Omsk UFO Report Aug 22

a reply to: Scdfa

That they are somehow getting rich off their experiences is totally absurd.

Who said they're getting rich?
Not that some aren't doing well. *cough*Greer*cough*

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

So I'm not sure what the issue is with this thread.

Ah c'mon man, it doesn't take a rocket scientist!

It's very clear what Scdfa is up to: he's single handedly helping to drive in to the ground any credibility that ETH believers might have had left by trying, and failing, to drag Jim O's sterling reputation in to gutter.

it's driving him (Scdfa) mad that one *dude and his resources are kicking the crap out of the ETH. We will likely hear a loud "Pop!" as soon as he (Scdfa) is finished consuming himself.

*P.S. Thanks Jim!

a reply to: game over man

The problem is Jim Oberg has many reputable credentials and this thread is right up there with posting a youtube hoax video.

He got called out on it, and then backtracked saying he posted this to teach us how to identify a failed rocket launch.

It's really a case closed with the original post and the only discussion in the thread is calling out the OP.

Darn right, game over man.
But I wonder if we are doing a disservice to Ufology by even posting in here and keeping this thread going.

But perhaps we should let this failed attempt to discredit UFO witnesses stand as a textbook example of sleight-of-hand debunking.

a reply to: Scdfa

a reply to: game over man

What neither of you understand is that many of us here anticipate this sort of information dump from Oberg, and we look forward to it.

There is an audience for it that is overwhelming your numbers, as ETH believers.

He's the only person that does it.

Yet you are legion.

Run in fear.

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: Scdfa

a reply to: game over man


There is an audience for it that is overwhelming your numbers, as ETH believers.

No that is not true at all with Kepler and Hubble's discoveries.



This picture changed a lot of people's mind...

a reply to: Bybyots

Ah c'mon man, it doesn't take a rocket scientist!

It's very clear what Scdfa is up to: he's single handedly helping to drive in to the ground any credibility that ETH believers might have had left by trying, and failing, to drag Jim O's sterling reputation in to gutter.



it's driving him (Scdfa) mad that one *dude and his resources are kicking the crap out of the ETH. We will likely hear a loud "Pop!" as soon as he (Scdfa) is finished consuming himself.

First, thanks for stealing my "rocket scientist" line from a few posts back.

Second, if being taken by aliens didn't drive me mad, no debunker, denier, or disinfo is going to bother me awful much.

Third, I'm not dragging anyone's reputation through the gutter, I leave that sort of thing to the "sterling" people with smear campaigns on astronauts. I've actually been a rather vocal opponent.

Fourth, any damage to anyone's sterling reputation is entirely self-inflicted. People read what he writes.

Lastly, this line really shows the denier mindset at work, and we can gain some insight into how far removed the denialist position is from healthy skepticism:

it's driving him (Scdfa) mad that one *dude and his resources are kicking the crap out of the ETH

Exactly how does one kick the crap out of reality?
As if it were a football game. As if either "team" can "win" through their efforts.
As if the outcome of the UFO question could actually be "won" by debating better.
Or by playing "gotcha" with rocket launches.
Or by countering witness reports by airing their financial misfortunes as evidence they can't be trusted.

It's foolishness. You can't change the reality of a situation with talk, no matter how slick or reassuring.
No matter how badly you want your team to win.

a reply to: Scdfa

Dude, you're right. I'm sorry.

Carry on.

originally posted by: Scdfa
.....
As if the outcome of the UFO question could actually be "won" by debating better.

Or by playing "gotcha" with rocket launches.

Or by countering witness reports by airing their financial misfortunes as evidence they can't be trusted.

It's foolishness. You can't change the reality of a situation with talk, no matter how slick or reassuring.

Thanks for the gracious acknowledgment that I am indeed debating better than you.

Rocket launches -- and rocket reentries as fireball swarms -- provide an important 'double blind experiment' in how reliable eyewitness testimony CAN be -- not "ALWAYS IS" -- but CAN be. Clearly you do not LIKE the implications of that.

I must strive to be more clear [although there will always be those who strive harder to MISunderstand] about what the Cooper business endorsement disasters signify. It's NOT that HE had bad judgment at all. It's that those people who chose to believe him WITHOUT checking his claims, solely on HIS say-so, based merely on his achievements in earlier life, were demonstrating appalling foolishness.

