also hard-pressed to recall such a case.

There are many unsolved murder cases each year and we can't rule out the "aliens did it" idea, but the fact that we can't rule it out doesn't make it likely.

Murder cases typically have a body, that's what we're lacking here.

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Most people couldn't care less if something is proved scientifically.

I'm not sure about "most". If you change "most" to "many" I'd agree with that. That's why Carl Sagan wrote the book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

It explains methods to help distinguish between ideas that are considered valid science, and ideas that can be considered pseudoscience. Sagan states that when new ideas are offered for consideration, they should be tested by means of skeptical thinking, and should stand up to rigorous questioning.

The first question you have to ask people who think these things are extraterrestrial, is, how do they know they aren't time travelers from Earth? Or any one of a number of other explanations? Just because you can't rule out ET doesn't make that the most likely.

They are able to make a value judgment about the probabilities that Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Astronaut and sixth man on the moon is simply making stuff up or deluded, or whether they credit him enough intelligence to be able to discern the truth for himself when presented with it.

Don't you think that other astronauts besides Edgar Mitchell have heard the same stories told by others as Edgar Mitchell? Other astronauts would also have contacts and associates in the space program etc as Mitchell did. I suspect other astronauts HAVE heard the same stories and have come to different conclusions than Mitchell, so why should I put any more weight on his conclusions than the conclusions of any other astronaut?

Mitchell doesn't allow us to make a direct comparison because he won't reveal his sources.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Just because you can't rule out ET doesn't make that the most likely.

You already asked me this and I answered it here.

The amount of stars in the universe and its age make me think that the idea they are not here is actually more unlikely than the idea that they are.

reply to post by thedeadlyrhythm

With exceptions, hearsay is not admissible evidence. For good reason.
Mitchell's evidence does not meet the requirements.

In other words, hearsay is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing in question and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. For example, Witness A in a murder trial claimed on the stand: "Witness B (the "declarant") told me that the defendant killed the victim."

criminal.findlaw.com...

Originally posted by MarrsAttax

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Just because you can't rule out ET doesn't make that the most likely.

You already asked me this and I answered it here.

The amount of stars in the universe and its age make me think that the idea they are not here is actually more unlikely than the idea that they are.

You don't see the conflict in this reply?

First you say that they aren't using faster than light travel to get here, or something to that effect in your reply you just linked to.

Then you quote the number of stars in the universe the vast majority of which are relatively inaccessible without faster than light travel.

If you are going to say they are getting here without using faster than light travel, I think it severely limits the number of stars they will travel from to some kind of reasonable radius from us, even if their lifespans are longer than ours, etc.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


There is no conflict. You are not considering the immense age of our galaxy.

Here's some food for thought

It seems unlikely that interstellar spaceflight is impossible. Even today, we can envisage propulsion strategies which might make it possible to reach between 10 and 20 per cent of the speed of light, permitting travel between nearby stars in a few decades. Any civilization with this technology would be able to colonize every planetary system in the Galaxy in about 10 million years, which is only one-thousandth of the age of the Galaxy" [Crawford, 1996].

Ian Crawford from the University of London www.nicap.org...
(Apologies that this is a second hand quote. You can find info on Crawford at his homepage www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk... )

A lot of folks have given this thought. The first thing they note is that the Fermi Paradox is a remarkably strong argument. You can quibble about the speed of alien spacecraft, and whether they can move at 1 percent of the speed of light or 10 percent of the speed of light. It doesn't matter. You can argue about how long it would take for a new star colony to spawn colonies of its own. It still doesn't matter. Any halfway reasonable assumption about how fast colonization could take place still ends up with time scales that are profoundly shorter than the age of the Galaxy. It's like having a heated discussion about whether Spanish ships of the 16th century could heave along at two knots or twenty. Either way they could speedily colonize the Americas.

Seth Shostak at space.com www.space.com...

Also, I'm not saying that aliens would use sub light travel to get here only that the argument that they can't be here because FTL travel is impossible is redundant. If you make the argument that a suitably advanced race may have found a way to overcome the light barrier, that only makes their appearance here more likely.

So, FTL or not they should be here (this is Fermi's paradox).

