Sky News: Author Says UFO Threat 'Serious'

Originally posted by voyger2
reply to post by magma

 

And you can do the opposite? Prove that they don't exist?

edit on 21-6-2013 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)

It is impossible to prove a negative.

Think about it.

reply to post by KaelemJames


It was interesting that the man in the link (that you provided:news.sky.com...) stated that he was very concerned that these aliens were able to read certain people's mind from our planet because he seemed to know all about our nuclear capabilities. Hmmm... I think that these aliens are probably so far advanced (after all they made the trip to our universe, we are barely making it to the moon) that they not only understood these nuclear capabilities before, but were behind us learning about them in the first place.

I do, however, think that some ( not all) of these Ufo's are from our own government, as they sit back laughing at us, while they call us all insane for seeing them, in the first place.

reply to post by KaelemJames


I direct anyone still on the fence to look up the Colares incident (the best documented event). This one would clearly dispel any doubts you still have on the subject regarding non-human intelligence existing (but not much else in that front).

What it should prove to you beyond a doubt is that some alien intelligence (non-human) is at work and some governments do know more than they admit.

Since criminal incompetence does not justify the status quo. From those two facts (existence of a non-human intelligence + government stance) you can only reach one conclusion, they are cowed or have no control to act otherwise given the scale of the disinformation effort and dismantling of any proper study of the phenomena.

Beyond that your conjectures may be as valid as any...

Originally posted by voyger2
reply to post by magma

 

And you can do the opposite? Prove that they don't exist?

edit on 21-6-2013 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)

Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Prove that 100 million years ago no meteors flew into the sun.

Although just so you know, lack of evidence is evidence in and of itself. So no proof aliens are visiting us is proof they are not.

reply to post by magma

If they exsist it would be undeniable.

Would you please explain this reasoning?
Thanks in advance.

reply to post by magma



Double post.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Nearly impossible, but not impossible.

reply to post by JayinAR


Deniability of something factual can only occur if the factual matter is not accepted by the majority as valid. A consensus (no standing objection) can exist in a minority in favor or against a conclusion.

For instance, is it possible to prove a negative assertion mathematically?

If so, I would imagine this is so because mathematics deal with axioms. (Statements accepted as universally true)

Therefore, if we apply this reasoning to our definitions of words, we can prove all sorts of negative assertions. The two examples that spring to mind are the spaghetti monster and the non existent pink elephant in an empty room.

Spaghetti neither flies nor is it intelligent.
Pink elephants are not known to exist and if it did so invisibly it wouldn't fit in my bathroom. If something were there, beyond my range of perception, by definition, it is not an elephant

ETA: copyright.

People will believe what the want to believe.

You are living proof of that now aren't you?

TG says something relevant to answering question whether ufos are something tangible or figments of imagination. That is ufos have been reported by commercial and military pilots for many decades and many of these sightings have radar confirmation of a target.

Therefore skeptics don't give me any of your baloney that ufos don't exist. I am willing however to concede at this point in time we don not have enough evidence to establish whether they originate from earth, or extra terrestrial. A serious scientific unbiased and rigorous and completely open and transparent investigation will answer that.

And that dumb little exercise leads me to this:

When someone says, "aliens exist and they are visiting this planet." And someone else says, "I don't think so...prove it." And the other fella says, "prove it AIN'T happening". And THE OTHER fella says, "I can't prove a negative!"...

Well yes you can.

The claim aliens exist and are visiting is valid, ESPECIALLY when you consider that there is circumstantial evidence to back this up.

When I read this interaction (often), I think less (intellectually) of the skeptic, to be honest.

They're supposed to be the "smart ones".

ETA: and I said VALID not FIRM or SOUND.

To be clear, the pro alien side of said argument is very weak as well. I mean, if you are gonna make a damn claim, be prepared to back it up.
Evidence.

reply to post by JayinAR


Yes, which is why "believers" demand a level of proof that is near impossible to provide. For example, I claim you are using psychic powers to harass me and I demand 5 billion dollars. Prove you aren't or pay up.

Originally posted by JayinAR
And that dumb little exercise leads me to this:

When someone says, "aliens exist and they are visiting this planet." And someone else says, "I don't think so...prove it." And the other fella says, "prove it AIN'T happening". And THE OTHER fella says, "I can't prove a negative!"...

Well yes you can.

The claim aliens exist and are visiting is valid, ESPECIALLY when you consider that there is circumstantial evidence to back this up.

When I read this interaction (often), I think less (intellectually) of the skeptic, to be honest.

They're supposed to be the "smart ones".

ETA: and I said VALID not FIRM or SOUND.

edit on 21-6-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

No. The onus is on the one making the statement to provide proof. There is zero circumstantial evidence aliens are visiting. Zero. The problem is the believer uses video footage of such low quality that it is 100% impossible to determine what is being seen. Unable to identify it the believer says it's proof of ET visitation. The skeptic (if he is smart) says it's proof crappy video footage is not evidence for anything.

In this instance the negative can not be proven.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I refuse to enter that verbal agreement in any way shape of form, but if we are speaking hypothetically, give me a second and I will do my best. Cool?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


So are you making an explicit claim that there is ZERO evidence of otherworldly involvement in this phenomenon??

And if you are shown wrong do you intend to profess you WERE wrong, here and now, in front of this board????

reply to post by JayinAR

Guess what? I saw a UFO last Saturday night.
After a garage jam (me banging on drums, badly), my friend and I went out and laid in the grass. I was admiring Arcturus when, son of a bitch, there was a light strobing near it. Maybe 4 times over a period of 10 seconds. I couldn't really tell if it was moving or not but if it was it wasn't moving much. I would put it at magnitude -2, brighter than Sirius but not as bright as a good ISS pass.

I have no idea what it was.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

I refuse to enter that verbal agreement in any way shape of form, but if we are speaking hypothetically, give me a second and I will do my best. Cool?

Love to hear it. Fortunately for you our legal system requires something called evidence So I can lay claims all day long, the burden is on me to make it stick, not you to defend yourself from baseless claims.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

So are you making an explicit claim that there is ZERO evidence of otherworldly involvement in this phenomenon??

And if you are shown wrong do you intend to profess you WERE wrong, here and now, in front of this board????

Yes, an explicit claim. Show me the evidence.