Can a picture/video prove ETs exist?

[Rlyeh]

Videos and pictures are completely worthless when it comes evidence of ETs, in no shape or form do they verify the existence of ETs.

[ChrLzs]

3 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

Here I thought it looked cool. Also the light pollution, good god!

Tanx.  That was sorta the point - it's just a test shot and despite being such a god-awful location, check out the number of stars visible....and that was a system costing less than $250.  Note that is also sharp edge to edge, despite showing about 180 degrees of sky at the diagonals..  Only a person unfamiliar with photography would think that was 'terrible quality'.

FTR, I didn't capture an aircraft in that particular shot, but I think most of those here realise that they look like a long line/s (fixed lights) with little dots on either side of the line (strobes),.  I've got some photos of that here somewhere, but frankly, I'm not wasting my time further on someone (the OP) who is out of their depth.  Sorry to be harsh, but there it is...

[Fila]

On 12/12/2017 at 11:17 PM, dirtierdragoon4 said:

Yes to all. If CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc., all caught footage on their own cameras by their own reporters of what looks like an exotic craft and aliens coming out of it, that do not look like humans, then I am sure we all would consider that as proof. If they look human, well, it would be harder to think of it as ET. Also, even if it did not look like us, we still can say that they live in the ocean or underground and have lived here from the start, so that would be kind of like ET. So I guess my analysis is that we are not looking necessarily for ET but sentient beings that is not already on our list of known sentient beings/humanoids.

Thanks for the reply. That would be pretty damn convincing. If 2 or more major news networks caught the same UFO footage separately. i'm sure some would still think its possibly an elaborate hoax or prank. I probably would have to consider fake.., if it was filmed near Hollywood or something. Dammit.

[Inversion5]

9 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Videos and pictures are completely worthless when it comes evidence of ETs, in no shape or form do they verify the existence of ETs.

There is no way of verifying ETs exist at all, even if you take a DNA sample. It just verifies that its not human. Proof solely relies on our perception with majority consensus. Philosophically, you can not even prove you are a real person and that this is all not just a computer simulation - don't bother cutting yourself to see if it hurts or bleeds, could be part of the programming.

[Fila]

On 12/12/2017 at 11:45 PM, ChrLzs said:

Note that is also sharp edge to edge, despite showing about 180 degrees of sky at the diagonals..  Only a person unfamiliar with photography would think that was 'terrible quality'

Or a University student who does a media degree...

On 12/12/2017 at 11:45 PM, ChrLzs said:

FTR, I didn't capture an aircraft in that particular shot, but I think most of those here realise that they look like a long line/s (fixed lights) with little dots on either side of the line (strobes),.  I've got some photos of that here somewhere, but frankly, I'm not wasting my time further on someone (the OP) who is out of their depth.  Sorry to be harsh, but there it is...

That's ok. Try it out when you get a chance. No rush. Even try with your mobile phone if you spot a chopper or plane while out and about.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Fila

[Rlyeh]

1 minute ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

There is no way of verifying ETs exist at all, even if you take a DNA sample. It just verifies that its not human. Proof solely relies on our perception with majority consensus. Philosophically, you can not even prove you are a real person and that this is all not just a computer simulation - don't bother cutting yourself to see if it hurts or bleeds, could be part of the programming.

You should find out what objective evidence is. ETs can be verified to exist by finding life on other planets.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Rlyeh

[Inversion5]

Just now, Rlyeh said:

You should find out what objective evidence is. ETs can be verified to exists by finding life on other planets.

Objective is still subjective. But of course, let us ground ourselves. Yes, that is true, and i did mentioned that earlier. I framed my answer envisioning them visiting earth and extracting dna that way.

[freetoroam]

3 hours ago, Fila said:

 but legitimate footage will never be considered proof.

Not true. Legitimate footage would for sure be considered as proof....but only if supplied by the experts  eg: NASA make an announcement they have found intelligent life and have footage of alien spacecraft flying about in the Universe. As yet, this has not been the case. Not by the experts or any of the thousand of experienced sky watchers.

Youtube videos from people who see a combine harvester at night or a distant light on top of a building or car head lights on a hill road or chinese lanterns, or a rescue helicopter and mistake them for visiting aliens is not proof.

Yes, to the people who are unfamiliar with seeing these objects, they are UFO's, hence forums like UM are great for educating them. 

[Rlyeh]

4 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

Objective is still subjective.

Subjective is the antonym of objective.

 

4 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

But of course, let us ground ourselves. Yes, that is true, and i did mentioned that earlier. I framed my answer envisioning them visiting earth and extracting dna that way.

That doesn't support the DNA being from another planet, especially without any data about this planet.

[freetoroam]

12 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

There is no way of verifying ETs exist at all, even if you take a DNA sample. It just verifies that its not human. 

What, this makes no sense at all? Take a sample from where and what?

