Jim v. Jim: Two Opposing Views of UFOs

Originally posted by JimOberg

Pester me on it, but right now I need to write some deadline stuff for paying cusomers.

Yes, a person's got to earn the money Jim - if the papers are concerned with UFO research then maybe you should send your employers a link to this thread so they can get a fuller understanding of the controversial nature of your opinions on the subject - it also must be quite an honour for you to be compared to Dr James E. Mcdonald.

Look forward to reading your reply to Orkojoker's post when you find the time - I also hope you post your thoughts on the nature of the objects involved in the three UFO incidents mentioned here and share your opinions on Dr Mcdonald's position that there's 'almost no correlation between Project Bluebook evaluations and explanations and the facts of the case'.

Cheers.

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by JimOberg

Pester me on it, but right now I need to write some deadline stuff for paying cusomers.

Yes, a person's got to earn the money Jim - if the papers are concerned with UFO research then maybe you should send your employers a link to this thread so they can get a fuller understanding of the controversial nature of your opinions on the subject - it also must be quite an honour for you to be compared to Dr James E. Mcdonald.

Look forward to reading your reply to Orkojoker's post when you find the time - I also hope you post your thoughts on the nature of the objects involved in the three UFO incidents mentioned here and share your opinions on Dr Mcdonald's position that there's 'almost no correlation between Project Bluebook evaluations and explanations and the facts of the case'.

Cheers.

We do know a lot more about the UFO phenomenon now than forty years ago, particularly in the earlier unrecognized range of possible witness misperception of sudden startling apparitions.

In tracing a number of famous cases to missile and space events [only ONE type of prosaic cause for SOME reports] I have been struck by the accidental and opportunistic random availability of explanatory data. It's due to diligence AND luck that some of these prosaic stimuli could even be located. Absent either, it's no surprise to me that for cases which would have explanations, those explanations just can't be found.

Hence it isn't at all worrisome to me that OTHER similarly-spectacular reports remain without a discovered credible prosaic explanation.

Maybe we can formulate this principle of UFO studies as a major fallacy: the assumption that amateur investigators working part-time [and often YEARS after the event] without access to many records of aerial activities can ALWAYS find the prosaic explanation for ANY 'explainable' UFO report. Hence, the lack of a discovered explanation is proof that there IS no explanation.

I don't think any reasonable UFOlogist actually believes this, but often people act and write as if they do.

Witnesses certainly do. They may admit that OTHER witnesses are sometimes fooled, but no, not ever THEM. Not themselves. That would be an 'insult' to their intelligence etc etc.

Estimates for the fraction of raw reports which CAN be satisfactorily -- or at least plausible -- explained range from 80% to 90% to 95% or even higher -- but never 100%.

But now, IF there is an unavoidable artificial residue of solvable-cases-without-discovered-solutions, how big IS that residue? Half of the remaining unsolveds? 90% of them? ALL of them? THAT remains the crux of the controversy, as I see it.

But it also provides an avenue for methodical investigations to test those various 'guesses'.

One is to show that the remaining unexplaineds are statistically different from the explaineds. I've seen those mathematical arguments, mostly from long, long ago, and i'm unimprssed with their rigor. Differences that are claimed appear to me to be artifacts of the data collection process in the first place.

Meanwhile, I have no explanations for a number of famous cases. But it doesn't bother me. Because the burden of proof isn't on the skeptic to provide ALL explanations -- a feat which I suggest is fundamentally impossible in ANY field of human activity -- but on the proponents of 'extraordinariness' to prove that there CAN'T be any remaining solvable cases they HAVEN'T found, so the unsolvables are essentially unexplainable in prosaic terms.

reply to post by JimOberg

I can always respect the position of the skeptic, having read physics and cosmology for several decades, because up to very recently the idea that some other civilisation could even locate the Earth, much less conduct regular round-trip visits, was an impossibility

However recent theoretical developments in string/membrane theory introduce the idea of a higher-dimensional space in which time and geometry, gravity particles and other closed-string bosons may be native entities which are inherited by our membrane Universe. These ideas introduce coherence to previously confusing issues such as the weakness of gravity

In short it may be possible to traverse this higher-dimensional space and thereby take shortcuts between distant locations in our Universe. No longer is interstellar and even intergalactic travel a complete impossibility

But to return to the crux of your argument, it may be difficult to quantify the proportion of sightings which are actually reported and analysed. Clearly the majority of reported sightings are adequately explained but, without any estimate of the aforementioned proportion, one cannot really conclude that all sightings would be so easily explained

In any case there are sightings such as my own which feature actual solid craft passing overhead in broad daylight rather than strange lights in the night sky. I would be happy to describe my sighting perhaps as a challenge for you to explain what it might have been

However even after that sighting I remained a hardcore skeptic regarding the alien UFO hypothesis but, since brushing up on cutting-edge membrane theory, I have recently changed my mind..

