Nadme, JayUtah nailed it: Sensationalism.
The History Channel wants Butts In Chairs.

And they also don't report on how those same seasoned pilots later admitted to error in judgment either.

Orion437, you actually make a good point and I see where you are coming from. But Prof. Hawkings didn't say it - like you heard it.

Visited by cranks and weirdos.

Now...

Since Nadme said what she said earlier, does that make Nadme a crank or a weirdo?
No.

I could just as easily, intelligently, make the same reasoning that Nadme just did.
They can't ALL be nonsense right?
But sometimes, you need to look deeper than just the sensationalism.
There are more than just reports of UFO's.
There are reports of:
Demons.
Angels.
Fairies.
Dinosaurs (Still alive).
Ghosts.
Psychic ability.
Most normal people want to Believe when they believe in such things, and will swiftly take something that seems strange or unusual to them as 'evidence' of any of the above.

A lady called my grandmother once. Before the phone even rang, my grandmother picked up the phone and called her by name- "Hello (Name)."
Just like that. Witnessed it with my own eyes.
How did she do that?
I could easily take that as evidence of psychic ability.

I could dismiss the fact that my grandmother only did that ...ONCE.. in her life...

But it's much more likely that my grandmother coincidently was thinking about that lady calling and it just popped into her head to do that based on those thoughts. And the timing lined up perfectly to appear as if she psychically 'knew'.

The people in the report I referred to didn't claim the UFOs were space aliens. They simply reported what they saw.

I think it's important to differentiate people who automatically equate UFOs with Reptiloids from Alpha Draconis from folks who report something unidentifiable ... and leave it at that.

But again: I generally avoid this topic. Once in a while it tweaks my attention a bit; otherwise it's not on my radar (pardon the pun).

The people in the report I referred to didn't claim the UFOs were space aliens. They simply reported what they saw.

That doesn't stop people who make television programs from heavily implying that those witnesses "must" have seen alien spacecraft. As I suggested, I don't generally have a problem with the witnesses themselves in general, but with those who want to read into the testimony presumptions and conclusions that just aren't there.

Shows like the drivel that's being shown on "science" channels put the cart before the horse. They try to present sightings as evidence that space aliens exist and are visiting Earth. That puts the interpretation of the sighting as a premise instead of a conclusion, making the whole thing circular.

While they pretend to analyze and discuss the evidence, the alien spaceship hypothesis is always on the table -- for no readily apparent reason other than it's a bit more scientifically plausible than fairies or demons. There certainly isn't any more evidence for aliens than for fairies and demons.

I think it's important to differentiate people who automatically equate UFOs with Reptiloids from Alpha Draconis from folks who report something unidentifiable ... and leave it at that.

I agree. That's what I believe I'm trying to do. Orion437 seems to think Prof. Hawking lumps them all together. I interpret Hawking's statement as making a distinction.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Because to dismiss it ALL is akin to saying "never".

No, I consider it akin to saying "not yet." The difference is that it's reasonable to make a conclusion based on a clear preponderance of evidence in hand, yet acknowledge that the landscape of the evidence can change at any time and warrant a change of conclusion.

It's not parsimonious to suppose that failure to explain by some number of candidate prosaic propositions equates necessarily to fantastic explanations. It's far more reasonable to suppose that unexplained data is due to undiscovered prosaic causes, not undiscovered farfetched causes. This is especially reasonable when a single candidate explanation (i.e., mistaken identification) accounts for a great number of the explicable sightings.

It's not at all irrational to dismiss farfetched causes that can be shown to explain none of the data falsifiably, and for which prima facie evidence of their existence cannot be supplied. In fact, not to dismiss it would be irrational.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

No it doesn't.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

Neverfly, you are a prince!

I did have a strange rapport with a doctor (years ago). After working with this group of doctors for about 3 months, I always knew when Dr. Bate was telephoning on the in-house system. I'd answer with "Hi, Dr. Bate." He was always stunned, asked (seriously) if I had ESP. No.

