What will be our first confirming evidence?

reply to post by sparrowstail


How do you know that you are reaching the right conclusions from your examination of the images in question? I would suggest that you are basing error, upon error. All you do by going down that route, is to pile up these errors, and no matter the eventual size of that towering balls up, the pinnacle will still be an error, no matter how much you repeat it, or how much you believe it.

reply to post by Druscilla


I have confirming evidence, unfortunately only confirms for myself. 100%


My Daughter who is a non-believer in anything...she does not read science fiction has never has a interest in the odd or the ghostly or anything that is beyond her straight 'if you can't see it not real" kind of belief. I know this woman and thus I can be sure of what happened being in the extreme of weird! She has no sense of humor does not play jokes and running is about her only real "fun".



Around 20 years ago she called me from her Mother-in laws house in Chico California, her calling was rare in itself, but she was clearly excited and either scared or just stunned. Her voice was high and strange.

She said "did you see the UFO?" her first words. I lived about 40 mins away but we had a falling out when I got a divorce and she had not spoke to me in a while.


I said "What UFO?'

She " It was HUGE, It blocker (or blacked) out the WHOLE sky!
We all ran outside, everyone saw it...Mother-inlaw, Father-inlaw, Brother-inlaw, Husband's (names)
all saw it!

Now an odd thing is I don't remember asking all the questions that I KNOW I would. I do remember that I thought the news paper would have it on the front page because the whole city clearly saw something if it blocked out the whole sky! Yet NOTHING appeared in the papers.

We didn't speak until years later and I asked her about it. She said "ah I don't know" and looked like she was thinking of something. The next day she surprisingly called me, and she said, I asked my husband (name) and my Mother-inlaw separately about what you told me about the UFO in Chico, she then said..(please remember here she is non-imaginative) it was very strange, they both said the same words exactly, they said ..."I kind of remember something about a UFO".


It is clear there had to be a UFO that blocked out the whole sky over a medium size city because my daughter clearly would never have called me at all otherwise.

So somehow they all had their memories tampered with as I myself may have lost part of that day. But a ship that huge would not have been our Government and the ability to make a whole city forget that they appeared is astounding.

reply to post by PrplHrt


WHAT DO YOU MEAN? Of course they examined it! If they had not, there would be NO PICTURE OF IT! Who do you think took it? Its going to have to have been either an external camera or one of the people on board the mission. I can assure you some spotty faced moron who wanted to make a name for himself on talk radio was NOT strapped to the side of this thing.

So, would you like to tell me how it is they took a picture of something they havent examined? Wouldnt you say that, traditionally, a photograph is considered a way of making it possible to examine something, even after you have left its location?

reply to post by TrueBrit

If they examined it that information is still classified because there is no record of it. If you have seen a record of this examination then post proof of it.

reply to post by PrplHrt


There is a record. There are pictures of what you mistakenly call the Black Knight.That is a record in and of itself.

In actual fact the only object in space history to be officially called Black Knight, was a very small rocket that was built in the sixties as a delivery system for atomic weapons, and has nothing to do with the object you are refering to.

reply to post by TrueBrit

And I call BS. There are pictures of this satellite, which have been provided. It was in orbit before Sputnik.

I'm waiting for the record of examination. Pictures are not a proper examination of the object.

If you have evidence that proves this satellite was properly examined then provide it. Links? Whatever.

Until you do you're nothing but more hot air.

reply to post by PrplHrt


You havent found it for yourself because you have done precisely no bloody work on it what so ever. Talk to me when you have combed the web for the last ten years looking for the data you want, emailed NASA... YOURSELF to request it. Get on the work bus and quit your damned whining.

Meanwhile, heres the real Black Knight.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by PrplHrt


I feel you guys are getting off track.

See there's speculation here, and speculation does not Unambiguous Confirming Evidence make.

What do you think Unambiguous, Unarguable, Irrefutable, Confirming Evidence will be if such ever occurs?

So long as speculative examples are provided, those are just speculative examples of 'something', but no definitive unambiguous Confirming Evidence by any means, and will just fuel more argument and debate about what it is or is not.

As a skeptic, I'm prone to side with the most probable down-to-earth realistic explanations.
Others are happier to start and stop at Aliens without a further thought on the matter.

Unambiguous Confirming Evidence will close that gap.
Thus, if it's debatable and subject to interpretation, it is not Confirming Evidence.

With that, again, what do you think Unambiguous, Unarguable, Irrefutable, Confirming Evidence will be if such ever occurs?

We're not talking about your rocket. We're talking about the satellite seen in the video I provided. Stop avoiding the issue.

How do you explain a 15-ton satellite in orbit before man had the ability to put one there?

reply to post by PrplHrt


Im not avoiding the issue. I am trying to make you answer your own question. Also, we are NOT supposed to be talking about orbiting space crap. We are supposed to be on topic, so sit down, do some research on the subject you are interested in, and learn to use a scientific method to come to conclusions.

reply to post by TrueBrit

Yes, we're talking about evidence that may confirm contact. This IS on topic.

We have an unidentified satellite in orbit around our planet that was placed there before we ever put anything in space.

Gee, could it be the proof we're looking for?

reply to post by Druscilla

Unambiguous Confirming Evidence will close that gap.
Thus, if it's debatable and subject to interpretation, it is not Confirming Evidence.

If you question everything, you will confirm nothing.
Everything is debatable and subject to interpretation.

As a skeptic, I'm prone to side with the most probable down-to-earth realistic explanations.

Perhaps when your gov't has confirmation.

Originally posted by Druscilla
We've all heard reports of UFOs,
Pretending there will be a when, how do you think we'll discover that we are not as alone as we officially think now?

edit on 30-11-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

I agree

Originally posted by JayinAR
We are most likely only days away from option number two being announced. So far as intelligent ET goes? That won't be revealed until they reveal themselves to us. I mean, Governments have told us they are real and people still don't accept it. People won't accept it til they see them on nightly news.

