What is the point in showing people evidence of UFOs

[Gilhelmi]

All I am saying is why should I go out and find evidence when people are just going to assume (without any proof) that my evidence is fake. I could videotape and perfectly document a UFO landing and have 10 people as eyewitnesses and everyone who is a hardcore skeptic will still say we were making it up in an elaborate hoax. I suspect I could have a downed UFO in my back yard and it would still be called a hoax even after it restarted its engines and took off. No one (who is not termed crazy) is willing to come forward because they believe they will be a social outcast if they do come and tell what they saw.

To quote a friend of mine "Ever notice miracles stopped happening when the video camera was invented? Then they started up again when digital editing was available?"

Ok, I will paint you a picture. The closest star(s) is 4.27 light years away which is roughly 2.5×10^13 miles(4×10^13 km, not that it matters). I will admit if life existed there it would head to Sol (the sun) first. However, the star(s) are only as old as our planet. If life existed on those planets then chances are slim they would be so much more advanced than us that they mastered interstellar travel. So, aliens visiting is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. The initial probability of you doctoring photos, editing film, or staging it are highly more likely than aliens landing.

I can easily point out some flaws in that by sending you to http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2009.02.03 at least for the propulsion issues visit the rest of the site for the rest.

 

[CZS PublicEnemy]

Think of the world we would live in if everyone did believe every claim here and there about anything.

Doubt is a good thing.

 

[Gilhelmi]

The problem is that the video you described doesn't exist, and if something similar does exist it's obviously fake. Problem with believers is that hey are willing to believe, even to the point they disregard obvious flaws in the stories and evidence.

When you have to find convoluted explanations filled with many ifs and thens you probably are on the defensive. You shouldn't have to explain away mountains of evidence to allow the few bright spots to shine.

Stop trying to imply everyone else has problem because they don't share your beliefs. You bring that alien blood stained shirt I am sure you would have more then one believer. Proof is what you need. In fact you don't really even need proof just back able leg to stand on. Think about the Martian meteorite. The one they thought contained alien bacteria. You can still find people who think that rock proved there was life on Mars.

Thing is I do not just believe anything. I have fun going to youtube and looking at fake videos even when the title says 'real', I am not an expert but I know enough to see the big fakes. As for the one I can not tell I ask a real expert (90% obvious fakes, about 5%good fakes, 5% unknown (personal experience)). I do not just believe whatever someone tells me is real, I think. Proof is good but when you have skeptics calling you names and disproving stuff, most of the time with bad or fake proof (see http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2009.02.04) I do say that it is ridiculous, we have a lot of good proof but no one is willing to look at it because "those UFO nutters said it". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_Friedman#Major_conclusions_and_arguments

 

[Adventurer2626]

I think people are semi-open to the idea of microbial extra-terrestrials so supposing you can prove it is located elsewhere and not an earthborn contaminant you might get some approval. At least within the scientific community.

As for sentients? I imagine if they can reach us they've gotten a vague idea of our nature (particularly the take it apart to study it methodology, which, oddly enough, we impose upon aliens in our sci-fi genre) and would be reticent to offer themselves up to our scrutiny. So here you're not only fighting centuries of evidence of lack of evidence, close-minded thinking from naysayers and the almighty "burden of proof" but the very urgent desire of the aliens to remain unobserved by the insanely violent locals (that's us).

My advice: don't tip your hand til you've got a royal flush.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I think people are semi-open to the idea of microbial extra-terrestrials so supposing you can prove it is located elsewhere and not an earthborn contaminant you might get some approval. At least within the scientific community.

As for sentients? I imagine if they can reach us they've gotten a vague idea of our nature (particularly the take it apart to study it methodology, which, oddly enough, we impose upon aliens in our sci-fi genre) and would be reticent to offer themselves up to our scrutiny. So here you're not only fighting centuries of evidence of lack of evidence, close-minded thinking from naysayers and the almighty "burden of proof" but the very urgent desire of the aliens to remain unobserved by the insanely violent locals (that's us).

