Thread: NASA to Make Major Announcement About Search for Alien Life Today @ 2pm

Evidence speaks for itself. If it's convincing enough, nobody will be able to deny it.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Evidence speaks for itself. If it's convincing enough, nobody will be able to deny it.

I think the fact that there is still widespread debate on whether or not 9/11 happened the way it's told/shown to have happened says that this statement is untrue.

Just sayin'.

People don't always believe what's in front of them, no matter how "convincing" the evidence.

If you have a spaceship in your barn and let people examine it, then you won't have any trouble being taken seriously by legitimate researchers. Normal people are f'ing morons that tend to gravitate towards sensationalist claims...

Having knowledge of an advanced alien presence and having a spaceship in your barn are not the same thing.

What's your point?

My point is that you seem to be implying that if any independent government had access to information and/or evidence of advanced alien visitors, it would amount to something as definitive as a spaceship in a barn. I'm not sure if that was your intention, but that's the way it seemed. The absence of a spaceship in a barn is not the absence of evidence, depending on what other evidence is available.

And, going back to what spockman said, there is a lot of "good" evidence that could easily be dismissed by those who just "refuse to believe it is good enough," and obscured by all the other BS that's out there. My point is, basically, what spockman just said, and that "good evidence" can very well be denied. Proof, such as a spaceship in a barn, is something else entirely.

My point was that good enough evidence (such as a spaceship in a barn) can't be dismissed no matter how biased an observer is. If the current "evidence" can't stand up to scrutiny, then maybe it isn't that good?

Maybe if the only "acceptable" evidence is something so definitive as a spaceship in a barn, spockman - once again - was right. Any claims made (by whomever or whatever faction) that didn't amount to something like a spaceship in a barn (pictures, audio, text, etc), could easily become buried in all of the bullshit that's out there.

So, again, we are back to square one. If a country had evidence/information about an advanced race - unless they had something so definitive as a spaceship in a barn (by your own admission), it would probably go unbelieved.

Which is why no government or organization would accept the existence of aliens (either as a secret or publicly) based on a few photographs, they'll need something way more concrete to devote any attention to the matter at all.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Which is why no government or organization would accept the existence of aliens (either as a secret or publicly) based on a few photographs, they'll need something way more concrete to devote any attention to the matter at all.

Wut?

We're talking about governments possibly having direct knowledge of aliens. This could mean something as having been on an alien spaceship themselves. Whether or not they are able to actually convey that information to the public (or would) is the issue, and I believe you are getting a little off track.

Conversation went like this:

A) Government could possibly know that alien life exists, and be hiding it from the public.
B) That couldn't happen, they couldn't/wouldn't keep it a secret.

A) Well they could/might because of the possibility of unrest.
B) But they couldn't keep it a secret. If an independent government knew aliens existed, they would get the word/evidence out.

A) But that word could be obscured by other false information.
B) Well if they had good evidence for it, it couldn't be denied.

A) Even good evidence (good is a subjective term) can be denied. It happens all the time.
B) Well if they had a spaceship in their barn, no one could deny it was real.

A) That's kind of setting the bar high for "evidence" isn't it?
B) Well if it's not as definitive as that, maybe it's not good evidence.

A) What I'm saying is that just because they don't have a spaceship doesn't mean they have no evidence. But, like was said, such evidence can be denied, if the viewer is fooled for whatever reason into thinking it wasn't real.
B) That's why no government will accept pictures (etc) as evidence. They need something more concrete.

Logically, I don't know how we got from the beginning to the ending. There is a disconnect in there, somewhere.

Nothing in this states why it would be most likely that a government would blab to the public, or would even be able to convince the public ET's are real without something so definitive as having a spaceship in their barn. My point is that you are setting the bar really high, to prove a very speculative point, that really don't amount to much more than a gut feeling. It's kind of all over the place, though, because none of it really has much to do with the initial (A) and (B). We kind of wandered off the beaten path, here, I think.

Yeah my train of thought might not have been too clear .

My last point was that unless a government has definitive proof of the existence of aliens, the government itself won't take the alien claim seriously (they have better things to do) and thus would have nothing to inform the public of.

The whole spaceship in a barn thing was a reductio ad absurdum to point out that an organization can't suppress undeniable proof (as in the government trying to discredit another party which has solid evidence of aliens).

Now I'm curious, when people say "the government" is hiding aliens, exactly who in the government knows about these aliens? Governments are typically a country's largest employer and come in layers that don't necessarily communicate efficiently between each other (municipal/state/federal governments in the US for example). Also what kind of evidence could a government get its hands on that the public wouldn't be aware of (except maybe for the extremely unlikely chance of a one-time event with few witnesses)?

