Jim v. Jim: Two Opposing Views of UFOs

Today, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present for your consideration two divergent takes on the subject of unidentified flying objects by two intelligent and accomplished men, both named Jim.

Jim Oberg

James Oberg is described on his website as "one of the world's leading popularizers and interpreters of space exploration." Other highlights from his profile include:

Oberg had a 22-year career as a space engineer in Houston, where he specialized in NASA space shuttle operations for orbital rendezvous, as a contractor employee. He was a 'NASA Trainee' at Northwestern University in 1966-9, and worked at the Johnson Space Center in Houston 1975-1997.

In October 1979, New Scientist magazine published an essay by Oberg entitled "The Failure of the 'Science" of UFOlogy".

The criticisms are essentially these: ufology allegedly refuses to play by the rules of scientific thought, demanding instead special exemptions from time-tested procedures of data verification, theory testing, and the burden of proof. Ufologists assert the existence of some extraordinary stimulus behind a small fraction of the tens of thousands of UFO reports on fil e. The cornerstone of the alleged proof is the undisputed observation that a small residue of such reports cannot at present be explained in terms of prosaic (if rare) phenomena. Yet this claim is invalid: it is clearly not logical to base the existence o f a positive ("true UFOs exist") on the grounds of a hypothetical negative ("no matter what the effort, some UFO reports cannot be explained").

Read Jim Oberg on UFOs here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim McDonald

According to Wikipedia:

James Edward McDonald (May 7, 1920 – June 13, 1971) was an American physicist. He is best known for his research regarding UFOs. McDonald was senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

McDonald campaigned in support of expanding UFO studies during the mid and late 1960s, arguing that UFOs represented an important unsolved mystery which had not been adequately studied by science.

In the August 1967 issue of Astronautics and Aeronautics, McDonald had an article published entitled "UFOs - Extraterrestrial Probes?".

But after a year of scrutiny of highly unconventional phenomena credibly reported from all parts of this country and [I believe] from most of the entire world, I have been driven to consider possibilities that I'd ordinarily not give a moment's thought to in my own personal brand of orthodoxy. It is the UFO evidence that slowly forces the diligent UFO student to seriously consider the extraterrestrial hypothesis - evidence that I can only describe as extraordinary in its total nature. All over the globe persons in all walks of life, representing a wide range of educational and cultural backgrounds, are reporting, often in the face of unpleasant ridicule, sightings of objects that appear to be completely real objects yet have characteristics that match nothing about which we have present knowledge.

Read James E. McDonald on UFOs here.

Enjoy.

Interesting post mate and although I've rarely seen Jim (Oberg) address the truly puzzling UFO cases on record, here's what he had to say about two of the more infamous incidents:

The Tehran Incident

"I think the Tehran case has a plausible prosaic explanation of inexperienced rich kids in scary situations (night flying) with one notoriously malfunctioning avionics kit, under pressure from the head of the Iranian secret police (SAVAK) who demanded satisfaction regarding a fairly pedestrian 'UFO report' he phoned in."

The Coyne Incident

"The Coyne story has fairly typical pilot narratives that have clearly been repeated so frequently they have evolved into forms that contain internal inconsistencies -- and COULD (can't prove it) have evolved from a bright fireball overflight, with added elements (radio blackout) that are just as likely to be coincidences."

link

I don't think there's much comparison when it comes to Dr James Mcdonald as he was a trained atmospherical physicist and did a great job of showing just how lame, threadbare and weak some of the official UFO explanations actualy are - I've asked Jim Oberg many times about his opinions on the contents of the statement below but have never received an answer.

"As a result of several trips to project Bluebook,I´ve had an opportunity to examine quite carefully and in detail the types of reports that are made by Bluebook personnel.In most cases, I have found that theres almost no correlation between so-called "evaluations and explanations" that are made by Bluebook and the facts of the case...
There are hundreds of good cases in the Air Force files that should have led to top-level scientific scrutiny of this problem,years ago,yet these cases have been swept under the rug in a most disturbing way by Project Bluebook investigators and their consultants."

Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona

Cheers.

Oberg has no more idea of whats going on than you or I. The difference is its his job to belittle any notion that the UFO phenomenon is real. A pretty sad job really when you think about it. Anyone trully interested in the subject hasnt taken him seriously for years.

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
Oberg has no more idea of whats going on than you or I. The difference is its his job to belittle any notion that the UFO phenomenon is real. A pretty sad job really when you think about it. Anyone trully interested in the subject hasnt taken him seriously for years.

You have no more idea about what I really think about the UFO phenomenon than [insert your favorite metaphor for arrogant ignorance here]. You fantasize nasty delusional insinuations about my motives to defend your own biases. You exemplify what is self-destructive and counter-productive about the intellectually self-ghettoized 'UFO culture;' and why it has never -- and at this rate never will -- established scientific credibility.

Shame on you. If it WERE all nonsense, your behaviour would merely be amusing, if libelous. Since I don't believe it is ALL nonsense, your behavior seems to me to be destructive and reprehensible.

Is somebody paying YOU to keep the topic a laughing stock, and a well-deserved subject of ridicule, to camouflage their activities from general public awareness? It's working.

reply to post by Elvis Hendrix

Anyone trully interested in the subject hasnt taken him seriously for years.

I guess you didn't know Jim is a member here. I suppose you consider fantasists and con-artists like Greer, Hoagland and, now, Antonio Paris, to be well informed and reliable sources. Ufology has created its own ghetto, and its denizens gleefully prey on one another.

WOW, alot of hate in that diatribe Jim. I was merely stating facts.

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
WOW, alot of hate in that diatribe Jim. I was merely stating facts.

Well, I've lost the charge number and address to send my debunking invoices to, so if you'd get that information for me I'd be happy to provide you a 10% finder's fee for my $10,000,050 per month payoff. Once the money actually is in my bank account.

reply to post by Elvis Hendrix

WOW, alot of hate in that diatribe Jim. I was merely stating facts.

I can tell you for a fact that Jim knows far more about space and technology than you and I put together. The difference between us is that I admire him and you resent him. That's where the hate in this thread is really coming from: you.

Yea i know hes a member. But it has nothing to do with the likes of hoagland et al. Any Joe shmo with an experience is as valid as anyone elses. My beef is it is all shot down no matter how credible it is, By the likes of Oberg.

I don't have a problem with someone seeking hard facts and data to support the study of unidentified phenomena. Some folks operate at that level.

The problem is that in order to get the kind of broad spectrum data to study the phenomena one must travel in the equivalent of a storm chaser's mobile lab. Oh, and then we have to be able to place said vehicle in a location that has a high probability of encountering an unexplained phenomena.

Since we cannot predict where the next, say Rendelsham Forest incident will occur, It will be difficult, if not impossible to acquire such data.

I have a first-hand experience with the phenomena described in NARCAP.ORG's "Project Sphere". All I know is I saw something I cannot explain, but I sure as heck would love to know exactly what it is. Maybe I'll start equipping my truck with a few miscellaneous instruments and cameras...just in case I get lucky a second time.

Rather than have this thread devolve into several pages of back and forth accusations and grumpiness, why don't we address the information provided? There are two links in the OP representing two well-reasoned arguments regarding UFOs.

-Which of these views do you find more compelling, and why?

-If you disagree with what is said in either of them, what are your particular objections?

-Which passages do you find particularly persuasive or apt?

Let's not just blather.

reply to post by Orkojoker

-Which of these views do you find more compelling, and why?

I don't find them to be appreciably different, other than one Jim being more vocal about considering the "extraterrestrial hypothesis" than the other. Neither of them excludes it completely, nor does either endorse it completely. The real issue here is that both know what they do not know. By this I mean they both acknowledge that their own knowledge is not sufficient to identify or classify all the incidents out there-- assuming that the reports are accurate and credible. This is a laudable, scientific stance. Unfortunately, too many in the UFO community think that they know what they do not know. In other words, if they do not know of a natural explanation for an incident, they "know" it must be aliens.

