What is your "red line" that would make you unambiguously and sincerely say with full belief, "Aliens are real and are or have been on Earth"?

What's more, beyond a certain distance we might just as well be alone as any civilization would be undetectable.
I agree. But more to the point, beyond a certain distance any civilization would be unreachable.

An interesting thought: I wonder what curiosity/confusion/fear (not to mention new conspiracy theories) would be engendered in the human race in that intervening space between detection and contact. Such a time lag is, I would think, inevitable, if there are any other life forms within range of any new detection techniques that may be developed in the future. As it is, we have just begun in recent years to identify exoplanets as "earth-like" in size, distance, and chemical composition, so such detection is in its infancy. My prediction is that someday we will be able to identify with confidence if a planet contains the chemical signals of the products of metabolism, but of course that doesn't distinguish between intelligent life and bacterial slime.
 
I wonder what curiosity/confusion/fear (not to mention new conspiracy theories) would be engendered in the human race in that intervening space between detection and contact.
One of the reasons I became convinced the governments of the world wouldn't NEED to hide aliens visiting us was seeing how information spread on social media and how quickly people got over amazing or horrible things. I think there would be 2 or 3 days when the world would be amazed and horrified. 2 or 3 more days of rabid discussions about what it all meant. And then we'd be onto the next thing. Conspiracy theorists would do their thing, of course. But I think once the world became globally exposed to the reality of life outside of our planet, the curiosity would die off relatively quickly and we'd shift to diminishing the importance of it.
 
My red line would be pushing my way to the front of the gathered crowd and press, grasping one of our alien guests by the claw and saying "live long and prosper" whilst making the appropriate sign. :)

Honestly, I have no idea what my red line is. I have seen so many images and heard so many stories over the decades that my mind is full of Hollywood invention. Which is polluting what ET would look and act like to me without my own total third kind close encounter.

Which would probably clinch it!
 
Nothing short of broad-scale international consensus across a range of established scientific disciplines, from astronomers to physicists to biologists, that we had discovered (or had been discovered by) the material product of a lifeform originating outside our solar system.
 
I realize in my limited posting here I may come off as a "believer", but if on a 0-100 scale, that a hard zero (I will say unapologetically) is a clown like Phillip Klass who even left it in his last will and testament that no one should ever have confirmation of aliens out of his virulent spite, and a 100 is the sort of person who will literally believe anything that implies "alien", no matter how wildly crazy or improbably... I'm somewhere in the 50-75 range.

Sort of like:

  • 0: "I'm Phillip Klass, and you're an idiot."
  • 1-25: we're alone in all the totality of space/time. There's just us.
  • 25-50: obviously we're not alone today or previously, or in the future, but they sure ain't here.
  • 51-75: obviously we're not alone, and there sure is a reasonable amount of circumstantial evidence of Earth and human alien contact... I want to believe in it.
  • 76-99: I think they're probably here and at least some of these persistent reports/leaks are 100% true, such as a Grusch or Ariel.
  • 100: "By the end of 2027, you'll be seeing things like I do. It's all true. All of it."

I think it's absurd statistically to assume "Earth" is some magical place in all the infinite number of galaxies in space that we are the only intelligent life to ever appear some 16 billion years after the Big Bang. I certainly can't prove they've been to Earth, but something is out there somewhere. I believe the evidence is fairly overwhelming that the US government at minimum aggressively classifies anything that overtly could prove or disprove any such topic to totally obtuse ends, and has for generations. I don't believe the hundreds upon hundreds of leakers and whistleblowers, and multiple witnesses of notable mass sightings like Stephenville are wrong or crazy: we can't today prove they saw a space ship, or NHI controlled space ships, but it seems fairly inane to deluded to say thousands upon thousands or more people over the past century all are wrong, from regular people to various otherwise trustworthy people in their government roles.

On that scale, I'd put myself somewhere around 60-70, and some days I'd say I bump up around 76~. I'm very keen, for instance, to especially read Colonel Carl Knells remarks at the Sol Foundation this coming Saturday.

My soft red line is the US government from the Executive Branch/White House simply saying so, especially if it comes from POTUS. There is basically no walking it back or a "do over" if the President sat at the Resolute Desk says "We are not alone." If and when that happens, it can only happen once, ever.