This thread is kind of treading the line of being split off into ED or something worse.

My pointless input having barely scanned the thread: we've seen for the nth time in recent weeks that all you need to leak high level information from the US is a job in the lower ranks of government and a USB stick. Thousands of people must have been involved in any kind of alien coverup. And not a single one of them ever had second thoughts about it? Come on.

Evidence is not the only thing people take into account when coming to a conclusion. For example, propaganda seems to work extremely well, especially in America as I have seen between candidates. The information is often skewed and extremely biased, and for the most part kind of ridiculous. However, it seems that propaganda is capable of changing someones opinion. Take into account the kind of propaganda during WWII, it made a clear distinguishable line for the Axis and the Allies who the "good" guys were and who the "bad" guys are. Propaganda can also discredit someone by making them appear to not know what they're talking about or simply focusing on something like, this guy doesn't support our troops, why should we trust him?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

My last point was that unless a government has definitive proof of the existence of aliens, the government itself won't take the alien claim seriously (they have better things to do) and thus would have nothing to inform the public of.

Even still, this is a stretch to make a point that isn't there. So, you're telling me that, even if a branch of government had direct interaction with aliens, themselves - in the form of satellite imagery that they took themselves, and could not have been tampered with, or something otherwise definitive to those whom were actually there to witness it, firsthand...they wouldn't take it seriously? I fail to see the logic in that.

That's like saying that - if I was in the woods, took a picture of bigfoot, and was to post it on the internet - no one is going to believe the authenticity of the picture, anyway, so, it would be stupid enough for me to take the picture seriously, myself.

I mean, that doesn't even compute.

The usual trend is that, whenever "evidence" of an alien conspiracy surfaces, it's immediately shot down, regardless of where it came from or who backs it. People look for (and even involuntarily fabricate) flaws in things they are biased against - kind of like how there was a backlash against the character "Tucker/Norm" in There's Something About Mary, because he used both English and American accents in the movie, and was a relatively unknown actor. Mounds of dissent came in, because British people were so pissed about how fake his British accent was, when it fact, the actor is British, and his American accent was the fake one.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

...an organization can't suppress undeniable proof (as in the government trying to discredit another party which has solid evidence of aliens).

Well, of course. That goes without saying. When the undeniable proof is something as definitive as a spaceship in a barn, then I would think the difficulty in discrediting something like that would be common sense. I'm just not sure the statement has much significance in this conversation, since if a 'government' has some sort of remnant of 'evidence' of such alien existence, it's a stretch to assume it would amount to a spaceship in a barn.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Now I'm curious, when people say "the government" is hiding aliens, exactly who in the government knows about these aliens? Governments are typically a country's largest employer and come in layers that don't necessarily communicate efficiently between each other (municipal/state/federal governments in the US for example). Also what kind of evidence could a government get its hands on that the public wouldn't be aware of (except maybe for the extremely unlikely chance of a one-time event with few witnesses)?

First, I don't know "exactly who in the government" would know about the aliens. I don't pretend to have sufficient knowledge of the inner-workings of any government to know exactly who would know what about what and where they information would go, and where it would stop, and etc. etc. I also don't think my (very understandable) lack of an answer on that ultimately means anything, especially since any sentiment that it just wouldn't happen would be equally as based on faith as anything I could pull out of my ass to attempt to answer such a question with.

And it's not about the "public being aware of" something. It's about the public believing - as a whole - that the evidence is authentic, which I believe to be a much more difficult task, as we've been discussing.

Originally Posted by Xei

This thread is kind of treading the line of being split off into ED or something worse.

I don't see why. There is nobody here arguing for the existence of aliens. I, for one, don't have a belief that we have been visited by aliens. What I'm trying to present is a rationale for why such might (might) be possible. Outside of this conversation, this thread has about run its course, so really, I don't care if it's moved or locked - though I think it would be unnecessary, which is why I hadn't done it. But if you want to move it, be my guest. As I said before, this part of the conversation is admittedly highly speculative, anyway - on both sides. So, whatever's clever.

Originally Posted by Xei

My pointless input having barely scanned the thread: we've seen for the nth time in recent weeks that all you need to leak high level information from the US is a job in the lower ranks of government and a USB stick.

And how often is this done? You would think if it's just that easy, and there are no other variables to be taken into consideration - with so many countless people working in the government - the leaked high level information would be free-flowing, because people would be leaking it constantly.

Originally Posted by Xei

Thousands of people must have been involved in any kind of alien coverup. And not a single one of them ever had second thoughts about it? Come on.

