tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post5121980898193794625..comments2024-03-28T15:55:33.435-07:00Comments on The Big Study: Are "They" Friendly?: Hawking says Watch Out!The Professorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-61530552551865828212010-05-01T06:10:22.693-07:002010-05-01T06:10:22.693-07:00I wish that I had the Magic Key to the other castl...I wish that I had the Magic Key to the other castle, but I don't. I sit in the nearby field, with my hands in the straw and the mud, and make a few bricks to build another one. Hall, Bloecher, Hynek, Ruppelt, Greenwood, Vallee, Michel, Poher, Phillips, Rodeghier, ... and so many more ... have sat here. Some still do, and are in smiling and hailing distance. Their "bricks" are stacked all over the ground. The outlines of the building are there for most minds to see. In our minds it is a Great House; on the ground of the World, it is still a figment of our imagination. So, still I sit in the mud. But I have great company. ... and a feeling of honest work.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-2368348894813114112010-04-30T20:47:43.095-07:002010-04-30T20:47:43.095-07:00Thank you for your patient responses, Professor, a...Thank you for your patient responses, Professor, and your subtle reminder. It's both enjoyable and rewarding to go back through the archives and re-read early posts in the light of recent discussions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-73577722795510101552010-04-30T16:29:02.314-07:002010-04-30T16:29:02.314-07:00The "sociology" which rose up around thi...The "sociology" which rose up around this field presents an astoundingly robust and flexible set of barriers to allowing open discussion of data and reasoned theory about it. Anyone who takes as their main activity the breeching of the academic wall of instant rejection will be in for continual surprise and disappointment, if not anger and depression. What one CAN do is to do good work and build a powerful demonstration of the phenomenological and sociological truths in our field, and let that work do its slow corrosive work, convincing persons one-by-one until the walls are seen by people generally as the hypocrisy and manipulative tools that they are. Anyone is welcome to bow to their impatience or naivete and storm the academic castle, but not me. I've been there. There's no magic tunnel in. Mindless brutes guard every approach. Only by building our own impregnable fortress [founded on truth and idealistic honesty] will the other structure come to the end it deserves. Keyhoe wanted the big wall-breaker--he didn't come close. NICAP wanted it out of Colorado---not close either. Hynek thought that surely he could sway science---not hardly. Right-to-Know, Roswell GAO, Disclosure---most of these things become first entertainment and then, usually, laughingstocks [we're talking about academe]. As Aristotle would have said: There is no Royal Road to UFOlogy. ----and as Mountain William would remind us: you first have to bake the bread if you expect to gather the gravy.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-36698466014034127752010-04-30T10:08:19.507-07:002010-04-30T10:08:19.507-07:00Are you suggesting that we not try to convince tho...Are you suggesting that we not try to convince those scientists (who have other fish to fry and their own lives to lead) that these phenomena are real? I guess what I'm asking is, is it enough to just do the research ourselves and present our findings hoping that the weight of the evidence will speak for itself? I hope for the day when the "hidden event" becomes mainstream knowledge.Conal_macLirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10043020152449261589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-33250159372659910012010-04-30T05:11:18.386-07:002010-04-30T05:11:18.386-07:00To anonymous: well, nobody here assumes that they ...To anonymous: well, nobody here assumes that they are all fakes, but if one realizes that there is little hope of using them to gain any step forward in evidence then they are of no more use than if they were---so one doesn't claim anything for them, and one doesn't waste one's time. Scientists who go to Antarctica to study microbial life under harsh conditions do so because they can; they know that when they get there they will have something to study. They have no reason to believe that they can set up shop anywhere on our planet and, in any reasonable amount of time, have a UFO to study. Their concept of "alienness" has nothing to do with their choice of lab work. They have lives in science to live and short years to do so---these situations which demand publishing of results [not theories] require practical decision-making as to what one spends ones short life upon. I assume that everyone knows this, but we tend too often to project our own desires upon "the other guys" and they are leading lives bounded by far different conditions. Even Dick Hall told Condon, in the heat of the mid-60s wave, that NICAP could not expect to get to a UFO incident in progress more than about 5 times per year, and then later admitted privately that he had overestimated severely. The USAF project wanted early in the game to get a spot to UFO-watch and only the New Mexico area during the Green Fireballs era seemed possibly worth the effort---and even this was unfunded by the Pentagon. When you add to this the other things that this blog has talked about ["We Know Where You Live" and the apparently deliberate refusal to support robust patterns], this difficulty in casting a net around an undeniable UFO does not surprise me, however much it discourages me.