What evidence would work?

[krash661]

And obviously neither have you or MR. While obviously there is some evidence, there is no convincing evidence or extraordinary evidence.
Do you also accept the conspiracy regarding 9/11 and faked Moon landings?

(shakes head) pad, you have resorted to being pathetic (shakes head)

 

[Magical Realist]

While obviously there is some evidence, there is no convincing evidence or extraordinary evidence.

How could you possibly know that? Have you examined all the evidence? When and on what website?

 

[krash661]

How could you possibly know that? Have you examined all the evidence? When and on what website?

he does not, nor any of them, this is my main point-- they are simply just ranting and raving about something they are actually clueless of, and are simply just attempting to ridicule you since they are pathetic and have nothing else better to do (shrugs), MR.

 

[Billy T]

It is very highly improbable that UFOs are in any way alien technology and less probable, it that is possible, that they contain aliens.

I assert this for three main reasons:

(1) There is no evidence, and a lot of room for doubt, that a society as advanced as ours (or greater) is stable on a time scale of 10,000 years. There are many ways it can self destruct, in addition to global nuclear war or continued increasing release of CO2. Some especially scary ones are in the growing capability to fabricate lethal biology - even in a basement. An air-born, infectious, respiratory virus, immune to all known anti-viral agents made by an embittered bit clever biologist, who wants all of humanity to die with him, is certainly a possible in the next few hundred years.

(2) With millions of stars more interesting, than our very ordinary and small sun, why would the aliens (or their robots) come to inspect this boring, common-place, little star with a million or more better choices, many much closer to them?

(3) Assuming that the speed of light is the maximum travel velocity and that the social stability of technically advanced technological societies is less than 100,000 years; then there is less than 50,000 years for the alien ship to get to Earth and send what it learned about Earth back home. I. e. combined with (2) there is no point in even visiting Earth. Further more, even if they will not self-destruct for 100,000 years, there is essentially zero chance that their 100,000 years will over lap with our 10,000 years.


Thus, very extraordinary evidence is required to claim UFOs have visited earth. No video of one hovering over the white house then zipping off at very high speed as an F-15 approached would persuade me. I know there are people skilled enough with photo shop, etc. to make a convincing video of two unicorns in battle, with their horns clashing. Hell multi-hour long movies are entirely computer made now.

 

[billvon]

(2) With millions of stars more interesting, than our very ordinary and small sun, why would the aliens (or their robots) come to inspect this boring, common-place, little star with a million or more better choices, many much closer to them?

Because most people believe that humanity would be irresistibly exciting to a proposed extraterrestrial. "Well, of COURSE they'd want to come see us! We're awesome!"

 

[Daecon]

Because most people believe that humanity would be irresistibly exciting to a proposed extraterrestrial. "Well, of COURSE they'd want to come see us! We're awesome!"

Have you met Humanity?

 

[krash661]

Thus, very extraordinary evidence is required to claim UFOs have visited earth. .

for whom though?-- for the public?--so in other words, if the public is not sure of the reality, then the reality must not exist?-- is this what your meanings are?

 

[krash661]

what the public does not grasp is simply that there are two worlds of science here. the real science and then the public's science, which has been occurring for decades.

 

[Magical Realist]

With millions of stars more interesting, than our very ordinary and small sun, why would the aliens (or their robots) come to inspect this boring, common-place, little star with a million or more better choices, many much closer to them?

Only one thing really: our hot soccer moms!

 

[Baldeee]

How could you possibly know that? Have you examined all the evidence? When and on what website?

Conviction is a subjective matter.
I thus think it is reasonable for someone to say that there is no convincing evidence if they themselves are unconvinced by any evidence that they have come across.
Can they possibly say that there is no evidence anywhere that will ever convince them?
Unlikely.
But if you wish to say that there is convincing evidence to someone then please detail that evidence.
If the person is still unconvinced then, to them, it is not convincing evidence, even if it is to you.

