Anybody who says that ET's don't exist, or have never visited earth is WRONG!

This is ridiculous. The evidence as a whole, when you take every single piece from the thousands of UFO sightings, videos, photos, documents, government leaks, abductions, NASA images, etc. Many of which come from very credible witnesses, pilots, astronauts, government employees, scientists, military personal and more.. It becomes evidently clear that there is something out there. And by something I mean alien craft and/or ships from outer space.

I hear the same crap all the time from skeptics who refuse to take into account all of these massive amounts of evidence and yet still claim it's impossible, as if to say every single witness, scientist or researcher is "lying".. People like Carl Sagan or other former government/nasa workers whom have seen the photos of structures on the moon and worked on alien aircraft in-person. It's an insult to those of us who know better than to say we "are the only ones here"..

It's silly.

I've studied and seen with my own eyes clear structures on our moon as well as Mars and abroad. The evidence mounting just from Nasa photography alone is enough to prove that there IS something out there.

Of course many of the videos and/or photos are bogus, yet many are clearly not. There are many videos out there which show true alien and/or government objects which defy the laws of movement/gravity. However I am not going to sit here and listen to anyone believing that every single ufo is that of human origin.

It's real, and our primitive thinking needs to get over it.

reply to post by Monts


I'm with you on that. To much of the GFL, Blossom Goodchild type nonsense for my taste.

I'd fully agree it's just a bit nut's to think there are no other intelligent beings in a Universe of unknown size and scope. Question is, why would they come here, if they are why? Too many nonsensical answers to those questions.

Mostly though, I see too many here that blindly accept every video of lights in the sky or anomalous photo's as evidence, when in fact one in thousands may have any merit. Even then, are they visitors or military?

I posted here for years before I told my story. I witnessed a classic Saucer a few hundred feet above me, probably about 30 or 40 feet across. Got a clear look at it in broad daylight in fact. More than forty years later, I can still see it clearly in my mind hovering over me. I can't not believe and yet I know most of what I see here is worthless tripe.

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by mr10k
(snip)
[Actually, it's "evidence must be this tall to be true" VERSUS "evidence is 3 miles long"....which is true, seeing the amount of evidence we have. Put it this way, in court, the documents found pertaining to aliens would be substantial. Then there is the fervent skeptic, which would do anything to keep his/her "throne" as a disbeliever. Then again, there isn't anything to "believe", but rather to acknowledge.

You're wrong! If you took the "evidence" (documents!) for the reality of aliens into a court they'd throw it out because hearsay is weak and unsupportable. You don't know much, if anything, about skepticism. Being a skeptic is a natural position versus being a believer who has had his/her mind conditioned to accept claims without requiring evidence. Skeptics can be fervent as Robert Sheaffer would be called.

The ideal skeptic is an open-minded person who simply questions and doesn't accept willy-nilly. But it also depends on the subject as in extra-terrestrials. There just isn't any evidence whatsoever to accept their reality. So it may seem that a person is close-minded. Not so. Provide evidence and the skeptic will consider it and if it's irrefutable evidence the skeptic will accept it. IOW, don't just talk a good game, play it!

1: You are telling me I cannot prove the existence of extraterrestials using Military and government documents?
2: I said ***FERVENT*** Skeptic. Yeah, I am happy that there are rational skeptics, and I am a skeptic to a certain extent, but I believe that there is extraterrestial life out there, far advanced than our own.

By the by....as in fervent, take #2 for example. If you are a fervent skeptic, you will feel the need to say something like

"So you think Aliens go around probing us in little spaceships?"

Which at that point I wouldn't even acknowledge your presence, because there is no arguing with a person who is not willing to change his/her belief. A skeptic is one who questions the information given, but if you drag it to the point where even legal documents are not satisfactory, there is no point in debating.

I know many skeptics on this site that are fervent and proud, which is sad. I'm not saying to debunk everything you see, because there ARE fervent believers, whom put us to shame, like the guy above. As soon as I saw "starchild" I scrolled down like I was just rick rolled. Things of that matter have no place with Aliens & UFOs and should be left in Metaphysics or just plain HOAX, because THAT is a load of hot air. Nothing is more powerful than the ability to turn a nothing into something by conjuring up a powerful yet imaginative story.