I think we're a lot closer to agreeing on what needs to be done, then our speculations may suggest. Even merely restricted to human-performed activities, I've found plenty of evidence that some 'UFO reports' contain information of high value. And there's no way to prove what the all are NOT.

So any methodology that further strains out the 'noise', and reduces the potential signals to a manageable number for further consideration, seems to me to be a productive and constructive approach.

reply to post by quantumfluctuation

However recent theoretical developments in string/membrane theory introduce the idea of a higher-dimensional space in which time and geometry, gravity particles and other closed-string bosons may be native entities which are inherited by our membrane Universe. These ideas introduce coherence to previously confusing issues such as the weakness of gravity

Here you touch upon one reason why UFOlogy needs some housecleaning. The 1/2 of 1% of truly enigmatic, but well documented, cases might reflect natural phenomena of an order we cannot yet comprehend. What happens if a bit of quantum foam causes localized changes to the fabric of our universe? Might it not look like an erratically moving ball of light? It's hard to say, but concluding that something must be the product of "extraterrestrial intelligence," because we do not understand what it really is closes the mind. The only intellectually honest answer is "unknown."

reply to post by JimOberg


I suppose I should have known better than to ask you direct questions about specific UFO incidents or highly dubious USAF UFO explanations Jim.

Posting lots of vague generalisations dressed up in fancy words doesn't really do it for me - especially with a subject as serious as this one.

The only question I do have left is why anyone should take seriously a self proclaimed 'UFO expert' who abjectly refuses to address any of the truly puzzling UFO cases?

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I suppose I should have known better than to ask you direct questions about specific UFO incidents or highly dubious USAF UFO explanations Jim.

Posting lots of vague generalisations dressed up in fancy words doesn't really do it for me - especially with a subject as serious as this one.

The only question I do have left is why anyone should take seriously a self proclaimed 'UFO expert' who abjectly refuses to address any of the truly puzzling UFO cases?

Your closing statement is false.

I have directly addressed MANY of the most puzzling UFO cases.

Your response seems to just be 'Well, here's ANOTHER..."

Are there ANY proposed prosaic explanations I've offered for top cases, that you would accept as credible?

Any single one of them?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Your closing statement is false.

We both know it isn't Jim.

Originally posted by JimOberg

I have directly addressed MANY of the most puzzling UFO cases.

Err no you haven't - in fact in my experience you avoid them like the plague.

I have actually lost count of how many times I've asked you about the nature of objects involved in specific incidents only for you to reply (if at all) with vague, evasive remarks or highly subjective comments that have nothing to do with the objects themselves.

Have a go at replying to this (sincere) question if you want, I won't hold my breath.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Your response seems to just be 'Well, here's ANOTHER..."

No it isn't and I don't think it ever has - I've seen you use this 'stock answer' to other members who are puzzled by your apparent lack of objectivity so I suppose it should have been expected.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Are there ANY proposed prosaic explanations I've offered for top cases, that you would accept as credible?

I think we may differ on the term 'top cases' - genuinely puzzling (and infamous) UFO incidents like the Edwards Air Force base incident, the Portage County incident, the Tehran case, the Coyne incident, the Minot AFB incident, the Shag Harbour incident, the Bariloche incident, the Colares case etc.. you seem loathe to even comment upon - I could be wrong but in over ten years of discussion with you all I think you have posted are the two rather weak and threadbare paragraphs found in the second post of this thread.

It seems if you can't shoehorn a 'missile launch' or some such other debunk on a case (irrespective of the reported facts) then you wilfully ignore the incident and pretend it doesn't exist - how can this approach be considered in any way objective if all you are doing is cherrypicking which cases support your preconceived opinions?

Is that why you deal so much in generalisations?

Originally posted by karl 12
It seems if you can't shoehorn a 'missile launch' or some such other debunk on a case (irrespective of the reported facts) then you wilfully ignore the incident and pretend it doesn't exist - how can this approach be considered in any way objective if all you are doing is cherrypicking which cases support your preconceived opinions?

Is that why you deal so much in generalisations?

I'm sorry you feel that way.

i like 'ice flakes' and a solution too, sometimes.

i don't pretend 'unexplained cases' exist, never have, and have discussed the challenge of them at length. I'm sorry you've never read my articles on that theme.

You still refuse to admit that you think i've EVER been right on ANY case I claim to have solved.

Ask yourself why.

reply to post by JimOberg
Jim, what's your take on the Peruvian UFO encounter with Oscar Huertas? IYO, was it unexplainable? UFO qualified?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by karl 12
It seems if you can't shoehorn a 'missile launch' or some such other debunk on a case (irrespective of the reported facts) then you wilfully ignore the incident and pretend it doesn't exist - how can this approach be considered in any way objective if all you are doing is cherrypicking which cases support your preconceived opinions?

Is that why you deal so much in generalisations?

