In the controversial world of high strangeness, the paranormal, and UAP, there is a constant demand for evidence no matter how much evidence is already provided. Skeptics will demand peer reviewed research but find reasons to reject the hundreds of papers that prove the existence of psi abilities. They will demand credible experts and ignore the dozens of high ranking military, intelligence, and aerospace members that testify to the reality of the UAP phenomenon.. The problem is often not a lack of evidence, but a misunderstanding of the nature of truth.

There is no evidence that everyone will accept, full stop. In fact, there is no such thing as 100% proof of anything. The field of study of how we can know what is true is called "epistemology" and Rene Descarte famously articulated what can be known with the saying "I think, therefore I am" -- which is to say, "The only thing I can be certain of is what I am experiencing right now, in this moment."

You might say "but I know the sky is blue with 100% certainty." But do you? Are you looking at the sky this moment? Or do you just remember that it was blue the last time you saw it? How can you be 100% sure of your memory, since memories are sometimes false? Did you know that ancient cultures like the Greeks and Chinese didn't even have a color called "blue"? They might tell you the sky is actually gray or green. Do you remember the infamous white and gold / black and blue dress? What some people thought was "blue" was actually "white" to others. Sometimes what we think is absolutely, objectively true is more fungible and subjective than we expect.

Or at an extreme, maybe none of this is even real, and we're inside of The Matrix where they made the sky blue but in the real world the sky is purple. Or maybe you actually didn't exist a minute ago, and every memory before then was implanted in your mind. Maybe the entire universe was created last Thursday and the majority of our history and knowledge is all false memories.

Morpheus : What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Even if these things only have a 0.00001% chance of being true, it still means you can't know anything with 100% certainty. It will always be, at best, 99.9999...%. Even something as basic as the color of the sky can't be known with certainty.

If we can't agree about the color of a dress, how will we ever agree about the evidence for the existence of something controversial like NHI and UAP? No matter what evidence is presented, nothing will ever be 100% definitive proof so there will always be room for skeptics to move the goal posts and say "we need more/better evidence." In the past we might have relied on authorities to tell us what's true: What do the scientists say? What does the President say? But with the nature of the NHI/UAP mystery and the times we live in, there are no such authorities that everyone will agree on.

Especially in this age of AI and the Internet, there will never be any content posted on this subreddit where everyone will agree and say "yes this is *definitive* proof of NHI." At the end of the day, the only path to Truth with a capital T is the direct experience of it, just like Descarte told us hundreds of years ago. At some point you just need to decide what your own standard of evidence is for belief, and if you care enough to know more than you may have to go out and seek the truth and experience it yourself. Or maybe you'll decide, actually I don't care enough to seek it out myself, and you can go on living your life.