Originally posted by Monts
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Your right in your point that even if the UFO phenomena was proven real, that in itself does not prove that ET's exist.

I suppose that the logic used in linking UFO's to Aliens is the same kind of logic that linked unexplainable phenomena to God/Gods.

But the point is that there is evidence (and if you wish, I can provide), that there are things flying around in our skies of which the general population have no idea of its origin, and are being operated in an intelligent manner.

Something "mysterious", as the term goes- something that would shatter or greatly alter our current paradigm it it were to be conventionally explained.

It is the total reluctance to consider that our current thinking paradigm is false, and that there may be forces at work that we do not understand that I am trying to get at.

The other side I'm trying to get at in this thread is the witness side- people who claim to have seen, or interacted with beings that are not human.

As I tried to parallel with the Native-American story, such similar situations have occurred many times in the past- situations in which one truly experiences a paradigm shattering experience, and is unable to convince others of this reality for lack of solid proof.

Witness testimony can be used in court cases to put people behind bars... so why is it not given the same credence in the UFO phenomena? Simply because the witnesses report something that doesn't fit in with what the system claims as a truth?

I am 100% wiht you on this one, and I feel the same. Soon we will some to the point where we realize that UFO does not always go together with ET.

Originally posted by HazyChestNutz
Starchild skull, crystal skulls, cave paintings and statues made by ancient natives.

and also, for other any solid proof, the government makes it top classified and hides it from the public. This thread has no logic. Fail attempt to troll.

edit on 26-12-2010 by HazyChestNutz because: (no reason given)

There is the problem. The skulls could have been made by any Human with the will to do so and I think most are modern fakes. That skull is not odd at all. Have you seen the reconstruction commissioned and then ignored? The person who did the forensic reconstruction posted here at the time. Do you really think it takes multiple labs and years to do the genetic tests? One of the most transparent hoaxes going. Or perhaps those pushing it are just irrational and lack critical thinking skills or want it to be real so badly they are blinded. Cave painting, who knows? Not you, not me?

Old legends, likely the same as modern Urban Legends. Based on a kernel of truth and then the rest is fiction added on later.

How is discussing this an attempt to Troll? If somebody believes different from you, you call them a Troll? Why would a discussion like this offend you so much you call people names?

Having said that, the title could have been worded better I admit.

I think that it is an utter travesty for one to say "UFO's may be proven to exist but do not link to that of aliens existing"

This is an idea where in which common sense is needed. I refuse to believe that the thousands of eye-witnessed and/or well-documented UFO crafts seen throughout this century are that of all human making and control.

Once you come to this realization, you have to take into account the fact that if there IS a UFO, and it is NOT being manned by some government human pilot, then the only other alternative is that something NOT of this earth IS manning the craft. Common sense 101.

I'm not just speaking on UFOs seen in our atmosphere, but of those seen and documented in deep space, near the lunar surface and around other distant planets. I guess you want me to believe that those are also being manned by some low payed government pilot?

Sometimes reality really is stranger than fiction..

reply to post by Blaine91555


Are you really in the Alaskan wilderness?

Originally posted by Tvision
I think that it is an utter travesty for one to say "UFO's may be proven to exist but do not link to that of aliens existing"

This is an idea where in which common sense is needed. I refuse to believe that the thousands of eye-witnessed and/or well-documented UFO crafts seen throughout this century are that of all human making and control.

Once you come to this realization, you have to take into account the fact that if there IS a UFO, and it is NOT being manned by some government human pilot, then the only other alternative is that something NOT of this earth IS manning the craft. Common sense 101.

I'm not just speaking on UFOs seen in our atmosphere, but of those seen and documented in deep space, near the lunar surface and around other distant planets. I guess you want me to believe that those are also being manned by some low payed government pilot?

Sometimes reality really is stranger than fiction..

