It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Shame on you Stephen Hawking

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by GeeGee

Originally posted by yeti101that a witness is unable to indentify soemthing they saw. The most likely explanation is something of terrestrial origin. Atmospheric phenomenon, aircraft,ballons,blimps,sky lanterns, birds other sightings may be stars or planets.

if i phone NUFORC & tell them a flying saucer story and they publish it. Does that make it true?

So what are you saying, you don't believe there are any genuine UFO's? By saying this, you are most definitely saying the millions of people including astronauts, police men, and the most respected people in our society are liars or can't tell the difference between a flying saucer and a balloon. I can certainly tell the difference, can't you?

Good point GeeGee,

This is the flaw of rabid skepticism. They can "divine" what others saw. So the police officer, the pilot or anybody else is mistaken and only they can tell them what they saw.

This is when skepticism becomes a belief and is used as a crutch to protect a pre-existing belief system.

Skepticism is only designed to help you seek the truth, at some point your skepticism has to give way to facts or skepticism becomes just like any other ism in the context of dogma.

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by GeeGee

Originally posted by yeti101
there are many thousands of facts in the theory of evolution. How many facts are there in the alien visitation theory?

Ok, I will agree with you and say that there are few facts. However, there really isn't overwhelming evidence to support that these are secret military craft or anything else either. So where does that leave us?

Oh and what ever happened to that Evolutionary Missing Link?.. Has it been found?? I don't recall anything - Although since I have been in my UFOlogy bubble I may not have heard any recent news.. Can you enlighten me on the missing link and where it may be or not?? I would enjoy and welcome the content... Thank you in advance!!

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:26 PM
Let's do our best to stay on topic here people. I can sense this one driftting away. Preciate it

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:43 PM
A lot of people have seen things flying around that they can't identify, but only a very small percentage of those have claimed actual contact with alien beings.

I think those are the people he's referring to as cranks and weirdos.

Certainly, this statement should be a call to arms to all the mentally competent and otherwise regular folks out there who have had alien contact to come forward.

Hawking has been wrong before, but when he is wrong and the evidence proves that he's wrong, he's pretty quick to admit it.

I think that's the issue here--real, substantive, quantitative, incontrovertible hard evidence.

[edit on 2008/4/22 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:53 PM
I admit Hawking's slipped a few rungs on my personal respect ladder after that, the terms "cranks and weirdos" is a bit harsh, but to give him the benefit of the doubt, do you think he could have been told to discount such things? Could he be in someone's pocket, hence being coached on what to say he thinks?

[edit on 4/22/2008 by MaatiHemet]

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:54 PM
You know I have a lot of respect for Stephen Hawking. He has an incredible mind.

I’m going to have to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. I read in another thread that Kleverone said it’s been a long time since he remembered ‘needing proof’ due to his own sightings, and in this regard I feel the same.

Many noted skeptics generalize to this degree, and it’s frustrating. I personally try to put myself into their shoes, and to an extent I can understand their viewpoint. But that doesn’t make it any less frustrating to be told that ‘you don’t know what you saw’.

I personally do know what I’ve seen. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that if someone like Stephen (or as an ATS example, Nohup) were there, particularly during the sighting I had last fall in Los Angeles, their own personal ‘need for proof’ would be satisfied.

Unfortunately, there is no way to take what is stored in the visual data section of my brain’s memory, and display it on a screen for them to see.

So in lack of a way to ‘show’ them, I take the position that these people are very smart, very logical (for the most part) and basing their worldview upon the empirical evidence obtained by their own eyes (or lack thereof). That I can respect, whether their worldview is correct or not. As long as I get the same level of respect back from those people (and I have from both Nohup and Hawking), I remain un-offended by their inability to conceive of what I’ve seen.

What’s important for Skeptics to remember is that while there are many hoaxers out there trying to fool people, SOME of us actually have had sightings. Some of these sightings were significant, and prove without doubt to us that what we witnessed was from another world.

But without those sightings, Kleverone, myself, and many other proponents and witnesses might well be in the same boat with these noted skeptics.

It all comes down to what your own eyes have seen, unfortunately. And in that regard I can not lose respect for Hawking, who has not seen personally, for following the empirical evidence of his own eyes.