15 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

Philosophically, you can not even prove you are a real person and that this is all not just a computer simulation -

This is one of the most stupid statements i have read in a long time.

You do realise that humans were around well before the invention of the computers, invented by humans may i add.

This is a typical statement made by the new generation of naive yoing people who believe the human race started with the computer.

What world do you think man lived in before the computer came along? 

[Inversion5]

2 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

...Yes, to the people who are unfamiliar with seeing these objects, they are UFO's, hence forums like UM are great for educating them. 

We do not even know if they are objects. UFO, in some cases, should seriously be replaced with UAP. It's like calling a blackhole a whitehole. Almost the same but they work in different ways. What it comes down to is perception. Would one consider a light an object? Perhaps there is some force popping in and out of existence. I think anything that has the utmost unusual characteristics of flight is considered UAP (abrupt speeds "not possible", etc.) and everything else should be UFO. Also, when we talk about flying, we surely are automatically thinking flying in air. Perhaps they are in space when observed.

[Fila]

On 13/12/2017 at 0:04 AM, freetoroam said:

Not true. Legitimate footage would for sure be considered as proof....but only if supplied by the experts  eg: NASA make an announcement they have found intelligent life and have footage of alien spacecraft flying about in the Universe. As yet, this has not been the case. Not by the experts or any of the thousand of experienced sky watchers.

Youtube videos from people who see a combine harvester at night or a distant light on top of a building or car head lights on a hill road or chinese lanterns, or a rescue helicopter and mistake them for visiting aliens is not proof.

Yes, to the people who are unfamiliar with seeing these objects, they are UFO's, hence forums like UM are great for educating them. 

If NASA showed footage of an unknown aircraft flying around Earth.., could they still determine it was alien? Could it potentially be Chinese? Would they know what China is capable of? Even if they do spy on China and know 100% it isn't...
Can video footage (by definition) be proof positive? Can we definitely say "That an alien right there" just from images?

Edited December 12, 2017 by Fila

[Inversion5]

18 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Subjective is the antonym of objective...

No way! Lol. Everything is occurring in your head... hence, subjective. Let us invoke the Observer Effect. And let us invoke the Matrix - "There is no spoon."

18 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

...That doesn't support the DNA being from another planet, especially without any data about this planet.

If we had a pic/video from a space probe of alien's walking on a planet, I would consider that proof. If we took a DNA sample of a being coming out of a spacecraft, I would consider that not proof of them being alien, just proof they are not human. At this point we will split into camps of the sample showing intelligent life living in the ocean, underground or not of this earth.

Edited December 12, 2017 by dirtierdragoon4

[seeder]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

. But this cannot be used as proof UFOs never existed.

 

But OF COURSE UFO's exists.... millions of people have seen UFO's, why Ive had quite a few sightings myself

BUT...the million dollar question is....what is a UFO?  Well the easy answer is, something unidentified and flying....UFO does NOT mean aliens and flying saucers...

heres a classic well known shot of a UFO......

 

But it didnt remain a UFO for long....photo analysis and rational minds shows it was just a seagull flying by. Remember...UFO doesnt mean alienz...

[Fila]

On 13/12/2017 at 0:18 AM, freetoroam said:

This is one of the most stupid statements i have read in a long time. You do realise that humans were around well before the invention of the computers, invented by humans may i add. This is a typical statement made by the new generation of naive yoing people who believe the human race started with the computer. What world do you think man lived in before the computer came along? 

I had to do a class about this stuff at Uni this year, Descartes, Plato and all those dudes, really trippy stuff. Not new ideas however.

Actually .., a new take on this idea is one of the quantum theories that suggests we are holograms/reflections of something else far away. Like shadow cast from light.... (insert x-files music here) . Its all pretty hard to believe.., but fun to discuss nonetheless.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Fila

[Rlyeh]

9 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

No way! Lol. Everything is occurring in your head... hence, subjective. Let us invoke the Observer Effect. And let us invoke the Matrix - "There is no spoon."

Do you really want to invoke the observer effect? Because it sounds like you don't know what it is.

 

9 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

If we had a pic/video from a space probe of alien's walking on a planet, I would consider that proof. If we took a DNA sample of a being coming out of a spacecraft, I would consider that not proof of them being alien, just proof they are not human. At this point we will split into camps of the sample showing intelligent life living in the ocean, underground or not of this earth.

How did space probe get to this other planet? You need more than just a picture or video, the video on it's own is not proof.

I wouldn't consider DNA evidence of aliens either unless you have evidence linking it's origin to another planet.

[Inversion5]

6 hours ago, freetoroam said:

What, this makes no sense at all? Take a sample from where and what?

This is one of the most stupid statements i have read in a long time.

You do realise that humans were around well before the invention of the computers, invented by humans may i add.

This is a typical statement made by the new generation of naive yoing people who believe the human race started with the computer.