My hard red line is literally seeing them on standard "TV news" such as live cameras, on something like CNN or MSNBC, with "flying saucers" or equivalent in plain sight in daylight over somewhere like DC, NYC or London, up to seeing occupants get out and enter the White House. I don't need peer reviewed academic journals if we have starships and aliens literally running humanitarian missions, for an example hypothetical, with human media doing a "ride along", or Anderson Cooper doing a "live report" from orbit on a giant ship. It'll be fun to read the rapidly expanding Wikipedia articles (plus seeing the schadenfreude devour the fairly obnoxious and rude "anti-ufology" crowd on Wikipedia) and scientific papers, but that would come later.

So I'm a firm "I want to believe" but want proof, and those are my broad red lines.

What are your red lines, and where are you on the 0-100 scale?
There really is no evidence to support any of the ideas for extraterrestrial activity on earth. If we were to be generous and think about what potential extraterrestrial activity would look like it would be the whale probe from Star Trek, without the drama. It would not be the joyriding, cattle mutilating, crop circling aliens which have been popularized by the community.
The science is just completely against what has become the pop culture representation of extraterrestrials and most people don’t understand this. Yes, anything is possible but a lot of that is extremely unlikely.
 
One of the reasons I became convinced the governments of the world wouldn't NEED to hide aliens visiting us was seeing how information spread on social media and how quickly people got over amazing or horrible things. I think there would be 2 or 3 days when the world would be amazed and horrified. 2 or 3 more days of rabid discussions about what it all meant. And then we'd be onto the next thing.
Yeah the next Celeb scandal or what not would soon knock the aliens off the news. Humans after a short time are remarkably adaptable and get accustomed very quickly, Look at covid and facemasks etc, after a month it was just the new normal. Now its like 'hmmm, Did that happen?'
But my main complaint about the government is hiding it from us 'cause the public can't handle the truth or whatever' that the conspiracy guys come up with, Is Its goes completely against the governments own self interest.

If they had evidence of aliens they would be asking we need 100s of billions of dollars to study the aliens more, to assess the threat to humanity and what not, Its practically a blank check. What government does not want a Blank Check?
 
Yes, anything is possible but a lot of that is extremely unlikely.

Just out of curiosity, may I ask you what did you mean as "anything"?

Just asking, you know many UFO researchers nowadays suspect there's something more to it that is not yet either analised (for lack of better data) or understood by the scientific community. As an example, apart from unclassified stuff that's still lacking scientific explanation there's still much unclassified stuff waiting to be analised.
 
there's still much unclassified stuff waiting to be analised.
Do you have evidence for that claim?

"Unexplained", sure, because you can't really explain fuzzy white or black dots; but for the same reason, that's as far as the analysis goes on these, so I wouldn't call these "waiting to be a analysed" because that implies they can be analysed—but they can't, no data.
 
Do you have evidence for that claim?

"Unexplained", sure, because you can't really explain fuzzy white or black dots; but for the same reason, that's as far as the analysis goes on these, so I wouldn't call these "waiting to be a analysed" because that implies they can be analysed—but they can't, no data.

Are you kidding?
Sorry, don't really know about you, but I don't need to be a UFO researcher to realise there's PLENTY of stuff endlessly discussed albeit still "lacking better data". You don't even need to go as far as researching those huge databases, you can find in this same forum some of those examples I referred to, they had pages and pages of discussion here, would you tell me the reason for that? Do you want just one example? Okay. Go looking for the '76 Iran UFO, that case was already extensively discussed here, without arriving to at least a plausible consensus of what it could be. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with respect of the amount of unsolved cases, as I definitely won't have the time to be digging into enormous databases/archives of unclassified files.

But okay, I can help addressing you to some of those databases. The Air Force seemingly makes things easier for us as it lists cases for every month that are "info only" and not actual cases. But it's definitely amazing the so big list of actual cases people can find under the Air Force Blue Book files, I ought to delve into them some day. So far I dug into only one of them that's with the "card" missing -- The Congo Uranium Mine UFO, a 1952 case from the Congo. The Atomic Energy Commission was also involved on its investigation:

Congo Saucer Source - There are two
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000015463.pdf

Have a happy holidays sir!
 