How do you know that we are only days away?
Wher have govts told us they are real? references please?

Originally posted by Frith
Its clear our own governments will never acknowledge the subject as a reality. .

edit on 30-11-2012 by Frith because: (no reason given)

Please give me evidence that there isn't a green whale swimming around in the rings of saturn. hmmm can't? well maybe that's because it's hard for you to prove a negative. Hey, wait a minute, maybe that's what people are asking the govt to do re alien contact. (just being devil's advocate)

Life is rare. Considering the distances involved and the exact conditions under which life might arise...

One could make an argument for an interstellar Johhny Appleseed. But even if you accept that, the parameters in which life can exist are so narrow. Say I have a bucket of diamonds and tell you I found them on earth and all you have to do is go find them, just like I did. You could look your whole life or even many lifetimes and never find one.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, just that they are small and far away from where each of us is sitting. So are habitable planets. We know they are there, because we are on one. Imagining life is only here is arrogant.

Originally posted by PrplHrt
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

How do you explain the Black Knight satellite?

STS-88 snapped pictures of it. Ignore the stupid audio -

edit on 12/1/2012 by PrplHrt because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/12/2012 by ArMaP because: embedding code corrected

Space Junk

NYTimes Space Junk

You can search and find better posts explaining it on the forum if you are so inclined. I remember reading a few.

Originally posted by steve1709

Originally posted by Frith
Its clear our own governments will never acknowledge the subject as a reality.

Please give me evidence that there isn't a green whale swimming around in the rings of saturn. hmmm can't? well maybe that's because it's hard for you to prove a negative. Hey, wait a minute, maybe that's what people are asking the govt to do re alien contact. (just being devil's advocate)

I have no idea what you're trying to do here with my comment. It sounds like a thread derailment, but then you type about being a devil's advocate.

Anyway your comment does not fit the purpose of this thread.

Originally posted by Frith

Originally posted by steve1709

Originally posted by Frith
Its clear our own governments will never acknowledge the subject as a reality.

Please give me evidence that there isn't a green whale swimming around in the rings of saturn. hmmm can't? well maybe that's because it's hard for you to prove a negative. Hey, wait a minute, maybe that's what people are asking the govt to do re alien contact. (just being devil's advocate)

I have no idea what you're trying to do here with my comment. It sounds like a thread derailment, but then you type about being a devil's advocate.

Anyway your comment does not fit the purpose of this thread.

Druscilla asked where the first undeniable proof will come from. You, in the very first line of one of your posts have removed the potential that the govt will tell the people when/if they find (or have found) something.My point is that come out with an authoritative statement that there is a govt cover up about things ET but what if they don't have this apparent smoking gun? It would be hard for them to "prove" this negative just like it would be hard for you to "prove" that there isn't a green whale swimming around in the rings of saturn. sure, it would be highly unlikely, buut you can't come up with evidence that it isn't there.
Trying to derail? no, just removing your over confident, I know everything, comment. But please, prove me wrong. show me a reference from the govt. that shows this evidence that they have or haven't got.

so, in my opinion, my comment does fit in with this thread. in other words, authoritative unprovable comments stick in my neck. Is the picture painted now?

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by sparrowstail

 

How do you know that you are reaching the right conclusions from your examination of the images in question? I would suggest that you are basing error, upon error. All you do by going down that route, is to pile up these errors, and no matter the eventual size of that towering balls up, the pinnacle will still be an error, no matter how much you repeat it, or how much you believe it.

OK, Just let me be wrong over here in this corner. Like science has never been wrong before. True there may be examples of what you are saying. I'm just saying I believe there is more to it than meets the eye.

reply to post by Druscilla


I think the BATTLE OF LOS ANGELES & the COMETA COSTA RICA UFO are good evidence.

My family got confirmation a loooong time ago, multiple instances, and we still haven't a clue what the deal really is

Don't link me to other posts to make your argument.

I asked you a genuine question about what you meant by evidence.

I had already used my knowledge of science to back up my claims that life could mean a variety of things. This was to help Druscilla in seeing the range of what we have to consider life.

You're saying I should re read the title because I believe life already exists? Just because I don't agree with the OP, that's not to say I didn't read it.
While there is no solid evidence, I talked about the possibility in a way to argue Druscilla's point. I agree with the other members - There is evidence of life.

I read that post. That post talks about shared views.
What about evolution - That has a wide share of views and yet it is taught in many instances throughout the world.
Just because the thread title says so, I'm not allowed to believe life exists?

The author of the post then goes on to talk about single cell life as not good enough for the public.
What does that have to do with being correct?
Life is life, no matter what form.

Microbial life does not at all mean life will be found everywhere. Even microbial life have to have the right conditions to be able to survive.

Maybe for the people that can't recognize microbial life as significant than it may be so that only advanced life will amaze them. This is because some people don't realize microbial life still carry out complex processes and means the potential for more existence of life.

The author even talks about what we want, thinking all we want to see is advanced life. While that would be a treat, I can appreciate what microbial life means. According to evolution, we were once single cell creatures (protista). Life such as Monera, would even be interesting to find.


It's logical to postulate. Just like evolution is a logical explanation.
Maybe you should at my earlier post. I was simply showing the different ways life could be found, to show that there is a variety of different environments.

What you term as evidence is different to me because of my subjects i chose to study I seem to have a different view of evidence. But you must be right. After all yours is opinion.

@Druscilla - What do you mean you look at the realistic situation. i think it's unrealistic that it doesn;t exist. Either you didn't read my post earlier or didn't understand it but possibility of life is not unrealistic. You are confusing normal with realistic.