My advice: don't tip your hand til you've got a royal flush.

excellent point thank you

 

[stubbmann]

I'm personally open to the idea of aliens, though I really doubt they've visited earth in modern times. And now, here's Neil deGrasse Tyson to explain a few things about aliens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

The problem is that the video you described doesn't exist, and if something similar does exist it's obviously fake. Problem with believers is that hey are willing to believe, even to the point they disregard obvious flaws in the stories and evidence.

When you have to find convoluted explanations filled with many ifs and thens you probably are on the defensive. You shouldn't have to explain away mountains of evidence to allow the few bright spots to shine.

Stop trying to imply everyone else has problem because they don't share your beliefs. You bring that alien blood stained shirt I am sure you would have more then one believer. Proof is what you need. In fact you don't really even need proof just back able leg to stand on. Think about the Martian meteorite. The one they thought contained alien bacteria. You can still find people who think that rock proved there was life on Mars.

Thing is I do not just believe anything. I have fun going to youtube and looking at fake videos even when the title says 'real', I am not an expert but I know enough to see the big fakes. As for the one I can not tell I ask a real expert (90% obvious fakes, about 5%good fakes, 5% unknown (personal experience)). I do not just believe whatever someone tells me is real, I think. Proof is good but when you have skeptics calling you names and disproving stuff, most of the time with bad or fake proof (see http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2009.02.04) I do say that it is ridiculous, we have a lot of good proof but no one is willing to look at it because "those UFO nutters said it". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_Friedman#Major_conclusions_and_arguments

Ok, that actually kinda confuses me. You're saying that skeptics disproving stuff is wrong? Thing is, the burden of proof is on the sighter of the alien, and if your proof is eye-witness testimony it just won't hold up.

And that Stanton Friedman guy... well, he calls "anti-ufology" a pseudo-science. And it seems the majority of his references are books that HE wrote.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Nobody doubts that UFOs exist, no evidence is necessary there. UFOs are everywhere, seen by millions every day, although they usually don't stay unidentified for long. Weather, planes, birds, but no Superman.

As for the so-called "aliens" that are supposedly visiting (or not visiting) Earth (or not Earth), Occam's Razor applies here more than anywhere else. Do not create unnecessary entities. If the aliens are real, good for them. If they are not real, good for us, I guess. Either way, all the cards are in their hypothetical hands and unless they choose to actually do something, their alleged presence (or lack thereof) here (or elsewhere) is absolutely irrelevant.

The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Until explicitly (and globally) proven otherwise, there are no "aliens" on Earth, no UFOs are a product of extraterrestrial intelligence, there is no Asari soulmate waiting for you just two Relay jumps away, the Borg are not going to assimilate you (at least in the next couple hours), and that thing in the sky is, in fact, a moon.

Nice post, sir. You will go far here.

OT: You believe that aliens have been visiting Earth for the past 6000 years. May I ask where this belief and specific number came from?

 

[Gilhelmi]

I'm personally open to the idea of aliens, though I really doubt they've visited earth in modern times. And now, here's Neil deGrasse Tyson to explain a few things about aliens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

The problem is that the video you described doesn't exist, and if something similar does exist it's obviously fake. Problem with believers is that hey are willing to believe, even to the point they disregard obvious flaws in the stories and evidence.

When you have to find convoluted explanations filled with many ifs and thens you probably are on the defensive. You shouldn't have to explain away mountains of evidence to allow the few bright spots to shine.

Stop trying to imply everyone else has problem because they don't share your beliefs. You bring that alien blood stained shirt I am sure you would have more then one believer. Proof is what you need. In fact you don't really even need proof just back able leg to stand on. Think about the Martian meteorite. The one they thought contained alien bacteria. You can still find people who think that rock proved there was life on Mars.