What world do you think man lived in before the computer came along? 

*Snip* Okay, follow me... Let us say a real alien comes to earth and we see him get off his exotic craft, it somehow tells us to take it's DNA to prove it is not from earth. The samples come back and... How would DNA show that it is not from this earth? What is to say that it could not have lived on this earth before us and lived underground? Our earth has gone through many phases and creature for 100's of millions of years.

You just insulted almost all of the scientists working on Artificial Intelligence. We could be a simulation.

Edited December 12, 2017 by kmt_sesh
Ridicule

[Fila]

On 13/12/2017 at 0:33 AM, seeder said:

 

But OF COURSE UFO's exists.... millions of people have seen UFO's, why Ive had quite a few sightings myself

BUT...the million dollar question is....what is a UFO?  Well the easy answer is, something unidentified and flying....UFO does NOT mean aliens and flying saucers...

heres a classic well known shot of a UFO......

But it didnt remain a UFO for long....photo analysis and rational minds shows it was just a seagull flying by. Remember...UFO doesnt mean alienz...

Its a funny word isn't it. And definitely does not equate to meaning aliens either. I think Dragoon4 is right. We should stop using that word all together because it is so ambiguous. The term UFO is relative to the observer. Technically a cloud could be a UFO to someone hey.

I read through a bunch of recently declassified Australian airforce documents detailing UFO reports made during the 1940's and 50's.

These objects were usually "large metallic/polished metal, sometimes with lights or a glow. Size of planes, no wings, tails, fuselage, cockpits, exhaust. Extremely fast and agile.with no sound."

I guess when I personally refer to UFO.., that's what I mean. I understand there are trolls in the world.., but I do not let this affect real evidence.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Fila

[Inversion5]

21 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Do you really want to invoke the observer effect? Because it sounds like you don't know what it is

My brain has narrowed it down to it being something that changes once you look at it. Must I know more? Humans are instruments themselves in which they measure the world, so we are tainted from the start, as perceiving through an instrument is not perceiving its true nature. There is no way to perceive true nature.

21 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

How did space probe get to this other planet? You need more than just a picture or video, the video on it's own is not proof.

I wouldn't consider DNA evidence of aliens either unless you have evidence linking it's origin to another planet.

Where are you going with this? It propelled itself there. I am sure that if NASA took a pic or video of a creature walking on another planet outside of our solar system, it would consider it proof of ET. Unless the probe had an inflatable alien doll and was set off on the surface to appear it was walking. For all we know Earth has been the one seeding other habitual planets and then those aliens would not really be aliens, or would it?

Edited December 12, 2017 by dirtierdragoon4

[Rlyeh]

2 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

My brain has narrowed it down to it being something that changes once you look at it. Must I know more? Humans are instruments themselves in which they measure the world, so we are tainted from the start, as perceiving through an instrument is not perceiving its true nature. There is no way to perceive true nature.

I'm not aware of anything that changes when you look at it. The observer effects refers to quantum systems taking on a state when measured or interacted with. 

 

2 minutes ago, dirtierdragoon4 said:

Where are you going with this? It propelled itself there. I am sure that if NASA took a pic or video of a creature walking on another planet outside of our solar system, it would consider it proof of ET. Unless the probe had an inflatable alien doll and was set off on the surface to appear it was walking. For all we know Earth has been the one seeding other habitual planets and then those aliens would not really be aliens, or would it?

It just propelled itself there with no data on it's destination? And all it takes is a picture/video? No other data or information?

No, I wouldn't consider that proof.

[Inversion5]

5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

I'm not aware of anything that changes when you look at it. The observer effects refers to quantum systems taking on a state when measured or interacted with.

The way I simplified it (I mean really simplified it) is the way respectable physicists have explained it. But of course, Youtube can be useful in this situation. I need video to prove it!

5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

It just propelled itself there with no data on it's destination? And all it takes is a picture/video? No other data or information?

No, I wouldn't consider that proof.

Im following you, where are you continuing to take me?

It would have to come from a legitimate source and that would be enough for the majority.

[Inversion5]

3 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

I do apologise....

Apology accepted. I'm glad we could be adults about this. 

[I'mConvinced]

3 hours ago, Fila said:

Yes they are placves to post the videos.., but I don't think this will ever be sufficient proof.
Evidence? Perhaps.

I'm waiting for evidence captured from multiple angles, with multiple cameras, from multiple independent sources that then withstands close analysis.  This would be very difficult to fake and would be a good starting point.  You are correct though, nothing short of a walking, talking ET is going to suffice as proof absolute.

[kmt_sesh]

Thread cleaned.

Posters, avoid using ridicule, either directly or obliquely. Keep it civil.

[Truthseeker007]

I really don't need evidence to know aliens are real. It is just common sense really. The Universe is vast and to think we are the only intelligent creatures in just this Universe alone is just naïve.