Sorry, don't really know about you, but I don't need to be a UFO researcher to realise there's PLENTY of stuff endlessly discussed albeit still lacking better data. You don't even need to go as far as researching those huge databases, you can find in this same forum some of those examples I referred to, they had pages and pages of discussion here, would you tell me the reason for that? Do you want just one example? Okay. Go looking for the '76 Iran UFO, that case was already extensively discussed here, without arriving to at least a plausible consensus of what it could be.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/tehran-ufo-f4-dogfight.1377/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-1976-iran-f4-uap-ufo-case.12965/
The result is inconclusive, due to conflicting witness statements and a lack of hard data.

Why do think that this case can be analysed more than it has been?
What about this case makes you believe in alien vists? Or, what result should the analysis show to make you believe?
 
So far I dug into only one of them that's with the "card" missing -- The Congo Uranium Mine UFO, a 1952 case from the Congo. The Atomic Energy Commission was also involved on its investigation:

Congo Saucer Source - There are two
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000015463.pdf
SmartSelect_20231227-153211_Samsung Notes.jpg

The CIA has no primary material. They report (in August!) on an item publushed in March 1952 in an Austrian daily newspaper about something that happened in Congo. There is no data, just a witness report. This was 70 years ago, what do you expect analysis to be able to achieve?
 
More than once on this forum I had to ask some of you gentlemen, and am asking again not to put words in my mouth. Thank you!
If the analysis of this case has no impact on whether anyone/you believes in UFOs, then why are you citing it here?

And why are you quoting only half of what I wrote? I resent that very much, because the full quote shows I did not "put words in your mouth", I asked you a question.
 
If the analysis of this case has no impact on whether anyone/you believes in UFOs, then why are you citing it here?

Let me get this straight please, are you implying that unsolved UFO cases might make me believe that UFOs are real? FWIW, I'm not the one who tried to imply that I believe in Alien visit. Funny your logic then, because any reasonable mindset realise UFOs and Aliens doesn't mean the same thing at all.

As for your other questions, please don't try to imply also that any unsolved case should be definitely and completely dismissed from the table just because of lack of better data for a scientific scrutiny. It's clear for anyone who check them up that more data should be collected for that matter instead of completely forgetting them as irrelevant for the UFO research.
 
Let me get this straight please, are you implying that unsolved UFO cases might make me believe that UFOs are real? FWIW, I'm not the one who tried to imply that I believe in Alien visit. Funny your logic then, because any reasonable mindset realise UFOs and Aliens doesn't mean the same thing at all.
The topic of this thread is, What is your "red line" that would make you unambiguously and sincerely say with full belief, "Aliens are real and are or have been on Earth"?
You have brought unsolved UFO cases into this discussion, in post #208. I am trying to understand how these are related for you.

You seem to suggest they are not related. Then this diversion is off topic, and I am asking @Landru to remove this diversion.
 
Just asking, you know many UFO researchers nowadays suspect there's something more to it that is not yet either analised (for lack of better data) or understood by the scientific community.
UFO researchers "suspect" = not evidence.
Something to it = not evidence.
Not yet analyzed (for lack of better data) = that answers itself. Lack of better data means there's nothing more TO analyze.
Or understood by the scientific community = not understood means we don't know = not evidence.

We can't work with vague suspicions. We can't analyze data that isn't there.
 
UFO researchers "suspect" = not evidence.
Something to it = not evidence.
Not yet analyzed (for lack of better data) = that answers itself. Lack of better data means there's nothing more TO analyze.
Or understood by the scientific community = not understood means we don't know = not evidence.

We can't work with vague suspicions. We can't analyze data that isn't there.

You guys are fast to jump to conclusions based on assumptions aren't you? I'm not claiming there's enough evidence on all the unsolved cases that merit further investigation, not at all. But sorry, even for those with insufficient data that's not a good excuse to throw them in the recycle bin once and for all, there's a trove of information from them to be also kept on the table. And again, please stop with this unfounded assumption that I'm claiming something about the UFO phenomenon.
Anyway, if your consensus is that I got a bit off-topic on here, then please feel free to delete my messages on this thread. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
I'm not claiming there's enough evidence on all the unsolved cases that merit further investigation, not at all.
Yes, you are claiming that in your next sentence. You want the cases with indufficient data to be kept on the table.
But sorry, even for those with insufficient data that's not a good excuse to throw them in the recycle bin once and for all, there's a trove of information from them to be also kept on the table.
And this is a claim ("there's a trove of information") that, in your next sentence, you deny making.
And again, please stop with this unfounded assumption that I'm claiming something about the UFO phenomenon.
The assumptions are founded.