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-2440103477808493792010-04-29T21:01:04.348-07:002010-04-29T21:01:04.348-07:00I agree wholeheartedly, Professor. Erling Strand ...I agree wholeheartedly, Professor. Erling Strand and his fellow researchers at Ostfold University College deserve high praise for their long-term conduct of Project Hessdalen. However, activity there has gradually declined to around two dozen observations a year, and only two incidents have been reported so far in 2010. I have no wish to argue, but it does seem that there are locations in our own country that are much "hotter" now than Hessdalen has been in recent years, places where a variety of strange airborne things cross overhead reliably, night after night after night. And, yes, analyzing videos is a useless endeavor, but are we to assume that all of them are faked?<br /><br />Perhaps SETI-type scientists are simply more rigid in their concept of what constitutes "alien" life than are those of us who live in fly-over country. Paul Davies' colleagues and the Goddard group are concentrating on locating microbial life in extreme environments here on earth, in hope of gaining a better perspective on the evolution of biochemical systems under the inhospitable circumstances that seem to prevail elsewhere in the universe.<br /><br />It may also be that the very puzzling and somewhat lifelike phenomena ordinary folks claim to be recording can never be properly understood, no matter what resources are marshaled to study them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-4423211247493018532010-04-29T06:56:27.225-07:002010-04-29T06:56:27.225-07:00Thanks for the linkage to David's documentarie...Thanks for the linkage to David's documentaries. The fact that his work hasn't been seen in the US market links back to my previous comment. Discovery Channel knows that sensationalism sells. Most, if not all, of TV programming regarding the UFO phenomenon is pretty dumbed down, as David mentioned.Conal_macLirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10043020152449261589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-85644564903841103822010-04-29T06:10:41.486-07:002010-04-29T06:10:41.486-07:00To David: agreed on all. To the readers: David'...To David: agreed on all. To the readers: David's site is allinonefilms.com/ but as he says don't try to buy anything yet [until August] . ---------------------------------------------------------------------To anonymous: asking SETI researchers to pay attention to You-Tube videos is asking too much. Modern filming technology makes everything too easy to fake and can almost never approach the status of evidence, or even a data-richness which allows analysis---this is why even UFO organizations cannot do convincing analyses on these sorts of things , despite being the one group motivated to do so. Even though there seem to be a lot of possible video events, it's still an awfully big planet out there and there is no place to go set up your scientific instruments with any assurance that something of true high strangeness will float by. The Bigelow ranch site harvested a few very high strangeness events, but even those had their "incompletenesses" and refused to divulge that they were anything more discernible than strange anomalies. Places like Hessdalen afford hard-won photos of something undeniably real, but what is it? And, until greater motivation sets in, scientists, including SETIans, will find easier things to make a living at than freezing their bums off in upper Norway. All cheers by the way to Erling Strand for being a hero and willing to do so.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-35433191613243963762010-04-28T23:27:13.592-07:002010-04-28T23:27:13.592-07:00If we're to believe our lying eyes and the bre...If we're to believe our lying eyes and the breathless narratives of a few of the people uploading videos to YouTube, it appears that we are being visited and also greeted, even though the light phenomena in the videos seem disinclined to "set a spell" for a nice long neighborly chat.<br /><br />In certain instances, the flicking of a cigarette lighter or a carefully directed beam from a handheld laser device appears to elicit a response in the form of a distinct flare-up of these glowing objects as they pass overhead.<br /><br />It does seem ironic that the SETI folks have turned such a blind eye to what increasing numbers of people throughout the world are filming, not only nightly, but in daylight as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-85633166358072491732010-04-28T20:54:12.675-07:002010-04-28T20:54:12.675-07:00Professor,
