You want proof of flying saucers? This is it!

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Orkojoker

 

how do you expect to get anywhere if nobody even tries to look for them?

I don't expect to "get anywhere". I'm just some guy who's interested in the topic. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.

its the people peddling the ET myths that have set the bar. They're the ones who claim they are nuts & bolts craft with et occupants that go around abducting people. They need to get some decent evidence to back up their claims and that hasn't happened in 70 years.

edit on 24-7-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

There is decent evidence that something out of the ordinary is going on. There are, of course, different interpretations of what that something might be. Each of these interpretations has it's own rationale, and each has it's own weak points. None of them are rock solid. I'm curious to know what, if anything, you think is going on with all this.

Originally posted by yeti101
how do you expect to get anywhere if nobody even tries to look for them?

its the people peddling the ET myths that have set the bar. They're the ones who claim they are nuts & bolts craft with et occupants that go around abducting people. They need to get some decent evidence to back up their claims and that hasn't happened in 70 years.

Do you mean "proof" or "evidence"? You seem to interchange the words between posts in a way that may be a bit careless.

Whether there is 'proof' of the ET hypothesis is debatable, I suppose, though I tend to reserve the 'P' word for when there's a higher level of certainty than we have here.

But as to there being 'evidence' which suggests that the ET hypothesis is the least implausible explanation for some UFO sightings, there is simply no doubt that it exists. For one to suggest otherwise, he would have to be either very ignorant of the history of the topic, or else be viewing all UFO data through the haze of his own mal-formed assumptions. (The most common of which is that "flying saucers" are a priori impossible... a belief of which the holder is not even himself always aware, and which is often conveniently masked by (and defended with) assertions by the skeptic that he is simply in possession of a more refined sense of 'evidence' and greater appreciation for the principles of science... which is of course usually false, and can usually be shown to be false by examining the other items that person considers to be fact or "sufficiently proven".... )

And if you're tempted to ask "well where's the evidence then?", I'll refer you to my post above regarding the FBI and Dr. Hynek / Phil Klass, tell you that Hynek used to famously respond to that question with "Where do you want to park the truck?", and then I'll leave it to you to research how Hynek came to that conclusion. (Or maybe I should just incorporate by reference "The UFO Experience"?) But note that a number of people who don't hesitate to offer their opinions on this subject seem extremely unaware of such things, and (even more curiously) appear to be totally uninterested in discovering how it is that such a man -- a former skeptic, with much to lose -- might have arrived at that point.

You can safely say the ET hypothesis is not proven, sure. You can say you're not convinced, absolutely. You can say all sorts of things about the UFO topic and be sheltered from legitimate criticism. About the only thing a person can't say, while still expecting to be taken seriously by those who've actually spent the time, is that there's "no evidence" in support of the ET hypothesis. Because such a statement immediately evinces near monumental levels of ignorance and / or bias, and often leads to lopsided threads where many appear to be cruelly ganging up on a few.

Originally posted by Toxicsurf
Wow...OK, Klass and O'berg I can forgive, somewhat. But the ignorance of this is just....well....ignorant. Look past the preconceived Condon Report summary and actually read the report...

That's the problem. For someone coming into the UFO topic naturally skeptical -- which would ideally be all of us -- getting to anything even approaching the 'truth' first requires the serious, careful and critical reading of a ~1,000-page report. Because that's the Report that mainstream science uses to justify ignoring the topic.

But let's think about this in a different way...

What better method for the Air Force to protect itself and offer a form of limited disclosure than with exactly what we got in 1969? Putting its timing in our own hands, in a sense: "disclosure" only happens when a significant enough portion of the population cares enough to make the effort to read those 1,000 pages, and is wise enough to do so critically, objectively comparing the data in the Report to Condon's conclusions... i.e., the populace must "grow into" the disclosure that the Air Force has already so gallantly provided, in a sense. (A brilliant plan, in a way.)

And what better way for the Air Force to shield itself (partially) from the criticism that it withheld UFO information? I can almost hear the Air Force PR person now, in the press conference on the day that the existence of these objects can no longer be plausibly denied: "Don't blame us. The data was in the Condon Report -- 30 percent unknowns, with every subordinate scientist / section author finding at least one strange UFO case that couldn't be explained as a hoax or misidentification. That Dr. Condon's biases skewed his personal conclusions seems obvious with the benefit of hindsight, and troubling. It's unfortunate that the scientific community did not then pick up the ball and run with it. But that is not the fault of the Air Force...." Heheh.