Your claim that these old UFO cases have some kind of value ("trove") is not founded.
And, when asked, you've refused founding it.
 
Yes, you are claiming that in your next sentence. You want the cases with indufficient data to be kept on the table.

And this is a claim ("there's a trove of information") that, in your next sentence, you deny making.

The assumptions are founded.

Your claim that these old UFO cases have some kind of value ("trove") is not founded.
And, when asked, you've refused founding it.

To me there's nothing else to be discussed about this any more, so sorry. Unfortunately there's a clear trend on this forum to assume people's opposing opinions as claims.
I'm definitely moving on, have a happy holidays.
 
Just out of curiosity, may I ask you what did you mean as "anything"?

Just asking, you know many UFO researchers nowadays suspect there's something more to it that is not yet either analised (for lack of better data) or understood by the scientific community. As an example, apart from unclassified stuff that's still lacking scientific explanation there's still much unclassified stuff waiting to be analised.
I meant that while it is reasonably and practically correct to entirely disregard extraterrestrial, inter dimensional, time traveling, non human alien technologically advanced civilizations as the cause of crop circles and even though there is absolutely no evidence which would suggest this idea, absolutely eliminating it seems technically incorrect. It is simpler to say that there is no evidence that suggests or supports the idea and considering it would be irrational.
I am unaware of any serious evidence based research which suggests extraterrestrial, inter dimensional, time traveling, non human alien civilizations as an explanation or conclusion for any observations or measurements.
 
I meant that while it is reasonably and practically correct to entirely disregard extraterrestrial, inter dimensional, time traveling, non human alien technologically advanced civilizations as the cause of crop circles and even though there is absolutely no evidence which would suggest this idea, absolutely eliminating it seems technically incorrect. It is simpler to say that there is no evidence that suggests or supports the idea and considering it would be irrational.
I am unaware of any serious evidence based research which suggests extraterrestrial, inter dimensional, time traveling, non human alien civilizations as an explanation or conclusion for any observations or measurements.

To help clarify, there is verifiable science, and then there is unverifiable evidence.

This goes back to the discussion ITT about the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

The theory for black holes came from a theory about dark stars in the late 1700s and later from unobservable equations derived from Einstein's equations, rather than a physical hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

So even though the scientific community generally requires verifiable and objective evidence for validation, and personal testimonies due to their subjective nature are not typically considered sufficient to establish a scientific context, I think the number of them from around the world about religious experiences and UFO sightings is a form of evidence for UFOs

Another soft red line for me is that for 70 years we've been had a lot of sightings and claims of military involvement in UFO sightings/crashes, but the only verifiable evidence we have that the military hasn't acquired any extra terrestrial artifacts or whatever you want to call 'alien stuff', is a guy inside the pentagon assuring us that it's all baloney.

But these are soft because they are just evidence (to me!) not to science.
 
Last edited:
The theory for black holes came from a theory about dark stars in the late 1700s and later from unobservable equations derived from Einstein's equations, rather than a physical hypothesis.
Hold up a second.
During 1783 geologist John Michell wrote a letter to Henry Cavendish outlining the expected properties of dark stars, published by The Royal Society in their 1784 volume. Michell calculated that when the escape velocity at the surface of a star was equal to or greater than lightspeed, the generated light would be gravitationally trapped so that the star would not be visible to a distant astronomer.
Michell took two physical theories of Isaac Newton, about gravity and light (the light part being partially incorrect) to derive a testable prediction, properly call a scientific hypothesis. Since the science is physics, you could call it a physical hypothesis.
The Schwarzschild solution is named in honour of Karl Schwarzschild, who found the exact solution in 1915 and published it in January 1916,[9] a little more than a month after the publication of Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was the first exact solution of the Einstein field equations other than the trivial flat space solution. [...]

A more complete analysis of the singularity structure was given by David Hilbert[13] in the following year, identifying the singularities both at r = 0 and r = rs. Although there was general consensus that the singularity at r = 0 was a 'genuine' physical singularity, the nature of the singularity at r = rs remained unclear. [...]

Later, in 1932, Georges Lemaître gave a different coordinate transformation (Lemaître coordinates) to the same effect and was the first to recognize that this implied that the singularity at r = rs was not physical. In 1939 Howard Robertson showed that a free falling observer descending in the Schwarzschild metric would cross the r = rs singularity in a finite amount of proper time even though this would take an infinite amount of time in terms of coordinate time t.[14] [...]