Thing is I do not just believe anything. I have fun going to youtube and looking at fake videos even when the title says 'real', I am not an expert but I know enough to see the big fakes. As for the one I can not tell I ask a real expert (90% obvious fakes, about 5%good fakes, 5% unknown (personal experience)). I do not just believe whatever someone tells me is real, I think. Proof is good but when you have skeptics calling you names and disproving stuff, most of the time with bad or fake proof (see http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2009.02.04) I do say that it is ridiculous, we have a lot of good proof but no one is willing to look at it because "those UFO nutters said it". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_Friedman#Major_conclusions_and_arguments

Ok, that actually kinda confuses me. You're saying that skeptics disproving stuff is wrong? Thing is, the burden of proof is on the sighter of the alien, and if your proof is eye-witness testimony it just won't hold up.

And that Stanton Friedman guy... well, he calls "anti-ufology" a pseudo-science. And it seems the majority of his references are books that HE wrote.

Skeptics disproving stuff is fine. It is when they make claims that are not valid that bugs me, like how it is impossible to travel faster then light (technically true but there are work arounds to that rule) or just lie

Apparently Joe had learned nothing from our exchange and stated ?On July 8, 1947, an unauthorized press release from an eager but relatively inexperienced public information officer at New Mexico?s Roswell Army Air Field propelled the Roswell Incident into history.? It has been known for thirty years that Blanchard ordered (authorized) Walter to put out the release. Walter after years in the far east during WW2 was hardly just wet behind the ears. Joe even goes on to claim Kenneth Arnold?s sighting two weeks earlier may well have been nothing more than mirage effects caused by a temperature inversion. That is as sensible as saying the moon may be made of green cheese. This crazy notion was thoroughly destroyed by Dr. Bruce Maccabee, a physicist. But why let the facts get in the way?

Nickell goes on to say the young officer was reprimanded. He provides no evidence. I and others have asked both Walter and his wife and both denied there was any reprimand. Why would there have been, since Blanchard had ordered the release? Nickell then moves right over to the baseless Project Mogul explanation which has been thoroughly destroyed by Brad Sparks and Dr. David Rudiak and Dr. Jesse Marcel Jr. (Ref.1) despite the assertions of Dr. Charles Moore who worked on the program.

I like skeptics, they keep us honest, and I consider myself to be a skeptic when it come to conspiracy theories. But some of these skeptics who repeat the same evidence that has been disproved time and again just annoy me.

snip
OT: You believe that aliens have been visiting Earth for the past 6000 years. May I ask where this belief and specific number came from?

Archeology that shows little 'gods' in flying machines (that look a lot like aircraft) in South America and the Middle East. Also, I do trust that when the ancients wrote something down it was very important (as paper is difficult to make by hand) so when I hear the stories that ancient aliens came to earth it makes me wonder. My source is below

Spoiler: history channel shows found on youtube.

There are another 7 parts after this that you can look up yourself

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

snip
OT: You believe that aliens have been visiting Earth for the past 6000 years. May I ask where this belief and specific number came from?

Archeology that shows little 'gods' in flying machines (that look a lot like aircraft) in South America and the Middle East. Also, I do trust that when the ancients wrote something down it was very important (as paper is difficult to make by hand) so when I hear the stories that ancient aliens came to earth it makes me wonder. My source is below

Spoiler: history channel shows found on youtube.

There are another 7 parts after this that you can look up yourself

That's cool. Just checking that you actually had some info from somewhere and you didn't just randomly come up with that.

 

[Billion Backs]

History channel is full of shit shows. And history itself, at least when it's not in big ol' boring dusty tomes of knowledge, is pretty much fucking bullshit as well.

When history gets mixed in with pop culture, or with politics, it instantly turns from semi-credible science to a bunch of badly manipulated propaganda. Written by the victor, and so on.

People do a lot of stupid things to get their 15 minutes of fame. Some might even believe their own bullshit. There's little point in digging through it.

If there are intelligent aliens capable of passing through hundreds of light years' worth of uninhabitable space and other similar technological miracles, you'd think they'd be smart enough to provide credible proof of their existence if they really wanted to, you know, meet us. Like, land somewhere and make their existence absolutely clear to everyone. It's not like they'd have anything to fear, a civilization capable of traversing light years of space can't be threatened by an earth-bound (har?) group of arguing nations. It doesn't require such amazing intelligence to understand how governments work and that smart people are bound to be cynical without being presented absolute proof.

