• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Hawking: (UFOS) Only appear to cranks and weirdos

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

blindethos said:
Well, he kinda has a point.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. Sure there are cranks and weirdos that claim to see ufos, but it isn't only them. I wonder if he thinks there's no legitimate medicine due to all the quacks in the world.
 
I couldn't even finish reading the article. I am so tired of arrogant, ignorant academic twits talking about UFOs as if they had actually researched the subject. These guys think that they know better than everyone else what is or isn't possible. They are wrong.

What about the 1986 Japan airlines incident? Or the Malstrom AFB incident? The RB 47 case? Hello? These are not cranks or wierdos! As the bard says, "do your research by proclamation because investigation is too difficult. "
 
Chuckleberryfinn said:
I couldn't even finish reading the article. I am so tired of arrogant, ignorant academic twits talking about UFOs as if they had actually researched the subject. These guys think that they know better than everyone else what is or isn't possible. They are wrong.

What about the 1986 Japan airlines incident? Or the Malstrom AFB incident? The RB 47 case? Hello? These are not cranks or wierdos! As the bard says, "do your research by proclamation because investigation is too difficult. "
Click to expand...

I didn't finish the article either.

Hawking has made a similar statement in regards to time travel. He says he doesn't think time travel can happen, because if it could, we would be being visited by beings from the future. How does he know we haven't been? Maybe some ufos are time travelers for all we know. His notion also assumes they would make open contact. Maybe they wouldn't out of fear of upsetting time lines..
 
In fairness, he actually has a bit more scientific reasoning and support for his time travel position. The lack of time travel tourists is more of a sound bite than his complete reasoning.
 
I did not even bother reading the article but since time travel was brought up I thought I would add a thought.

Hasn't everyone at one time or another had a time warp. I don't know if this is the scientific term used ot not.

Let's say it generally takes two hours to drive from point A to point B but for some reason it only took a half an hour to arrive at point
B.

Is that experience discounted because the person has a limited ( or conventional )veiw about the nature of time?

Couldn't time travel involve an aspect of consciousness combined with some nanotechnology? Why is it impossible?
 
The Pair of Cats said:
I agree. I wonder what he would say about UFOs if he does actually get to see one?
Click to expand...

Probably some sort of auto-debunkification like "I must be hallucinating" or "One too many scotches!" or "Maybe I should lay off the trans-temporal equations before bedtime..." Never anything as simple as "Huh... guess they are real... I wonder what they are?"
 
CapnG said:
The Pair of Cats said:
I agree. I wonder what he would say about UFOs if he does actually get to see one?
Click to expand...

Probably some sort of auto-debunkification like "I must be hallucinating" or "One too many scotches!" or "Maybe I should lay off the trans-temporal equations before bedtime..." Never anything as simple as "Huh... guess they are real... I wonder what they are?"
Click to expand...

LOL:) Or...
"it was the metal alloy of my uber genius wheelchair, super conducting the electrical signal from my bad, French sounding voice computer so as to emit a powerful magnetic field effect near my temporal lobe, causing visual and auditory hallucinations!!!"
Someone should rip this guy a new black hole! :) :) :)
 
Another gem by him is that psychic phenomena is bunk because in college when he studied it there were always problems with the controls used (he took a course in it when he was around the age of 21 or 22). Shouldn't he conclude that bad science was done, fix the controls, then experiment, then conclude?
 
Hawking's attitude is disappointing, but it doesn't surprise me. Sadly, there are cranks and weirdos who report BS UFO experiences. Unfortunately, the popular press seems far more interested in such stories, than they are in pilot sightings, radar confirmation of UFOs, military encounters, police sightings, etc. I guess focusing on the BS stories allows people to dismiss the phenomenon as nonsense, and continue living in their safe, familiar little worlds, where strange, potentially threatening objects don't traverse our skies.
 
I was actually very surprised by this article because I've read were he believes that there is truth to the whole phenomenon.

Remember his theory on black holes was completely debunked. It took 30 years but his contributions to physics has been nill. He's whats called a media physics guy. If you ask a physicist who the top people are in the field Hawkings usually doesn't rate in the top ten.
 
Mothra said:
I was actually very surprised by this article because I've read were he believes that there is truth to the whole phenomenon.

Remember his theory on black holes was completely debunked. It took 30 years but his contributions to physics has been nill. He's whats called a media physics guy. If you ask a physicist who the top people are in the field Hawkings usually doesn't rate in the top ten.
Click to expand...

Recall where you read or heard that?

I don't recall his theory being completely debunked. There were people who didn't buy it, but it wasn't proven false so far as I know.

There was less evidence for blackholes, than ufos though, and that didn't stop him from believing in them. Hell, no one's ever seen a blackhole, not even a crackpot:)
 
Paranormal Packrat said:
There was less evidence for blackholes, than ufos though, and that didn't stop him from believing in them. Hell, no one's ever seen a blackhole, not even a crackpot:)
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. With the right equipment anyone can se a black hole (well, the radiation spewing from it's poles at any rate). Plus black holes don't randomly move around, change size and shape or seem to behave intelligently...
 
I'm not sure that his theory of black holes was completely debunked. He changed his mind about what he believes happens to the matter that is captured by the black hole... If I recall, he was the person who proved that black holes should emit radiation and should be "visible" to radio telescopes. His contributions to physics have not been nil; his work with Penrose was important. Just because the man has made one asinine statement is not a reason to impeach his total body of work.
 
CapnG said:
Paranormal Packrat said:
There was less evidence for blackholes, than ufos though, and that didn't stop him from believing in them. Hell, no one's ever seen a blackhole, not even a crackpot:)
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. With the right equipment anyone can se a black hole (well, the radiation spewing from it's poles at any rate). Plus black holes don't randomly move around, change size and shape or seem to behave intelligently...
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Hawking radiation, but the singularity. Yes, the effects of BHs can be seen.
 
I just watched a 2 hour special on the whole thing a couple of weeks ago.The whole show was him trying to come to terms with it and it showed him working with an assistant over the last 5 years putting together a new stance on the subject. Then they showed the conference where he presented his finding which were pretty underwhelming to the rest of the scientific community.

He didn't change his mind, he was proven wrong and had to just accept it.
 
Back
Top