Only Cranks and Wierdo's See UFO's

Are you accusing me of something insideous here Pete?

Your logic is faulty - it's not obvious at all. I obviously didn't read it to your standards, oh but, I did this intentionally. How you come to that conclusion is beyond me. I read things literally - you can take his sentance to be literal easily.

Alien visitors and UFO's in my book are different catagories. If this is a general question, then no, I do not believe they are reliable, but I do believe that they believe they've seen what they claim to see and experience.

But reliability is a highly subjective term. What I may consider reliable may not reflect the actual facts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To show you how your logic is faulty, and believe no one can get these things mixed up, there is a perfect example displayed here, involving me when I first arrived here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=103344

According to different people, the term nut meant different things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also note, I was not the only one who read it in a different light.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did you listen to the talk, or did you just read that one sentence with no context?

Hawking said:
On the other hand, we don't appear to have been visited by aliens. I am discounting reports of UFOs. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?

If you listened to or read the talk, then I strongly suspect you're being devious.
If you only read that single sentence in isolation, then you're just being hasty.

Then we agree with each other, and we agree with Hawking that we don't appear to have been visited by aliens.

 

Of course I listened to it - I must have, assume the evidence Pete:

It was linked to a YouTube video; not a written work.

The usage of his words came in half way through the video.

If these two cases are satisfied, then all evidence suggests I must have watched the video to extract that information. Now I think you are being devious.

 

It is usually required to take men like Hawking seriously, especially when talking about the subject of science. The words ''Dismiss UFO accounts'' to ''crankery'' is just what it means.

''Most cases of UFO accounts'' to ''Crankery'' supposes something ENTIRELY different.

 

The OP seems to obviously already have a loaded opinion on the subject. While indeed it's not nice to call names or have names called, Hawking had a valid point. Why haven't aliens shown themselves to the intellectually elite? Scientists, Scholars and pretty much anyone that you'd suggest would be intelligent enough to understand them. Why does it always seem the only people that apparently see them tend to be people that are really just craving attention?

Notice my statements are applied to "Aliens visiting" not UFO's, UFO is obviously the term "Unidentified Flying Object" but as has been stated, argued and even observed, it's all very well to see something in the sky but it's not necessarily Unidentified just Misidentified, it's not necessarily flying and it's not even likely to be an "object".

Whats usually mentioned here is that there are some very dishonest people that like to mix up "aliens" with "UFOs", they are not the same arguing that the mentioning of one is automatically the other is the dishonest part, so please don't do it.

 

thanks. that's nice of you to say. i think she does somewhat, but it's kind of hard to tell. she's used to keeping everything to herself, and pretty good at denial. it's just that, with a phenomenon like this, there aren't any answers, not within the experience itself, or outside of it really. and you can drive yourself nuts trying to figure it all out. lately i think she's just been trying to not think about it, or give it any power, focusing instead on her "real life". she's in a good relationship, has a good job, and is being very productive.

 

that's true. you have a good point. i don't know that she's ever considered seeing someone in that respect. she's a tough girl, and it wouldn't really be in her nature to. she did consider being hypnotized, to attempt to get some answers. there are a lot of things like missing time, and screen memories, and waking up with injuries and scars, that indicate she doesn't remember much of what's happened to her. but eventually i think she decided she didn't want to.

 

You must be calling me ''dishonest'', while I call Hawking ''disingenuous''.

 

It's totally acceptable to namecall when dealing with UFO nutters. Don't ever try to argue with them. Or the conspiracy mongers. They can be dismissed with a mere word.
Don't lie and say you disagree with that statement.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Pardon, but why on Earth would Stephen Hawking carry weight on the subject of UFO's and extraterrestrials? Does he have some special credentials?

I would like to know why anytime someone with a position of authority, the backing of some elite society or academia, or someone with a PhD, opens their fat mouth and pontificates about some subject...

... that it's treated like gold and put in a vault for safekeeping?

"I do declare, I am a doctor of physics, and I think people who believe in UFO's are veritable pieces of garbage!"

"So? Fancy yourself Ruler of the Universe much?"

 

Have you not seen the documentary on Hawking called 'Master of the Universe'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There are perfectly down to earth and sensible explanations for UFOs. Lenticular clouds, for example, can look like metallic discs. Electrical discharges aka 'sprites' can also give the illusion of being a solid, regular shaped object.

 

I agree. However, some objects that have been seen, act as though there is an intelligence behind their coordinations. The intelligence indicates it's not something which can easily be catagorized or easily referenced to natural phenomenon, which begs the question truely how many UFO sightings are in fact, the true macCoy.

 

Applying such statements as a universal, blanket remedy, is done all the time. Generally by people who have already made up their minds on the subject, and that the answer is negative.

 

Oh, Good LORD!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That explains everything.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I believe that she wants to be your friend and is using this as a ruse to keep your friendship strong with her. Now don't get me wrong, she may believe she was abducted, in her own mind, but clearly she isn't needed by aliens for any reasons.

 

a couple of interesting and relevant stories on fox news this morning...

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/23/aliens-monitoring-nukes-worry-ex-air-force-officers/
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/27/appoints-contact-visiting-space-aliens/

 

I noticed a valuable error in your reasoning. I am a fair man, so I will put this down to ignorance, but not an intentional one.

You say why haven't they showed themselves to the elite>

The military have I would suspect more scientific members working for them than what we have come to realize. What exactly do you constitute as ''elite members''?

If the military spot them on radar, how more elite do you need to be? Secondly, Hawking does not have a valid point - unless that point is validly narrow.