A year later I moved across country. Fifteen years later -- 3 months ago -- I'm channel surfacing. Pass up Discovery: Health. Hear "Dr. Bate" in the 2 seconds before I go to the next channel. Whoa...back up. It's THE Dr. Bate I worked for, giving an interview about an unusual case he personally treated (hematology/oncology).

::shrugs::

Synchronicity? Who knows?

Proves what?

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

I'm sorry, but I disagree.

When police interview a suspect, the moment the suspect says "never" (regarding any allegations) they immediately dismiss said denial out of hand because it's absolute.

To entirely dismiss the unexplained is akin to saying "never," which is claiming absolute knowledge.

Sorry, I just don't believe any human or group of humans (including our esteemed scientists) have absolute knowledge -- even of the negating kind in these regards.

Doesn't prove anything (not my intention anyway). Just mentioned it as an aside, in relation to Neverfly's comments.

I'm more frog than prince I'm afraid- The point of my example was that when we see coincidences- we often chalk them up as evidence of paranormal- even when it isn't.

It's more likely- in my mind- that you knew when Dr Bate was calling because of pattern recognition than because of psychic ability.

What it means is that when investigating the strange- it's better to leave the absurd for last.
If you have tried all the regular explanations and none of them work- then you can move into strange theories.

Like a pilot who witnesses a UFO.
Let's examine reality a moment:
We know the pilot's eyes can be decieved and his imagination played with
We know that Weather conditions can provide strange sightings
We know the details of his flight path etc- and can check it for anything unusual

So as an example:
Joe Pilot sees a UFO and reports seeing something strange. He does not name it as aliens or anything- he just relays that he's baffled.
Investigator A follows the story and concludes that he saw an unusual- but normal display- caused by lightning interacting with a low level cloud.
He explains it to the pilot- who looks at the evidence and agrees it matches what he saw and is happy to have found an explanation so he won't be left wondering what that was.

Later- the "Sensationalism Channel" reports that pilots story- but omits the part about him getting a satisfactory explanation.

Simply put- even the scientists are not totally dismissing UFO's as aliens. They are just looking for more likely explanations first. The fact that they find those likely explanations only supports the idea that UFO's are not aliens most likely- it isn't a definitive dismissal really, even though it seems like one.
Because if you ask me what I believe, I will say, "I believe that no UFO's are Aliens."
If you ask me to take a scientific stance, I will say, "There is no evidence currently that any UFO's have been aliens."

The astronauts don't even have to be reporting something they can't identify for UFO enthusiasts to start talking about alien spacecraft. During Apollo 17, at 117:58:43 GET, Gene Cernan throws some object and says, "Look at that go! Did you see that?" In the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, Cernan says that statements like this were, "later taken out of context by a writer of UFO books to 'prove' that aliens had paid them a call." At 118:39:52, he says, "And these people, or this guy, took these kinds of things out of our transcripts, out of context, and put a whole story together that was almost believable. If I hadn't been there myself, I would have thought that an alien spacecraft landed next to us and these comments were referring to that. It was amazing what you can do with editing."

There are still problems with such cases you give as an example. First off, the pilot may not like the answer. From what I have read about commercial and military pilots, some can be very set that they are normally correct and don't like to be shown they made an error. I guess it makes them a bit testy when "pilot error" is used to explain an incident/crash. If they have problems identifying venus rising/setting they tend to think it makes them look incompetent. This is why they will often deny with statements like, "it could not have been venus because I have seen Venus many times before". This is immediately picked up by the sensationalist TV show and UFO groups as it can not be explained and the official explanation is laughable.

When police interview a suspect, the moment the suspect says "never" (regarding any allegations) they immediately dismiss said denial out of hand because it's absolute.

"Never" and "absolute" are your words. We never used them. You're pinning a straw-man interpretation over our claims. It's not an absolute proposition to disregard a hypothesis for which there is no prima facie evidence, which cannot be falsified, and which has no support in a very large body of evidence. Hypotheses are not all created equal and should not be treated as such. The culling of hypotheses based on prima facie improbability is the second step in any rational inquiry.