Such foolishness was widespread, and appears still pandemic in many pockets of society. And on this thread.

scdfa has been asked if he thinks the story of Cooper's Mercury-9 UFO encounter is worthy of belief. He has refused to answer. His defiant silent acquiescence indicates he is a willing accessory after the fact to fraud. He declares he believes EVERYTHING Cooper has EVER said. But everyone can learn, and I ask him again? Is there sufficient evidence to believe there was a UFO encounter on Cooper's Mercury-9 flight, as is so widely reported in the world of UFOria?

a reply to: JimOberg

Thanks for the gracious acknowledgment that I am indeed debating better than you.

I never said any such thing, Mr. Oberg. For a self-titled "Scholar", you're having a lot of trouble with basic reading comprehension.
But I'm actually glad you said it. It serves as a perfect example of how you operate. You often seem to alter the truth to fit your agenda.

scdfa has been asked if he thinks the story of Cooper's Mercury-9 UFO encounter is worthy of belief. He has refused to answer. His defiant silent acquiescence indicates he is a willing accessory after the fact to fraud. He declares he believes EVERYTHING Cooper has EVER said.

Wow. This is untrue, folks. I have to say it's a lie. There's no kinder word for it. And lying won't win a debate. But it does serve as another perfect example of this guy's modus operandi.

Let's take a closer look at the anatomy of this lie:
1. He starts off saying something true, he has asked me that.
But what he doesn't say is that I had asked him a question a dozen times in a row that he absolutely refused to answer, responding only with this unrelated question.
That's why I didn't answer his question. Because he refused again and again to answer mine.
Check out his "Omsk" thread, and count the number of times I asked him the same question that he refused to answer. It is upwards of a dozen. Then he asked me this question, and I told him I wouldn't answer his question until he answered mine, which seems appropriate.
So what does Jim do? He comes here and accuses me of dodging questions. That makes him a hypocrite.

But hypocrisy is one thing, lying is another, and this escalates into that very quickly:

His defiant silent acquiescence indicates he is a willing accessory after the fact to fraud.

Whoa....now I'm an accessory to fraud? Omigosh, do I need a lawyer?
First of all, he's never established any fraud whatsoever by Col. Cooper. So where's the fraud I'm an accessory to?
And how does refusing to answer a question because he refuses to answer mine make me an accessory to fraud?

Isn't this actually two lies? Stating that Col. Cooper is guilty of fraud? Then declaring me an accessory?

Does this rise to the level of libel?

And then he really loses any credibility he might have had, with this bold-faced lie. And I mean literally bold-faced, because he put it in caps:

He declares he believes EVERYTHING Cooper has EVER said.

Prove that, please. These deniers are always demanding proof, well, here's my turn.
He can't prove it, because it isn't true.

The only person damaging Oberg's reputation is Oberg, and this is the proof.

So tell me, how could anyone expect this guy to tell the truth about UFOs, or astronauts?
If he can't even tell the truth about me?

I have no evidence anyone thought this missile was an alien spaceship.

I have plenty of evidence some people thought it was a UFO.

Just like many people thought the pre-dawn Atlas launch from Florida thought -- and SAID -- it was a UFO.

Both the Atlas launch AND the Russian launch had similar visual results [and similar cultural effects] because their illumination conditions were identical -- ground observers in darkness, rocket high enough to be in sunlight, thrusting more or less horizontally. Just like over Norway, too [December 2009], with a unique upper stage maneuver added.

originally posted by: Scdfa

Thank you for finally admitting this.

I respect you for doing so, Mr. Oberg.

First you thank me for answering your question, and then you accuse me of NOT answering your question?

Why do you punish everyone else by blaming me for YOUR not answering reasonable questions?

The fraud involved is the "Mercury-9 Cooper UFO story" itself, it's bogus, but you can't bring yourself to admit that.

originally posted by: Scdfa

So tell me, how could anyone expect this guy to tell the truth about UFOs, or astronauts?

If he can't even tell the truth about me?

How about this -- I provide checkable citations to factual assertions I make, and you don't.

Like -- your imaginary 'friend' who happened to be inside NASA Mission Control during Apollo-11, who told you about the imaginary UFO encounter on the Moon. That you just now suddenly remembered to remember?

