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.


Response to Stephen Hawking Comments - April 26, 2010

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:05 PM
Here we go, Clash of the titans.
Greer did not like Hawking's talk about ET's..
Have a read ..


It is unfortunate that Stephen Hawking has added his voice to a growing chorus of xenophobia and fear regarding what he terms "Aliens."

Secondly, as a scientist, he should know better: Any interstellar civilization would possess such technologies that the meager resources of Earth would be unneeded. If you can travel faster than the speed of light, you can manifest what is needed. Period. Moreover, IF they were hostile- since ETs are already visiting Earth (see this would have been made crystal clear when we detonated the first atomic weapon in 1945. To date, no place on Earth has been invaded or attacked or colonized.

Hawking should refrain from stirring the war-mongering fear pot that attends all things "alien." And one might ask: Why would he make such statements, unless he is carrying water for the military-industrial-financial complex which profiteers off of the wars that fear breeds?

Steven M. Greer MD
April 26, 2010

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:12 PM
I must say i agree with Greer, there is plenty of evidence of ET interaction with humanity, if they were hostile, we would be dead. Period..

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by ChemBreather

My response to Greer would be that if he's a scientist then he would not be making the claims he has made. He makes a lot of assumptions in his response and relies on evidence that is inconclusive of anything. While Hawking may not have been acting scientifically when he made his comments, Greer hasn't acted scientifically for years now.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:13 PM
Hmmmm...Leader Greer vs. Stephen Hawking...... Sorry, gonna have to side with Hawking as he doesn't run a cult.....

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:18 PM
I agree on your comments, this was a wierd incident if you ask me.

Hawking were speaking more in the general idea of ET life in the universe and not directly about 'what's' cooking' down here..

Any money involved here you think ? !

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:24 PM
so am i the only one who thinks that hawkings main point was for us to look at ourselves and how we behave,

He explained: "We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet."

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:30 PM
I think it is absurd to say 'if they can travel faster than light they cannot be hostile'. You have to consider the fact that we don't even know if FTL travel is possible and as such we don't know how advanced a race would need to be in order to master it.
Maybe a physicicst on earth cracks it tommorow?, maybe the space race is privatised and 70 years from now we launch our first star ship, discover a planet with a less advanced race that may be harbouring terrorists and decided to liberate their oil / star fuel.
What if the aliens are only a few hundred years in advance of us rather than thousands or millions?
What if shoveling humans into their engine is what fuels it?
It is gnorant to assume they will be new age hippies just because they are smarter than us. Even if they were what if we board their ship and find it's been taken over by face huggers because the hippy aliens thought that guns were 'bad vibes man'.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Zenagain
Hmmmm...Leader Greer vs. Stephen Hawking...... Sorry, gonna have to side with Hawking as he doesn't run a cult.....

Actually they are both cult leaders.

Hawking has people foaming at the mouth to protect/agree with him no matter what he says.

You know deep down inside Hawking's cult is 100x bigger than leader greer's cult EVER will be.

You know it's a Fact.

Although I have no more respect for Either of these men, I am going to have to agree with leader Greer (ugh i feel embarrassed now).

[edit on 26-4-2010 by muzzleflash]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:48 PM
Id still sit on the fence...
Untill Mork from Ork says nanu nanu to my face, thats where Ill stay too.

To add the arguement to it, I think its annoying when Greer says that resorces here wouldnt intrest Alien life... Come on!, - look at us humans, we study everything, in all shapes and forms, no matter how unintelligent or how boring something is, theres somebody studying and writting a dissentation on it.
Now, apply this to Aliens, and surely there'd be something thats worth-while to make them look at our beautiful planet.

If not, then lets say there just looking for something to eat, and humans top of the menu.

Or their rather lonely... Like us, and eternally hopefull of finding life elsewhere..

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:48 PM
reply to post by yeti101

I certainly agree with you on this one.

At the same time I can understand why both Greer and Hawking say what they do. When you look at each person's displayed evidence it's obvious they are not on the same page.