Therefore, if we accept that aliens (if they exist as seems likely) should be here then the next step is to look for them.

Wait a minute.

What's this?

Reports of strange flying machines that out-perform our own cutting edge technology, including multiple witness reports?

Reports of strange creatures leaving landing these ships and taking samples from the environment?

Unidentified objects tracked on radar?

Documented cases of military jets firing on these objects?

I don't know about you but my first inclination isn't to think these are reports of fairies or advanced dolphins

I think you're right to view time-travellers as a viable hypothesis - indeed wouldn't a civilisation that had mastered FTL travel also be capable of travelling in time as a consequence?

But for me, assuming the reports of these objects are accurate as to their capabilities, the ETH is still the simplest explanation of the bunch.

Great thread and you are highlighting an important aspect. I used to feel like you annoyed at ignorance. The ancients met aliens many millenia ago. I have seen U.F.O.S.'s myslef and the proof is there.

Instead of allowing yourself to be annoyed or swayed by non-believers embrace the fact that not everyone will be lucky enough or wise enough to view the world like you do. you are lucky, they need not be convinced, one day they will believe just enjoy being 1 or 2 steps ahead.

You are wiser than the greatest PHD graduate if you believe with passion what is in your heart. Non-believers have nothing!

Peace

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
But for me, assuming the reports of these objects are accurate as to their capabilities, the ETH is still the simplest explanation of the bunch.

What reports of what capabilities? That's what really gets me, I hear this claim over and over again about amazing capabilities, but nobody seems to have any video of that. The only amazing capabilities I've ever seen in any videos have turned out to be hoaxes, have you seen any videos of amazing capabilities that AREN'T hoaxes? If you have, I'd like to see them.

The videos I see never show amazing capabilities, like this one supposedly of an object that can hover silently without making any noise:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This video however is one of few that seem to prove that UFO`s are reall and cant be mistaken.

Of course the video the OP posted didn't have a little popup next to the "UFO" pointing to it saying "it's a plane".

Originally posted by Phage
I wonder why this poster edited the original video. Maybe because of what can be seen around 2:50?

I did once see Jeff Willis videotape a balloon drifting past his house and claimed it was a UFO, he also claimed it then moved almost a mile in one second but of course he didn't videotape that part. I didn't find his claim about how fast the balloon moved to be credible nor his claim that it was anything other than a balloon.

Other witnesses who may be more credible than Jeff Willis have the same human frailty we all have of not being very good observers and therefore descriptions of size, distance, speed of unknown objects with no reference points simply have no credibility at all, no matter how much "training" someone has as an observer. Nobody can be "trained" to determine the size, distance, or speed of an unknown object in the sky. If it's a known object, they can, but if that's the case then it's not a UFO.

And cases like the Belgian UFO wave where amazing capabilities were captured on radar are often the result of malfunctioning or errant radar readings, electromagnetic interference, etc, which was determined to be the cause in that case.

well we're here, what more proof do you need?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Where did I mention video?

If you think that youtube video are the only evidence of UFOs then of course you're going to think it's all hogwash.

If you want to deny that people have reported objects that outperform our own technology then I guess there's not much I can do to dissuade you from burying your head in the sand. The reports are FACT. Whether you believe the reports is another matter.

But you could do worse than read this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pinke, did you ever stop to think that perhaps I've been doing my own personal research on the paranormal since I was a kid back in the 80's? Well guess what, I have.

Do you realize at all that any of this "crap" that's on the History channel is all coming from books that were published over 10 years ago? Well guess what, it is.

Your post on here replying to my post about "fluff" being on both TV and books is a joke. You even used words like "usually" in your reply so I already know you realize this.

I wasn't even going to bother writing anything else but seriously you're starting to get annoying - Why do people constantly go out of their way to do nothing other than start problems? I'm hoping your intention is to make people stop and think for themselves, that's what mine is.

its been stated many times before that absense of proof is not the same thing as proof of absense. just because something can't or has not yet been proven doesn't mean it's not true. one would think that the hundreds of thousands of witness accounts in regards to ufo phenomenon, many of which come from entirely credible individuals, would count as some sort of evidence..