What evidence would work?

[krash661]

Krash, do you have examples of real vs public science?

it is everywhere. (shrugs)-- it is simply a matter of deciphering.
i would like you to explain your question--as in what are you expecting?
think about this, how does some technology or such come about when mainstream sciences are at a brick wall?
i have no problems having this discussion with you as long as you do not initiate your usual, pathetic,want-to-be-intellect, shenanigans-- do you except?

 

[Ophiolite]

Have you met Humanity?

I was meant to meet them one evening in a bar, but they called off because of a more pressing engagement. I understand some of them are quite tall.

 

[Ophiolite]

it is everywhere. (shrugs)-- it is simply a matter of deciphering.
i would like you to explain your question--as in what are you expecting?

If it is everywhere it should be straightforward for you to give a handful of examples. From what you have said so far I have no idea what you are talking about, so examples would be a great start. From your examples, other observations, questions and requests might follow.

 

[Yazata]

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

One problem right out of the gate is that 'alien' is being interpreted to mean 'extraterrestrial'. I don't think that exhausts the possibilities. That's one of MR's points, and he's currently being flamed for saying it by some of the board idiots ('changing the goal posts', they call it). Anyone who reads science fiction (wonderful for stretching the imagination) will recognize that aliens might hypothetically be time travelers or even visitors from parallel universes in some as-yet unknown multiverse physics. There's potentially little limit on what they might be, perhaps something totally unexpected and unforseen.

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.

Our basic limitation is that we only have a sample size of one. My own view is that intelligent aliens probably do exist out there, but will turn out to be far more alien than we currently picture then as being. Alien biochemically, if they had an entirely different chemical origin, and most likely exceedingly different psychologically as well. I'm imagining intelligent social insects and things like that. (Even that is an earthly analogy, and I'm anticipating things with no earthly analogy.) Humans might not be able to communicate with them, and conceivably might have trouble even recognizing them as conscious and intelligent, apart from their use of technology perhaps. (Who was it, Arthur Clarke, who said that any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic?) So I'm inherently skeptical about drawing conclusions about sentient life everywhere in the universe based on our own history.

(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?

Life, in the sense of self-replicating chemistries subject to natural selection might be relatively rare. Ones that have evolved to intelligent sentience might be exceedingly rare. (There has been intelligent life on Earth for only a tiny fraction of its history.) So I can speculate that discovering something like us might arguably be very interesting to intelligent space aliens, no matter how different their biologies, psychologies and histories.

I skipped the third reason because I thought that it was dependent on 1. and 2. and I've already commented on those.

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'm a bit doubtful about Sciforums' often-repeated slogan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", because 'extraordinary' is never defined. (In medieval Europe, the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun was an extraordinary claim.) What makes a claim 'extraordinary'? What would render a piece of evidence 'extraordinary'? My guess is that the answer to the first is 'inconsistent with our current assumptions', and the latter might amount to 'nothing' in practice. (I don't think that our "skeptics" are prepared to accept any evidence for the existence of things that they don't already believe in.)

As for me, regarding ufos, I would be swayed by evidence that the world's governments and militaries believe that ufos are alien visitors. Presumably they have access to many sources of information that I don't. Right now, I don't see that. The world's governments react to ufos with a collective shrug and are far more fixated on their own inane domestic politics. But if I ever see them responding to ufo reports with urgency, sending hordes of investigators to interview anyone who reports a sighting and pouring money into space defenses and SETI, I might start to wonder whether they have discovered something.

 

[Russ_Watters]

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)...
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)

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).

Ok, well, I misinterpreted. So you can ignore my previous post.

There isn't much that cane be done with this claim of yours. You are free to believe it, but it is of course inherrently unprovable, not to mention self contradictory. You claim tof know there is secret knowledge who's content you don't know, except that you do know it includes positive proof of alien visitation even though you haven't seen the evidence. Not sure why you believe that, but ok...

 

[Russ_Watters]

i am right-- again, i have access to all this--this is my career.

Wait, what? You have access to government secret science knowledge that we don't? Can't you get arrested or fired for telling us this?

In any case, you must understand that part of the issue here is trust/verification. I would need to see the evidence for myself in order to accept it.

 

[Magical Realist]

My own view is that intelligent aliens probably do exist out there, but will turn out to be far more alien than we currently picture then as being. Alien biochemically, if they had an entirely different chemical origin, and most likely exceedingly different psychologically as well.

This is why I also shy away from the ET interpretation of ufos. Many of the sightings of occupants are of humanoids, many around 4 feet tall, and apparently breathing our atmosphere. This is an unlikely scenario for real ET's. A real ET will likely be so different from us it will hardly be recognizeable as a lifeform. A blob? A silicon based entity? Who can fathom the possibilities of evolution? But this raises the question of why the interdimensionals appear as THEY do? What is their game here, and what are they trying to pull off? It just gets more mysterious the more you research it.