I don't think I really believe that this was the scenario as planned, but I am intrigued by certain aspects of such a "solution":
1) we're saved from our own panic and mass-hysteria in the short term;
2) the Air Force ultimately doesn't look quite as bad, down the line;
3) the only real sacrifice has been the good name of Dr. Condon himself....

reply to post by VoidHawk


So then, because I would rather not base my belief on somebody else's opinion that means I have some underlying psychological prejudices that prevent me from either a. believing in the people that have seen something, or b.believing in the phenomena?

That isn't true at all. I have no doubt that all of those people believe what they saw and I find it really interesting and often fascinating to hear people's stories. However, the claim from the OP that his summary of the case provides undeniable, definitive proof that UFO's exist is not true and it's not fair. I have no doubt that those people saw something, no doubt at all. But unless I saw it myself, it doesn't prove anything to me.

Amazing ! I was wondering if there was something about that area that the aliens were attracted to ? example: Lay-lines, or a special Power source other than the power lines by the school ?

I wish I could talk to some of the kids that were there

reply to post by jaytay


Yep, this is truly an amazing event. When I started this thread I believed the craft were of human origin but as the thread progressed and more info became availiable I couldn't help but come around to the idea that they were indeed alien.

What attracted them? I think it was the children. There was another event simmilar to this in africa where school children saw two saucers and the aliens got out to observe the children.

Next question - Why would aliens choose to show themselves to children?

Originally posted by ElOmen
I wish I could talk to some of the kids that were there

Me too. There are also many children around the world who claim to have been abducted, I'd really like to talk to them too.
Many claim children are too easily fooled to make good witnesses, I actualy dont agree, they are far less likely to have polluted minds and I supect more likely to be honest about what they saw.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
While i think most people here appreciate the effort you went to it doesn't make up for the fact you claimed to have 'the' proof but provided none at all.

In a court of law witnesses can be proof, how many do we need before we accept it as proof?

since you brought up a "court of law"....i shall chime in....im not even addressing whether or not actual UFOs were seen....just bringing up the "witness testimony + court" issue....

witness testimony is pretty unreliable and in most cases for a jury to believe witness testimony, there needs to be some evidence to back it up. again, witness testimony is pretty unreliable because humans are fallible......they lie, this misunderstand, misidentify, recall memories incorrectly......people have been wrongly charged and sentenced based on witness testimony.....if you were a defendant would you want your life dependent on some person's testimony w/out any evidence at all? what if someone said they saw you murder another person - and you were innocent - would you want their testimony to be what convicts you? of course not! because one's word requires MUCH to accept as truth. people even lie under oath! to place absolute, unquestionable faith in one's word - well i guess people have differing levels of trust.

here are some great reads on eyewitness testimony....id suggest everyone read them and do further research on the subject.....

Standford Journal of Legal Studies - The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony

Unreliable Witness Testimony

Slate - Perry v New Hampshire

BBC - The Problem with Eyewitnesses

and you can google for study after study on the topic....


IMO, unless there is some evidence to back up what one claims, i take anything said with a grain of salt..

and well.....the title says "proof" and for me, proof does not equal story told by some person....
there is what we call in crimal law - prima facie.....look it up

edit on July 10th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

And actual footage of said "proof" in a court of law can easily be thrown out? Correct?

While I was in the Navy... I went "UA" (unauthorized absence) and did some coc aine while on my little vacation. Came back and immediately screen tested via urine. After Captain's Mast (similar to a court of law just Naval) I was convicted of failing my screening. Given the option to appeal the test, I got a JAG... and because a particular person handling the case of urine was not logged properly or unqualified, it was thrown out and I was allowed a General Discharge. I was entirely guilty, even the "proof" was legitimate, but because it was handled improperly it was easily thrown out.

I'm saying all this because.... just about any "proof" can be thrown out with the right attorney or at least portrayed as obstructed for the case when the evidence is 100% correct. And video footage is used all the time in the criminal court system when we see it easily obstructed all the time by all walks of life.