 

[Baldeee]

what the public does not grasp is simply that there are two worlds of science here. the real science and then the public's science, which has been occurring for decades.

What do you classify as "real science" and "public's science", just to get clarification of what you are suggesting, please?
I.e. Examples of each, please.

 

[Bells]

what the public does not grasp is simply that there are two worlds of science here. the real science and then the public's science, which has been occurring for decades.

Can you provide an example in real science that aliens are visiting Earth? There is no such example, is there? Real science isn't looking at UFO's or pictures of UFO's on youtube or elsewhere to determine the existence of alien life forms, for example.

For example, real science would involve studies of other stars which have planets orbiting them, correct? For example, astronomer René Heller of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Göttingen, Germany, posits that we should be looking at these planets to try to determine if they do sustain 'life'. Scientists would do so by looking for traces of an atmosphere on these planets and whether this atmosphere has been altered in any way chemically, by 'life' on the planet. Heller argues that aliens living on these planets could be looking at Earth in the same way, by looking at the chemical composition in our atmosphere and that we should be targeting planets that would have a similar view of Earth to look for alien life.

Heller and Pudritz went through a catalogue of stars compiled using data from the Hipparcos satellite and found 82 Sun-like stars in this zone that are within 1,000 parsecs of Earth. Because not all of the stars in this region of space have been discovered, Heller and Pudritz extrapolated the number of known stars to the number that probably exists and came up with roughly 10,000 candidate stars. If these stars have planets, and if the planets have intelligent life forms, they could have long ago spotted the blink of an Earth transit and begun beaming signals towards us, Heller says.​

In 2010, a search for these signals was conducted, to try to find any form of signals being beamed towards Earth from opposite the sun. No sign of a signal was found.

Would you agree that this would qualify as "real science"? Or is that public science?

I absolutely agree that life exists on other planets or chunk of rock or even ice somewhere in the universe. I do not view humanity as being so special that we would exist solely in the universe. I think to believe that is egocentric. And on that principle, I agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson, that we are not that special, that we are simply made up of chemical compositions that exist elsewhere in the universe. I would view the search for those very chemical compositions on other planets or systems or even large asteroids, is a brilliant way to look for alien life forms. Missions NASA and the European Space agency have launched to other planets in our solar system have tested for these chemical components and so they should, because even microscopic life would answer the question that we are not alone and that life exists elsewhere. As deGrasse Tyson states, the various forms of life on Earth is vast and takes all forms. And there is a whole field of science dedicated to this sort of research. And it is valid science, and the search will likely never end, simply because of the billions of planets in the universe, and the fact that we have barely scratched the surface in what we can see.

Would you consider such research to be "real science"?

What would you determine to be public science? One that the public can buy and easily understand? One that they can believe and/or see with their own eyes, for example?

Which is why I do not consider the many UFO sites where they declare aliens are flying through our atmosphere and landing in fields and kidnapping people for nefarious tests, to not even qualify as public science. I think what these people do is buy into the imagination of the public and instead of providing them with real science, they are peddling stories that the public can relate to because of the movies they watch or books they read. There is a reason why there are more UFO sightings after popular movies about aliens are released.

I disagree with MR. I think there are aliens out there. But do I think they are traversing great distances of space for just a flyby in our atmosphere and then leaving? No. I have found or seen no evidence of that having occurred. And I say that as someone who has seen some pretty unexplainable things in the sky - one of which was so dramatic, that my youngest still refuses to go outside when it is dark unless every outdoor light is turned on and he is accompanied (by which I mean he has latched to my side like a sucker fish) half of the time now. He doesn't think it was aliens. He became freaked out by the unknown aspect of it. But he absolutely does not believe it was aliens in a UFO.

 

[Russ_Watters]

How could you possibly know that? Have you examined all the evidence? When and on what website?

No one can ever examine all of the evidence of anything. We examine the evidence presented by the one making the claim (you). If there is compelling evidence, you must present it - we are under no obligation to go searching for it.

