Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13
Hazzard

Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition

6,154 posts in this topic

Talking about Skyeagles thoughts on the "Roswell guy" Philip Corso earlier, and how he was debunked by no other than Stanton Roswell Friedman. ^_^

Here is more (from psyches post) about this Lt. Col.

Philip J. Corso’s Roswell Book Is Riddled With Factual Errors As Well As Ridiculous Claim That Army Couldn't Figure Out How To Exploit (Alleged) ET Technology For 14 Years Until Corso Was Given The Task.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/klass_files_volume_49/

Not that we really need it to recognize that Corso's book is full of holes, I found the comments of Bob Emenegger regarding Corso to be very interesting. Sakari posted a link to this episode of The Veritas Show over on the Holloman thread. He starts talking about Corso in part 14 at about 2:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i6jKlPjMsQ&feature=related

For anyone that wants to listen to the whole thing, here is part 1 of 15.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let me express my personal opinion in the new topic. There is no evidence or proof (yet) to make me believe that aliens have, and are visiting earth. Nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let me express my personal opinion in the new topic. There is no evidence or proof (yet) to make me believe that aliens have, and are visiting earth. Nothing.

if there was proof then you wouldnt need to believe....you would know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides an actual ET or spaceship what can be consider evidence of ETH?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides an actual ET or spaceship what can be consider evidence of ETH?

It's not simply witness testimony, it's a combination of things. It's the frequency of witness testimony, combined with the quality of witness testimony*, combined with things like video footage, combined with pilot intercepts, radar contact, (i cringe to write it, but the occasional quite credible abduction testimony), testimony of people I personally trust, the incidents which have multiple witnesses, the size and age of the universe#....

* By quality I do mean the type of witness (e.g. pilot) but I also read between the lines to determine the peron's character, background and possible motives...

# Size and age of universe - By this I mean that I believe ET is out there and quite likely visiting Earth because the universe is so large, ET is inevitable. Likewise, becuase the universe is so old, it's quite likely advanced civilisations exist too. If this is true, I expect they would have such advanced technology that finding life in the universe would be relatively easy for them (and so I expect, them finding Earth could be practically inevitable).

My knowledge of how innacurate witness recolection is does not rule out witness testimony it simply helps in weeding out the aircraft or meterological misidentifications... among other things.

I mean if people see an elephant in a shopping centre chances are there really was an elephant in the shopping centre - it's hard to get something like that wrong! Of course, some people might say it was male and some will say it was female, some will say it was african, some will say it was indian and no doubt the description of it's size will differ....

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I've explaiend all this stuff to you before - it's always been a combination of things which give me an instinct that there is more going on here on Earth than meets the eye...

Hell even as I write this more come to mind.. for instance the fact that almost all cultures have ancient historic record or legend of beings who came from 'above'/'the sky'/'space'/'the heavens'... I would have thought if there were no aliens visiting our ancient ancesters then at least half, if not more, of the legends would be Earth-bound (not beings from above).

[EDIT 29/12/10] Four more points which have me leaning toward the ETH, are:

1. Because out of all these sightings and encounters, it only takes ONE of them to be true in order for the ETH to be correct.

2. Many sightings have included (usually small) humanoid occupants - this immediately rules out misidentified man-made craft or meteorlogical phenomenon.

3. Another point I forgot to mention about what I consider goes toward the credibility of witnesses - The type of witness that that never believed that ET visited Earth, to me, is more credible than one who expects to see ET on Earth

4. Alledged implant removals - the objects

1) from people who claim to be abducted

2) Have no signs of entry

3) No inflamation response

4) Nerves surrounding implant not anatomically correct

The membrane that surrounds implant could not be cut by a scalpel

Results on tests - thought to be meteorites.

Results suggested the implant was manufatured.

Some of the metal/elements were extra-terrestrial.

(Dr Roger Leir)

SUMMARY

Summary in point form, of why I lean toward ETH:

1. Size and age of universe.

(Because the universe is so large, ET is inevitable. Likewise, becuase the universe is so old, I believe it's quite likely that advanced civilisations exist too. If this is true, I expect they would have such advanced technology that finding other life in the universe would be relatively easy for them (and so I expect, them finding Earth could be practically inevitable)).