 

[krash661]

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.

it is not that my claims are not supported, it is a matter of whom is talking to me claiming that my claims are not supported-- get it now?
a very significant last line : "the only vindication i can imagine would be if the government finally revealed all of what they know about these aliens."
the fact of this topic tittle speaks volumes of what is to come from all of this. which is why i will not play this game that you all are initiating. it is this simple.
" show them the errors of what they are doing "-- which i have done and then you stepped in continuing with the pathetic nonsense, correct?
" Just please don't make claims that you are perhaps unwilling to support. "-- i had typed this yesterday: " how do you even know you are correct? again, i bet you are one of those individuals whom does not have access and experience with such things, correct? then explain how you are also not being hypocritical due to your own words above. " [...] " , you are simply not comprehending, your so-called " no substantial evidence " which you are screaming as a fact, is simply your own piss-ant opinion, which is incorrect in its up-most. you are simply playing your pathetic game at this point. (shakes head)-- carry on with your pathetic hypocritical, contradicting, shenanigans. " [...] "
explain how this is not a hypocrisy?--in other words:

• It would be sheer hypocrisy for them to turn around and do what they criticize in others.

" [...] " 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, "

 

[C C]

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 share the doubts. Ironically, skepticism about UFOs being space aliens (or their having visited Earth in general) is at least one area where non-biologists finally get a bit sensible about extraterrestrial intelligence. Whereas in different contexts many scientists seem to rhapsodise about sapient life forms being abundant in the Milky Way. Physicists, chemists, etc tend to take a deterministic stance about natural selection outputting intelligence; whereas biologists tend to take an opportunistic view whose pessimism is occasionally mitigated with appeals to convergent evolution (which Gould emphasized in regard to the subject).

I assert this for three main reasons: [...] (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?

Von Neumann probes would be replicating their way over the galaxy without necessarily any specific targets interest of beforehand. I.e., they might chance upon _x_ in the course of those explorations. But as for the solar system (and especially Earth) being "boring" [while acknowledging in fairness that you may only be glancingly / indirectly touching upon what I'm addressing here] ... That's one of the more disingenuous cliches that's been uttered or set to text for decades. It's extracted from the supposed apathy / minimal curiosity of humans in general [and what the exploitive interests of commercial / industrial enterprises can be limited to]. Rather than the wide-ranging "egghead" fixations and interests of the scientific community itself. Which includes efforts to continuously catalog and index the existing phenomena on Earth and "out there" (an endeavor prior to the theory-making and explanations the expanding database may stimulate).

Despite there being circa 400,000 species of beetles, entomologists still go bonkers over tiny jewel beetles like Lepismadora algodones being discovered. Researchers are interested in barren landscapes on Mars and other astronomical environments which might seem boring / uninteresting to the average person [once the initial novelty wears off and the lack of Barsoom aborigines, Annunaki, tribbles, etc becomes apparent]. Zoologists and anthropologists alike have obsessed over documenting the behaviors and rituals of specific animals and human cultures (respectively) in minute detail no matter how common ("seen this before") they might be. Just imagine how crazy they would go over discovering "space alien" habitats and societies and having access to them (i.e., there would no such thing as a "boring" for them in that territory).

For us to even grudgingly allow that "intelligent ETs might be studying / exploring beyond their own world" is to unavoidably be projecting anthropic characteristics like scientific curiosity upon them (as if labeling them "intelligent" isn't already doing that). Which would embrace the above passions wherein there is no planet too mundane to not be wasting study / itemization time on.

Add to that the likelihood that any interstellar space exploration would be conducted by Von Neumann Probes (as illustrated in 2001: A Space Odyssey) or whatever "robotic life", which could either hibernate or retreat into the innerspace of virtual reality preoccupations while crossing the centuries and millennia between planetary systems... Then there might be entities with potentially even less concern about becoming bored by the antics of fauna and flora on Earth. If they had been around for ages and outrageously contributed to the evolutionary development of human ancestors (like Clarke's black monoliths), then the tendency to "hang around" would be deeper yet -- to observe what happens and serve the role as sentry or guardian.

But that said, and to return again to the start: I don't optimistically consider the Milky Way to be overflowing with sapient organisms and artificial explorers, so that they have chanced upon us in the course of taking extraordinarily long voyages between stars. I'm just dismissing Earth as "boring and mundane" as a reason for what would be their absence in poking Earth research-wise (if such beings / robots were available).

 

[krash661]

From what you have said so far I have no idea what you are talking about

i am sure, as you sit here and have the notion that you can say what is and is not correct--comical.

 

[krash661]

You claim tof know there is secret knowledge who's content you don't know,

no, incorrect-- i am saying if it is not evidence, then according whom though?-- simply because the ones whom are screaming in this topic seriously does not have a clue abut any of this as they play their " i for sure know without access to such things " shenanigans, when in reality, they are just as clueless and incorrect as they are screaming others are. there is no evidence that all of this is not true just as much of the evidence of it being true. these shenanigans are a massive, pathetic joke.

self contradictory

except i have not-- you need to comprehend everything i have stated, that i have stated clearly.

except that you do know it includes positive proof of alien visitation even though you haven't seen the evidence. Not sure why you believe that, but ok...

except you are clearly incorrect, simply due to fact that i have clearly stated that i have, i even used the word tangibly. (shrugs)

 

[krash661]

Wait, what? You have access to government secret science knowledge that we don't? Can't you get arrested or fired for telling us this?