So that means they're either non-existent, complete dicks, or that's about it, really.

In most cases, as it seems to be with a lot of delusions, it's just some poor schmucks trying to make something out of their pointless existence. It could be Jesus, it could be aliens, it could be ghosts, they're just happy to delude themselves to avoid looking into the meaningless void that is their life.

Nobody doubts that UFOs exist, no evidence is necessary there. UFOs are everywhere, seen by millions every day, although they usually don't stay unidentified for long. Weather, planes, birds, but no Superman.

As for the so-called "aliens" that are supposedly visiting (or not visiting) Earth (or not Earth), Occam's Razor applies here more than anywhere else. Do not create unnecessary entities. If the aliens are real, good for them. If they are not real, good for us, I guess. Either way, all the cards are in their hypothetical hands and unless they choose to actually do something, their alleged presence (or lack thereof) here (or elsewhere) is absolutely irrelevant.

The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Until explicitly (and globally) proven otherwise, there are no "aliens" on Earth, no UFOs are a product of extraterrestrial intelligence, there is no Asari soulmate waiting for you just two Relay jumps away, the Borg are not going to assimilate you (at least in the next couple hours), and that thing in the sky is, in fact, a moon.

Also that. Always pisses me off how the term "UFO" got turned into a complete joke, thanks to popculture and what not. It's UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT. If it's a flying fucking saucer, it's already identified, no?

 

[maxben]

To start I believe that Aliens exist and have been visiting Earth for at least 6000 years. Not important to this discussion but that is what i believe.

I was thinking today, why tell anyone you saw a UFO or that you were abducted by aliens. I mean other than a few people who seriously research extraterrestrials, few would believe you. Even this a video of the alien abducting you, bringing you back, and saying (in alien language) 'thank you for helping with our science', and a shirt stained with alien blood as you tried to fight the effects of the parallelizing ray in the spaceship; someone on youtube will still say it is that it is made up and anyone can synthesize alien blood using gelatin, black food coloring, and human blood and no lab will certify the results because then, they think, they will be discredited and lose their jobs.

So what do you think, is it still worth the pursuit of knowledge even knowing that no one will believe you (at least for the foreseeable future)?

But here is the problem, you BELIEVE they exist so every piece of questionable "evidence" you have merely reinforces your pre-existing belief and makes you confused about why other people "just don't see it".
I would only listen to proof about extraordinary things from people who don't believe in it and have no pre-existing emotional connections to such a belief. That, or experiencing it for myself.

But I believe because I saw something that I can not explain. No I am not going into it here because I do not feel like being called a lier tonight. So by your definition of credible sources if I convinced you that UFOs visit Earth then you are no longer a credible witness or if I showed my evidence to a skeptic and they now believe then you would not believe them either, because they believe.

I'm not calling you a liar, but its very common to fill in the blanks when you don't know.
For example, a scientist is rarely sure of what he has observed but he must accept that something is the way it is because his tests have shown its the case over and over again. A single experience that you had with something you cannot explain proves nothing. And I say this as someone who once believed in ghosts for the same reason as I think you believe in aliens (though aliens are a tonne more likely than ghosts). If you showed it to the scientifically inclined skeptic, the skeptic is not likely to believe you after a single piece of evidence, but if it convinces him enough to pursue it legitimately (not as a joke Discovery Channel special) than we can say your evidence may have merit because you have convinced someone with more expertise than you to look into it.

Btw, have you heard of the new Theory as to why aliens haven't visited Earth though they probably exist? Apparently, according to new calculations and stargazing methods, Earth doesn't look like a planet with life on it. We are way too-small as compared to the Superearths that populate a lot of space with higher the size and density, and in fact we can see that Earth is not a good place for life by the many high-level extinction events that have occurred. Superearths also have an issue with a tougher atmosphere and gravity to escape from so they need to be on a much higher technological base than us to escape their worlds and begin exploring space. Just some interesting trivia

 

[Gilhelmi]

To start I believe that Aliens exist and have been visiting Earth for at least 6000 years. Not important to this discussion but that is what i believe.

