Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Evidence that extraterrestrials visited Earth


Recommended Posts

Here is a summary of the evidence that aliens have visited Earth. The overview starts with some of the weak evidence that is probably known to everyone, while more recent evidence is given at the end.

https://www.founder-hypothesis.com/evidence_en.html


Please write in a comment which evidence is missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No.

 

....and welcome to the forums "Theo".

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Theo Retical said:

Here is a summary of the evidence that aliens have visited Earth. The overview starts with some of the weak evidence that is probably known to everyone, while more recent evidence is given at the end.

https://www.founder-hypothesis.com/evidence_en.html


Please write in a comment which evidence is missing.

 

The only thing missing from that list is incontrovertible evidence... but the rest is all there.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hazzard said:

 

The only thing missing from that list is incontrovertible evidence... but the rest is all there.

Humans suddenly became "creative" around 3500 BC.....errr....NO.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Theo Retical said:

Here is a summary of the evidence that aliens have visited Earth. The overview starts with some of the weak evidence that is probably known to everyone, while more recent evidence is given at the end.

https://www.founder-hypothesis.com/evidence_en.html


Please write in a comment which evidence is missing.

Right off the bat no civilization formed around a population II star. 

No metals, and we are a first generation star with the right metals and what gave us all the really good metals for high technology is our solar system formed in a molecular cloud from a neutron star merger. 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the text:

However, some proponents of the ancient astronauts theory, such as Erich von Däniken, make additional assumptions that are likely to be incorrect. These are that the extraterrestrials visited Earth as biological life forms and that they helped the humans of the time with their superior technology to build monuments. If the extraterrestrials had ever visited Earth as biological life forms, they would surely have contaminated the Earth with the bacteria living on them. 
----------

If they are intelligent enough to get to planet Earth, they are intelligent enough to have solved that problem. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Piney said:

Right off the bat no civilization formed around a population II star. 

No metals, and we are a first generation star with the right metals and what gave us all the really good metals for high technology is our solar system formed in a molecular cloud from a neutron star merger. 

 

And I have yet to figure out just why it cannot be the case that another neutron star merger took place 10 billion years ago, as a basis for creating advanced civilizations.
This is, after all, a very large galaxy of 200 billion stars, and has been around many billions of years before the formation of our solar system. 

I still say we are the embryos of the galaxy. :rolleyes:

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about reports on alien abductions. Would you consider this evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And I have yet to figure out just why it cannot be the case that another neutron star merger took place 10 billion years ago, as a basis for creating advanced civilizations.
This is, after all, a very large galaxy of 200 billion stars, and has been around many billions of years before the formation of our solar system. 

I still say we are the embryos of the galaxy. :rolleyes:

10 billion years ago there were only type II and type III stars. No metals yet. Type Ia supernovae creating metals came later. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Theo Retical said:

What about reports on alien abductions. Would you consider this evidence?

If this was a law court, it would be 'taken into account', but testimony is the worst kind of evidence...  Science is different.  Tall tales are generally ignored, no matter how good an observer you may claim to be.  Humans are really bad at accurate perception and they often make **** up.  In science, there isn't a rush to quickly 'solve' stuff, so anecdotes are Just Cool Stories Bro.  We wait until genuine, irrefutable evidence is gathered.

I'm not going to watch a video that doesn't understand what scientific evidence is, so how about you tell us about what you think is the best evidence?

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Theo Retical said:

What about reports on alien abductions. Would you consider this evidence?

I find this very interesting, but maybe not in the way you think...

Im sure that you have looked into this thing called Sleep Paralysis...?

"this disorder -- the result of a disconnect between brain and body as a person is on the fringe of sleep -- is turning out to be increasingly common, affecting nearly half of all people at least once. Moreover, a growing number of scholars believe that sleep paralysis may help explain many ancient reports of attacks by witches and modern claims of abduction by space aliens."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/06/science/alien-abduction-science-calls-it-sleep-paralysis.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

 

 In this article we will look at some of the psychological explanations of people who believe they have been abducted by space aliens.

https://www.tridhascholars.org/pdfs/alien-abduction-joccr-S13-1004.pdf

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually feel a little sorry for abduction promoters and believers alike, as they most likely have never had a 'hyper-realistic dream' (aka 'Vivid Dream').  Such dreams can be adopted by the brain as reality, and thus a false memory.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Theo Retical said:

What about reports on alien abductions. Would you consider this evidence?

Also, no.

Edited by Trelane
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Trelane said:

Also, no.

I'd love to see a ufo claim to get into the law courts, so it was not a scientific judgement, but a legal one.  Maybe a ufo distracted a driver who then had an accident..?

In a law court there is a perceived need for a speedy judegement (ie timely justice).  So the judge/jury tend to put a bit more weight on the stories they are told.  However, when it comes to claims of alienz... well, to use an analogy, I would liken it to the judge/jury simply accepting a claim of a non-human entity that has never been seen before, from a country that does not exist.  I don't think even the worst and lowest court in the US would buy that. 

In science, there is no time pressure - we sit back to wait for irrefutable evidence and measured observations.  Not anecdotes.  Not claims of what someone saw and guesstimated how fast/big/far away it was.