However, perhaps due to the obscurity of the journals in which the papers of Lemaître and Synge were published their conclusions went unnoticed, with many of the major players in the field including Einstein believing that the singularity at the Schwarzschild radius was physical. [...]

Real progress was made in the 1960s when the mathematically rigorous formulation cast in terms of differential geometry entered the field of general relativity, allowing more exact definitions of what it means for a Lorentzian manifold to be singular. This led to definitive identification of the r = rs singularity in the Schwarzschild metric as an event horizon, i.e., a hypersurface in space-time that can be crossed in only one direction. [...]
Again, here we have an established, exact physical theory, and a lively argument as to what exactly this theory predicts.

The predicted "dark stars" aka black holes have since been observed to exist, validating these predictions.

----

There is no exact theory of aliens. Current UFOlogy won't even agree on where they come from in principle. Nothing about UFOlogy comes even close to the rigor of the aforementioned black hole hypotheses. Nothing in those "mountains of evidence" invoked in this thread has helped UFOlogy settle on a single, testable, falsifiable prediction regarding UFOs.

So when you say you have a "form of evidence for UFOs", what exactly is the phenomenon you have evidence of?

Most of the posters who have proposed a "red line" in this thread have done so in a way that would give them some answers to this question. The "dark star"/black hole physicists had exact predictions, too.

But it seems impossible to find existing evidence that will stand up to scrutiny that proves anything about aliens (or about what material the Pentagon is hiding). That's why the theories about those are unfounded, and are not comparable to scientific theories (as you note yourself).

So ...not evidence. We're not here to discuss your subjective opinions that don't agree with science.
I think subjective belief is actually on topic here: What is your "red line" that would make you unambiguously and sincerely say with full belief, "Aliens are real and are or have been on Earth"?

But I think it's fair to point out that these opinions aren't scientific when it's suggested that they are.
 
Last edited:
So when you say you have a "form of evidence for UFOs", what exactly is the phenomenon you have evidence of?
personal testimonies, I think the number of them from around the world about religious experiences and UFO sightings is a form of evidence for UFOs.

Most of the posters who have proposed a "red line" in this thread have done so in a way that would give them some answers to this question.
But these are soft because they are just evidence (to me!) not to science.

Hope this helps clear things up!
 
Last edited:
To help clarify, there is verifiable science, and then there is unverifiable evidence.

This goes back to the discussion ITT about the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

The theory for black holes came from a theory about dark stars in the late 1700s and later from unobservable equations derived from Einstein's equations, rather than a physical hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

So even though the scientific community generally requires verifiable and objective evidence for validation, and personal testimonies due to their subjective nature are not typically considered sufficient to establish a scientific context, I think the number of them from around the world about religious experiences and UFO sightings is a form of evidence for UFOs

Another soft red line for me is that for 70 years we've been had a lot of sightings and claims of military involvement in UFO sightings/crashes, but the only verifiable evidence we have that the military hasn't acquired any extra terrestrial artifacts or whatever you want to call 'alien stuff', is a guy inside the pentagon assuring us that it's all baloney.

But these are soft because they are just evidence (to me!) not to science.
I don’t get your point on verifiable or verifiable and your concept of evidence is a bit confusing. For example the theory of relativity is evidence of a mathematical model of space time and black hole. It could also be evidence of extreme creativity or even great insight and intuition. It is not evidence of black holes. Evidence for black holes was found using the theory of relativity which helped determine what data to look for.
Evidence is not just data disconnected from the world around it. It must be evidence for something and there needs to be a reasonable rational pathway from the evidence to the conclusion. The theory of relativity provides a reasonable rational pathway from the evidence to the phenomena. Without the theory of relativity we would not have a defined phenomena to link with the evidence had we been able to collect it prior to the theory.
In that sense there in no evidence for extraterrestrial, inter dimensional, time traveling, non human alien technologically advance activity on earth. There simply is no data which reasonably and rationally leads to that conclusion. The convoluted pathway one needs to take to go from bovine mutilations, crop circles, blurry lights in the sky, alleged abductions on remote interstate highways to ET cannot be considered rational or reasonable. That is where we have a difference on opinion of the practical definition of evidence.
 