I don't believe that anyone said anything about nobody having second thoughts about it. Even if it were all true, such an assumption would be completely unrealistic. What's more realistic is that it takes a certain kind of someone to throw caution to the wind and brave the risks involved in disclosing such information to the public, against "The Government's" (and no matter how much people seem to hate that term being used, there is simply no need for specificity) wishes. It's easy to say "Oh yeah. Shit. If I was there, and I had access to that information, I'd be posting that shit on YouTube! Yeah!" from the comfort of one's own home computer, but I would assume that it's a different beast, if you're actually there in that position, and balancing whether to put your livelihood, your freedom, and possibly your life on the line, to disclose such information - information that could more or less change world....for better or worse.

Hell, I'm not sure I would have the balls to do it.

Originally Posted by Irken

Evidence is not the only thing people take into account when coming to a conclusion. For example, propaganda seems to work extremely well, especially in America as I have seen between candidates. The information is often skewed and extremely biased, and for the most part kind of ridiculous. However, it seems that propaganda is capable of changing someones opinion. Take into account the kind of propaganda during WWII, it made a clear distinguishable line for the Axis and the Allies who the "good" guys were and who the "bad" guys are. Propaganda can also discredit someone by making them appear to not know what they're talking about or simply focusing on something like, this guy doesn't support our troops, why should we trust him?

Exactly. Remember, folks: "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists."

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I don't believe that anyone said anything about nobody having second thoughts about it. Even if it were all true, such an assumption would be completely unrealistic. What's more realistic is that it takes a certain kind of someone to throw caution to the wind and brave the risks involved in disclosing such information to the public, against "The Government's" (and no matter how much people seem to hate that term being used, there is simply no need for specificity) wishes. It's easy to say "Oh yeah. Shit. If I was there, and I had access to that information, I'd be posting that shit on YouTube! Yeah!" from the comfort of one's own home computer, but I would assume that it's a different beast, if you're actually there in that position, and balancing whether to put your livelihood, your freedom, and possibly your life on the line, to disclose such information - information that could more or less change world....for better or worse.

Hell, I'm not sure I would have the balls to do it.

The internet and sites like Wikileaks have made it possible for such things to be done with total anonymity.

Originally Posted by Xei

The internet and sites like Wikileaks have made it possible for such things to be done with total anonymity.

Peachy (if completely, and unequivocally foolproof), but I repeat:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Hell, I'm not sure I would have the balls to do it.

I thought that was in the circumstance in which you could be implicated?

Why wouldn't you have the balls?

You're thinking too much like an American again, I'm really not that scared of the Canadian government and it's probably the same for people in Portugal or Norway, etc. Why is it just the US government that's hiding aliens?

Originally Posted by Xei

I thought that was in the circumstance in which you could be implicated?

Why wouldn't you have the balls?

Because I don't quite know - not being in the situation - that I'd be willing to risk so much over a promise of anonymity. Call me a cynic, I guess. The idea of anonymity is great. Hey, maybe it does work, and will never/ever/ever be compromised. But am I willing to bet what may amount to my life on it?

Might have to give me some time, on that one.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Why is it just the US government that's hiding aliens?

I don't recall saying that. I'm just not willing to pretend that I know enough about every world government to assume that they wouldn't try to keep such a thing under wraps, until they knew their public was "ready" for it (although you seem pretty sure of yourself). That is how most authoritative programs I know of work; spanning the spectrum from (Yes, American) government / public relations, to parent / children relations. Those being guided are (more often than not, in my own experience) on a "need to know basis." So far as yet, I have no reason to believe it's much different, around the world.

Those in power are often as strategic as possible, when dealing with those they are leading. And it is not a concept exclusive to government. Ask any school teacher.

The concept of government in other countries is hardly that of master and servant. Politicians in the canadian system are very... replaceable. There would be a lot of movement of personnel, people coming in the know every year. Government employees are normal people too, so if that many people can be made privy of such info and deal with it, why can't the public?

Originally Posted by Xei

This thread is kind of treading the line of being split off into ED or something worse.

My pointless input having barely scanned the thread: we've seen for the nth time in recent weeks that all you need to leak high level information from the US is a job in the lower ranks of government and a USB stick. Thousands of people must have been involved in any kind of alien coverup. And not a single one of them ever had second thoughts about it? Come on.

Except that I am pretty sure people involved in the cover ups would, at some point, leak the info. But if they were anonymous, they could not prove they had valid evidence that came from the government in the first place. The government as a whole could just claim it is all made up and that would be good enough refutation for most people.

Why would any evidence only be in the hands of "the" government?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Why would any evidence only be in the hands of "the" government?

It wouldn't be, but if it weren't in the hands of an equally influential source as the government no one would care except those that are already believers, anyway.

I don't know, a lot of people don't trust the government and a lot of reputable scientists and researchers don't work for the government.