Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 28 votes

More Best Evidence for aliens


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
25266 replies to this topic

#1    Hazzard

Hazzard

    Stellar Black Hole

  • Member
  • 11,757 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005

Posted 08 July 2009 - 11:13 AM

On the first Best Evidence thread I certainly learned many new things, thanks to Badeskov, pericynthion, MID, Lilly, Czero, Psyche, Evangium, and many others, but Im sad to say that irrefutable proof of ET on Earth, or anywhere else for that matter, is not one of them.

Eyewitness testimony from people that saw something strange and unidentified in the air. Radar returns, video clips and pictures... But that is all we have so far. To me thats not enough. I need better evidence!!


This is where science comes in.

In science, there is no reasonable doubt. You can either verify an experiment, repeatedly according to the model of the hypothesis, or you cannot. When it comes to ET, you cannot. No one can. There isnt a space agency on the planet, that I know of, that has found any proof of ET life, intelligent or other, dead or alive, anywhere in the universe.


Roswell, the DSP detection, the Belgian incident of 1990, Shag Harbor, The Iranian UFO Dogfight, Battle of LA, etc,... We even have people posting pictures that they claim are alien artifacts on the moon and Mars.

Yes, some of these UFOs could be alien crafts and alien artifacts. But we need to be 100% sure, and if we cant exclude everything else...well, then all of a sudden, we arent 100% sure, are we!?


Quote

I might say, however, that as an investigator of pseudoscientific topics for over twenty years my experience has taught me that the first things to suspect and look for are fraud, forgery, deception, misrepresentation, sophistry, and specious reasoning, and if these are not in evidence, I then look for illogical reasoning, self-deception, misreading, inadvertently fudged data, and willful misunderstanding, and if these are not in evidence, I then look for ignorance, innocent mistakes, misinterpretations, equipment errors, out-of-date references, overlooked results or causes, etc. Unfortunately, ALL of these items MUST be examined FIRST when investigating any pseudoscientific topic, BEFORE one begins looking for presumed new or unusual natural phenomena.--Steven Schafersman.


Can anyone honestly say he examined and eliminated all the above items before he convinced himself UFOs are Alien star ships?


Sure, Scientist and Engineers, Commercial and military aircrews, Radar experts, Senior military and intelligence officials around the world, Astronomers,  Astronauts and cosmonauts, Presidents, Kings, and many other credible folks around the world have all observed strange things in the sky... But, in the end, they merely describe objects observed which defy identification based upon standards which we know regarding aerodynamic performance or characteristics.

UFOs are observed unidentified flying objects. There is nothing else attached to them. Evidence is not something you can observe. That is called an observation.


So, again...  

UFOs, Alien abductions, Area 51, Cattle mutilations, Crop circles, Alien artifacts on Earth/Moon and Mars... What evidence is there, and most importantly, how good is it, that intelligent extraterrestrials are out there, have found Earth, and are now here doing all the things we hear about?

Edited by Hazzard, 08 July 2009 - 11:16 AM.

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke

#2    Captain Zim

Captain Zim

    A voice in the silence

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined:07 Aug 2008

Posted 08 July 2009 - 11:32 AM

Oh no not again.

“I consider it an extremely dangerous doctrine, because the more likely we are to assume that the solution comes from the outside, the less likely we are to solve our problems ourselves.”


-Carl Sagan


#3    Evangium

Evangium

    Heretic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,109 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2008

Posted 08 July 2009 - 12:06 PM

Captain Zim on Jul 8 2009, 09:32 PM, said:

Oh no not again.

Why not?  After all, when you filter past the noise, BS and disparaging remarks from the original Best Evidence thread, there were some interesting discussions that never got a fair chance to be had.  
Maybe this time, we might be able to have them without the need to have the thread ramrodded to a few members top 20 (supposedly) irrefutable cases...
For now I'll take a wait and see approach.

The Belgian Wave.