I was thinking today, why tell anyone you saw a UFO or that you were abducted by aliens. I mean other than a few people who seriously research extraterrestrials, few would believe you. Even this a video of the alien abducting you, bringing you back, and saying (in alien language) 'thank you for helping with our science', and a shirt stained with alien blood as you tried to fight the effects of the parallelizing ray in the spaceship; someone on youtube will still say it is that it is made up and anyone can synthesize alien blood using gelatin, black food coloring, and human blood and no lab will certify the results because then, they think, they will be discredited and lose their jobs.

So what do you think, is it still worth the pursuit of knowledge even knowing that no one will believe you (at least for the foreseeable future)?

But here is the problem, you BELIEVE they exist so every piece of questionable "evidence" you have merely reinforces your pre-existing belief and makes you confused about why other people "just don't see it".
I would only listen to proof about extraordinary things from people who don't believe in it and have no pre-existing emotional connections to such a belief. That, or experiencing it for myself.

But I believe because I saw something that I can not explain. No I am not going into it here because I do not feel like being called a lier tonight. So by your definition of credible sources if I convinced you that UFOs visit Earth then you are no longer a credible witness or if I showed my evidence to a skeptic and they now believe then you would not believe them either, because they believe.

I'm not calling you a liar, but its very common to fill in the blanks when you don't know.
For example, a scientist is rarely sure of what he has observed but he must accept that something is the way it is because his tests have shown its the case over and over again. A single experience that you had with something you cannot explain proves nothing. And I say this as someone who once believed in ghosts for the same reason as I think you believe in aliens (though aliens are a tonne more likely than ghosts). If you showed it to the scientifically inclined skeptic, the skeptic is not likely to believe you after a single piece of evidence, but if it convinces him enough to pursue it legitimately (not as a joke Discovery Channel special) than we can say your evidence may have merit because you have convinced someone with more expertise than you to look into it.

Btw, have you heard of the new Theory as to why aliens haven't visited Earth though they probably exist? Apparently, according to new calculations and stargazing methods, Earth doesn't look like a planet with life on it. We are way too-small as compared to the Superearths that populate a lot of space with higher the size and density, and in fact we can see that Earth is not a good place for life by the many high-level extinction events that have occurred. Superearths also have an issue with a tougher atmosphere and gravity to escape from so they need to be on a much higher technological base than us to escape their worlds and begin exploring space. Just some interesting trivia

No, I had not heard that. I call it pure speculation manly because we have not yet found any 'superearths' and we have not (officially) interviewed ET to determine why. I like my pure speculation that their mission is mostly scientific.
But the 'superearth' theory is interesting.

 

[Kif]

You'd be surprised how many rational scientists with what we know about life these days believe that alien life almost certainly exists on another planet somewhere. Not crazy people, scientists. I believe it to be a almost impossible that life does not exist elsewhere.

However, aliens that have visited earth is a little far fetched given what we currently know about physics and the distances that would have to be travelled. That's not to say it is entirely impossible and has factually never happened. You just cant prove it eitherway, so anyone who has an absolute final opinion on that one isn't being open minded enough.

The thing about these kind of sciences is they move so fast that if you're using theories from a year ago to back yourself up your information is likely outdated and has moved on.

 

[Kurokami]

To start I believe that Aliens exist and have been visiting Earth for at least 6000 years. Not important to this discussion but that is what i believe.

Why's that, if you don't my asking?

 

[maxben]

To start I believe that Aliens exist and have been visiting Earth for at least 6000 years. Not important to this discussion but that is what i believe.

I was thinking today, why tell anyone you saw a UFO or that you were abducted by aliens. I mean other than a few people who seriously research extraterrestrials, few would believe you. Even this a video of the alien abducting you, bringing you back, and saying (in alien language) 'thank you for helping with our science', and a shirt stained with alien blood as you tried to fight the effects of the parallelizing ray in the spaceship; someone on youtube will still say it is that it is made up and anyone can synthesize alien blood using gelatin, black food coloring, and human blood and no lab will certify the results because then, they think, they will be discredited and lose their jobs.

