How credible do you believe Stephen Hawking is on Aliens and UFOs?

After watching the first part of Into The Universe with Stephen Hawking. Stephen Hawking did touch on a very huge subject on alien abduction. Which I believe he is correct on why would aliens want to abduct some average human? I would like to get your thoughts on Stephen Hawking credibility in the Aliens, Space and UFO realm.

He is no more credible on the subject of aliens and ufos than you or I. No one is at this time really.

Now, when it comes to space, physics and the sort, well I would have to say Hawking is pretty darn credible, lol.

As credible as anyone else, although on UFOs he would be more credible as he's a physicist, and if you want to get down to the bottom of what UFO's are, you would need some physicists.

Well, I think his opinion needs to be taken very seriously. But I would like to counter his argument...

While ultimately I am on the fence as far as abduction Here is my thought...

Hawking asks why Aliens would abduct some average human. To that I respond.... Why do us humans go out in the wild tag animals and even capture them? To learn about them as a species of course.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Well, I think his opinion needs to be taken very seriously. But I would like to counter his argument...

While ultimately I am on the fence as far as abduction Here is my thought...

Hawking asks why Aliens would abduct some average human. To that I respond.... Why do us humans go out in the wild tag animals and even capture them? To learn about them as a species of course.

And there it is !!!! There is no better answer then that .. Star on that one
Second Line as i could not answer any simpler or better !

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Well, I think his opinion needs to be taken very seriously. But I would like to counter his argument...

While ultimately I am on the fence as far as abduction Here is my thought...

Hawking asks why Aliens would abduct some average human. To that I respond.... Why do us humans go out in the wild tag animals and even capture them? To learn about them as a species of course.

But we don't have to go relatively far to tag wild animals.
These aliens would have to be massively bored, or have a huge or infinite fuel supply to waste time going to planets where species haven't even left the solar system in a practical way. But who knows, maybe aliens are just as irrational as humans.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by hippomchippo]

1/5

Into The Universe with Stephen Hawking - Aliens



2/5
www.youtube.com...
3/5
www.youtube.com...
4/5
www.youtube.com...
5/5
www.youtube.com...



[edit on 27-7-2010 by Zeta Reticulan]

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

Several million americans claim to have been abducted by aliens. Now that is hard to believe.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
He is no more credible on the subject of aliens and ufos than you or I. No one is at this time really.

Now, when it comes to space, physics and the sort, well I would have to say Hawking is pretty darn credible, lol.

I would totally agree with that.

It's not like aliens have visited him and gave him
more info than the rest of the researchers in the
world.

his credibility on a scale:

Physics: 10

Aliens: 3

Did you see that new video he did with his interpretation
of what alien life form looked life? Almost looked like
it needed to be more in a Disney movie than an alien
depiction.

I only know Stephen from the science channel , coast to coast ,and such, but I feel he is the top expert on aliens and UFO's . Steven is physically challenged, but that has only made his brain stronger. I say he just maybe the expert to aliens and UFO's if I do say so myself.

Unless one feels they have a better fella , please let us know.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
As credible as anyone else, although on UFOs he would be more credible as he's a physicist, and if you want to get down to the bottom of what UFO's are, you would need some physicists.

Naw. Physics is only one piece of the puzzle, and not even the most revealing. My expertise is more relevant. Comparative mythology and comparative mysticism. The UFO phenomenon is a modern mythology and it is more mystical than technological. Plus I have an interest in parapsychology, which has much to say about UFOs. Hawking doesn't know squat about these fields, or so it seems to me. Hawking takes the ET myth at face value just like everyone else.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by Student X]

I've always felt he's a gatekeeper, not just aliens but also with his traditional scalar em dodging, hertz/maxwell camp of physics.

Originally posted by wiredamerican
I only know Stephen from the science channel , coast to coast ,and such, but I feel he is the top expert on aliens and UFO's . Steven is physically challenged, but that has only made his brain stronger. I say he just maybe the expert to aliens and UFO's if I do say so myself.

Unless one feels they have a better fella , please let us know.