Regardless of whether or not you belive that this case is the strongest 'proof' of ET joyriding through our skies, one thing does come to light, when looking at Meesons earlier reports, and that is light wink2.gif
If any of our die-hards (on either side) took the time to read them, rather than present the you tube grabs from various documentries, etc..., there is no mistake that Meeson is toying with the idea of some kind of light phenomena.  For him, the conclusion that he found to be most comfortable, was that this light phenomenon was the by-product of some unknown propulsion system.  It is important to make the distinction that this was a personal conclusion that wasn't arrived at through scientific means, since the data itself was inconclusive.  In fact he later revisited some of that data to show that the much vaunted radar data could have been the product of atmospheric phenomena as easily as it could have been an ET spacecraft.

上人は菩薩と見たる桜哉
to saintly eyes
they are bodhisattvas...
cherry blossoms

Should RADAR really be held up as absolute proof of visitation by an extraterrestrial intelligence?  Click here to find out


#4    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 19,902 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001

Posted 08 July 2009 - 12:09 PM

Just a note to add that i've asked Hazzard to set up this new discussion as a continuation of the previous 'Best Evidence' thread because fundamentally it is a legitimate and highly relevant topic to the UFO/ET life field and i'd like us to be able to continue the debate in a civil, respectful and objective manner.

This time around i'd like to set a few ground rules, mainly:

- No personal (ad hominem) attacks, bickering, flaming or other unsavoury conduct
- No baiting, discrediting/defaming or mocking of skeptics or believers by the opposing camp
- Sources should be provided when asked, discussion should remain civil and objective
- The discussion should stay on topic at all times

Lets try to make thread as popular as the last while keeping the above in mind.

Thank you.


#5    Captain Zim

Captain Zim

    A voice in the silence

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,253 posts
  • Joined:07 Aug 2008

Posted 08 July 2009 - 12:41 PM

Evangium on Jul 8 2009, 09:06 PM, said:

Regardless of whether or not you belive that this case is the strongest 'proof' of ET joyriding through our skies, one thing does come to light, when looking at Meesons earlier reports, and that is light wink2.gif
If any of our die-hards (on either side) took the time to read them, rather than present the you tube grabs from various documentries, etc..., there is no mistake that Meeson is toying with the idea of some kind of light phenomena.  For him, the conclusion that he found to be most comfortable, was that this light phenomenon was the by-product of some unknown propulsion system.  It is important to make the distinction that this was a personal conclusion that wasn't arrived at through scientific means, since the data itself was inconclusive.  In fact he later revisited some of that data to show that the much vaunted radar data could have been the product of atmospheric phenomena as easily as it could have been an ET spacecraft.


Yes, this is a in interesting phenomena often overlooked. Charles Hall (I think that's his name), an aerospace engineer who worked at / for / with NASA, pondered this and came out with the observation that the wavelength of light emitted varies with the amount of acceleration the object uses. Red for hovering / stationary, going up through the spectrum with increasing "thrust power."

Meeson, well I looked at his report and I am quite dumbfounded as to how he comes out with having humid air turn into a radar reflector. We know that it ducts radar, the rules for that are quite clear and well-established. That's the shakiest part of his thesis. On the whole though I find him quite fair and even-minded, like a lot of the French researchers.

And I WILL have my facepalm moment. Sooner or later someone will gave me cause.

Edited by Captain Zim, 08 July 2009 - 12:43 PM.

“I consider it an extremely dangerous doctrine, because the more likely we are to assume that the solution comes from the outside, the less likely we are to solve our problems ourselves.”


-Carl Sagan


#6    Evangium

Evangium

    Heretic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,109 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2008

Posted 08 July 2009 - 01:26 PM

Captain Zim on Jul 8 2009, 10:41 PM, said:

And I WILL have my facepalm moment. Sooner or later someone will gave me cause.