You do not think...that with the millions of people believeing in UFOs/ Wanting to save the world/ Wanting to change peopl's perception etc...that there will not be at least ONE man who either steals or develops the blueprints for a flying ship, be it a battleship/ Flying Saucer/ Hovering jet that would one day decide to just fly over New york city? Heck, if i had the time, I would use it to find out how they work, and thats just me. Imagine the possibilities of a person with the resources

reply to post by Monts

Because just as there is no solid proof that Aliens exist, and are hear, there is no solid proof that they don't exist and haven't been here.

If I say that there are fairies living in back yard and you tell me that they aren't there it is up to ME to come up with the proof to convince you. If I don't have the evidence to back up my claim than you are completely justified to call me out on that fact and disbelieve that my fairies exist. If there is no solid proof for the aliens than there is nothing distinguishing them from the imaginary. While I agree that this does not 100% mean they are not there and have not visited it does not mean that someone is justified in believing they are here.

I'm not going to believe either side of the story.

1) There is no other side of the story. There are those that believe aliens are here and there are those that lack said belief. It isn't as if we skeptics are sitting around going, "There are absolutely no aliens anywhere and they could NEVER get to Earth!" ... We are just waiting for the evidence, in the meantime however we don't believe aliens ARE here.

2) Video footage would be good but it wouldn't be conclusive. We'd need an alien body, the ship itself, something that can be tested in a lab, not just video.

I think we agree on principle, that absolute certainty on the subject on either "side" is silly however I don't any skeptic that, when pressed, would claim to be certain that aliens have never visited Earth.

Just as the time-traveler could easily blend in, operate, and remain unnoticed in the crowd, who is to say that an ET civilization that is hundreds, thousands, or possibly millions of years as advanced as we are won't have the same capabilities, if not more?

Who is to say? No one - THE EVIDENCE IS TO SAY. And until there is evidence for alien visitation it seems to me the only logical stance is to not believe in alien visitation. This doesn't mean being closed-minded but it does mean requiring evidence when someone makes the claim that aliens are among us.

In fact, if anyone claims that Aliens don't exist, and aren't visiting us with 100% certainty are being ignorant themselves.

I agree completely. In fact anyone claiming 100% certainty on ANY subject is being ignorant. Even what is considered common knowledge today may be overturned by evidence. 100% certainty is useless since new discoveries are being made every day that help shift the paradigm of our knowledge along.

In summary I think I agree with you for the most part... so I'm really not sure why I bothered typing all this

Not so much among us as watching us as they approach their final destination,their new colony,and well considering them observing us with their telescopes already knowing when we don`t exist on this rock,it does`nt surprise how niave we all are to think as we observe with our telescopes that we see objects in the past too ?Just were their future !

Originally posted by Monts
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Your right in your point that even if the UFO phenomena was proven real, that in itself does not prove that ET's exist.

The Shrike: "IMO, UFOs have been proven real beyond mondo. But that is the only aspect that is open to discussion because the evidence can be discussed without treating the subject as an assumption. They're here. OTOH, ETs are still an assumption because of the romantic tie to UFOs being treated as ET vehicles when we really have no idea what they are, where they originate, or where they go when they're not visible."

I suppose that the logic used in linking UFO's to Aliens is the same kind of logic that linked unexplainable phenomena to God/Gods.

But the point is that there is evidence (and if you wish, I can provide), that there are things flying around in our skies of which the general population have no idea of its origin, and are being operated in an intelligent manner.

The Shrike: "Allow me to provide the evidence, my evidence. Visit www.ufocasebook.com... and read my account and look at the vidcaps from the MiniDV tape I made with my digital camcorder. The title of the article, "New York City's Central Park UFO Filmed, June 2004" is incorrect as the UFO was not over Central Park but I videotaped it from Central Park. The ascending airplane is doing so from La Guardia Airport. A look at a map will locate where the UFO is suspended."

Something "mysterious", as the term goes- something that would shatter or greatly alter our current paradigm it it were to be conventionally explained.