Will we ever TRULY know the truth? No, but we are easily persuaded either way by the fictitious charade done by merely players and our own imaginative portrayal of what might come off to one as reality.

reply to post by ambient moon


It wasnt an oval shaped UFU, they were two round disk shaped craft, landing on an oval.
In Australia we call the grass field we play football on an oval, because of its shape.

Wow this just goes to prove that the government is hiding things from us all the time

reply to post by Mjumpman
How do you know the government is hiding stuff from you?

For all we know, the government had little or nothing to do with this sighting.

There is evidence. Yes, the children did see something. The adults also saw something. Pictures were taken.

BTW, two things I noted:
1) The craft turned sideways to travel. This seems similar to the "Costa Rico UFO" when the video showed the craft turning sideways before flying away
2) The sister incident in Zimbabwe also shed light where the children said a being floated out of the craft and landed in front of the craft. The being later "teleported" back into the craft somehow.

Shows the more we encounter these crafts, the less we know. I can't say what they really are so I am not willing to say government, secret government, alien, non-human but terrestrial entity crafts, etc.

For those who say they need proof, we don't have exclusive proof the moon exists, for example. Sure, we have all seen it but tell 100 blind people there is "proof" the moon exists.

It only exists because we have seen it. Many still haven't seen it. many have not felt it. So, does it exist? I say only to those who feel so.

So, as others have said, proof is highly subjective and only exists to those who have experienced it.

reply to post by Jaellma


Interesting post

When I started this thread I was of the opinion that the craft were made on earth, but had no idea who made them. However, there were some very interesting links posted by others throughout the thread that led me to change my view, like the Zimbabwe incident for example.
I cannot come up with a reason why humans would have landed these craft so close to a school, then bring in truck loads of men to remove the evidence and threaten the children and staff into silence. I am now firmly of the opinion these craft were alien.

About people denying or believing. Brighter made a fantastic post here concerning this, if you didnt read all the thread you might find it and the posts following it very interesting.

reply to post by VoidHawk
Thanks. Will read that thread tomorrow.

It's interesting that you said you changed your mind. While I think it was wise of you to do so, you must be careful in your thinking that it was of alien origin. When you say alien, do you mean alien to us, humans? If so, fine. Because, although they (whoever they are) could be "alien", they may yet turn out to be terrestrial entities, just not quite sharing any or all of our DNA. They could also be inter-dimensional humans or non-humans. Who the heck really knows.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
About the only thing a person can't say, while still expecting to be taken seriously by those who've actually spent the time, is that there's "no evidence" in support of the ET hypothesis. Because such a statement immediately evinces near monumental levels of ignorance and / or bias...

I'm not so sure. Show me a single piece of evidence that supports the ET hypothesis. Just one that absolutely could not represent anything but an interaction between Earth and a creature or entity or intelligence originating from another planet.

The ET hypothesis rests on a single shaky foundation which can be summed up as, "Since we (or I) don't know of anything like that -- flying thing, creature thing, etc. -- here on Earth, it could only have come from another planet." You can hopefully see the tremendous errors in logic in such a statement.

Start with the fact that you don't have a single physical example of the things you're talking about. Just stories, statements, maybe an image of some kind, or some stray traces, but not really the thing. Then, you must agree that no one person could can definitively know everything that could possibly represent the whole of reality on Earth. Add to that there is not a shred of solid, corroborating evidence of any kind that there is any life elsewhere in the entire universe. It all adds up to trying to use a hypothetical to explain an unknown.

Looking strictly at the available evidence, without trying to impose an explanation on it, if you accept that the phenomenon is in some way "real," then extraterrestrials becomes one of the weakest potential hypotheses.

After many decades of interest/study, my personal opinion is that when you add it all up, without focusing specifically on the flying saucers, and including all the weirdest and strangest and counterintuitive reports that get tossed out because they're too goofy, I think what we're dealing with is a manifestation of reality that interacts with us in a sociological and psychological way that we just can't comprehend and may never comprehend.

It's "real," and even though you might be able to take a picture of it while it's around, it always vanishes, like in a dream. Dreams are real, right, even though all we have is anecdotal evidence of them? The only difference is that most people dream, so we agree they're real, but not everybody sees a flying saucer. And at the end of the day, the ET hypothesis is really the least likely to be workable because it's just not strange enough. It's too illogical, untestable, doesn't fit a lot (if not most) of the data, and it's also far too dull and ordinary and unimaginative to work.

reply to post by Blue Shift
I disagree.