Thanks for the kind words, AND for the...Professor,<br /><br />Thanks for the kind words, AND for the interview that contributes so much to making the the film as good as it may be. My web site's sales part is turned off right now as I'm at a retreat centre in Thailand filming a three part documentary on Buddhism's transition to the West. It'll be back up in August. <br /><br />Interestingly ALL the US networks have passed on picking up the film. I'm guessing that from their point of view it's not dumbed down or sensationalistic enough to put enough eyeballs in front of enough commercials. And people wonder why, if we're being visited,they don't stop by and say hello. Well, maybe it's because they've watched our TV (all wonderful exceptions noted and excluded from the preceding comment!)Documentarymanhttp://allinonefilms.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-80759105582589569292010-04-28T19:38:52.853-07:002010-04-28T19:38:52.853-07:00To David, hello my friend. Your UFO documentary st...To David, hello my friend. Your UFO documentary stands as the absolute unchallenged finest piece of its kind and everyone that I have shown it to loves it. Hope that you have the stamina to do many more, even on different subjects. As you say, both you and I have ploughed through the UFO literature and faced the howling winds of the overinflated tribe, "and we're still standing". Live long and prosper back at you. By the way, I don't usually "push" anything on the blog, but your film is a legitimate exception. If you want to post the way that people could get a copy of it, I will happily approve.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-14301498221120506752010-04-28T18:45:41.498-07:002010-04-28T18:45:41.498-07:00Actually, Prof, your observation to the effect Haw...Actually, Prof, your observation to the effect Hawking probably hasn't had the time to consider the UFO matter seriously may well be the clue to this story.<br /><br />I don't know if you remember how a while back Hawking came to the conclusion, in black holes, EVERYTHING's destroyed - including INFORMATION.<br /><br />This, of course, was taken as the greatest heresy, because it implied so many things such as the laws of physics and, worse, Mathematics were only transitory, not eternal and immutable.<br /><br />It also implied the possibility our scientific explanations might be missing crucial facts, now forever lost courtesy of black holes.<br /><br />It's as a direct result of trying to discredit Hawking's assertion we now 'know' not only are black holes everywhere, rather than rare, but contrary to destroying information they hold galaxies, universes, EVERYTHING together.<br /><br />In fact black holes're so informationally nutritious, they're the real reason our toilets' flush; they're what our nostrils and bumholes're made from; they're the little black bits you sometimes find on cornflakes; even electrons're black holes.<br /><br />But while we were learning all this, poor Hawking himself was being increasingly marginalised if not downright ostracised until the only work he could get was on The Simpsons.<br /><br />However, ever since he repudiated himself - Galileo style - in 2004, he's been gradually assimilated back into decent scientific society, just so long as he avoids any dangerous ramblings about black holes.<br /><br />This latest development, though, I suggest, is his attempt to pull a covert Johnny Rotten style two-finger - one-finger, in your case - salute, by seeming to ally himself with the dregs and scum of scientific society: UFO boys like yourself.<br /><br />I still love y' though y' scientific scum, Prof - but then I really AM scum!alanborkynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-12436815450491303252010-04-28T18:36:31.159-07:002010-04-28T18:36:31.159-07:00Hi Mike,
When I went off to Cambridge to do a fil...Hi Mike,<br /><br />When I went off to Cambridge to do a film for the CBC in 1984 about Dr. Hawking I was amazed to discover a man of little tolerance for the Great Mystery of the Universe. I almost turned around and went home, but decided instead to stay and turn the style of the film from impressionist to expressionist. I was glad that I did. Stephen was a gracious host and the film was a success (viewable on my site). Nevertheless, like most of the high priests of science he can't stop making pronouncements on areas he knows little or nothing about.<br /><br />Thanks for this blog, Mike. May you live long and prosper.<br /><br />DavidDocumentarymanhttp://allinonefilms.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-75714260969884724032010-04-28T15:06:55.259-07:002010-04-28T15:06:55.259-07:00Hello Professor,
The point you make about Dr. Haw...Hello Professor,<br /><br />The point you make about Dr. Hawking not having time at all for even considering the UFO evidence is a good one. I watched the Discovery Channel special over the weekend, and was amused right away that he apparently had done little to no research of the subject beyond what mainstream science thinkers might have parroted. Then a thought came to me. It seems to me that for most of his career, Dr. Hawking has avoided the ET Hypothesis like the plague. I'm guessing he only now comes forward with this "Evil-ET" idea with a mind towards ratings. Discovery Networks at least knows that talk of ET = a ratings bonanza. Where is the line drawn between a logical cautionary stance and outright paranoia, between reaching out and isolationism in the search for ET? Surely, Dr. Hawking's appeal to fear is not the best option.Conal_macLirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10043020152449261589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-3699638027404003222010-04-28T14:37:39.669-07:002010-04-28T14:37:39.669-07:00Prof viz the way you handled Jim Donegan.