It DOES sound like Clark McClelland. Or maybe Ken Johnston? Or Donna Hare? Notorious confabulators, all, IMHO.

Give us a few more hints, please.

originally posted by: JimOberg
... Rocket launches -- and rocket reentries as fireball swarms -- provide an important 'double blind experiment' in how reliable eyewitness testimony CAN be -- not "ALWAYS IS" -- but CAN be. Clearly you do not LIKE the implications of that.

I must strive to be more clear [although there will always be those who strive harder to MISunderstand] about what the Cooper business endorsement disasters signify. It's NOT that HE had bad judgment at all. It's that those people who chose to believe him WITHOUT checking his claims, solely on HIS say-so, based merely on his achievements in earlier life, were demonstrating appalling foolishness.

Such foolishness was widespread, and appears still pandemic in many pockets of society. And on this thread....

1) You're overplaying, once again, the outcome of these rocket launch "double blind experiments." What these 'experiments' actually show, as seen in the Condon Report, is that most people are pretty reliable witnesses most of the time. And even among that small percent of people that actually made a UFO report, many of them actually identified the object as probably related to the space program. Also, let's keep in mind the surely huge number of people who witnessed the "UFO" and didn't even make a UFO report, because they, also, immediately identified the object for what it was.

If you want to impress people, start a thread which discusses what your rocket launch / reentry 'control experiments' say about high-strangeness close encounters. They, of course, say basically nothing about such categories of UFO cases.

2) scdfa obviously doesn't need my or anyone else's help here, but I've seen him repeatedly ask you questions that you've refused to answer. You ignore them and then ask your own.

And it seems to me that his primary objection -- and we can be sure that many lurkers feel the same -- is not so much with any skeptical critique of Cooper's story, but is instead with what looks an awful lot like character assassination. You want to talk about Cooper's failed business ventures? Really Jim? Would you hold up to that level of scrutiny? Would most of us? We've all seen you spearhead similar character attacks on James McDonald regarding that whole silly little Phil Klass-inspired Office of Naval Research funding debacle. (And McDonald didn't even lose funding after the incident, IIRC, so that tells you how seriously the Navy took all that....) The bottom line is that this character-based kind of "debating" technique isn't flattering to you, and really does give the impression of desperation. Your name is attached to all this stuff, forever and ever. Might be worth considering....

3) Many of the more serious UFO researchers have had issues with Cooper and his Edwards AFB story for a long time. (I think it was pro-UFO people who first highlighted the story's inconsistencies, no?) So it's a little odd for people to try to inflate the importance of this thread, as if it's the bombshell which finally debunks some cornerstone of UFOlogy. That is not the case. Not even close. Actually, like so many other recent threads here, this one appears to be little more than an attempt at picking what you often call the "low hanging fruit."

originally posted by: Bybyots
What neither of you understand is that many of us here anticipate this sort of information dump from Oberg, and we look forward to it.

There is an audience for it that is overwhelming your numbers, as ETH believers.

He's the only person that does it.

Yet you are legion.

Run in fear.

Have you seen the many Karl12 or Isaac Koi threads where there's barely a word from Oberg or in fact any of the most vocal skeptics? There are some cases where even proffering a skeptical explanation takes quit a bit of guts. Sometimes, "non-human intelligence" really is the least implausible potential explanation.

a reply to: JimOberg

It's too late, Jim. You've painted a very clear self-portrait.

How about this -- I provide checkable citations to factual assertions I make, and you don't.

Like -- your imaginary 'friend' who happened to be inside NASA Mission Control during Apollo-11, who told you about the imaginary UFO encounter on the Moon. That you just now suddenly remembered to remember?

So where are the checkable citations to your assertion that my friend is imaginary?
Or that I just now suddenly remembered it?

You continue to say things about me that aren't true.

I'll tell you what Jim, I will make you this offer:

You stop telling lies about about me, and I'll stop telling the truth about you.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Have you seen the many Karl12 or Isaac Koi threads where there's barely a word from Oberg or in fact any of the most vocal skeptics?

Why? is there a requirement to participate in threads that you think are worthwhile?

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

So I'm not sure what the issue is with this thread.