If the police interview a suspect and he offers, as an alibi, the affirmative proposition that the crime must have been committed by transvestite space cows, therefore he cannot have done it, the police themselves will naturally dismiss such an explanation on its face and may say space-cow crime will "never" be the case. That dismissal is neither absolute nor irrational.

The dismissal of the space-alien explanation for UFO sightings is neither absolute nor comprehensive. It is simply a rational response to the landscape of evidence. All your objections are to the impressions you've pasted on that conclusion, not to the real reasons for it.

Sorry, I just don't believe any human or group of humans (including our esteemed scientists) have absolute knowledge...

Absolute knowledge is not required in order to rationally dismiss absurd speculation for which there is absolutely no proof of any kind.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Hawking's comments are the kind of judgement I would except from a scientist. Now, I tend to have a bit more empathy toward those who believe they have been kidnapped - they may be stuffing from delusions brought on by past trauma like sexual abuse at an early age or some such horrible thing. I would believe it would be members of own species before I accept it is some being from another star.

I got to know some victims of abuse about the same that Whitley Striber was getting some publicity about his "experiences" and I could not help but notice a simularity. There are monsters out there and they are us!

And then those in the UFO industry who profit from the victims are right up there - emotional predators.

__________________
I came for the astronomy but I do love the physics!

A non-pilot frequently wont accept an explanation either. Their UFO sighting gives them a bit of glamour in the eyes of their friends, and they don't want to lose this to a more prosaic sighting of a model hot-air balloon, or whatever.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

While Hawking may be correct his comments were very hurtful to cranks and weirdos...sniff.

An Aboriginal human being is out on the hunt one day in Australia. He is far from his temporary settlement hoping to bring back food for his extended family. Suddenly he sees a large flying object pass overhead. It roars like nothing he has ever heard before and is soon gone. He falls to the ground in terror and sobs, because what he has seen is so bizarre he cannot except it. He gets up an hour later and heads home. When he gets back to his settlement he tells all what he has seen. He is soon perceived as a kook, liar and someone who is just seeking attention. According to the all knowing elder of the tribe he could not have seen this because it could not possibly exist because he is old and wise and has seen everything there is to see in his world.

It is 1962. A young man of twelve years is hunting along side an abandoned railroad track. The tracks meander through a large wooded area. Earlier in the day he has shot two cottontail rabbits on the run. His keen young eyes were no match for the speedy rabbit. The young man is as well adjusted as any normal twelve year old can be. He walks by a break in the trees along the tracks and views a 4 acre wetland that he has seen many times over the years and several times that day. The wetland is part of a farmers horse pasture. When he looks into the wetland he sees what his brain automatically perceives as a building of some sort. Maybe a horse barn, maybe a feeding station. All this perception in a split second. Suddenly what he is looking at presents itself as just what it is. It is a large metallic disc with a dome on top. It is in the wetland on legs of some sort. Still within the first few seconds he is still more curious than afraid because he just cannot beleive what he is seeing. Suddenly he sees movement. A tall somewhat dark figure appears and is moving away from the object. Long skinny legs and long skinny arms with a big head. Reality hits the young man like baseball bat to the head. He collapses to the ground in terror and crawls a few feet into the flooded ditch along side the tracks and sobs silently. He has never been so afraid of anything so much in his young life. As he is lying there he suddenly hears a large crack. He looks up from the ditch and just sees leaves falling everywhere. When he gets the nerve to pull himself out of the water and peek over the tracks toward the wetland, all appears as it should be. He walks the two miles home on wobbly legs. When he arrives he tells no one. He spends the rest of his life feeling as if he knows something that few others do but can never get the nerve to tell his story. Is he a nut case, weirdo??

Your anecdotes (The first looks like something you made up off the top of your head) have nothing to do with evidence or reality.

I can make one too.


Little Georgiana was chasing her dog Scruffy through the woods. As she passed the creek and came around some large rocks, she was amazed to see Puff the Magic Dragon Kissing Tinkerbell who was standing on the back of a Unicorn.
She Pulled out her Polly Pocket Tea set and asked that she might serve them.

Upon arriving home, she described what she saw to her family, who realized she had obviously become very disturbed. So they put her in a straight jacket and hung her upside down from a rafter in front of a T.V. playing nonstop selections from "Leave it To Beaver."