How can he be a top expert on aliens and UFO's if we cant prove 100% their existence? I think he was smart before his bout with ALS. He also has no more knowledge on the topic than you or I. Just a more respected opinion. And you know what they say about opinions, right? ( * )

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

I used to find him credible until he said something about man made global warming, as in it is real, not a hoax. Since then, I find him to be very mainstream, and quite corruptible.

Also, I caught a snippet of Hawking on Time Travel, and I thought that the anti-Christ James Cameron was far more profound with "Terminator", or at least I should say that whoever wrote the script was profound.

He's there to guide us along the mainstream channels. At this point, I'm pretty sure even gravity is a hoax. So little time to worry about every lie. I suspect he is an atheist, and believes in evolution. I am not interested in his opinion on anything, really. I don't trust him to speak truthfully as he may know the truth.


[edit on 27-7-2010 by davidmann]

Hawkings is good for entertainment value because he is a popular figure and gets to make tv shows like this one. He doesn't speak from hard facts he speaks from theories, things that are unproven. He is frequently found wrong when the facts come around. I put his brain up there right along side with Joe The Plumber.

Anyone can do what he does. He takes theories and reworks them to put a Hawking spin on them and claims to have come up with new theories.

Entertainment value 100. Credibility value same as the average normal person. there is nothing special about this guy or his mind.

It is just his interpretation and view yet i find it odd he ignores what has been going on for over 60 years here on earth ? He kind of brushes it off and seems biased probably because he is part of the mainstream scientific community. So he may be committing career suicide if he goes too deep in to UFOligy imo. They guy is in a wheel chair and is in no position to challenge even his care taker. Im surprised he even mentioned abductions.






[edit on 27-7-2010 by Unknown Soldier]

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
It is just his interpretation and view yet i find it odd he ignores what has been going on for over 60 years here on earth ? He kind of brushes it off and seems biased probably because he is part of the mainstream scientific community. So he may be committing career suicide if he goes too deep in to UFOligy imo. They guy is in a wheel chair and is in no position to challenge even his care taker. Im surprised he even mentioned abductions.


I agree with you on that one , also maybe he has been told to not say anything about it , anyways he is a highly intelligent person and i can see no other reason for him to deny , except is he was told too , as you stated he is part of the sci comunity





[edit on 27-7-2010 by Unknown Soldier]

It's interesting...I like Stephen Hawking in general and I enjoy hearing his opinions. But I think there is a skewed public perception of him, as others have alluded to in this thread.

It seems as though in all times and places, there are certain roles that humanity pins on different famous people. Hawking is the current reigning "really smart science guy," basically playing the same role as Einstein did in the public imagination. Lady Gaga is the current "controversial, slatternly young female pop star." A lot of people saw Mother Theresa (when she was alive) or the perhaps Dalai Lama (now) as "the saintly living person who is morally incorruptable." Of course, all of these are cardboard-cutout, two-dimensional images pinned on people by the public, and in a way it must be hellish to try to live up to those images.

The way Hawking is treated, it is almost like anything he says would be taken as the final word on things to do with space and cosmology, which of course is contrary to the spirit of science itself. As I said, I like him and welcome his opinions, but I have some skepticism about the way he is received by the media and public at large.




[edit on 7/27/10 by silent thunder]

The man has nothing more "than" to think. He is way ahead of his time, yet time is not significant according to the quantum foam he himself has sumrised. Hmmm? He just might be far ahead of us simple simons.

In his thinking, we can cross time only in the quantum foam (very small and equative quantum measurements), I find him fascinating. He has some clues to the universe. Thank God they are not religious.

Since I strongly doubt he has researched very much (if any) evidence in the alien and ufology field, I would say his opinion on the subject shouldn't carry much weight.

We hear the motives of alien abductions from the abductees themselves. The regular claim is that they perform scientific tests on them. Other claims have to do with breeding or cloning.

When we find a new species on Earth, the first thing we do is study it. Even if they could read a book on everything Homo-Sapiens, their medical instruments would be more precise and advanced, making first-hand examination necessary. It doesn't sound like a nice thing, but at least all of these abductees were returned alive instead of being dissected.