2. Almost all ancient cultures having a historic record or legend(s) of being coming from 'above'/'the sky'/'space'/'the heavens' (if ET were not visiting Earth, one would expect a lot less of Earth's cultures to have such legends/beliefs - I would guess maybe less than 50%?...

3. Out of all the thousands of sightings, only ONE, needs to be true in order for the ETH to be correct. When considering all the points (above and below), it's probable that at least one of them is true.

4. Frequency of sightings/encounters.

5. Quality of witness testimony and sightings/encounters.

5.a. High witness credibilty when: Pilot, Astronaut, Scientist, military or other professional, did not believe ETH prior to sighting/encounter, have no motive to lie, telling about sighting is detrimental to witness.

5.b. Multiple witnesses see/experience same ET event.

5.c. Photo + Video evidence (Esp. when in combination with any of above or below points)

5.d. Pilot intercept. (Esp. when in combination with any of above or below points)

5.e. Radar contact (Esp. when multiple radars show same object + when in combination with any of above or below points)

5.f. Some abduction encounters seem credible.

5.g. Testimony of people I personally trust absolutely.

5.h. Some Sightings/encounters include seeing/interaction with (usually small) humanoid occupants of the craft. This is one of the most compelling arguments for ETH as this can hardly be anything other than ETH (Expect perhaps time travellers or interdimensional travellers).

6. The posibility that alien implants exist.

Note: Sometimes we have multiples of the above points occuring simultaneously - obviously this makes the case for ETH much stronger than any single point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. Frequency of sightings/encounters.

5. Quality of witness testimony and sightings/encounters.

5.a. High witness credibilty when: Pilot, Astronaut, Scientist, military or other professional, did not believe ETH prior to sighting/encounter, have no motive to lie, telling about sighting is detrimental to witness.

5.b. Multiple witnesses see/experience same ET event.

5.c. Photo + Video evidence (Esp. when in combination with any of above or below points)

5.d. Pilot intercept. (Esp. when in combination with any of above or below points)

5.e. Radar contact (Esp. when multiple radars show same object + when in combination with any of above or below points)

5.f. Some abduction encounters seem credible.

5.g. Testimony of people I personally trust absolutely.

5.h. Some Sightings/encounters include seeing/interaction with (usually small) humanoid occupants of the craft. This is one of the most compelling arguments for ETH as this can hardly be anything other than ETH (Expect perhaps time travellers or interdimensional travellers).

6. The posibility that alien implants exist.

Note: Sometimes we have multiples of the above points occuring simultaneously - obviously this makes the case for ETH much stronger than any single point.

those make for a good scoring system Pax :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to get it out of the way, can I just pre-empt anyone else by saying

There was no Project Mogul Balloon #4!

And

The Skeptics need to do their homework!

And

Look what you posted!!! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Ok, now we've got that out of the way, no one else need say it and maybe we can get on with some constructive discussion.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides an actual ET or spaceship what can be consider evidence of ETH?

Another WOW signal would be nice, one that was no doubt ET.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to get it out of the way, can I just pre-empt anyone else by saying

There was no Project Mogul Balloon #4!

And

The Skeptics need to do their homework!

And

Look what you posted!!! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Ok, now we've got that out of the way, no one else need say it and maybe we can get on with some constructive discussion.

:D

:lol:

Yea... :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to get it out of the way, can I just pre-empt anyone else by saying

There was no Project Mogul Balloon #4!

And

The Skeptics need to do their homework!

And

Look what you posted!!! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Ok, now we've got that out of the way, no one else need say it and maybe we can get on with some constructive discussion.

:D

funny guy :lol: although frustrating at times, progress is still made i feel its just not apparent :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For a change, I think it would be better for Hazzard and friends to tell us just what evidence they are looking for rather than doing this again and again.

I mean, just what evidence would Hazzard find acceptable? Hazzard is very good at being skeptical and always putting forward a null hypothesis in every case, but it seems pointless to keep going around in the same circles again and again.