Michell took two physical theories of Isaac Newton, about gravity and light (the light part being partially incorrect) to derive a testable prediction, properly call a scientific hypothesis. Since the science is physics, you could call it a physical hypothesis.

Indeed, a scientific hypothesis must be supported (or falsified) with observable evidence, otherwise it's merely scientific speculation.
On the other hand, people here will continue to be wrong when assuming that any speculation about UFOs should always be dismissed as completely subjective opinion with absolutely zero observed evidence of any category or sort.

Nothing about UFOlogy comes even close to the rigor of the aforementioned black hole hypotheses. Nothing in those "mountains of evidence" invoked in this thread has helped UFOlogy settle on a single, testable, falsifiable prediction regarding UFOs.

Let me correct your statement:

Nothing in those "mountains of evidence" invoked in this thread has CURRENTLY helped the scientific community to settle on a single, testable, falsifiable prediction regarding UFOs.

It's clear that you are not following the scientific data recollection going on right now for that matter, it's just a question of time for the scientific community to support or falsify what's been alleged for at least seventy years by UFO researchers and UFOlogists alike. And no wonder you'll have to wait no longer than half an year or less for their conclusions to be made public, given the rate at which the increasing amount of scientists have been joining endeavors on that subject.
 
On the other hand, people here will continue to be wrong when assuming that any speculation about UFOs should always be dismissed as completely subjective opinion with absolutely zero observed evidence of any category or sort.

And to make it even more clear, for that matter I'm referring to some of the well-known, so-called wild speculations.
 
it's just a question of time for the scientific community to support or falsify what's been alleged for at least seventy years by UFO researchers and UFOlogists alike.
That's what's been happening for seventy years.

If the premise is "alien creatures visit earth", it isn't falsifiable, so it isn't something that can be debunked as a blanket statement. Each sighting, each report, each photo, must be tackled individually. Many have been thoroughly debunked. Many others are in the LIZ, with not enough info to study.

If the premise is "no alien creatures visit earth", all that must be done is to produce one alien to disprove it.
 
We're not here to discuss your subjective opinions that don't agree with science.
We kind of are through, in this thread about what would be your red line to believe something. The answer to that has pretty much GOT to be subjective, in the sense of what would change the belief of you, the subject, concerning the phenomenon in question. And there is no wrong answer to the question posed in this thread. I could say, for example, that my red line would be crossed if my respected father told me he'd seen alien creatures and flown around with them in their interestingly hubcap-shaped vehicles. That would not make YOU believe anything, and certainly would not be scientific evidence of anything unless he had some sort of "swag bag" they gave him as the 10,000th contactee, filled with high tech marvels. But unless you wanted to argue that I was lying, to you or to myself, the answer I gave would be correct and responsive to the topic of the thread, I'd say.
 
It's clear that you are not following the scientific data recollection going on right now for that matter, it's just a question of time for the scientific community to support or falsify what's been alleged for at least seventy years by UFO researchers and UFOlogists alike.

What is a "scientific data recollection"? Hashing through old UFO reports? If there was limited data 10, 20 or 30 years ago, what's to "recollect"? If anything, going back to primary sources, if available, clears up many UFO claims. Much of the lore and supposed evidence in big cases like Roswell and Rendlesham were added over many years until we have the canonical versions of today. All of the witness testimony and photographs from Roswell at the time show some sort of balloon. No bodies, no multiple crash sites, no alien craft. It was all added 30-40 years later. Same with Rendlesham.

Exactly which UFOlogical allegations is the scientific community going to support or falsify? Alien visitation, crop circles, alien abduction, cattle mutilations, glowing orbs, lost time, crashed UFOs, meta-materials, Dulce base, alien treaties, UFO Bigfoot, greys, Nordics or any of the dozens of other claims made by UFOlogist? There needs to be some sort of central claim to support of falsify.
 
I don’t get your point on verifiable or verifiable and your concept of evidence is a bit confusing.

Afaik we can't use verifiable data to prove aliens created us, but it would make a whole lot of sense to me if they did.

If the universe can exist for billions of years, and it's possible for a life form to exist for that long in it... well if that was me and if I had the ability to create a species in a solar system somewhere, I would.

For me, there is enough evidence through testimony alone of strange visitations and other religious experiences people have had to make me think that there's a natural delusion we all suffer from or some invisible entity affecting the push and pull of our lives... I think of the dark star and I think it's an example where an idea turned into a theory, that turned into a solution, that later turned out to be verifiable.

