What will be our first confirming evidence?

A Concorde pre-official flight in 70'. The video was shot by French Air Force Jet. Military...

reply to post by Arken


Respectfully, that video is just another example of circumstantial speculation and not an example for confirming on anything out of this world.

According This thread discussing the "Concord" Ufo it's a camera artifact and a common camera artifact that's been demonstrated in replicating the effect for that series make/model camera used.

Here's a Link to a post within that thread by member Firemoon that details British Airways explanation that the "ufo" was an optical effect in the camera.

We're still sitting at score = 0 on first confirming evidence.
Even were the video still an "unknown", it would only confirm for unknown and not for unambiguous confirmation of life.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Arken

 

Respectfully, that video is just another example of circumstantial speculation and not an example for confirming on anything out of this world.

According This thread discussing the "Concord" Ufo it's a camera artifact and a common camera artifact that's been demonstrated in replicating the effect for that series make/model camera used.

Respectfully: A big
And that, obviously, is NOT a camera artifact.

With all due respect, I don't want convince a "closed mind" or a "psudo skeptic."

reply to post by Arken


Can you explain why it being a camera artifact is ruled out without offering an ad hominem on the poster that clarified your position for you?

Originally posted by Arken

Respectfully: A big

And that, obviously, is NOT a camera artifact.

With all due respect, I don't want convince a "closed mind" or a "psudo skeptic."

Regardless of what you want, according the links I've given, British Airways itself names it as a camera artifact.
You can lol and duh all you want, but, as stated before, even IF your video was still an "unknown", it would only confirm as an unknown, thus, NOT Confirming Evidence of life.

You're more than welcome to whatever belief you have. Speculative hits, and unknowns, however, do not CONFIRMING Evidence make.

There's a difference there. Evidence vs. Confirming Evidence. One of these things is not like the other.
What's the OP title about?

By the way, if you freeze each frame from when the uh, "alien craft" enters the concord video you will see that:

1. Other artifacts appear in different areas on the frame not where the main anomaly is.
2. The anomaly disappears into the concord, at one point pretty much dissolving into it.

The most telling thing about this, is that it is in front of the craft (which you would expect from a lensing artifact.



No aliens today. Or 1970... Whatever...

The top two frams btw are the artifact appearing in front of the plane. The bottom two are random ones that popped up for a single frame in the video in different locations from the main one. A swarm of alien ships did you say? No.

reply to post by Druscilla

British Airways itself names it as a camera artifact.

Wrong, druscilla. Wrong.

French Air Force made this video from a Mirage jet fighter..... this is a Military video , with an high definition camera, because that was a MILITARY Test.

Originally posted by Arken

Wrong, druscilla. Wrong.

French Air Force made this video from a Mirage jet fighter..... this is a Military video , with an high definition camera, because that was a MILITARY Test.

Switch to decaf Arken. You're going to blow a gasket with all that nitpicking.

You further neglect to acknowledge the difference between Evidence vs. Confirming Evidence.
Thus, even if your video was a confirmed solid object with corroborating radar hits plus multiple independent naked-eye observations, it is NOT Confirming Evidence. It would still sit simply in the "unknown" corner.

Please give us some thoughts, as per the OP, what you think Confirming Evidence will be, if it ever comes.

reply to post by Druscilla


Explanation: Uhmmmm?

The stance of this OP, if I'm reading you correctly is that we currently have (officially) ZERO unambiguous confirmation of any life, even microscopic life, anywhere else other than Earth, and only Earth.

Thus, any official finding of any life, or unambiguous no interpretation needed evidence of artifice enacted by life found anywhere would be considered First Confirming Evidence.

You should read Arkens threads more often! ... :shk: Here is why ...

Russians have found Life on the Moon since 1970! (by Arken posted on 8-11-2012 @ 01:40 PM) [ATS]

Originally posted by Arken
The Soviet Union's "Luna 16" and "Luna 20" spacecrafts has found Microorganisms into Moon regolith in 1970! I never known about this. Do you?

www.panspermia.org...# 1ref

On 24 September 1970 , for the first time, an unmanned spacecraft delivered a lunar "soil" sample to Earth. The Soviet Union's Luna 16 spacecraft returned from the moon's Sea of Fertility with 101 grams of lunar regolith in a hermetically sealed container (1). In February 1972, only 120 kilometers from the Luna 16 site, Luna 20 used a drill with a ten-inch, hollow-core bit to collect another regolith sample that was also hermetically sealed on the moon (2).

Luna 20: Fossils similar to modern coccoidal bacteria Siderococcus or Sulfolobus, lithified by metalic iron. (Upper scalebar = 1.2 micrometers).