So what do you think, is it still worth the pursuit of knowledge even knowing that no one will believe you (at least for the foreseeable future)?

But here is the problem, you BELIEVE they exist so every piece of questionable "evidence" you have merely reinforces your pre-existing belief and makes you confused about why other people "just don't see it".
I would only listen to proof about extraordinary things from people who don't believe in it and have no pre-existing emotional connections to such a belief. That, or experiencing it for myself.

But I believe because I saw something that I can not explain. No I am not going into it here because I do not feel like being called a lier tonight. So by your definition of credible sources if I convinced you that UFOs visit Earth then you are no longer a credible witness or if I showed my evidence to a skeptic and they now believe then you would not believe them either, because they believe.

I'm not calling you a liar, but its very common to fill in the blanks when you don't know.
For example, a scientist is rarely sure of what he has observed but he must accept that something is the way it is because his tests have shown its the case over and over again. A single experience that you had with something you cannot explain proves nothing. And I say this as someone who once believed in ghosts for the same reason as I think you believe in aliens (though aliens are a tonne more likely than ghosts). If you showed it to the scientifically inclined skeptic, the skeptic is not likely to believe you after a single piece of evidence, but if it convinces him enough to pursue it legitimately (not as a joke Discovery Channel special) than we can say your evidence may have merit because you have convinced someone with more expertise than you to look into it.

Btw, have you heard of the new Theory as to why aliens haven't visited Earth though they probably exist? Apparently, according to new calculations and stargazing methods, Earth doesn't look like a planet with life on it. We are way too-small as compared to the Superearths that populate a lot of space with higher the size and density, and in fact we can see that Earth is not a good place for life by the many high-level extinction events that have occurred. Superearths also have an issue with a tougher atmosphere and gravity to escape from so they need to be on a much higher technological base than us to escape their worlds and begin exploring space. Just some interesting trivia

No, I had not heard that. I call it pure speculation manly because we have not yet found any 'superearths' and we have not (officially) interviewed ET to determine why. I like my pure speculation that their mission is mostly scientific.
But the 'superearth' theory is interesting.

Actually, we've found many of them.
The smallest Earth-like planet we've found is 1.9 Earth masses or higher (they can judge minimum and maximum sizes, not perfect).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth

And here is the Theory paper:
Earth: A Borderline Planet for Life?
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2008/pr200802.html

 

[BlackWidower]

If you show me solid evidence of an extraterrestrial presence on earth, I...no...James Randi, will give you a million dollars.

Don't believe me? Ask him.

 

[Adecristo]

Proving that something does exist is often very difficult. But, if you have undeniable evidence that something exists, its very hard for people to deny it.

They made it somehow with God, even though there's no undeniable evidence. Actually, there isn't any evidence.

OT: Well, people are not willing to believe. Sometimes because of church, sometimes because of reasoning "Hey, the govenrment would tell us about that, wouldn't it?" (where the answer is: no, it wouldn't. Such statement would cause worldwide panic / rush / some crazy shit / even the churches would have hard time because of that.)
Also, the media want us not to believe in 'extraterrestials' making fun of them, explaining how you can edit the video to make a "UFO above earth recording", and showing us government workers trying to explain, that "hell, we would tell you about that if there were proofs of extraterrestial vehicles here, on Earth - wouldn't we?".

I don't believe in UFOs on earth, and I don't believe that there weren't any out here. I'm just waiting for a good proof that would make me believe that there are/aren't UFOs on/above our planet.

But there's one thing I believe - governments lie. All the time.

Spoiler: and this is a pretty good proof.

Sorry for the polish subtitles, I couldn't find any other version. But the audio is english, after all.
Jose Escamilla - Moon Rising (HD) [http://vimeo.com/10038980]

Also, you can see official photos of Moon's surface on.. official planet-mapping website [http://www.mapaplanet.org/explorer-bin/explorer.cgi?map=Moon&layers=moon_clementine_multi&west=-180&south=-90&east=180&north=90&center_lat=0&center=0&defaultcenter=on&grid=none&stretch=auto&projection=SIMP&advoption=NO&info=NO&resolution=2] of US Geological Survey [http://www.usgs.gov/].
Yeah, the moon is definietely NOT monochromatic.