In any case, you must understand that part of the issue here is trust/verification. I would need to see the evidence for myself in order to accept it.

yes-- i have endlessly stated on this site that i am a tier one government scientist and that i work on such things.

Can't you get arrested or fired for telling us this?

you are correct, i am limited to what i can reveal--but so far everything i have stated does not violate any gag orders i am under.
i will finish this later, i must go now.

 

[Russ_Watters]

yes-- i have endlessly stated on this site that i am a tier one government scientist and that i work on such things.

Sorry, I guess I missed that. I'd be fascinated to discuss it with you, but I understand that we can't.

That must make a lot of the UFO and other discussions look pointless to you, but unfortunately your just stating that you Know doesn't really help us any.

 

[Billy T]

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

For anyone who undersatands the three reasons I gave in post 124, each separately telling why it is extremely improbable that alien craft, even just robtic ones, would visit Earth.

In general, the "public" likes to believe in improbable things, like big foot, the lock nest monster, their winning the lottery, a "free lunch," an after life in "heaven" and of course, UFOs.

 

[Sarkus]

it is not that my claims are not supported, it is a matter of whom is talking to me claiming that my claims are not supported-- get it now?

You are talking to us, and to us your claims are not supported. If that is as far as you intend to go then all you have done is effectively say "You're wrong... but you'll just have to trust me". You're surely intelligent enough (since you claim to be a tier one scientist) to comprehend how you come across to us and how your trust alone won't wash as support?

" Just please don't make claims that you are perhaps unwilling to support. "-- i had typed this yesterday: " how do you even know you are correct?...

Correct about what? I'm merely asking you not to make claims that you are unwilling to support. I am making no claims. If you're willing to support your claims, great. If not, whether 'cos your unwilling or, say, legally unable, really doesn't make a blind bit of difference.
Those in the know, as you claim to be, are irrelevant to those who aren't unless they can provide not only claims but the support for those claims that will convince those other people.
Are you irrelevant to us?

 

[Baldeee]

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).

I think it's been asked by others, but I'll ask again:
please can you provide examples of each, just so I'm aware of what sort of things you're referring to, please.
Sarkus asked the same and you asked him to explain his question, so I will pre-empt the same request from you:
I am not sure of the difference between what you classify as "public's science" and "real science".
I would like to know.
I am aware that some science is more popular than others, some gets popularised in the media etc, but I'm curious as to what government science you think is about 40 years ahead, for example.
There really is no agenda behind the question other than curiosity.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I think it's been asked by others, but I'll ask again:
please can you provide examples of each, just so I'm aware of what sort of things you're referring to, please.
Sarkus asked the same and you asked him to explain his question, so I will pre-empt the same request from you:
I am not sure of the difference between what you classify as "public's science" and "real science".
I would like to know.
I am aware that some science is more popular than others, some gets popularised in the media etc, but I'm curious as to what government science you think is about 40 years ahead, for example.
There really is no agenda behind the question other than curiosity.

It appears to me that he is saying he has access to secret advanced science/technology that he his not permitted to disclose. So he can't answer that.

 

[krash661]

Sorry, I guess I missed that. I'd be fascinated to discuss it with you, but I understand that we can't.

yes-- i understand this-- i will tell you that, that my personal engagements are another story-- if you can catch the " drift"

That must make a lot of the UFO and other discussions look pointless to you, but unfortunately your just stating that you Know doesn't really help us any.

yes-- exactly, but maybe only to a some-what point-- i am still curious of what is out there in this subject from the public--which is why i frequent these types of topics.

but unfortunately your just stating that you Know doesn't really help us any.

yes-- i acknowledge and understand the irony of my words-- but at some point this ridiculing of MR needs to cease and i am the only one whom can help with that, simply from my experience--whether i am believed or not..
i thank you and appreciate it, russ, for initiating an actual discussion of, and not simply initiating the pathetic shenanigans as the others are doing.

 

[krash661]

For anyone who undersatands the three reasons I gave in post 124, each separately telling why it is extremely improbable that alien craft, even just robtic ones, would visit Earth.

i do and i still have that exact same question again. so now what?

In general, the "public" likes to believe in improbable things, like big foot, the lock nest monster, their winning the lottery, a "free lunch," an after life in "heaven" and of course, UFOs.

except i have not touched on those things for reasons. but this UFO and such-es pertaining are a different element for me.

 

[Baldeee]

It appears to me that he is saying he has access to secret advanced science/technology that he his not permitted to disclose. So he can't answer that.

That would be a shame.
Sounds intriguing if true.