Since you are now making an issue about "all of the evidence" instead of the "compelling evidence" part, is that an admission that you have not posted any compelling evidence?

 

[Russ_Watters]

for whom though?-- for the public?--

For anyone who holds functional standards for proof.

so in other words, if the public is not sure of the reality, then the reality must not exist?-- is this what your meanings are?

No, that doesn't make any sense.

whatthe public does not grasp is simply that there are two worlds of science here. the real science and then the public's science, which has been occurring for decades.

I think what you are calling "public science" is more commonly called "popular science", which is real science dumbed down and popularized for public consumption via the media.

If you are just referring to the idea that people are entitled to decide for themselves what is true, regardless of what the scientific community thinks, that is true but limited by the law in some cases(if you believe you are safer without a seat belt, you may not be legally entitled to act on that belief). But if you want to be RIGHT, your best chance is to use a proven method for determining it, whether you are a scientist or not.

 

[krash661]

Can you provide an example in real science that aliens are visiting Earth? There is no such example, is there? Real science isn't looking at UFO's or pictures of UFO's on youtube or elsewhere to determine the existence of alien life forms, for example.

For example, real science would involve studies of other stars which have planets orbiting them, correct? For example, astronomer René Heller of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Göttingen, Germany, posits that we should be looking at these planets to try to determine if they do sustain 'life'. Scientists would do so by looking for traces of an atmosphere on these planets and whether this atmosphere has been altered in any way chemically, by 'life' on the planet. Heller argues that aliens living on these planets could be looking at Earth in the same way, by looking at the chemical composition in our atmosphere and that we should be targeting planets that would have a similar view of Earth to look for alien life.

Heller and Pudritz went through a catalogue of stars compiled using data from the Hipparcos satellite and found 82 Sun-like stars in this zone that are within 1,000 parsecs of Earth. Because not all of the stars in this region of space have been discovered, Heller and Pudritz extrapolated the number of known stars to the number that probably exists and came up with roughly 10,000 candidate stars. If these stars have planets, and if the planets have intelligent life forms, they could have long ago spotted the blink of an Earth transit and begun beaming signals towards us, Heller says.​

In 2010, a search for these signals was conducted, to try to find any form of signals being beamed towards Earth from opposite the sun. No sign of a signal was found.

Would you agree that this would qualify as "real science"? Or is that public science?

I absolutely agree that life exists on other planets or chunk of rock or even ice somewhere in the universe. I do not view humanity as being so special that we would exist solely in the universe. I think to believe that is egocentric. And on that principle, I agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson, that we are not that special, that we are simply made up of chemical compositions that exist elsewhere in the universe. I would view the search for those very chemical compositions on other planets or systems or even large asteroids, is a brilliant way to look for alien life forms. Missions NASA and the European Space agency have launched to other planets in our solar system have tested for these chemical components and so they should, because even microscopic life would answer the question that we are not alone and that life exists elsewhere. As deGrasse Tyson states, the various forms of life on Earth is vast and takes all forms. And there is a whole field of science dedicated to this sort of research. And it is valid science, and the search will likely never end, simply because of the billions of planets in the universe, and the fact that we have barely scratched the surface in what we can see.

Would you consider such research to be "real science"?

What would you determine to be public science? One that the public can buy and easily understand? One that they can believe and/or see with their own eyes, for example?

Which is why I do not consider the many UFO sites where they declare aliens are flying through our atmosphere and landing in fields and kidnapping people for nefarious tests, to not even qualify as public science. I think what these people do is buy into the imagination of the public and instead of providing them with real science, they are peddling stories that the public can relate to because of the movies they watch or books they read. There is a reason why there are more UFO sightings after popular movies about aliens are released.