It seems Greer is a bit more of a sensationalist on this matter...and yet I've heard some believable things come from his corner...still I dont know about his assumptions that ET's arriving on earth would NOT be hostile. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldnt, it depends on who and what they are.

It seems to me with a universe as large as ours there are bound to be countless forms of life, some with good intentions and some without.

I suppose for me its one of those things where I choose to look at evidence from both sides and then form my ideas based on what seems real from my point of view. I tend to believe alien life is already on earth and has been for some time. At the same time I can clearly see how involvement or contact with the wrong entities could have negative results.

I dont know guys...I guess its just one of those never ending arguments, maybe because in many ways both are true.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by noisemedia]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:54 PM
No ; super advanced aliens capable of FTL travel do not need our resources.

They can get pure hydrogen and fuse it through fusion to create gold, or whatever.

You do understand nuclear fusion ??

With Fusion technology you can create any element from scratch. All you need is Hydrogen, the basic element of the universe.

Therefore the resources argument is nil. Debunked.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by muzzleflash]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:56 PM
I think it's funny that most people will just pick sides based on "who said it" rather than what was actually said.

Rather than thinking about what they said, and considering it; they just assume their "favorite person is right".

It's absurd.

People can we please stop being so outright prejudice? Thanks

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:57 PM
I want to see that episode, what is the whole name of the documentry with hawkins?

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:58 PM

Network ABC
World News tonight with Diane Sawyer
Is covering Hawkins comments right now!
They are kinda slighting the comments the only way ABC news could but it is press!

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by muzzleflash

When I look at the majority of my personal beliefs regarding ET's I guess Im with you on this one.

Hawking certainly has more credibility, a large following, etc. but that doesnt make him right about EVERYTHING.

I dont know, Greer is kind of wacky but that doesnt make him wrong all the time either.

Ehh...anyway thats just my two cents.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:04 PM
reply to post by Arkady

How do we even know the science we follow is even correct? We have nothing to compare it to?

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:17 PM
Stephen Hawking is a well known person really. where Steven Greer is only well known through the ufo following people.
If you asked your neighbour or work mate who Steven Greer is would they know?
What if Stephen Hawking (being well known) is another step towards disclosure and then Disclosure Project steps in to clarify things?

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:19 PM
I think the real issue here is that no one really knows what would happen either way. We tell ourselves that they'll be super advanced and therefore we will have nothing they need with one breath and then claim that they'll be resource scavengers like the visitors in the TV show V with the next. That said, there is know way we can know for sure. Both the Disclosure Project and Stephen Hawkins are really only giving their opinion based on their best guess; nothing else.

Whatever they (ET) are, we have to keep an open mind and remain cautious, because to do otherwise would be total folly.

Trust has to be earned and dreams of pretty, shiny technology and help with all our social ills should never blind us of that fact.


**Support Stephen Hawkins**

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:22 PM
I think Hawkings analysis a bit far fetched as afar as ET beings would most likely to conquer earth. From the standpoint of UFOligy it seems aliens have been here and they are more indifferent to us if anything. This does make them "good or evil" as we understand them to be. And Greer is little more of an authority on this than Hawking all due respect to Hawkings. But a program finding the answers does not seem to be the way. It is interesting any way. But when you look at abductions people getting yanked out of bed in the middle of night and the abductors havng the hospitality to put them back where they got them says they cant be that bad. At least as far as some of our off world visitors go. At least the roper report gives a little insight on ET interaction.

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:22 PM
Who cares what Hawking thinks. In physics he's not even in the top ten theoretical physists of the last century. His only contribution has been the theoretical disappation of black holes, although good work it required no intuitive leap of logic similar to Einstein or Newton. His most recent arguments have been slightly less than laughable, particularly his resolution of the preservation of information in a black hole by invoking the multiverse with no proof. He is more of a Carl Sagan than Newton and would be significantly derided on his recent work if he wasn't so severly handicapped.

As far as hiding from advanced species, its too late if they can get here because of our radio signature thats been heading into space for 60 years.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in