Which is why I'm always asking folks to present their best evidence.  The reason most run from that challenge, is that the 'best evidence' is pitifully woeful.  In fact it just isn't there.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The paper says:

Quote

There is ample evidence that humans in prehistoric and ancient times actually had contact with extraterrestrials who claimed to be their gods. Unfortunately, however, ancient astronaut theorists are are unable to prove this hypothesis.

They're unable because there is no evidence and this paper doesn't provide any.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I actually feel a little sorry for abduction promoters and believers alike, as they most likely have never had a 'hyper-realistic dream' (aka 'Vivid Dream').  Such dreams can be adopted by the brain as reality, and thus a false memory.

And not just dreams.  I lost my keys once.  I know I thought about putting them on the table.  I didn't, I put them in my pocket...then later sitting in a chair they fell out of my pocket into the void of the cushion in the chair.  But I remembered putting them on the table.  I could have sworn I left them on the table.  Which, is why anecdotes are not evidence, because memory...all memory...is fallible. Especially 'dream' memory.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2024 at 6:59 AM, Theo Retical said:

Please write in a comment which evidence is missing.

Evidence is irrelevant.  What you should be looking for is proof.  The only 'proof' that aliens are here or have been here is:

1.  An alien vessel.

2.  An alien.

Has anyone proof of either of those?  No.  Case closed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I actually feel a little sorry for abduction promoters and believers alike, as they most likely have never had a 'hyper-realistic dream' (aka 'Vivid Dream').  Such dreams can be adopted by the brain as reality, and thus a false memory.

I agree with this interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, astrobeing said:

The paper says: 

There is ample evidence that humans in prehistoric and ancient times actually had contact with extraterrestrials who claimed to be their gods. Unfortunately, however, ancient astronaut theorists are are unable to prove this hypothesis.

They're unable because there is no evidence and this paper doesn't provide any.

The sentence means that there is only weak evidence, which is insufficient to prove the ancient atronauts hypothesis directly. There is more evidence for the other hypotheses.

Edited by Theo Retical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

If this was a law court, it would be 'taken into account', but testimony is the worst kind of evidence...  Science is different.  Tall tales are generally ignored, no matter how good an observer you may claim to be.  Humans are really bad at accurate perception and they often make **** up.  In science, there isn't a rush to quickly 'solve' stuff, so anecdotes are Just Cool Stories Bro.  We wait until genuine, irrefutable evidence is gathered.

I'm not going to watch a video that doesn't understand what scientific evidence is, so how about you tell us about what you think is the best evidence?

In a court of law couldn't the "defendent" refute a science "expert witness", by asking for proof they don't exist? After all, both sides can't prove the other wrong. The claimant would have Thousands of photos, many military, to show the court. While the expert only has probabilities, and the Fermi paradox.  Especially in today's climate, anyway. It would be an interesting case to follow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

In a court of law couldn't the "defendent" refute a science "expert witness", by asking for proof they don't exist? After all, both sides can't prove the other wrong. The claimant would have Thousands of photos, many military, to show the court. While the expert only has probabilities, and the Fermi paradox.  Especially in today's climate, anyway. It would be an interesting case to follow.

Completely lost me there....  You can't prove something doesn't exist.  Well, not unless you have an incredibly narrow set of constraints.

Example - If I brought an empty birdcage into the court, and wanted to prove that the birdcage did NOT contain a 6foot tall Swedish factory worker wearing a macintosh (as you do).... then yes, I could prove that beyond reasonable doubt.  However if you were asked to prove there has never been a single alien visitor on earth, then do tell, how could you or anyone possibly prove that?  It's the concept of Burden of Proof.  In UFO=alienz claims, the claimant has the entire burden.  If you don't get why, then read this paragraph over and over until you understand that.

It might help if you realise that a claim of any/all UFO's being alienz is a completely different claim to the hypothesis that there is possibly/probabiy alien life somewhere out there in the Cosmos.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2024 at 10:14 AM, ChrLzs said:

If this was a law court, it would be 'taken into account', but testimony is the worst kind of evidence...  Science is different.  Tall tales are generally ignored, no matter how good an observer you may claim to be.  Humans are really bad at accurate perception and they often make **** up.  In science, there isn't a rush to quickly 'solve' stuff, so anecdotes are Just Cool Stories Bro.  We wait until genuine, irrefutable evidence is gathered.

I'm not going to watch a video that doesn't understand what scientific evidence is, so how about you tell us about what you think is the best evidence?

The best evidence is evidence that does not allow for alternative explanations. The second best evidence is evidence that allows for alternative explanations, but these alternative explanations have a priori a small probability to be correct. One alternative explanation is often that suggestive findings emerged by such chance. Another one is that people want to get famous by making strange claims.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes, the best evidence in the case of the ETH is evidence that is testable and able to be verified by multiple independent sources. Evidence that does not allow for alternate explanations. Thus far, none has been presented in this topic.

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Yes, the best evidence in th e case of ET visitation is evidence that is testable and able to be verified by multiple independent sources. Evidence that does not allow for alternate explanations. Thus far, none has been presented in this topic.

I misunderstood your comment, so this is the answer: There is no evidence that does not allow for alternate explanations. Therefore, all evidence needs to be considered simultaneously in a Bayesian analysis and then the posterior probability needs to be computed for the proabability that the hypothesis is correct.

Edited by Theo Retical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.