Ooh, yo...Prof viz the way you handled Jim Donegan.<br /><br />Ooh, you're so masterful!alanborkynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-81791373382912326932010-04-28T14:34:11.935-07:002010-04-28T14:34:11.935-07:00I was startin' to worry 'bout you there, P...I was startin' to worry 'bout you there, Prof - by your standards you're almost late!alanborkynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-75463891822549346152010-04-28T07:43:54.637-07:002010-04-28T07:43:54.637-07:00To Jim Donegan, if you have nothing intellectual t...To Jim Donegan, if you have nothing intellectual to say about the topics we present, I'll remind you that this is not Talk Radio but rather "my home' which civilized persons are welcome into and empty-headed ravers are not. Skepticism is welcome if congenial, objective and substantive. Since you apparently have nothing to say which has any depth of research behind it, please do the rest of us a favor and leave my house. If you ever actually do any study which is responsible [and respectful] feel free to return. I wonder if you even realize that you are engaged in nothing but emotional name-calling, and yet think that this is acceptable behavior.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-19571255033303589542010-04-28T07:23:53.492-07:002010-04-28T07:23:53.492-07:00To the guy above who said that Hawking is engaging...To the guy above who said that Hawking is engaging in a 'classical cliche' - Most cliches are such BECAUSE they are true. Have ET's made themselves clearely and unambiguously visible to EVERYBODY? No, they have not. Why? They don't exist. If you want to believe the moon is made of green cheese then go right on ahead. It's a whole lot of nonsense.Jim Donegannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-67938593994066010682010-04-28T05:59:07.941-07:002010-04-28T05:59:07.941-07:00I would be stunned to learn that Hawking was in an...I would be stunned to learn that Hawking was in any way knowledgeable about the UFO phenomenon. Almost all scientists have their scientific lives which dominate their time like most of us would not conceive. They literally have no time for it [and we know how much time it takes to sift signal from noise, or worse]. Because of that, and because there is no positive reinforcement whatever to showing interest in the subject [Menzel and Sagan saw to that], these otherwise mindful people repeat the chatter of the tribe mindlessly---even when simple logic would deduce that they should at least shut up and listen. It is thus that the near-entirety of science academe becomes an error-ridden cliche. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------As to friendly or not ETs: we have all the info to easily see that even well-immersed UFOlogists [ex. Hopkins vs. Mack] can come to diametrically opposed conclusions on that. I don't believe that either Budd or John had the correct model for what's going on, but that just adds to the assessment problem in the field.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07811807639219365621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-45024671376641557302010-04-27T20:25:20.472-07:002010-04-27T20:25:20.472-07:00Hello, Prof.
I am not convinced that technologi...Hello, Prof.<br /> <br /> I am not convinced that technological advances automatically lead a culture to a liberal, friendly mind-set. The optimism of Sagan et al regarding alien contact may prove to be wildly misplaced.richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2019724693487670016.post-70449977919134345302010-04-27T20:07:23.518-07:002010-04-27T20:07:23.518-07:00What an interesting blog post Professor, thanks!
...What an interesting blog post Professor, thanks!<br /><br />I would love to be able to hear those 70s AAAS meetings ...<br /><br />Regarding the news about Steven Hawkings warnings, this might be interesting to some people: On TED, i heard him say<br />{5:00} "I am discounting reports of UFOs. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?"<br /><br />And he goes on: "If there is a government conspiracy to suppress the reports and keep for itself the scientific knowledge the aliens bring, it seems to have been a singularly ineffective policy so far."<br />http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_the_universe.html<br /><br />To me it looks like Hawking is uninformed about the topic of UFOs. Otherwise he wouldn't say such things. UFOs have been and are seen by anyone, through all social classes. What he is pointing out is a classical cliché which is not true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com