Surely that would have been my dead parrot thread wink2.gif

Quote

Meeson, well I looked at his report and I am quite dumbfounded as to how he comes out with having humid air turn into a radar reflector. We know that it ducts radar, the rules for that are quite clear and well-established. That's the shakiest part of his thesis. On the whole though I find him quite fair and even-minded, like a lot of the French researchers.

I found myself wondering if it wasn't so much about proving the thesis as his own, but rather him toying with the idea of another.  In any case, it certainly doesn't destroy his credibility, but , for me, it serves to show that the conclusions for that data aren't so much carved in stone, as they are written in sand.
After all, even SOBEPS, upon disbanding, issued a statement to the effect that for all the data it had accumulated, it was itself inconclusive and the only conclusions that had been arrived at were the ones it's members allowed to be formed from their own personal beliefs about the subject.

Quote

Yes, this is a in interesting phenomena often overlooked. Charles Hall (I think that's his name), an aerospace engineer who worked at / for / with NASA, pondered this and came out with the observation that the wavelength of light emitted varies with the amount of acceleration the object uses. Red for hovering / stationary, going up through the spectrum with increasing "thrust power."

The other aspect the lighter side of the phenomena grin2.gif , and this is one that Vallee mentions when talking about his database, is just how often the term 'light' is mentioned in connection to sightings.  I suppose if we started to look at the emotional reactions from witness, it would be interesting to see if the colours and intensity also correlate to the witnesses frame of mind during the experience.

Edited by Evangium, 08 July 2009 - 01:28 PM.

上人は菩薩と見たる桜哉
to saintly eyes
they are bodhisattvas...
cherry blossoms

Should RADAR really be held up as absolute proof of visitation by an extraterrestrial intelligence?  Click here to find out


#7    REBEL

REBEL

    Esoteric Seeker

  • Member
  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined:09 Jun 2006

Posted 08 July 2009 - 01:44 PM

maaan; if only our cows could talk.


#8    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 15,530 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004

Posted 08 July 2009 - 02:13 PM

Saru on Jul 8 2009, 01:09 PM, said:

This time around i'd like to set a few ground rules, mainly:

- No personal (ad hominem) attacks, bickering, flaming or other unsavoury conduct
- No baiting, discrediting/defaming or mocking of skeptics or believers by the opposing camp
- Sources should be provided when asked, discussion should remain civil and objective
- The discussion should stay on topic at all times

Lets try to make thread as popular as the last while keeping the above in mind.


thumbup.gif Excellent Saru! Let the evidence come forth! yes.gif


"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

"All that live must die, passing through nature into eternity" ~Shakespeare~ Posted Image

#9    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 15,530 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004

Posted 08 July 2009 - 02:25 PM

REBEL on Jul 8 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

maaan; if only our cows could talk.


That could be interesting on many levels. However, I suspect it would put a bit of damper on my next BBQ. unsure.gif

Side note...the only 'Talking Cows' I know of are are these guys. grin2.gif

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

"All that live must die, passing through nature into eternity" ~Shakespeare~ Posted Image

#10    Hazzard

Hazzard

    Stellar Black Hole

  • Member
  • 11,757 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005

Posted 08 July 2009 - 04:04 PM

Evangium on Jul 8 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

The Belgian Wave.

Regardless of whether or not you belive that this case is the strongest 'proof' of ET joyriding through our skies, one thing does come to light, when looking at Meesons earlier reports, and that is light wink2.gif
If any of our die-hards (on either side) took the time to read them, rather than present the you tube grabs from various documentries, etc..., there is no mistake that Meeson is toying with the idea of some kind of light phenomena.  

For him, the conclusion that he found to be most comfortable, was that this light phenomenon was the by-product of some unknown propulsion system.  It is important to make the distinction that this was a personal conclusion that wasn't arrived at through scientific means, since the data itself was inconclusive.  In fact he later revisited some of that data to show that the much vaunted radar data could have been the product of atmospheric phenomena as easily as it could have been an ET spacecraft.


Analysis of the mysterious radar recordings of the F-16.

