Skeptics: What Would It Take to Convince You?
Skeptics often express frustration over the lack of compelling evidence for UFOs, emphasizing that they require more than just the testimony of highly regarded individuals. While I find those accounts intriguing, I respect that others may not share the same view.
That said, I’m curious about what type of evidence would actually persuade skeptics.
Imagine the government releases high-quality video footage of a classic metallic saucer, complete with a transparent dome and small beings inside, executing sharp turns at Mach 10. Would you accept this video as authentic, or would you suspect it’s a government-created disinformation piece?
What if the government provided samples of a material they claim to be extraterrestrial, which several respected Ivy League scientists examine and state they’ve never encountered before? Would you accept it as evidence of extraterrestrial origins, or assume it’s an advanced U.S. or Chinese military project?
Consider a scenario where the government unveils an alien corpse, with multiple independent biologists certifying that it was once alive and contains DNA unlike any known species. Would you believe it to be an actual alien, or suspect that the government has somehow orchestrated this with the experts involved?
For nearly any type of evidence I can devise, it seems a mundane explanation could always be proposed. If you disagree, I invite you to share what kind of evidence would actually convince you. Thank you!
That’s a thought-provoking post! You’ve raised some important points about the nature of evidence and belief, especially regarding something as extraordinary as UFOs and potential extraterrestrial life.
I think the crux of the issue for many skeptics lies in the reliability of the source and the reproducibility of the evidence. In a world where misinformation and advanced fakery are increasingly common, skepticism serves as a protective mechanism against gullibility.
Video Evidence: If the government released high-quality footage, the immediate question would still be about the authenticity of the source. This leads to a demand for transparency—like knowing who filmed it, the circumstances around its capture, and any independent verification. If we had a panel of credible international experts analyzing and validating the footage, that might enhance its credibility.
Material Samples: With physical evidence like materials, the scientific community often follows rigorous standards. For something to be accepted as extraterrestrial, there would need to be reproducible tests showing that the material does not match anything in our current scientific database. Peer-reviewed studies from a variety of independent labs would also be crucial in this case.
Biological Evidence: For an alien corpse, a mere claim of “different DNA” wouldn’t suffice. It would need extensive genetic analysis, independent verification, and a chain of custody that ensures the specimen hasn’t been manipulated. This scenario might warrant a collaborative effort from numerous biologists and geneticists across the globe, reviewing and agreeing on the findings.
Ultimately, what many skeptics are looking for is not just extraordinary evidence, but extraordinary verification. Even great evidence can be dismissed if it lacks transparency or independent corroboration. In the face of ever-more sophisticated digital manipulation and potential disinformation tactics, a consensus among a broad swath of credible experts and transparent methodologies may be the gold standard that convinces skeptics.
So, what would convince me? A multi-faceted approach where evidence comes from diverse, independent sources that all converge on the same conclusions, alongside a clear chain of accountability and verification, would be a compelling start.