Most of us here already know all the famous UFO cases and the declassified documents, so I'm not sure what we're supposed to add or what the point would be in posting the same things over and over. In general, some people are always going to be generous in accepting certain evidence while others at the opposite pole will simply insist that none of it has any validity. Some people are in the middle, of course, accepting some cases as valid and rejecting others....

Certainly I am aware of a lot of hoaxing, fraud and misidentification in this field, but I don't dismiss 100% of these cases--not the good ones.

Edited by TheMcGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let me express my personal opinion in the new topic. There is no evidence or proof (yet) to make me believe that aliens have, and are visiting earth. Nothing.

There are always quite a few people here who keep saying that--often in one line or less--so the question comes up again: just what evidence are you looking for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, but, but... What about this Full Disclosure I keep hearing about?? :cry:

It has been tried many times, and limited disclosure has happened. I maintain that the Robert Emenegger film was just about the closest thing to real, official disclosure by the US government that anyone is ever likely to find--at least up until now.

To me, that documentary was the best ever made,and the one that got through the wall of secrecy and denial, at least a little bit. There is simply no way around that, since governmnet officials were willing to get on camera and just say openly that aliens were here and they had made contact with the US government.

I don't think that was a fraud or a fake at all, even though we didn't get much detail about these contacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been tried many times, and limited disclosure has happened. I maintain that the Robert Emenegger film was just about the closest thing to real, official disclosure by the US government that anyone is ever likely to find--at least up until now.

To me, that documentary was the best ever made,and the one that got through the wall of secrecy and denial, at least a little bit. There is simply no way around that, since governmnet officials were willing to get on camera and just say openly that aliens were here and they had made contact with the US government.

I don't think that was a fraud or a fake at all, even though we didn't get much detail about these contacts.

I see two options here:

1) folks in US government were extremely stupid back then: they were, and are, covering up ET visitation at any costs, yet they allow R.Emenegger to make film about their most covered secrets; I don't think thats the case.

2) you are wearing I want to believeTM glasses - thats more likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a change, I think it would be better for Hazzard and friends to tell us just what evidence they are looking for rather than doing this again and again.

I think it has been said several times over the previous two BE threads that what is needed for the ETH to be taken seriously is legitimate evidence. Meaning something that points directly toward alien visitation, not just half-heartedly gestures in that general direction. The question that needs to be answered (and is always overshadowed by sensationalism and the like) is where is the evidence that UFO's are alien in origin? There are possibilities and opinions on the matter certainly but the actual evidence only suggests that UFO's are strange and unknown phenomena (at least the legitimate cases, discounting the hoax/mis-ID element). The logical and evidential leap (and yes, it is a substantial 'leap') from unknown to the ETH is completely unsupported by the evidence at our disposal. We just don't have the info/data to validate the ETH, plain and simple.

As far as disclosure goes...I doubt it is going to happen, at least in the manner that so many go on about. However if someone wants to waste their time by wishing for somebody to hand over the answers on a silver platter (especially from an organization that may not know any more than those in the scientific arena)then be my guest.

My $.02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are always quite a few people here who keep saying that--often in one line or less--so the question comes up again: just what evidence are you looking for?

Evidence that is good enough to prove the existence of aliens everyone thinks are visiting earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, no it doesnt.

A UFO (we all know they exist) where the U stands for Unidentified, is just that... there is nothing else attached to it.

Read Paxus link... http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=2284&showentry=23141

I did read it, thanks.

But the reason I said this is, you do realize that there are still some people who don't believe that UFO's exist period? So if it's the official policy of the board that UFO's exist then, okay, I'm already there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did read it, thanks.

But the reason I said this is, you do realize that there are still some people who don't believe that UFO's exist period? So if it's the official policy of the board that UFO's exist then, okay, I'm already there.