Meesons report.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...26rlz%3D1I7GZHZ

At the bottom of the report we have Apparent reason.

(Good find Peri and Evangium)

Edited by Hazzard, 08 July 2009 - 04:16 PM.

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke

#11    behaviour???

behaviour???

    Saru's Slave

  • Member
  • 6,763 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2008

Posted 08 July 2009 - 04:38 PM

Mars and Area 51, cattle mutilations and crop circles ....We never end the list but no logical conclusion had come whatsoever...But as is mentioned Science is absolute here...Technology is never at its peak and no reputed or infamous space agencies has found us results proving positive to ET...Then the question remains...How can we explain all these reportings ?As study claims more than 90% UFO sightings are reported in USA and england and other western countries....and not so as is like this in other countries?Why?What are these countries having for aliens to get attracted so much?Questions and only questions but no answers.....
Thanks
B???

Posted Image


#12    Hazzard

Hazzard

    Stellar Black Hole

  • Member
  • 11,757 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005

Posted 08 July 2009 - 06:45 PM

behaviour??? on Jul 8 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

How can we explain all these reportings ?As study claims more than 90% UFO sightings are reported in USA and england and other western countries....and not so as is like this in other countries? Why?


Now that is a good question... anyone?


Quote

What are these countries having for aliens to get attracted so much?


And this is not... because I personally dont think they are here.

If aliens have been visiting the Earth for 50 years, or a thousand years, I dot think it would be so hard to convince a lot of people that that was true. Its convinced 50% of the American public, sure, but its convinced very few academics.

As an astronomer said, if I thought there was a one percent chance any of that was true, Id spend 100 percent of my time on it. In other words, if the evidence were the least bit compelling, you would have lots of academics working on it because its very interesting. (could there be a more exciting discovery!?)

To me that says that the evidence is weak... from the scientists perspective.

Edited by Hazzard, 08 July 2009 - 07:00 PM.

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke

#13    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,809 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:42 PM

Lilly on Jul 8 2009, 09:25 AM, said:

That could be interesting on many levels. However, I suspect it would put a bit of damper on my next BBQ. unsure.gif

Side note...the only 'Talking Cows' I know of are are these guys. grin2.gif
I certnally Yuck Yuck! Yuck ! Will Lok at my plate of Ribs Differently Mooo!!!!
Great Find Lilly !
Im going to go to Stephenville in Sept and Dig around for some rmmored reports that have been kept out of th Main stream News Feeds!
More Evidence Ideed! Im Glad its Back!
We can Thank Saru and Hazzard!


This is a Work in Progress!

#14    Robbo

Robbo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • Joined:10 Jan 2008

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:54 PM

Quote

How can we explain all these reportings ?As study claims more than 90% UFO sightings are reported in USA and england and other western countries....and not so as is like this in other countries? Why?


The only reasonable answer I can think of, is that most of the scammers come from USA/UK. There's plenty of obvious and proven fakers from here. But we are two very wealthy countries (per capita) and the US has a large population with access to recording equipment. Hence alot of right place right time moments.

I would also think that if ET was flying around, they would fly over the vast oceans to conceal a possible crash. With the UK being an island, this could explain some sightings; especially as quite a few have been reported over coastal regions.

This is only my 2 cents as it were...the only evidence I have is what I've seen - and thats hardly enough to even raise an eyebrow within the scientific community.

"When you've done things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all" - God entity

#15    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 15,530 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004

Posted 08 July 2009 - 09:05 PM

Robbo on Jul 8 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

This is only my 2 cents as it were...the only evidence I have is what I've seen - and thats hardly enough to even raise an eyebrow within the scientific community.


Since UFOs seem to be more of a 'fleeting event', I suspect that it will probably take a few scientists having personal experiences of their own in order for UFOs to be taken seriously. Just my personal opinion here.

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

"All that live must die, passing through nature into eternity" ~Shakespeare~ Posted Image