I believe you are basing your hypothesis on shaky foundation. You are assuming that since YOU don't have evidence or proof of ET, therefore it must not be real.

I think you need to revisit your hypothesis and reset your foundation before moving forward.

First of all, a NASA scientist (Hoover) did publish a paper claiming alien bacteria fossilized remains in a meteorite. He had this much to say...

Though it may be hard to swallow, Hoover is convinced that his findings reveal fossil evidence of bacterial life within such meteorites, the remains of living organisms from their parent bodies -- comets, moons and other astral bodies. By extension, the findings suggest we are not alone in the universe, he said.

Of course, NASA knocked down his claim saying it wasn't properly "peer reviewed". Nevertheless, they never fully discounted his claim or refuted it based on evidence. They tried to discredit it based on their "peer review" process.

Since NASA or anyone else has yet to discount his claim, one must go on the educated assumption that life does exist outside of our planet. Based on this assumption, all other premises must be carefully considered before coming to any conclusion concerning "ET", as some would put it.

all saucer style craft are human made

its the spherical and triangle things you need to get your heads into ....

I wouldn't call this direct proof but that's not to say it's not interesting. I'm one of the believers but I also find it odd that after all of these years we still don't have a decent picture or video recording.

This was also around the same time we started developing technology to reach the moon. Even though it was in Australia that doesn't mean that they weren't working on similar projects at the time. I'm all for life on other planets, I'm just waiting for a decent shred of evidence and, to me, this just isn't it.

Great post though. S&F for you.

On a side note, I feel as though I should speak up a bit about my belief. In my personal opinion I believe that we could be descendents of whatever life forms are coming to visit us. Whether it be a race that once lived on Mars when it had an atmosphere or a life form that's from another part of the galaxy (or universe). Could they be effecting our recording methods when/if they can tell that we are attempting to record them? Maybe. I think one day we will find out who they are and where they came from and until that day I'll remain a believer. However, as for proof It will always have to be something very clear and obvious not something that I'll have to take someones word for or a blurry picture/drawing.

So cool. What are these things? I think it's some sort of top-secret military technology.

I've heard the argument that the government couldn't cover up something of this magnitude. But let me offer this: It's not just the government, it's the aliens themselves helping to cover it up.

If we can't cover it up, maybe they can. You know what I mean?

As to the why, I don't know. I think it's comparable somewhat , in part, to why we don't chase after every single remaining tribal group in the world to civilize and assimilate them. Just imagine that perhaps we have some relation to the aliens but we're so removed in terms of culture and technology and capability that it's a barrier. Who knows all the reasons why they watch this planet or come here on occasion. We'll probably never know and there's a chance we're flippin' crazy in the head.

This is the first time I've heard heard of this case. But honestly I've already felt for a long time something is out there. I'm not saying this without basis. I've made other posts here on ATS. I'm just breathless and tired and words cannot say what needs to be said. I'll let fate speak for me.

We're removing the layers that obscure the truth piece by piece. And we're doing it with science. We're finding extrasolar planets. Our space program IS advancing. We're making strides. Other countries are doing the same. We will, one way or another, find out the truth some day. Maybe not all of it, but some of it. And we'll know a heck of a lot more about the cosmos too.

It's a LOT of hard work. Give credit to our scientists! Just because we know a tiny bit about what's out there, or think we do, it's insignificant by comparison to the work they're diligently doing.

And I think people like Seth Shostak and Carl Sagan are NOT disinformation agents. They're just good talkers and enjoy to relay the latest science and ideas to the laymen.

There're a long line of people that're dead in our history that would love to be here today.

Don't listen to the people who say the world is ending. It's not. It's just changing. Slowly. People will always dramatize it and manifest or imagine their worst fears. It's all in our history.

Just a small (very small) sampling of recent events:
www.bbc.co.uk - Exoplanet around Alpha Centauri is nearest-ever...
www.bbc.co.uk - 'Super-Earth' exoplanet spotted 42 light-years away...
io9.com -
A Game-Changer in the Search for Alien Life: “All stars have planets”...