I see no need to read this thread. You may be sincere in trying to be even-handed about the UFO situation, but you have played right into the hands of the deniers and debunkers. They have not a leg to stand on in the argument because absolutely nothing, no bit of evidence, can be shown to disprove UFO and tons and tons can be used to make the case for them. That such data would be not scientitically valid cannot be blamed on those that provide such data. They do the best they can lacking official backing from Science and government.

I refuse to be bother by it because Oberg has the audacity to invent a term "scientific ufology." Why doesn't he talk about government credibility in the affair?

Science is an area carefully fenced in by those with initials before and after their names and aided and abetted by schools and institutions where then draw their pay AND the full force (support and control) of the US government (military and political).

If there has been any "failure" of ufology it is because all of the above have knowingly and willfully ignored and denied UFOs virtually from the start of their modern visits. It continues to this day as it always has been, a people's quest for the truth.

Oberg is blowing smoke, attempting to start a fire where none can burn. Ufology (yes, an outrageous term by civil standards) exists for the simple, clear fact that Science and government has not done their jobs. Not that it stops there. In addition, they have worked tirelessly to deny and debunk all aspects of UFOs while, strangely, keep pointing out there in deep space for exactly the same answers they could be looking for far closer to home.

Disclosure is evidently coming. What we are starting to see is an effort on the part of TPTB to reshape the history of the UFO so that when the time comes to acknowledge them, (The writings of Richard Dolan come to mind.) Science and government will have created for themselves some degree of "plausible deniability." As far as discrediting ufology as is his attempt, he cannot do it. It is legitimate example of where government has failed and citizens of all manner have attempted to fill the vast gap between what is seen in the skies and what we are told to see (or not see).

Oberg is over the top as usual in his putting down of the UFO crowd. Personally, I believe this latest ranting of his is poor strategy, more tactical than strategic.

I caution those folks interested in UFOs to be aware that other names within the field seem to be at work in selectively altering and deleting the history of UFOs according to a more favorable official position than currently exists. They have a very large gap to fill. Such is imperative for the success of the eventual official explanation for why UFOs didn't exist for more than half a century.

reply to post by Aliensun


The denial on the part of the military is certain. That does not mean they do not know more more then what they tell the public for whatever reason.

Could the rewrite you refer to be individuals working toward their own goals. I believe the government can just create a reason to suit their self for withholding knowledge because that has often been their method of operation.

Originally posted by Aliensun
I refuse to be bother by it because Oberg has the audacity to invent a term "scientific ufology." Why doesn't he talk about government credibility in the affair?

If you ventured outside your 'comfort zone' of the intellectual ghetto you seem to confine your mind to, you'd see my aggressive attitude towards 'government secrets and coverups' on many angles of aerospace activities, including encouraging public distractions with UFO theories versus probing into what genuine activities may be camouflaging themselves behind that facade. Did you ever see the NASA press release that attacked me by name [the only time such a personal attack has ever been made by them] for 'wacko' theories on their coverup of management failures behind the Mars probe debacle of 1999? Or do you prefer Hoagland's version?

The deliciously ironic aspect of this controversy is that most of the eager-believers who profess opposition to 'gummint coverups' while demanding 'disclosure' [a synonym for officially conceding the eager-believers were right all the time, so family and friends can be forced to stop laughing at them], turn out to be unwitting or half-witting tools of some significant REAL government coverups of their activities that created UFO stories and then were opportunisticly exploited to camouflage the actual underlying activities. That would be amusing if it weren't such a pathetic waste of brainpower and enthusiasm, when potentially productive investigations go unperformed due to lack of qualified volunteers.

McDonald was one such diligent volunteer investigator [although he apparently DID divert Navy grant funding for physics into some of his UFO case studies]. You'd be surprised to find out what HE found when he looked into the 1957 Edwards AFB UFO story that Gordon Cooper claims to have been a participant in. But in all the knee-jerk defenses of Cooper's unverified tales, the results of McDonald's soon-after-the-fact investigation are never, ever mentioned. Who's being dishonest and incompetent here?