In this same manner, Hawking (I’ve communicated with him personally over the years on a number of issues, including UFOs) has not appeared to lose respect for me, as I am basing my views on the empirical evidence of my own eyes.

I don’t think that Stephen was calling me (or anyone else personally) a crack-pot. I think that he was referring to some of the more prominent ‘believers’ who continue to push their ‘truths’ long after those cases have been debunked (some here at ATS).

At any rate, this man has engaged in civilized debate with me on a number of occasions, and in that light I must say that regardless of whether or not he ‘believes’ what I’ve seen, he does respect where I’m coming from.


posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 12:58 PM
Given that Hawking can only move his eyes now, I wouldn't be surprised if the answer had more to do with one of his 'carers'. You need a Ouija board to talk to the guy these days..

Anyhow, don't get your noses out of joint. Who cares what he says! It's not as though Hawking hasn't been wrong before!


posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:01 PM

Originally posted by MaatiHemet
Could he be in someone's pocket, hence being coached on what to say he thinks?

It could be that his voice synthesizer has been hacked.

Seriously, though, this is a man whose career is based on empericism.

Anecdotal evidence isn't going to cut it.

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:17 PM
Im not passing judgement directly to Mr S Hawkings but he's hardly the genius that everyone thinks.

considering he's a physcist he still hasn't proven his theories are correct without any discrepancies also he has been un able to complete any of Einsteins incomplete theories.

He is a clever man but he has had to be! I mean one of the only things he's actually capable of doing is thinking. I would expect anybody with the same amount of thinking time and interests and same ailments to come up with similar stuff.

I can name three top physcists and he is definatly not one of them

Dr Von Neumann....Nikola Tesla....Albert Einstein....These men were truly great

I get the feeling that Mr S HAwking has put another nail in his own coffin by labeling other people and really not investigating the evidence presented to him....

I dont Know wether we have been visited or are being visited or if we will or will not find life.

However i do not have the right to label people and to question peoples opinions without evidence. Mr S Hawking (according to popular belief) Is an inteligent man and yet hasn't really contributed anything at all.....only theories which themselves are questionable....

all in all....

His satements were a great dissapointment just like him!

If you wish to send an email to Professor Hawking you may do so by mailing:

no doubt you guy's will feel the need to contact Mr S HAwking

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:28 PM
'CRANKS & WEIRDOS' ... hmmm !

I've been called worse ... a long time ago ... and only then by my ex-husband (see 'other things you should know' in my profile)!

It's a very sad day, Hawkins was one of my hero's ... he was right up there with Einstein.

And in return this benighted, illiberal, sententious valetudinarian ... has alienated (pun intended), thousands of people besides myself who had held him in such high esteem ... yes, it is indeed a very sad day.


posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:38 PM
Considering Hawkings condition due to his disease; he most likely puts most people in some type of weirdo and crank category by comparison to his own. An alien visitng our world will probably also consider us as weirdos.

If science was to give Stephen Hawking the choice of a new and normal body or a "Data" type of android, which one would he choose? Stephen Hawking has to deal with his disease and his mortality. Until we actually hear his final words on all of these topics after his death, he might be just tickling the ears of us and those in his field, daring them into a debate like Socrates.

And then there's this:

Besides, weren't people in science originally regarded as cranks and weirdos? Was religion originally formed around sacred or classified science? It would seem that our world still has it's share of mad scientists working in the government and Stephen Hawking is probably just another victim of his peers and these secret societies.

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:40 PM

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
A lot of people have seen things flying around that they can't identify, but only a very small percentage of those have claimed actual contact with alien beings.

I think those are the people he's referring to as cranks and weirdos.

That was my first impression of his statement. He clearly admits life elsewhere is possible, including intelligent life. I think you have to look at the statement as a whole and not pull one line out of context.

I would not use the terms "crank" or "weirdo" myself but this topic does draw some unusual individuals to it.

The word skeptic is often misused or misunderstood I think as well. I have seen actually two flying objects I could not equate with anything known to me. I have no idea what they were or their origins. Even so, I tend toward the skeptical side of this due to the overwhelming pile of garbage that must be dug through to find a few reports that may have merit. Perhaps that is more in line with his thoughts.

