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'.

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

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).

__________________
"How strange when an illusion dies. It's as though you've lost a child." ~Judy Garland

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.

__________________
Banned By Nancy Lieder

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::

__________________
"How strange when an illusion dies. It's as though you've lost a child." ~Judy Garland

Synchronicity? Who knows?

Proves what?

__________________
Banned By Nancy Lieder

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.

__________________
"How strange when an illusion dies. It's as though you've lost a child." ~Judy Garland

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

__________________
"How strange when an illusion dies. It's as though you've lost a child." ~Judy Garland

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.

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

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."

__________________
"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out." -- Vaclav Havel

Quote:

We just don't know much.

Yet if not for those words, what would science be for? - KaiYeves

I propose an ATM corollary to Godwin's law: an ATM'er will inevitably compare himself to Copernicus (Or Galileo), when the going gets tough. - CodeSlinger

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 admit it. I AM obsessed with the RHIC. Hey, what u gonna do while you are waiting for the LHC?

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