Ah c'mon man, it doesn't take a rocket scientist!

It's very clear what Scdfa is up to: he's single handedly helping to drive in to the ground any credibility that ETH believers might have had left by trying, and failing, to drag Jim O's sterling reputation in to gutter.

it's driving him (Scdfa) mad that one *dude and his resources are kicking the crap out of the ETH. We will likely hear a loud "Pop!" as soon as he (Scdfa) is finished consuming himself.

*P.S. Thanks Jim!

OK, I'm playing dumb. You have to admit its fascinating to see the outrage caused by correctly identifying something that would end up as one of the better sightings otherwise.

originally posted by: Phage
Who said they're getting rich?
Not that some aren't doing well. *cough*Greer*cough*

I agree, Greer is a pretty sad character indeed.

But let's not forget how many of the most visible skeptics also profit from their UFO stance. Oberg, Schaefer and others can often be found in various forums online plugging their websites, where their books are sold, or even the books themselves. And those skeptical societies also have their own conventions and such, and those are not free. Far from it.

How many people have ever gotten rich or have even been able to make a living off of their UFO work? I'm struggling to think of more than 20. But the way some skeptics talk, you'd think most UFO witnesses themselves were in it all for the "profit." If that were true, though, then you'd have to explain why so many of them choose to remain anonymous to everyone except the organization collecting UFO reports.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

I'm struggling to think of more than 20. But the way some skeptics talk, you'd think most UFO witnesses themselves were in it all for the "profit."

I wouldn't think that. But I haven't run across any skeptics who seem to think that most UFO witnesses are in it for the money.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
Have you seen the many Karl12 or Isaac Koi threads where there's barely a word from Oberg or in fact any of the most vocal skeptics? There are some cases where even proffering a skeptical explanation takes quit a bit of guts. Sometimes, "non-human intelligence" really is the least implausible potential explanation.

Jim Oberg participates in threads in which his input about the specific case being discussed is in his realm of knowledge -- i.e., Rocket launches, on-orbit spacecraft operations, etc.

It seems logical that he would participate in those space travel related threads because that's what he knows about as a professional space journalist. I would think there is only limited input (of that same level) he could add to a UFO case that doesn't involve rocketry and/or human space travel, so it doesn't surprise me that he chooses not to.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Jim Oberg participates in threads in which his input about the specific case being discussed is in his realm of knowledge -- i.e., Rocket launches, on-orbit spacecraft operations, etc.

It seems logical that he would participate in those space travel related threads because that's what he knows about as a professional space journalist. I would think there is only limited input (of that same level) he could add to a UFO case that doesn't involve rocketry and/or human space travel, so it doesn't surprise me that he chooses not to.

Well yeah, exactly. Yet Jim Oberg also believes, and encourages others to believe, that all UFO sightings can be explained as misperceptions of mundane phenomena. (Those that aren't lies / hoaxes.) That can be seen right here in this thread, as it's the inference he's pushing every time he cites (and then ignores or mischaracterizes) these rocket launch / reentry "control experiments."

No one expects him to explain each sighting and to jump into every thread, of course, but when a person is pushing a thesis like his, where the same thing supposedly explains every sighting, it's odd that there'd be so much that he ignores. He routinely ignores, for example, things like multiple witness close encounters, where the object is described as a mere 10's of feet away, and by witnesses who are clearly not trying to profit from the event and who are responsible and trustworthy in every other aspect of their lives.

I see a lot of Oberg idolizing around here. Sure, call what he brings to each thread "facts" if it suits you, but note how many times people have had to correct him on his misuse of the results of these rocket "control experiments," and also keep in mind things like the McMinville photo / ladder accusation he made. (Another instance where he was trying to impugn the character of innocent people.) "Facts"... ? Hardly.

If he's
1) getting basic facts like that wrong,
2) keeps misrepresenting Condon Report results as to these re-entry "experiments,"
3) keeps ignoring so many cases or even classes of cases, and
4) seems to not much hesitate before calling into question a UFO witness's or researcher's character,
I'm not sure why he should be taken that seriously? At least outside of that sub-type of cases which could conceivably be explained as misinterpreted space program events. I think that was your point, in a way. Yet here he is again, as usual, for the last 40 years, pushing a thesis that remains much, much broader than his area of expertise.