I disagree with MR. I think there are aliens out there. But do I think they are traversing great distances of space for just a flyby in our atmosphere and then leaving? No. I have found or seen no evidence of that having occurred. And I say that as someone who has seen some pretty unexplainable things in the sky - one of which was so dramatic, that my youngest still refuses to go outside when it is dark unless every outdoor light is turned on and he is accompanied (by which I mean he has latched to my side like a sucker fish) half of the time now. He doesn't think it was aliens. He became freaked out by the unknown aspect of it. But he absolutely does not believe it was aliens in a UFO.

cute, you are pretending that you actually know. again you have the same stance as anyone else in this topic that is here simply, only, here to ridicule MR. again, you have no access and experience of such things. same thing i told billy yesterday: " for whom though?-- for the public?--so in other words, if the public is not sure of the reality, then the reality must not exist?-- is this what your meanings are? "
" Real science isn't looking at UFO's or pictures of UFO's on youtube or elsewhere to determine the existence of alien life forms, "-- that is simply because they already have it. (shrugs)
i also stated this yesterday: " " we do not have convincing evidence to validate any conjecture "

we might if the government's motive were for the betterment of mankind. the government's motive is control. and just as much as they crave control, they fear loss of control. knowledge is power, but power does not necessarily confer competence. the people at the top of these programs are intellectually very average. they are not capable of making proper use of what has been handed to them, but they have no intention in letting anyone else ever get a chance to solve the puzzle. and let's not forget there's also a real possibility that the government is being manipulated by the extraterrestrials for their own purposes. when you're dealing with beings whose intellect is so far beyond your own, i don't think it's safe to assume that they have your best interest at heart. use your own judgement. that's all any of us can do. there's been so much secrecy and disinformation over the last fifty years, that it has become impossible to prove anything in the face of official denial. of course the flip side is nobody really believes anything that the government says. the only vindication i can imagine would be if the government finally revealed all of what they know about these aliens.
other than that, again you all are pathetic for doing nothing but picking on MR and nothing more-- that is all that this is. (shakes head)

 

[krash661]

What do you classify as "real science" and "public's science", just to get clarification of what you are suggesting, please?
I.e. Examples of each, please.

real science-- government level that the public does not have access to(also ahead about 40 years)
public's science-- all the mainstream nonsense(that is stuck at a brick wall).

 

[krash661]

For anyone who holds functional standards for proof.

No, that doesn't make any sense.

I think what you are calling "public science" is more commonly called "popular science", which is real science dumbed down and popularized for public consumption via the media.

If you are just referring to the idea that people are entitled to decide for themselves what is true, regardless of what the scientific community thinks, that is true but limited by the law in some cases(if you believe you are safer without a seat belt, you may not be legally entitled to act on that belief). But if you want to be RIGHT, your best chance is to use a proven method for determining it, whether you are a scientist or not.

same thing i told billy yesterday: " for whom though?-- for the public?--so in other words, if the public is not sure of the reality, then the reality must not exist?-- is this what your meanings are? "

 

[krash661]

For anyone who holds functional standards for proof.

whom would that be?-- the public?

 

[krash661]

If you are just referring to the idea that people are entitled to decide for themselves what is true, regardless of what the scientific community thinks, that is true but limited by the law in some cases(if you believe you are safer without a seat belt, you may not be legally entitled to act on that belief). But if you want to be RIGHT, your best chance is to use a proven method for determining it, whether you are a scientist or not.

i am right-- again, i have access to all this--this is my career. and i seriously have no inkling of care if anyone believes me or not. i also do not care to provide anything that you all will ridicule. i simply stepped in these topics in order to stop all of you clueless mouth runners from continuing to pick on MR. i have been reading this shit for days. it is time for it to cease now.

 

[Sarkus]

Krash, do you have examples of real vs public science? It's all well and good you coming in to defend MR, but doing so with claims that you yourself are unable to support would really just be pouring fuel on the fire, is it not?
Whether the perceived picking on MR is acceptable or not should be no excuse for you failing to support your claims, right? If you wish people to stop, simply ask them to, report them, show them the errors of what they are doing. Just please don't make claims that you are perhaps unwilling to support.
Thanks.