Also UFOs and Aliens are a subject that makes many people nervous. They are curious but don't make the leap into studying the topic for fear of the label and also out of fear their curiosity might mean they are themselves odd. We were not there and don't know the context, so he may well have meant it in jest as a nervous response to the subject.

To jump on that one statement and to label him some sort of subversive because of it, is way to knee-jerk for my sensibilities. If people become so enamored with a topic like this that they spew forth hatred toward anyone who does not entirely agree; they may be cranks or weirdo's

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:00 PM

Originally posted by GeeGee

Wow so now you make false accusations against me? Nice.

I never said anything of the sort. Only shows what kind of person you are.

You never even went through the effort to convince me of anything. I asked you to present evidence of those hundreds of UFO cases reported every month being proven to be misidentifications or hoaxes, you never did anything of the sort.

What false accusations?

There is no evidence of aliens visiting Earth

So help me out GeeGee, what sort of evidence can I offer you to prove that something doesn't exist and convince someone who doesn't want convincing?
Or perhaps you would want me to perform some form of Sisyphean task by sitting on their board just wading through hundreds of hoaxes and mis identifications that pour into their inbox every day until you're sated?
I'm not prepared to do that. Thats their job

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:06 PM
I know that what we are discussing is just a simple statement....
Did i say simple? Hmm i did.
If i had said that, would any one care? Ofcourse there would have been the usual reaction from people here on ATS.
But then, i am not an well established scientist...

At this point, i can't really say that he is wrong, i have never seen any "alien being" my self, i have however seen alot of weird things in the skies.
Alot of people claims to have contact, who knows, they might very well have that, i dont call those weirdos or any other thing to ridducule them.

His statement is dangerous for this subject, he almost, and blatantly called anyone that is seeing things in the sky that is unexplained, perhaps even investigators, into this subject weirdos and cranks.
Riddicule.... Works best when someone who is famous use it.

"Cranks and weirdos"
You as a believer, do you think you have deserved to be called this by this man?
You as an investigator, have you deserved it?
The abductee's, have they deserved this?
The Eyewitnesses, have they deserved this?

It is not about him being right, or that his statement is right, it's the effect of the statement that is dangerous.
Does this subject need more riddicule? Dont we have enough problems as it is already with the hoaxes and attentionseekers?

I do not deny people to have their own opinions or their own beliefs, i dont judge them either by what they believe.
That works fine for me, however not for all it seems, i guess even "intelligent" people have stupid moments.

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by solarstorm
What a load of crap.

Off course Mr. Hawkins would say: "We don't appear to have been visited by aliens,"

Keeping his status as top-dog is much more important than telling the truth and loosing "respect". These guys are chess pawns to be manipulated at a moments notice.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by EarthCitizen07]

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Mark Roazhar
What false accusations?

There is no evidence of aliens visiting Earth

So help me out GeeGee, what sort of evidence can I offer you to prove that something doesn't exist and convince someone who doesn't want convincing?
Or perhaps you would want me to perform some form of Sisyphean task by sitting on their board just wading through hundreds of hoaxes and mis identifications that pour into their inbox every day until you're sated?
I'm not prepared to do that. Thats their job

You said I would rather believe they came from across the universe or what not. I don't know about you, but this sounds a lot like you're trying to insult me for my reasoning. Besides, I never said that they did in fact come from across the universe.

I simply said there is trace evidence to suggest alien visitation and the lack of an explanation from our government for over 60 years should tell you something. However, like I said, it is not sufficient enough in the eyes of the mainstream.

Again, you act as if I am a "rabid believer" who will not accept evidence to the contrary. I said that there are hundreds of UFO reports reported every month, and I told you that the majority of these are never put into public view. You told me that's because they're either misidentification or hoaxes, yet you never provided evidence for your claim. There were over 700 unexplained cases in Project Blue Book and they were never really put into public view, either.

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by Mark Roazhar

Hello Mark

For the record, upon my first arriving here at ATS, I performed just such an excercise. I know that it isn't exactly the topic at hand, but I thought it might help GeeGee to look through the thread. Perhaps it would also help you to have such a thread to reference in the future.