It is the total reluctance to consider that our current thinking paradigm is false, and that there may be forces at work that we do not understand that I am trying to get at.

The other side I'm trying to get at in this thread is the witness side- people who claim to have seen, or interacted with beings that are not human.

The Shrike: "That last sentence is where I draw the line in accepting unsubstantiated claims. I don't think that any human has interacted with any non-human being whether associated with UFOs or not. I have to put those reports on the back burner. If something like that were really to happen and it was more than just a claim by someone, these forums might cease to exist unless we turned gossips discussing what the latest news from Niburu was!"

quote]As I tried to parallel with the Native-American story, such similar situations have occurred many times in the past- situations in which one truly experiences a paradigm shattering experience, and is unable to convince others of this reality for lack of solid proof.

Witness testimony can be used in court cases to put people behind bars... so why is it not given the same credence in the UFO phenomena? Simply because the witnesses report something that doesn't fit in with what the system claims as a truth?

The Shrike: "The Cash-Landrum case was not accepted by the court even with the medical history and the support of other witnesses because the evidence from the plaintiff was lacking, a heck of a lot more substantial claims than hearsay."

Originally posted by Tvision
This is ridiculous. The evidence as a whole, when you take every single piece from the thousands of UFO sightings, videos, photos, documents, government leaks, abductions, NASA images, etc. Many of which come from very credible witnesses, pilots, astronauts, government employees, scientists, military personal and more.. It becomes evidently clear that there is something out there. And by something I mean alien craft and/or ships from outer space.

The Shrike: "The very credible witnesses, not all of which qualify as credible based on their position only do what every witness does, they supply a report. That's all, just words. If a video or photos are included, of course they add weight to the claim. But without them, there isn't much to go on for any kind of investigation. Of couse there's something there. We just don't know what it is and why these forums exist."

I hear the same crap all the time from skeptics who refuse to take into account all of these massive amounts of evidence and yet still claim it's impossible, as if to say every single witness, scientist or researcher is "lying".. People like Carl Sagan or other former government/nasa workers whom have seen the photos of structures on the moon and worked on alien aircraft in-person. It's an insult to those of us who know better than to say we "are the only ones here"..

It's silly.

The Shrike: "You can't lump all skeptics into one category. There's a variety of skeptics. There are closed-minded skeptics who do not accept any evidence. They would have to go through the experience to unskepticize themselves. There are open-minded skeptics who have had excellent sightings but even though we accept the reality of UFOs after we've had the convincing experience, that doesn't change a skeptic who is only being normal as opposed to a mentally-conditioned believer who doesn't require evidence."

I've studied and seen with my own eyes clear structures on our moon as well as Mars and abroad. The evidence mounting just from Nasa photography alone is enough to prove that there IS something out there..

The Shrike: "Sorry, but even though I don't know you, I don't accept your comments as having any substance when you claim that you've seen clear structures on the moon as well as Mars(!) and abroad. You have a right to make any claim you like but it's not accepted until you provide irrefutable evidence. Especially of structures on the moon. I've studied such since the early 1980s and no one, to my satisfaction, has ever produced any evidence of such whether in NASA photos or otherwise. Nothing, nada!"

Of course many of the videos and/or photos are bogus, yet many are clearly not. There are many videos out there which show true alien and/or government objects which defy the laws of movement/gravity. However I am not going to sit here and listen to anyone believing that every single ufo is that of human origin.

It's real, and our primitive thinking needs to get over it.

edit on 26-12-2010 by Tvision because: (no reason given)

The Shrike: "It would be wonderful if you were to use to use this forum to your advantage and grace us with something to look at that would substantiate your words. I do not think that a single UFO is of human origin. Not yet."

reply to post by mr10k


At times. Mostly though, in an office in Anchorage.

reply to post by Monts


You cannot prove a negative. It is irrational to prove a negative.

I say this a lot, but:

Demanding irrefutable proof holds merit. It is the best logical course to get to the bottom of something.