[...] Further study of the photographs was later undertaken by two biologists at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Stanislav I. Zhmur, Institute of the Lithosphere of Marginal Seas, and Lyudmila M. Gerasimenko, Institute of Biology. They noticed that a few of the particles in the photographs were virtually identical to fossils of known biological species. Specifically, some spherical particles from the Luna 20 regolith plainly resemble fossils of modern coccoidal bacteria like Siderococcus or Sulfolobus in their scale, distribution, form, and the distortion of the spheres that occurs during fossilization.

Luna 16: A silicated fossil found in lunar regolith similar to modern spiral filamentous microorganisms such as Phormidium frigidum. Lunar microfossil resembling a spiral filamentous microorganism, from O.D. Rode et al., D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1979.

[...] the fossil's unmistakable resemblance to modern spiral filamentous microorganisms like Phormidium frigidum
Their new analysis of these particles was announced at an astrobiology conference in Denver, 20-22 July 1999, and published in the conference proceedings in December 1999 (4).

[...]The microfossils from the moon are different. Each Luna sample was encapsulated on the moon and opened only in a laboratory where examination commenced immediately. These fossils are solid evidence for ancient life elsewhere in space.

Oh my god....

edit on 8-11-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)

Personal Disclosure: Do try to be a little more open minded ok!

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Those are naturally occurring silicate Glass Beads last I checked, thus, speculation, and no Confirming Evidence. Mention of Glass beads is even made in
This NASA paper on samples from Luna 16

Jakes et al. (1972), Keil et al. (1972), Jin and Taylor (1990) and Simon et al. (1981) determined the chemical composition of numerous glass particles in an attempt to identify “rock types” that may be present in the area around the landing site. Apparently about half the glass comes from the nearby highland (figure 9). Ivanov et al. (1974) and Glass (1974) also studied glass beads from Luna 16 (published in Cyrillic). Glass of volcanic origin is still to be identified.

You may also want to read This Paper from 1990 which details study of samples returned to earth for direct examination. You might take note of all the mention of glass in the paper.

The source for the bio claims in that over hyped thread come from a confirmation bias site titled panspermia.org. The very name of the site speaks of agenda and bias.

While I like the Panspermia hypothesis as a possibility, your post, and that thread, however, is not an example of anything such.

Thanks though.

Please show us unambiguous, incontrovertible, non-speculative CONFIRMING Evidence, or voice your opinion on what you think Confirming Evidence will be.

reply to post by Druscilla
Confirming evidence that could be agreed upon and not fought over would need to be something that could be passed around and shared. For instance, if the crew of the ISS all reported seeing a clearly technological craft passing by, it wouldn't be enough for many. Despite all being scientists and presumably not partial to dishonesty, folk would still require more than that to accept life from elsewhere.

We'd need more.

An ancient hulk of technology being discovered in orbit around a planet or moon would be fantastic. We'd have evidence of not just life, but evolutionary congruity and advanced life. It'd also set a fire burning under the collective consciousness of humanity to know that someone else is really out there and had passed through our solar system. We could do science to it too and work out the period of manufacture and whether it was formed in our system or Elsewhere.

Perhaps as exciting would be the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) finding a crashed probe in its camera's field of view? Solid wreckage that clearly wasn't Soviet or US. That kind of discovery could shift our world-view and kick-start science as we sought to send people to Mars to recover it. Would that be a uniting effort on behalf of Earth or a competitive endeavour to claim dibs and reap the advantages?

Otherwise, I don't see radio transmissions as anything beyond a minuscule likelihood and feel that, if we find evidence of microbial life, it will indicate Life itself might be ubiquitous. Microbial life won't have the capacity to alter the self-perception of humanity in the same way as alien advanced tech. Most people would probably think, 'Meh.' However a visiting retinue of friendly non-Earth diplomats might be a little too much, too soon.

All things being equal, microbial life (fossilised or otherwise) has to be the most likely example of evidence that everyone can agree upon. If we're all honest, we want abandoned complexes on a planet or a 'becalmed' spacecraft being dragged along in one of our very own Lagrange points. That's the kind of magic that could improve the human condition.

reply to post by Druscilla


Explanation: Uhmmm?

Are you completely ignoring the soil sample returned to earth? :shk:

The microfossils from the moon are different. Each Luna sample was encapsulated on the moon and opened only in a laboratory where examination commenced immediately. These fossils are solid evidence for ancient life elsewhere in space.

Personal Disclosure: Its not just pretty pictures ok!

reply to post by Druscilla

Please show us unambiguous, incontrovertible, non-speculative CONFIRMING Evidence, or voice your opinion on what you think Confirming Evidence will be.

Are You skeptic and courious with an open mind or a skeptic with a closed mind... druscilla?
You want our evidences first so you can distort them as you please?

I can't feed you....

In any case, You must do your personal homeworks FIRST.