 

[BlackWidower]

To start I believe that Aliens exist and have been visiting Earth for at least 6000 years. Not important to this discussion but that is what i believe.

I was thinking today, why tell anyone you saw a UFO or that you were abducted by aliens. I mean other than a few people who seriously research extraterrestrials, few would believe you. Even this a video of the alien abducting you, bringing you back, and saying (in alien language) 'thank you for helping with our science', and a shirt stained with alien blood as you tried to fight the effects of the parallelizing ray in the spaceship; someone on youtube will still say it is that it is made up and anyone can synthesize alien blood using gelatin, black food coloring, and human blood and no lab will certify the results because then, they think, they will be discredited and lose their jobs.

So what do you think, is it still worth the pursuit of knowledge even knowing that no one will believe you (at least for the foreseeable future)?

But here is the problem, you BELIEVE they exist so every piece of questionable "evidence" you have merely reinforces your pre-existing belief and makes you confused about why other people "just don't see it".
I would only listen to proof about extraordinary things from people who don't believe in it and have no pre-existing emotional connections to such a belief. That, or experiencing it for myself.

But I believe because I saw something that I can not explain. No I am not going into it here because I do not feel like being called a lier tonight. So by your definition of credible sources if I convinced you that UFOs visit Earth then you are no longer a credible witness or if I showed my evidence to a skeptic and they now believe then you would not believe them either, because they believe.

I'm not calling you a liar, but its very common to fill in the blanks when you don't know.
For example, a scientist is rarely sure of what he has observed but he must accept that something is the way it is because his tests have shown its the case over and over again. A single experience that you had with something you cannot explain proves nothing. And I say this as someone who once believed in ghosts for the same reason as I think you believe in aliens (though aliens are a tonne more likely than ghosts). If you showed it to the scientifically inclined skeptic, the skeptic is not likely to believe you after a single piece of evidence, but if it convinces him enough to pursue it legitimately (not as a joke Discovery Channel special) than we can say your evidence may have merit because you have convinced someone with more expertise than you to look into it.

Btw, have you heard of the new Theory as to why aliens haven't visited Earth though they probably exist? Apparently, according to new calculations and stargazing methods, Earth doesn't look like a planet with life on it. We are way too-small as compared to the Superearths that populate a lot of space with higher the size and density, and in fact we can see that Earth is not a good place for life by the many high-level extinction events that have occurred. Superearths also have an issue with a tougher atmosphere and gravity to escape from so they need to be on a much higher technological base than us to escape their worlds and begin exploring space. Just some interesting trivia

No, I had not heard that. I call it pure speculation manly because we have not yet found any 'superearths' and we have not (officially) interviewed ET to determine why. I like my pure speculation that their mission is mostly scientific.
But the 'superearth' theory is interesting.

Actually, we've found many of them.
The smallest Earth-like planet we've found is 1.9 Earth masses or higher (they can judge minimum and maximum sizes, not perfect).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth

And here is the Theory paper:
Earth: A Borderline Planet for Life?
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2008/pr200802.html

Uh...do you read what you cite?

The term super-Earth refers only to the mass of the planet, and does not imply anything about the surface conditions or habitability. An alternative term "Gas Dwarf" may be more accurate for some examples, especially higher mass ones as suggested by MIT professor Sara Seager. Alternatively, Super-Venus or Super-Pluto might be used for super-hot or cold rocky exoplanets to give a less potentially misleading label.

That's from the wikipedia article you cited. Are you sure this has anything to do with alien life?

 

[dragonslayer32]

I really hate this common misconception, When people hear UFO they automatically think martians. A UFO can be anything, if their is a plane flying over and you don't think it is a plane ie you can't identify it, to you, that is a UFO. Hell, I thought I was looking at a UFO once which turned out to be a plstic bag.