I think that us existing at all is a form of evidence for outside interference. And that's my soft red line.

What we seem to want from UFOs is verifiable proof. But for me that'd be my hard red line.
 
Last edited:
Eyewitness testimony by itself is worthless. People lie, people are confused, people don't understand what they are looking at.

I want hardware. Preferably parked on my front lawn. With a little green man knocking on my door saying "Take me to your leader."

Lights in the sky can be many things. Most of which have nothing to do with ET's. A flying saucer parked on the National Mall in Washington, as in that fine old movie "The Day the Earth Stood Still", is infinitely superior evidence. Why are people so quickly satisfied with easily fabricated eyewitness and photographic evidence? Maybe because of the total lack of irrefutable evidence?
 
it's just a question of time for the scientific community to support or falsify what's been alleged for at least seventy years by UFO researchers and UFOlogists alike. And no wonder you'll have to wait no longer than half an year or less for their conclusions to be made public
It's very difficult to falsify a negative.
If we hypothesize that the Earth has never been visited by extraterrestrials- and I don't believe that there is any compelling, testable evidence that it has been- then how could we prove that hypothesis? We can't.

If the Earth has been visited by extraterrestrials, and strong evidence of such a visit (i.e. something unambiguous that couldn't be faked) was collected and shared, and not falsified or found to be ambiguous after examination by multiple, credible scientific teams (preferably from more than one nation*) then it would be sensible to at least consider that the evidence might be of something real.

Not everyone would be convinced; there are always contrarians who will deny all evidence (like Flat Earthers, anti-vaccine agitators, Young Earth Creationists) and others who will be wary because of the numerous claims of "proof" made by UFO enthusiasts over the years.

But I think it very unlikely that convincing evidence of an ETI visit will be found in "...half a year or less..."
(is that a tie-in with Mr Elizondo's timeline?)
Capture.JPG

Posted today to Lue Elizondo's Facebook page. It smells like more conspiracy theory to me.
Equally, no-one in the next six months will be able to disprove that such an event has ever taken place- but that is not evidence by default for ET visitation.

I think I broadly agree with some earlier posters- a visit by ETI which left identifiable, verifiable evidence would be front-page news, comprehensively covered by the larger traditional news organisations, while social media would continue to bubble and froth with speculation, misinformation and opportunistic grandstanding much as it does now.
The opinions of notable "mainstream" astronomers, physicists, biologists etc. would be sought, which might be an unpleasant surprise for the vocal minority of scientists who believe- on the very questionable basis of past accounts- that we have already been visited. Material samples and/ or footage would be examined by teams from universities and establishments most of us have heard of, even if preservation and securing of the evidence were undertaken by a specific government agency.

Any bar for accepting claimed evidence of alien visitation would have to be set high.
Multiple eyewitness accounts are insufficient (think the Fatima "apparitions", 13 October 1917; or "the Washington Invasion"- which no-one photographed AFAIK, or the Farmington UFO reports of March 1950). Similarly, signed testimony, no matter by whom, is essentially worthless without corroborating physical evidence. People- and groups of people- make mistakes, sincerely hold false beliefs, or just downright lie, regardless of any oaths they are asked to take, all the time.

Footage shot by multiple cell phones from multiple standpoints might have been convincing just a few years ago; now it's conceivable that a shared app of sufficient (but achievable) sophistication could "paste in" footage of the same CGI craft or alien in a way consistent with each filming person's POV.

A worked metal artefact with isotope ratios different from terrestrial, or even solar system, norms would in itself be insufficient (although of great scientific interest); we know ancient cultures worked meteoric iron, and if Avi Loeb is correct then there are likely a few extra-solar meteorites dotted around the planet.

If a piece of (non-functional) hardware, say a section of material claimed to be from the skin of an alien craft were found in some dark corner of (e.g.) a USAF facility, it would be necessary to independently demonstrate that it was indeed extraterrestrial, not the product of a long-forgotten project to deceive Soviet intelligence, or even a training aid for a (hypothetically) real UFO recovery team which was never actually called upon.