It was called Compilation: The Evidence for EBEs, and it's linked here:'

I found the noise to signal ratio rather high, when examining EBE evidence.
I also started a thread about Evidence for ET Technology, also with very little signal, but this one had MUCH less noise. It appears that a lot of the 'noise' seems to be generating in the EBE subsection of the larger area of study.

I started researching UFOs next, for an 'Evidence for Spaceships' thread, and on the very first case I found the strongest signal for a real case yet. It's the thread on the Battle of LA, and it's linked in my signature.

At any rate, the signal is there, lost in the multitude of noise, for those willing to look hard enough. And those cases that are real are the ones that are in need of acknowledgment by the mainstream 'skeptic' community at large, IMHO.

I do not blame you or Stephen Hawking directly for not wanting to sift through all of that noise looking for a signal. However, some of us are willing to do the exercise, and I for one would appreciate it very much if those who don't want to do their own sifting would at the very least acknowledge that there are those of us out there doing it. And some of us have found some results.

It would be truly wonderful if some of the people who don't want to sift through the noise for the signals would take a good long look at the evidence of a case once a signal is found in the noise.

That's all that really bothers me about people with this mindset, as long as you're recognizing that the work IS being done, and by some in a highly professional manner, that's all a researcher can ask. The rest of the 'convincing' is up to the data, IMO, in any case, UFO or Loch Ness, or Whatever.

Stephen Hawking will look at the cases of value. He has in the past, and I'm sure he will in the future. Hopefully others will follow his example, and ignore his words in this instance. He's got a proven track record for being a sensible guy (in my personal experience) who is open to logical rational discourse.


posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:46 PM
even i saw 21 ufo's one night last september,in the space of one hour,

they looked like stars in the sky swimming about some in two's, but at the end of the day they could be hoaxes' i don't beleive every thing i see

as for stephen hawkins and his comments," sticks and stones ",

comes to mind! for a site that is dedicated to finding the truth why are we even discussing something so petty???

i also think he has a good point, nothing can be proven and it would be good if some of the world's leading scientists could claim they have been abducted by aliens along with supposed ordinary citizens, i would think aliens if they do abduct people, would rather abduct the most intelligent minds on our planet!

as for people who say he should get out more, he was one of the lucky few to have recently experienced weigthlessness .

if anybody is going to call people cranks, i think stephen hawking may have the credentials to say it!

not a particulary good thread and certainly not flagged by me, time would be better spent debating more credible possiblities instead of having a go at one of the most intelligent men on the planet who said a couple of wrong words!

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by theRiverGoddess

For those of you who say Stephen Hawking is "very smart" (on par with genius), you need to think again.

Before Stephen Hawking came down with his disease, he was an average graduate student. He was smart, but probably not much smarter than any other Ph.D student. He wasn't incredibly outstanding in any way compared to the rest of his graduate student peers. His IQ isn't stratospheric like 170-200 - the way Isaac Newton, Leibnitz, John Stuart Mill, or Thomas Jefferson had. It's probably not much higher than 140-150, which is a level you can find many students possess at any university.

His incredible insights into cosmology as he become older has more to do with the fact he became completely immobile from his disease. He couldn't do anything, literally, other than THINK. This left him with so much time during the day and night, when others, without such an incredible disability, had to focus on normal everyday mundane tasks....such as brushing your teeth, cooking, driving ,etc.

His almost every waking moment can be spent on thinking about the universe. He himself has said as much as the reason for his scientific work.

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 03:57 PM
I believe that the prof may have been mis-quoted there, you know how the media is ... they report what they think people want to hear.

I dont know what he actually said in that interview (other than what was reported), but i've heard him in previous interviews express totally the opposite view to the UFO "nuts & weirdo's" thing.

But he is correct, we have no "actual" proof that aliens or ET UFO's have visited us. True, there have been plenty of sightings / abductions etc..... but nothing concrete.

GOD do i wish we had proof, i would love nothing more than to know that we are not alone ... and lets face it ...... statistically .... it is possible that others are out there, but i also believe that SETI are not looking in the right area with the Hydrogen frequency scans etc..... just because its the quietest place to transmit a signal.

The Prof is highly respected in his field. I for one will not start to give up on him with what was printed in that article.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in