I don't understand your remark. Can you clarify?
If you mean aliens, according to witnesses they claim to come from other planets and have told various other falsehoods.
People also claim to have seen sasquatch and lizard people.
"Witnesses" doesn't exactly make for a compelling argument on its own. Sociologists have been trying to point out for years that eye witness testimony isn't as reliable as we often think; because humans are notoriously fallible.
The Trouble with Eyewitness Identification Testimony in Criminal Cases | Trends
There are many cases of eye witnesses picking the wrong person in a police lineup, it happens with enough frequency that it's not simply an exception to the rule, but is closer to the rule itself.
There's a reason why even in the Torah God established a principle for Israel's law courts to require the testimony of at least two or three witnesses. Israel's law courts were to be exceptionally strict, because when the punishment for a crime was severe it was very important to ensure a proper execution of due diligence, due process, and real justice.
As I see it, when balancing the question upon Occam's Razor that the most likely explanation is the true; then the question of which is more likely: A lot of people are either lying or mistaken, or we have been visited by non-earthly intelligent creatures but there's just no empirical evidence and/or the governments of the world are successfully keeping it a secret from the masses--I'm going to go with a lot of people are either lying or mistaken.
Aliens
aren't demons.
And people
aren't being visited by aliens.
The question of whether there is life, even intelligent life, somewhere out there in the universe remains an open question without an answer. But sheer probability would suggest that we being all alone in this great big universe is unlikely. It would be more shocking that there is life no where else than that there was.
But we don't know, we can't know, not until something actually happens. And that is exceedingly unlikely; the very physical laws of the universe, as we thus far understand them, make travel between the stars immensely prohibitive. The time it would take to travel between stars, even with exceedingly fast speeds (but never exceeding the speed of light, which is impossible) would be in the order of hundreds of years to hundreds of thousands of years.
The closest star to the sun is Proxima Centauri, and the fastest object ever launched by man into space is--believe it or not--a manhole cover that was launched into space by an atomic bomb test in the 1950's. It reached about 120,000 mph (~193,121 km/h). That's five times the escape velocity of the earth. Even allowing a human piloted vessel going at those speeds (and safely), it would still take over 6.5 years to reach our nearest star system located only about 4 light years away. For comparison, from one edge of the Milky Way Galaxy to the other is 105,000 light years across. And our galaxy is, by comparison to the known, observable universe not even a tiny blip, it is cosmically nanoscopic.
Also, for further comparison, the fastest human piloted craft was Apollo 10 which reached a top speed of 24,792 mph. A craft going that fast would take over 30 years to reach Proxima Centauri.
-CryptoLutheran