If I say I have an invisible faerie in my back yard, how could anyone prove me wrong? It's invisible, so you can't take pictures. In fact, because it is a faerie and nobody has ever verified their existence in order to quantify what faeries can and cannot do, I can give it whatever lame power or ability I want. I could even say it could stop existing and re-appear based on whether or not it wants to be found by people.

Can you see how similar this sounds in regard to the idea of ET visitors? The people telling the stories can make up whatever they want, and we'd honestly have no way of possibly disproving them.

This is why the burden of proof ALWAYS rests on the side making the most incredible or supernatural claim. And this is also why third-person anecdotes, stories and "confessions" are the worst possible substitutions for evidence. The truth is, they aren't even evidence to begin with.

The court of science isn't anything like the court of law. It demands one-hundred percent, verifiable proof.

And, let me add, that personally I don't need the government or any sort of official individual to 'disclose' their existence to me. I would do just fine with an independent scientist or researcher who is published and reviewed by his/her peers, such as in scientific journals. Where are they? I'm still searching diligently...

Originally posted by mr10k
1: You are telling me I cannot prove the existence of extraterrestials using Military and government documents?

Do you have any of these specific documents available to distribute? Do you have any way to prove their authenticity?

I hear that same anecdote very often. "There are mountains of evidence of extraterrestrials visiting Earth." Unfortunately, that evidence is never attached to the argument.

I've seen mountains of evidence myself, unfortunately none of it connects aliens with the UFO phenomenon, or is anything that can be useful beyond anecdotal evidence (which is next to useless in scientific examination). However, I hear so often about these piles of evidence that I'm obviously missing somewhere.

And when I say evidence, I mean real evidence, not the same old subjective mysterious pseudo-proof that allows people to retain their belief and nothing more. Something with real, substantial worth.

Is there any of that out there? I'd love to see it.

Originally posted by EsSeeEye

Originally posted by mr10k
1: You are telling me I cannot prove the existence of extraterrestials using Military and government documents?

Do you have any of these specific documents available to distribute? Do you have any way to prove their authenticity?

I hear that same anecdote very often. "There are mountains of evidence of extraterrestrials visiting Earth." Unfortunately, that evidence is never attached to the argument.

I've seen mountains of evidence myself, unfortunately none of it connects aliens with the UFO phenomenon, or is anything that can be useful beyond anecdotal evidence (which is next to useless in scientific examination). However, I hear so often about these piles of evidence that I'm obviously missing somewhere.

And when I say evidence, I mean real evidence, not the same old subjective mysterious pseudo-proof that allows people to retain their belief and nothing more. Something with real, substantial worth.

Is there any of that out there? I'd love to see it.

I never said I have any of these things. i am asking if he would accept these documents as evidence.

Originally posted by Tvision
This is ridiculous. The evidence as a whole, when you take every single piece from the thousands of UFO sightings, videos, photos, documents, government leaks, abductions, NASA images, etc. Many of which come from very credible witnesses, pilots, astronauts, government employees, scientists, military personal and more.. It becomes evidently clear that there is something out there. And by something I mean alien craft and/or ships from outer space.

I hear the same crap all the time from skeptics who refuse to take into account all of these massive amounts of evidence and yet still claim it's impossible, as if to say every single witness, scientist or researcher is "lying".. People like Carl Sagan or other former government/nasa workers whom have seen the photos of structures on the moon and worked on alien aircraft in-person. It's an insult to those of us who know better than to say we "are the only ones here"..

It's silly.

I think this is a really important point.

There have been countless witnesses whom have claimed that UFO's/ET's are a reality, and even some who say that the government is actively involved in a continuing cover-up.

Too many credible people have spoken out. Edgar Mitchell, who walked on the moon, says it is real; I mean, how much more credible and "in-the-loop" can a witness get than being a man whom the US government trusted to put on the moon?

But I suppose he is just a quack who is out for attention , money, and personal gain of somesort

Originally posted by Monts
I think this is a really important point.

There have been countless witnesses whom have claimed that UFO's/ET's are a reality, and even some who say that the government is actively involved in a continuing cover-up.