Yeah, it's pretty difficult to support the position that UFO's don't exist. I think there is a bit of confusion about the blurred definition of UFO. In the classic and literal sense it means exactly what the anagram stands for, unidentified flying object. However over the years and through manipulations of the definition, often to a purposely misleading end, the meaning has somehow transformed to be synonymous with alien craft. Which is complete garbage and one of the issues that sorely needs to be addressed within UFOlogy in my opinion. Most people on this board use the original definition however you will see the new age alternate definition spring up from time to time, it happens I suppose. :hmm:^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrying it one step further...

Unless I've overlooked something somewhere, we don't really have any evidence of alien life period. Plenty of opinions that there might be life elsewhere, but nothing concrete to support the idea that there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A reminder to those who don't know what UFO means, it means Unidentified Flying Object.

Edited by Blacksabbath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I see two options here:

1) folks in US government were extremely stupid back then: they were, and are, covering up ET visitation at any costs, yet they allow R.Emenegger to make film about their most covered secrets; I don't think thats the case.

2) you are wearing I want to believeTM glasses - thats more likely.

No, you're wrong, that's not more likely, but I can think of nothing more to say about that documentary than what I have already written on that thread. I already explained why they chose to disclose that infomation at that particular time.

Edited by TheMcGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's pretty difficult to support the position that UFO's don't exist. I think there is a bit of confusion about the blurred definition of UFO. In the classic and literal sense it means exactly what the anagram stands for, unidentified flying object. However over the years and through manipulations of the definition, often to a purposely misleading end, the meaning has somehow transformed to be synonymous with alien craft. Which is complete garbage and one of the issues that sorely needs to be addressed within UFOlogy in my opinion. Most people on this board use the original definition however you will see the new age alternate definition spring up from time to time, it happens I suppose. :hmm:^_^

I suppose that someone who thinks that all UFOs can be accounted for by terrestrial explanations could say that they don't believe in UFOs, since as far as they're concerned, everything could be identified, perhaps; just because the person who sees them might not know what it is, it doesn't mean that no one would. :geek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah, it's pretty difficult to support the position that UFO's don't exist. I think there is a bit of confusion about the blurred definition of UFO. In the classic and literal sense it means exactly what the anagram stands for, unidentified flying object. However over the years and through manipulations of the definition, often to a purposely misleading end, the meaning has somehow transformed to be synonymous with alien craft. Which is complete garbage and one of the issues that sorely needs to be addressed within UFOlogy in my opinion. Most people on this board use the original definition however you will see the new age alternate definition spring up from time to time, it happens I suppose. :hmm:^_^

It has been dealt with by people who really have to look into these matters, like some in the military that are assigned to research them and realize from the start that the term "UFO" presents a problem. Leslie Kean's new book addresses this.

The trouble in here is that anyone can pop in and make a comment, and do. I can't believe some of the things I have to read in here, from both camps, that makes me shake my head because the only thing they rely on are links to articles, reports and stories (or so it seems sometimes) from every corner of the internet instead of picking up a well researched book that's more than a few pages long and answers so many questions like this.

If I have to read another post that says "Y'know, UFO means it's unidentified, right?", I'm running straight out into freeway traffic.

Edited by Sweetpumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence that is good enough to prove the existence of aliens everyone thinks are visiting earth.

What, specifically? Think of this as your big opportunity to write more than one line here.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrying it one step further...

Unless I've overlooked something somewhere, we don't really have any evidence of alien life period. Plenty of opinions that there might be life elsewhere, but nothing concrete to support the idea that there is.

I'm sure that there are those like LS, psyche or Hazz that have appropriate links to new info on the search for alien life in the scientific arena however I think you are right, there is nothing yet that has been offered up as proof of alien life anywhere from a legitimate source.

There are plenty of guesses and theories and speculation to be perused though about the probability of alien life, from the drake equation all the way to organic residue (the origins of which are still being studied as far as I know) from a meteorite. People also like to throw in research into exotic propulsion technologies as well as the sheer size and age of the universe along with countless numbers of possible life sustaining planets circling the ether. Personally, when looked at as a big picture this certainly suggests that life elsewhere is likely. Even though the chances of life may be high according to what we currently perceive, in the end it is still only a chance and a chance by definition can go either way. Until there is something more definitive regarding alien life I, for one, am not going to assume that it is a done deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.