,

reply to post by JimOberg


Hi Jim. Could you please clarify what you mean with this comment? All I can read out is discrimination towards Iranians, or did I misunderstood? Could you please elaborate?

"I think the Tehran case has a plausible prosaic explanation of inexperienced rich kids in scary situations (night flying) with one notoriously malfunctioning avionics kit, under pressure from the head of the Iranian secret police (SAVAK) who demanded satisfaction regarding a fairly pedestrian 'UFO report' he phoned in."

By the way I am an Iranian and know very well about the country and its history. You make the Iranian military look like some rich kids with bad equipment and not so bright. I think you are confusing our current regime with that of Shah's. I was against the Shah and I am against the Islamic Republic now, so please do not put me on either side of them. BUT the Iranian military, SAVAK, marine...etc where all very well trained for those years. Actually they were trained in the States and Iran used to have those days the 4th strongest military in the world. And very well equipped. So please explain me what you mean with your comment.

Thanks for your time.
StringTh

reply to post by JimOberg


I have been observing you for a while and after your posts in this thread and your quotes I can say for sure you are one of those that need to be shut down from every TV show and every internet website. It doesn't matter what background you had, you are not the only one. You are not any more 'knowledgable' than those astronauts, astrophysicists, researchers, who aren't ignorant and won't give such ridiculous explanations. I can think of many explanations even to the most unknown cases and they will sound logical because I can make the connection, post it on some website called 'TheUFOcasesDebunked.COM' and there you go - I must be telling truths because will you see I am debunking.

You have a typical pseudo-scientific method of debunking as you show pure bias. By saying so I am not to defend any of the most ridiculous claims of UFOs and aliens such as 'Hilary Clinton is reptilian' 'The Earth is a hologram projected by aliens' 'Aliens are demons' 'Albebaranians, Orionians, Pleiadeans, Arcturians, Alpha Draconians' and let's make a name from every brighter star on the Northern hemisphere. - I am clearly not talking about that, nor about calling any of the UFO cases 'aliens' without any proof they are so.

Do you see the difference Jim Oberg? You don't deny the aliens which is normal to do without evidence, to you everything must have been a Laser Kite, Chinese Lantern, Meteorite, when some UFO cases clearly show unknown aircraft. Do you deny as well that there are unknown aircraft or to you everything is anything but an aircraft - clearly the most cases are something explainable but to you it seems everything has a human explanations.

I am sorry, this is not any more scientific than believing aliens and probably because of such like you, people are afraid to talk about it.

And to those who so eagerly defend his bias, why not kiss his ...you know what. You are worse.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Elvis Hendrix

 

WOW, alot of hate in that diatribe Jim. I was merely stating facts.

I can tell you for a fact that Jim knows far more about space and technology than you and I put together. The difference between us is that I admire him and you resent him. That's where the hate in this thread is really coming from: you.

I agree that Elvis had a hate feeling in his post, but are denying that Jim has it too. Nearly with every single one of his posts. At least that's the way I feel when I read his replies.

StringTh

reply to post by Orkojoker


By the way, thanks for bringing this interesting subject to us. Star and flag for your efforts.

StringTh

Originally posted by Imtor
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I have been observing you for a while and after your posts in this thread and your quotes I can say for sure you are one of those that need to be shut down from every TV show and every internet website....

What was it I was saying about intellectual self-ghettoization?

Is somebody PAYING you to pose as a closed-minded fool?

Seriously, look in the mirror.

And do read some of the case studies I've published on specific 'strong cases'.

As for the Iranian case, the Iranian AF pilots did tend to come from a particular socio-economic class and they also rarely flew at night, as American airplane techs and military advisors knew well.

Whatever the original stimuli of that story, the story itself has clearly 'evolved' over the years as testimony 'improved'. As in most dramatic encounters, the earliest direct raw testimony is critical, and it's a very perishable item that once gone cannot be reconstructed.