Personally, I feel that if Earth were visited by an extraterrestrial intelligence and it didn't want to be detected, it wouldn't be detected. I think it's unlikely that their technology would be just a century or two ahead of ours. Extremely advanced, G-force defying, highly-manoeuvrable crewed craft with orbital capability but a tendency to fatally crash make no sense.
Conversely, if an ETI wanted to announce its presence, a brief analysis of Earth's broadcast media would demonstrate that there are better opportunities than George Adamski, a Canadian moonshiner, half the kids in a Zimbabwe schoolyard, people with sleep disorders or Whitley Streiber in a holiday cabin. Or an Australian with a hair wrapped around his didgeridoo:
An abduction case from Australia resulted in what may be the world's first DNA test of abduction-related biological material.

If we were visited, and the ETI wanted us to know, I think we'd know. It'd be common knowledge fairly quickly.
I don't think that intelligent alien visitors would put themselves in a position where they might crash (such a dreadful waste of resources used in travelling all those light-years) or where they could be held involuntarily by anyone for any length of time.

So here's my rather blurred "red line": When it happens, and is covered like the major news story that it would be, with a consensus among the majority of relevant scientists (who have reviewed physical evidence) that we are being visited by an ETI and in the absence of concerted disagreement by significant numbers of other scientists who also reviewed the physical evidence.
But I think this is unlikely.
It hasn't happened yet.
We do know that people have deliberately faked evidence of alien visitation, or have embellished their original accounts of a strange sighting or occurrence over the years into more detailed stories of involvement with UFOs/ aliens.

Should an ETI unambiguously make its presence known on Earth (or from somewhere in the solar system) I would be very, very surprised, but it would be totally fascinating. It would be hard to peel me away from the telly.
I'm guessing that something similar would apply to most Metabunkers.
The scepticism that many of us have about aliens visiting Earth isn't an article of faith (or perhaps what we want to believe), it's a conclusion we draw from the available evidence.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* I don't think all nations or groups of nations are equally credible in this regard.
Ideally the USA would be involved due to its technological pre-eminence in many fields. If evidence were in US custody, hopefully access would be given to teams from "acceptable" foreign nations (a European consortium? Japan? "Five Eyes"?) to rule out an elaborate unilateral hoax for whatever reason. Maybe I'm being optimistic about this, though.
Not sure I'd be comfortable with evidence that had only been reviewed by experts from Russia, Belarus and Venezuela, for instance.
 
Indeed, a scientific hypothesis must be supported (or falsified) with observable evidence, otherwise it's merely scientific speculation.
Is that your opinion, or a claim? If it's your opinion, I disagree; if it's a claim, it's false.
On the other hand, people here will continue to be wrong when assuming that any speculation about UFOs should always be dismissed as completely subjective opinion with absolutely zero observed evidence of any category or sort.
Surely this is a claim that people here have been wrong when assuming etc.?
And surely you were the one who dismissed his own speculation as opinion rather than claim?

Let me correct your statement:

Nothing in those "mountains of evidence" invoked in this thread has CURRENTLY helped the scientific community to settle on a single, testable, falsifiable prediction regarding UFOs.
I do not see how your "correction" means anything else than what I wrote. You simply seem to agree with me.
It's clear that you are not following the scientific data recollection going on right now for that matter, it's just a question of time for the scientific community to support or falsify what's been alleged for at least seventy years by UFO researchers and UFOlogists alike.
My question was, what exactly has been alleged for at least seventy years by UFO researchers and UFOlogists alike?
There isn't half as much settled prediction about UFOs than Michell had about "dark stars".

And because it's unclear what the UFOlogists are claiming, no amount of time will suffice to falsify it.

And no wonder you'll have to wait no longer than half an year or less for their conclusions to be made public, given the rate at which the increasing amount of scientists have been joining endeavors on that subject.
I bet that by June 30th, 2024, we won't know any more about UFOs than we do now.
There's no ("scientific") evidence for them now, and there won't be any then.
UFOlogists' speculation will continue unabated.
 
Just can't wrap my head around the idea of bringing up a tweet post by that [moderator edit for politeness] individual L Elizondo just to make an as much preposterous question to me... Amazing. Say what you want but this discussion has long ended up a waste of time at least to me, so sorry (BTW, not the first time on this forum.) Therefore this time, for once and for all, I'm definitely done here, have a nice Holiday Weekend you all and a great 2024!

P.S.: Anyway, sorry but please have the kindness of deleting this post if it turned out be offensive to you. Thank you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top