Make your own search on this topic. Search and think on a wide range...
Greetings.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Thank you Kadinsky.
Your thoughts on the subject are wonderfully welcome.

Finding something that blows the doors off all the conspiracy theories, something too big to hide would certainly give our little planet something to think about.

Hello Druscilla,

enjoyed this thread, thank you.
I have not much to ad, I believe the first find will be microbiological life, though a probe or ruins would be the cracker.

It's a fascinating topic, the whole field.
How much it really means to some to convince people of their opposing view.
How much time people are willing to spent, just to create hoaxes or make stuff up,and vice versa.

I consider myself gullible, have been fooled many times.
But when someone takes the time to explain in lay mans terms why certain things are bogus, I don't have an issue with letting go.
To me it's a good thing to be proven wrong, because it means I must have learned something new.
And I absolutely don't mind other people having opposing views.
What I'm trying to say is, I don't get why these discussions can get so vicious at times.
In the end it just doesn't matter.
I'm getting off topic, sorry.

The Battle of LA incident and the Arizona Lights incident, put together are enough to convince me. Along with some of the other extremely compelling cases such as that old one where over 50 school children all testified to seeing a UFO and aliens. There are at least a dozen different cases which are as compelling or even more compelling than the ones I just mentioned. Together these cases form something which I personally cannot deny. Of course I would feel a lot better if we had some solid evidence, I don't like believing in something without conclusive evidence. However I think it's extremely unlikely we will ever get the evidence we are looking for if the alien race in question (possibly thousands or millions of years ahead of us) doesn't want us to have that evidence, and if the Government doesn't want us to have that evidence.

reply to post by Druscilla


Well yes we are aliens. To other life forms. Obviously we don't know what's out there but perhaps we wont know for a while. Perhaps we are one of the most advanced species.

You have to realize that it wouldn't be DNA as such from aliens, but more the structure giving indication we have a common ancestor or are related in some way. There are scientists which believe we are the descendants of Martians. Not as such a civilization but more from rocks and other debris landing on earth many years ago.

Being in such a big place, I believe there is something out there. We could be known to them or they may be in search.

You do realize that certain proteins are also an indication of life, as proteins greatly associate with DNA, in the process of protein synthesis. What this is, is the base pairs are transcribed onto a singular strand of ribose nucleic acid (RNA), which each set of 3 bases codes for an amino acid these amino acids code for proteins. Certain proteins are used in organisms. Such as enzymes which act as biological catalysts. You also then have proteins involved in cellular activities (enzymes included).

To realize the possibilities of life you have to realize the possible forms it can come in.
Methane is produced on a few celestial bodies in our solar system, This is an organic compound (CH4) and could possibly indicate past/present/future life, but not necessarily an assurance it will.

Keep your mind open. There are numerous possibilities.

Add: You can't say we are at 0 for confirming evidence. We have confirmed there are possibilities of life being sustained else where through how we originated, through samples found on other celestial bodies and other factors indicating life sustainability. -Atmosphere, magnetic field, gravity (planet size), sun distance, water, rotation. We have found organisms in Arsenic! This truly indicates the diversity of what we have to look at. There is evidence supporting life. You view to me appears to be we are looking for advanced civilization.

reply to post by Arken


Kandinsky explained confirming evidence very well for you in this post. You should reread that instead of belittling Druscilla as if you have answered her question with your ambiguous insinuations (since you didn't).

Confirming evidence would end the argument. It's quite simple.

You could also address the photos of the video you claim must be an alien craft. (Even though if it were a vehicle it would not prove it was alien) That doesn't matter though because I showed in that post that it was simply a lensing artifact. Unless you can explain why or how the alien craft was in front of the plane, and also disappeared into the fuselage of the aircraft.

reply to post by boncho


What do you mean exactly ''evidence''

We as humans are EVIDENCE that life can exists in space.
Evidence for it is all around.

You need to be more specific when you say evidence.
I'm guessing you mean 100% evidence of life existing, off of earth.
I don't mean to lose my scientific focus but lets look at the evidence.
This picture sums up what I want to say.



source

Originally posted by curiousrb
reply to post by boncho

 

What do you mean exactly ''evidence''

We as humans are EVIDENCE that life can exists in space.
Evidence for it is all around.

You need to be more specific when you say evidence.
I'm guessing you mean 100% evidence of life existing, off of earth.
I don't mean to lose my scientific focus but lets look at the evidence.
This picture sums up what I want to say.


source

I mean, confirming evidence. Evidence that confirms other life in the universe. I can postulate all I want that it must be incredibly, entirely, positively likely that there is other life. Albeit no idea whether that life could make it to Earth on its own. But that's besides the point.

Since the thread title is talking about evidence that confirms life. *Read the thread title again*

And reread this post as well.