There is no convincing evidence that could lead someone to believe that there is an actual cover-up, though.

Too many credible people have spoken out. Edgar Mitchell, who walked on the moon, says it is real; I mean, how much more credible and "in-the-loop" can a witness get than being a man whom the US government trusted to put on the moon?

Testimony from credible people, in whatever field they are in, are still stories. We only know what they *believed* they've seen. It doesn't matter if it's Edgar Mitchell, Gordon Cooper, Buzz Aldrin et al.

Were you aware that he's a big believer in psychic phenomena like telepathy and clairvoyance? On his Apollo 14 mission he tried to have a small group of people on Earth read his thoughts each night as he concentrated on certain numbers and symbols. He hid his participation in the experiment from his crew mates and NASA. Had Al Shepard had heard about it beforehand he probably would have hit the ceiling.

He's nice and is a person of historical importance, but he still has some very 'out-there' beliefs. The guy even believes Uri Geller is for real.

But I suppose he is just a quack who is out for attention , money, and personal gain of somesort

edit on 27/12/1010 by Monts because: (no reason given)

edit on 27/12/1010 by Monts because: spelling

Well, yeah. Along with the people who genuinely believe in these things are real there are also those who don't, and know exactly how to market their schtick to gullible rubes. I could list names, but man, that would be a long post...

Just a short digression about hearsay.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

From what I understand not all UFO reports or reports of encounters with 'beings' can be classed as hearsay. Hearsay would be where someone says 'my friend met an alien'.

When a witness says 'I saw a UFO and its occupants and was physically affected by a beam of light emanating from the craft' and the investigator is present to hear this statement and can see the physical effects and read medical reports provided by the witness' doctor, that is not hearsay but a first-hand witness account.

To call it hearsay, simply because the investigator did not witness the event themselves but is only hearing the story of someone who did, actually would put most classes of knowledge in to the 'hearsay' category.

Good OP by the way

I think The Shrike is right to point out there are alternative explanations for UFOs but I don't believe the OP is denying this. Rather the OP is aimed at people who dismiss the phenomena altogether. Maybe using 'Non-human intelligence' or a similar term, rather than 'ET', in the OP would have clarified your position for The Shrike.

I'm reading Vallee at the moment. I think the reason most people latch on to the ET explanation is that it is at least 'graspable' by the human mind. What Vallee proposes is actually more 'out there' than the ET explanation as far as everyday experience goes, even if that's what the evidence suggests. Visiting aliens would certainly be outside the norm but still can be fitted in to our reality. Vallee's ideas suggest that our fundamental concept of 'reality' itself is wrong.

A counter to Vallee would be to highlight something he himself has pointed out, which is that the phenomena appears to be capable of altering the witness' reality or at least their perception of it. Faced with such an ability how could we ever really know the true underlying cause of a given event? It could be some intra-dimensional but earth-based conciousness making the witness believe in aliens or it could just be part of an alien's mechanisms for keeping their existence hidden by disorienting the witness and making them perceive things that are 'impossible' in order to discredit any testimony they give.

So many arguments over a subject that you can only argue over..

I'm a believer, have been a long time but the simple fact is that there's not enough proof to prove conclusively anything otherwise we would not be here doing this over done nonsense. There have been some very very credible people come out and make their claims with no reason to put themselves into the silly spotlight so I bow to their words BUT until a visitor comes down on our soil and announces themselves to the world then all this is totally and utterly in vain.

I'm not saying people should stop looking, I'm just saying to look with 'better' eyes, we spend too much time on these forums debating and counter debating items that just scream fake or 'of this world', people spend so much time trying to reintroduce old and debunked criteria like rods into debates when they should be looking at fresh valid data and doing the research to at least give a semblance of proof.

Instead we debate balloons, lanterns, geese, birds and bats and of course the biggest annoyance, CGI. Sadly that last one is the hardest to de-construct if done well.

All I'm saying is that none of us can make such rashly named topics as this one and expect no opposition, it's a completely impossible to prove statement no matter what you believe and the same would be if it was saying there are no aliens.