Always?

__________________
-----
Todd (Bowie, MD, US, North America, Earth, Sol System, Vega region, Local Bubble, Orion arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo A Cluster, Virgo supercluster, the universe in which spock is clean shaven)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

personal page: http://blog.astrosketches.info

An Aboriginal human being...

Both these stories presuppose the factual existence of the object sighted, specifically chosen to be sufficiently familiar by description to the reader, though not to the protagonist. That UFO believers consider these tales analogous to UFO sightings being strange or alien vehicles is exactly what makes UFO enthusiasm circular.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Strawman argument.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

They'll have to learn to live with the pain. It'll make better persons of them.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

How cleaver nf . . . pretty much what I expected

Ok whatever. JayUtah nailed it pretty succinctly- as usual...

You set the standard of Possibilities with your own anecdote.
Claiming you "expected" a reply such as mine is pretty much a useless effort.

Why did you bother with your imaginative telling?
It's no different from propaganda.

Invent a believable scenario and suggest it can tease the imagination...

Well, I am curious - do you see a difference between your story, and one where the flying saucer is replaced by, say, a fire breathing dragon?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

How cleaver nf . . . pretty much what I expected

If your anecdotes are intended to be analogues to the UFO sighting phenomenon, then clearly they beg the existence of space aliens and their vehicles. And that question-begging is what I have been pointing out. An analogy that begs the question is no more illustrative than a direct argument that begs the question. Neverfly's conversion of your anecdotes to one in which the question is similarly begged (but clearly absurd) exposes the flaw both in your analogy and the reasoning it represents. You simply assume all the unknowns in your favor.

You warp the situation so that the aboriginal elders are portrayed as dismissing the witness from pure closed-mindedness, which we omniscient readers can easily detect by understanding that the witness saw an airplane -- something that actually did exist, but outside his experience. The elders simply declare it to be impossible because the observations and their implications lie also outside their own experience.

The aborigine witness is the analogue of the UFO witness; the elders are analogues to mainstream scientists. The witness is simply assumed actually to have seen something real and legitimately beyond his experience. No mention is made of ordinary phenomena wrongly interpreted, which is the most common UFO finding. The aborigine is assumed to have made a completely factual report to the elders, without ebellishment or interpretation. Again, this is not what happens in UFO reports.

For their part, the elders simply dismiss the witness out of hand, observation and all. This doesn't follow from UFO skeptics, who typically accept the observation but dismiss the interpretation. It also fails to address legitimate efforts by UFO skeptics to ascertain the strength of the testimony.

Further, the elders here say the implications of the testimony are impossible, which is an assertive claim; whereas mainstream investigators don't say space aliens and their vehicles are impossible, simply that there's no evidence specifically for that possibility in that or any other case.

A better analogy would be an aborigine who comes back to the village telling tales of flying objects and loud noises, only also asserting that it must be some new god they should worship. Naturally the village elders question that interpretation and wonder how the witness knows it to be a new god. After all, they should not abandon on a whim the gods that have cared for them for some time.

The witness then becomes belligerent and accuses the elders of only wanting to consolidate and maintain their power. He accuses them of calling him a liar, and says that since they're the elders they must already know of these new gods and have worshiped them behind everyone else's back. He accuses them of keeping the new gods' favor for themselves at the expense of the village.

And the witness stands on the stump in the center of the village every day, loudly repeating his accusations and telling his story over and over again, hoping that all the other villagers will sit at his feet and pay attention to him instead of to the elders, or to the hunters who are typically the ones who receive the accolades.

Does this sound familiar too?

Really, your analogy merely says, "If we could know for sure that UFOs were really alien spacecraft, then your calling those witnesses 'weirdos' who insist on that interpretation would be pretty improper." Well, we don't know that; so it isn't.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

So, what should I answer if I'm asked how often I assassinate
William McKinley?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

"How many times have you assassinated William McKinley?"
"Never!"
"What, never?"
"No, never."
"What, never?"
"Well, hardly ever."

Somebody's trying to pirate this thread... ;D

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery