How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are real?

[jratcliff63367]

The answer is, of course, exactly one.

So, what is that 'one' for you?

Personally, I gravitate towards the cases which have a enough evidence that a court of law would probably convict someone of murder.

My personal favorite case, though technically perhaps not the best evidence, is that of Lonnie Zamora. The reason for me is that this particular case leaves very little wriggle room on the topic, as it includes not only a flying objects but, goddammit, actually little tiny dudes walking around.

It has physical evidence. A reputable witness. A well documented timeline, etc. If Officer Zamora had the same amount of evidence in a criminal case he would have little difficulty getting a conviction.

Really the only thing missing from the Zamora case is a few more witnesses at the scene. Nevertheless, it is still my favorite.

The other cases, which involve strange flying objects in the sky, radar confirmation, pilots, multiple witnesses, etc. while excellent can always lead the skeptic wriggle room as to just 'what' it is that people actually 'saw'.

That is not the case with a physical landing with UFO occupants.

If you need only argue one case, that single case, which demonstrates (a) proof of the phenomenon as comprising non-human entities piloting non-human technological craft and (b) demonstrates that the skeptic/debunkers are themselves being irrational, illogical, and unreasonable, what case is it?

I am often surprised by how often people mention the Betty and Barney Hilll case which, personally, I don't think has much going for it other than the amount of media attention it garnered.

If I had to pick a number two case next to Zamaro I think the Travis Walton case is pretty strong.

If you had Phillip Klass in the room, ressurected from the grave, and planned to address the question UFOs real, (i.e. structured craft piloted by non-humanoid entities origin unknown) or not real, hoax, liar, desusion, missidentification what case would you bring to the table?

Actually, when you think about it, what an excellent topic for a high school debate team.

What case would you bring to the debate?

John

 

[Koji K.]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

I take issue with the statement "(a) proof of the phenomenon as comprising non-human entities piloting non-human technological craft," because I don't think even the most compelling UFO case can be considered proof of this. Even if a non-human entity comes out of his non-human craft on your front lawn and says, "Hi, I'm a non-human entity, and this is my non-human craft I pilot," we have no idea if that's what *actually* is there. While that's an age-old epistemological problem for just about anything, I think if UFO evidence shows anything, anything at all, it's that what you see is NOT what you get. We just don't know what they are- but this is old ground I suppose.

I've always been fascinated by the Cash-Landrum case. I can't admit to researching it as thoroughly as I could, but it always strikes me as intriguing, though I can't say exactly why. The military connotations are probably the most apparent in Cash-Landrum, if the witnesses testimony can be believed. I'm curious if anyone ever tried to follow up with the boy who was one of the three witnesses, I'm guessing he'd be in his 20's or 30's now. If it was a hoax, it seems to me that he would be the "weakest link," given his age at the time.

I think if I had to pick one case to use as ammo against debunkers, the first to come to mind is the Belgian black triangle flap, I think it's both recent enough to stand up against historical obfuscation and the hard evidence is on par with the radar cases of the 50's.

 

[jratcliff63367]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

Hmmm..sorry, I'm confused.

You are saying that when a structured craft is captured on radar, witnessed by multiple witnesses, lands on the ground, leaves physical trace evidence, and little dudes get out of said craft, interact with humans, then walk back onto the craft and fly away, that this doesn't constitute proof of: "Non-human entities, origin unknown"?

Other cases, flying objects in the sky, could be any number of things.

Only the trace physical cases with humanoid occupants provide evidence that:

(1) The objects are objectively 'real' since they interacted with the environment and left an impact on it.

(2) That the object was piloted by a conscious being

I'm not satisfied simply saying 'someone saw something odd flying in the sky'. Lots of odd things fly in the sky. It is only when that object lands, interacts with the environment, leaves trace physical evidence, and actual *beings/occupants* interact with witnesses, that we can argue that the phenomenon is something of a truly extraordinary origin.

Now, if you want to get all subjective about sense data, etc. that is fine. But, look, I know plenty of folks who have dropped acid in their day, and while they may have had all manner of wild experiences not once did their hallucinations show up on radar and leave trace physical evidence on the ground and involve multiple simulations witnesses *not* under the influence of psycho actives of the event.

In the case you give any skeptic can, would, and should respond with 'secret military aircraft you don't know about'; problem solved.

Look, if a dude doesn't get off of the UFO and serve me some buckwheat pancakes I'm not impressed. My standard of proof is pretty high.

John

 

[Koji K.]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

Hmmm..sorry, I'm confused.


Now, if you want to get all subjective about sense data, etc. that is fine. But, look, I know plenty of folks who have dropped acid in their day, and while they may have had all manner of wild experiences not once did their hallucinations show up on radar and leave trace physical evidence on the ground and involve multiple simulations witnesses *not* under the influence of psycho actives of the event.

That's exactly it, I don't think you can explore this subject without getting very subjective about sense data. I don't even think it's necessary to consider the possibility of deliberate illusion by the phenomena to believe this.

I grant there is enough proof of some degree of objective reality (your point 1), but as for point 2... I just don't see how you can postulate a "conscious being."

With today's human technology, we already can foresee (if we don't already have) artefacts which mimic consciousness well enough to pass a Turing test. If we can fool each other here and now, why can't we be fooled by something we don't even know what we don't know about?

I don't mean to sound Rumsfeldian here, I just think talking about "conscious beings" piloting "technological" craft is a really big assumption.

If what you are considering as strong cases are strictly accounts of humanoid contact with trace evidence then I would submit that you are looking for a *specific* type of account which validates your own opinion as to the nature of UFO's.

I think the debunkers should be confronted with more solid- and recent- accounts (again, like the Belgian flap), before trying to prop up the more intricate and diverse accounts, but this is because in my opinion convincing debunkers of UFO's as "technological craft piloted by conscious beings" is starting off by *possibly* making the wrong assumption. I take your point that it is important to find good cases going beyond what can be attributed to military projects and the like, but taking a step back I think it might be better to just try to convince them of something *real* and *objective,* because that's all I think the evidence supports unequivocally.

 

[Gareth]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

Koji I think that kind of misses the point of this thread. I.E. its outside the scope of Johns premise as outlined in the thread title. Delving into the more esoteric side of UFOs seems like its a few steps further down the line from 'confirmation of their reality'.

 

[jratcliff63367]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

>>I just don't see how you can postulate a "conscious being."...

You are losing me here...

I painted a scenario in which a structured technological craft, confirmed as objectively 'real' by radar, multiple witnesses, and trace physical ground evidence, and appeared to be under controlled flight. That upon landing creatures exited the craft and, now I'll take it one step forward, let's say these creatures engage in a discussion with multiple witnesses on the ground.

But..hey...that's stretching it to call it a 'conscious being'!?

Just who do you think is piloting these structured physical craft? Do you believe they are robotic drones?

At about the time a little man walks off of the UFO, chats with me about the weather, and cooks me a fine buckwheat pancake, I'm pretty confident in labeling him a 'conscious being' at least for the purposes of that particular time/space event.

Are you one of those folks comfortable with flying saucers and triangles in the sky so long as you don't have to grapple with the issue of just who the hell is flying them?

Once they land one, get off, and talk to you, I would consider that question moot.

John

 

[Siani]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

The Lonnie Zamora case is my personal favourite, too. It doesn't prove that people from another planet came to Earth, but something strange certainly happened at Socorro. Zamora may have been the only one to see the object land, and glimpse the beings, but a number of other witnesses in the area saw and/or heard the craft itself whilst it was airborne, including a small group of tourists.

 

[jratcliff63367]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

Koji I think that kind of misses the point of this thread. I.E. its outside the scope of Johns premise as outlined in the thread title. Delving into the more esoteric side of UFOs seems like its a few steps further down the line from 'confirmation of their reality'.

Thanks Gareth, I think you caught my point. I'm fine with talking about the esoteric aspect of the UFO phenomenon, be it the abduction experience or religious events such as Fatima. However, in the pantheon of cases there a number which clearly take place in what we consider to be largely consensus physical reality; and not something which is an abstraction of the mind, not a psychosis, not a hallucination, but a true time/space event which can impact everything from radar to physical trace evidence in addition to being observed by multiple witnesses.

My point is that there are cases which, if the event was a crime, instead of a UFO event, we would clearly have plenty of evidence for a jury to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, given that same exact set of criteria, why should we not judge a UFO event the same way?

Multiple witness testimony, trace physical evidence, scientific instrumentation, photographs and video, all combined would form a compelling enough case to confirm any time/space event, don't you think?

And, in the spirit of the original question, I don't know how many cases we have that meet all of these criteria and yet still extends to actual *occupants* of craft.

Not many if I recall. And, while the Zamora case does not offer up all of these pieces of evidence it sure hits a lot of the big ones. So both Zamora and the Symington case remain pretty strong to me.

Certainly stronger than any case that does *not* include a landing and non-human occupants, as that could always be explained as 'sekrit-gummint aircraft' if nothing else.

John

 

[Koji K.]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

OK, I realize I may have missed the point of the thread, and I apologize for that, so I'll keep this brief.

Here's another way of putting what I'm trying to express:

You look in the sky, and you see a stealth fighter, or maybe just a mysterious black triangle, and what do you think?

Human entities piloting human technological craft.

Now, alien lands on your front yard in his egg-ship, comes out, asks for a jug of water and gives you some pancakes, then takes off. And what do you think?

Non-human entities piloting non-human technological craft.

This doesn't strike you, or anyone, as just a little too convenient? A little too mundane? I'd have an easier time believing that what you saw, if it has an objective reality, was a mirror. Why? Because given the ridiculously huge scope of the universe, time, space, and everything, combined with the elusive nature of this phenomenon, it's easier for me to believe that we are much closer to our own frame of reference in coming to terms with this thing than we are to it, qua it.

 

[jratcliff63367]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

>> A little too mundane?

What is mundane about that? Sounds like anything but to me. I was careful in my wording. I didn't try to imply when, where, how, or why these entities 'come from'. For all I know they popped into existence out of the ether like a tulpa. The point is, that at a specific point and time some kind of an entity, non-human, and physical, is interacting with humanity.

My original statement presented no hypothesis about the origin of these events, in fact I'm pretty sure I said 'origin unknown.' What is known, however, is that they aint' us. i.e. non-human.

 

[standup]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

Hey, you guys.

At the risk of causing some action, I would have to wade in on the side of Koji K.
Although jratcliff63367 is right, we can say for sure that things have been witnessed/experienced. We cannot say at all that these events are caused by non humans, just as much as we can say they are caused by humans/earthly phenomena.

I would agree though, its not quite what the thread is about, but I would say one of the reasons for "ufology" not being taken seriously (which I assume was the gist of the thread) is because of the perception that most members of the ufo field will immediately leap to the "oh its aliens" answer to any story... (the uk wind turbine incident?)
While this in itself isnt strictly true, and the mainstream press is just as guilty, (if not more, the uk wind turbine story?) it doesnt help to follow that stream, in fact is not better to make sure that we're even more stringent and analitical in our views? To question each "experince" so there is absolutly no chance of nonsense?

Just to clear up, I do beleive there is a phemomena occuring, but I would not claim to know the source of it. After all isnt this what its all about? We dont know for sure whats really going on....

First post by the way, please go easy....

 

[mike]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

one example could be the hypothetical, that the nazis did discover antigrav and built the "Bell" flying disk, and moved to a secret base in antartica or the back of the moon...... these guys were also "mad" keen on genetic research.

its therefore not beyond the realms of possibility that they engineered the "grey" from human and possibly other genetic stock and are using them as proxies to hide the fact they still exist.

another one i heard was that the grey is a land dolphin.... at the time when the dolphins went back into the sea (they were land mammals at one point) only the coastal animals did so, those animals inland that did not, continued to evolve on land and became the greys.

human time travellers using holographic tech, and mind control are "hiding" behind the ET image so's not to cause paradox's.
ie if we know human time travellers are here, we might not ever invent the time machine because we assume its already been done in the future....

the list goes on.

real proof would likely constitute traveling to the alledged ET's homeworld and checking for ourselves. and even that is not real proof
its been suggested that two of the human like aliens in the mythos, the nordic and semitic aliens are in fact fake populations set up to appear as if they are close neighbours (galactically speaking) by another race whos using them as front men in the contact process.
apparently the idea is that looking human like us, we will likely identify with and follow the lead of these "aliens". the judas or judah sheep principle.

 

[qqqq]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

The general public are to afraid to believe ufo's as real, people can keep confirming events to be true for another 100 years and it won't make any difference.

 

[Gareth]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

The general public are to afraid to believe ufo's as real, people can keep confirming events to be true for another 100 years and it won't make any difference.

Its not that theyre afraid, its that they arent exposed to the right media and witness testimony on the subject. All they know is whats fed to them through Fox News, or any news for that matter, and based on that Joe Public will have zero motivation to learn more and seek to change his opinion.

If however Joe Public was given a couple good books, heard some witness testimony from someone they trust and thought for themselves on the matter, it would be probably be a very different scenario.

 

[qqqq]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

Its not that theyre afraid, its that they arent exposed to the right media and witness testimony on the subject. All they know is whats fed to them through Fox News, or any news for that matter, and based on that Joe Public will have zero motivation to learn more and seek to change his opinion.

If however Joe Public was given a couple good books, heard some witness testimony from someone they trust and thought for themselves on the matter, it would be probably be a very different scenario.

You are kidding me right. The media is a direct reflection of how much the topic freaks people out. The paranormal will always affect the subconscience mind, the mystery of ufos holds the possibilty of such dark intentions.

 

[Gareth]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

So what makes me any different? Ive never had any experiences but I made the effort to look into it. It doesnt freak me out.

 

[qqqq]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

So what makes me any different? Ive never had any experiences but I made the effort to look into it. It doesnt freak me out.

You still have the possibility to be freaked out by it.

 

[DrLogic]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

I dont necessarily think ultimate disclosure or proof is really that worthy a goal at this moment in time. When it comes to being able to think as an individual without letting popular consensus dictate ones opinion, most adults are still in the pre-school stages.

More preferable a situation would be a world where adults can have an open and 'adult' conversation on any and all subjects based on the possibilities, rather than based on dogma and unsubstantiated preconceived notions.

If the world were much like the latter then i think ET's, if they are among us, would be somewhat more forthcoming, as it stand i think they will probably be happy keeping humanity in the 'spectators sport' section.

 

[mike]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

i was reading a thread at another forum where the question was should the US president be a christian, could he/she ever be a muslim or mormon......

resounding NO to the latter, quotes like "a nation under god" abounded.
and thats fine, thats how it works, if the vast voting majority are christian and want to be represented as a christian nation, thats the democratic perogative...

but i imagine that in an ET contact scenario where the species is so old as to have noticed when we started using fire, that one of the top ten questions asked would be the does "god" exist one.
if the answer the "facts" as this species knows them is no, then that society will prob back away from such a radical revelation. they may even take the "demon" stance as many have (YT is full of examples).
that is here is a "creature" that says there is no god as you describe HIM. he must be one of satans minions.

if they are telepathic then they would have "read" this reaction.

if i were an alien species wishing contact. id give the target species an internets..... and let them get to know me/us there first.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

How many UFO events have to be confirmed as true for it to prove that UFOs are re

i was reading a thread at another forum where the question was should the US president be a christian, could he/she ever be a muslim or mormon......

resounding NO to the latter, quotes like "a nation under god" abounded.
and thats fine, thats how it works, if the vast voting majority are christian and want to be represented as a christian nation, thats the democratic perogative...


if i were an alien species wishing contact. id give the target species an internets..... and let them get to know me/us there first.

do any of the people who answered using that quote about under God, realize that the Muslims believe in God? Mohammed is their prophet, but their God is pretty much the same as the God of the Bible. One of the differences in their tenets and those of the Christians, is they believe Jesus was a prophet, not the Son of God.

So, the question should have been, should anyone other than a "Christian" be President. And in that case, throw it out the window, as the quote they keep referring to in defense of their argument, is:

"...one nation under God..." Says nothing about Christians.

'nuff said.