I'm sorry you feel that way.

i like 'ice flakes' and a solution too, sometimes.

i don't pretend 'unexplained cases' exist, never have, and have discussed the challenge of them at length. I'm sorry you've never read my articles on that theme.

You still refuse to admit that you think i've EVER been right on ANY case I claim to have solved.

Ask yourself why.

OMG, I meant to type,

i don't pretend 'unexplained cases' DON'T exist,

Hope it's not interpreted as a Freudian slip, but whatever,
I'm bound to get -- and DESERVE -- some serious taunting
over this.

[Hangs head, blushes]

reply to post by Jaellma


Is that the air show video that Keane said the 'skeptics hoped would never arrive"?

I know an astronomer on the commission, we hunted some falling
Russian radioactive satellites together in the mid-1990s -- I need to
pester him again for his latest thinking.

reply to post by JimOberg
Nope, nope, nope.

You are referring to another newer case covered by Keane.

This Peruvian case has been documented for decades and so far, there has not been a plausible explanation for what the object might have been.

I am surprised you are not aware of this incident. Please research Air Force Oscar Alfonso Huertas' experience shooting at a UFO.

I have heard a lot of theories on this but need to get your unbiased opinion on what it might have been based on the testimony.

Originally posted by JimOberg
reply to post by Jaellma

 

Is that the air show video that Keane said the 'skeptics hoped would never arrive"?

I know an astronomer on the commission, we hunted some falling
Russian radioactive satellites together in the mid-1990s -- I need to
pester him again for his latest thinking.

I think it has a chapter devoted to it in Kean's book, Jim. Fighter pilot sent up to shoot down what everyone on the ground assumed was some kind of spy device. Pilot makes several passes at it, with the object juking out of the way at the last second each time. I think the pilot said he actually hit the object with one barrage with no effect. If I'm thinking of the wrong case, disregard.

reply to post by Orkojoker
That is the case. You are spot on, as usual. He shot many rounds at it, which he said would have destroyed just about anything, but the object either absorbed the rounds and/or deflected them.

Originally posted by JimOberg

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?

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?


,

What did he find when he looked into the Edwards AFB UFO story? The results were never mentioned? What are you trying to imply? It was covered up, or he found nothing?

Originally posted by karl 12
It seems if you can't shoehorn a 'missile launch' or some such other debunk on a case (irrespective of the reported facts) then you wilfully ignore the incident and pretend it doesn't exist - how can this approach be considered in any way objective if all you are doing is cherrypicking which cases support your preconceived opinions? Is that why you deal so much in generalisations?

I deal with specific cases for which I happen to have specific experience, and I appreciate the amount of research and luck that it took to find the prosaic explanation.

I do not apply 'one answer solves all', as if ball lightning or 'dumbness' or 'alien spaceships' or 'swamp gas' was a solve-all response to EVERY report. But yes, I am interested in the subset of reports which MIGHT be relevant to my own expertise.Other people, with other areas of expertise, would need to look into cases that suggest their own specialties might be needed.

The accusation that I 'shoe-horn' or 'force-fit' cases into my pet explanations can be shown to be invalid -- since I've never heard you tell me why ANY of the cases I've written up are NOT what I've suggseted they are. Please identify two of my published cases for which you reject my proposed explanations.

How is this approach, somehow, unacceptable? Would you prefer to continue approaching the case load without specific subject matter experts? How well has that worked so far in filtering out the wheat from the chaff, the signal from the noise??

Originally posted by game over man

Originally posted by JimOberg

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?

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?


,

What did he find when he looked into the Edwards AFB UFO story? The results were never mentioned? What are you trying to imply? It was covered up, or he found nothing?

He found the same thing in 1967 that I found fifteen years later when I checked with the actual witnesses -- Gordon Cooper was nowhere to be seen, his claimed involvement is something HE made up in later years, the report of the event was written up and submitted to Blue Book, where it can be accessed by any investigator.

What the witnesses saw and imaged was a slow flypast of a blob of light. There was no tripod landing gear, no touchdown, no sudden take off as men approached it. All those dramatic details came solely from the imagination of Gordon Cooper.

I just get amused at some of the higher profile folks like Jim (and not only him), who feel it's their duty to debunk every case, even if the logic behind the reasoning is ludicrous. Tehran - rich kids in jets? I'm thinking not. Of course, another top debunker said in a book that they were chasing Jupiter, and two separate jets had malfunctions. And so it goes.

Imo, these folks should just play it like the Air Force - ignore those cases completely. They found out the hard way what a mistake it was to comment on a case. i.e. Roswell. Their stance since, aside from the laughable "research" projects, has been: we don't concern ourselves with that. It's better to keep quiet I think, than to concoct a ridiculous theory about why it is something mundane, just for the sake of feeling they have to do so.

I do appreciate Jim's professional attitude however, and that he does approach many of those cases which really don't have merit with a level head, to shoot them down, just as they should be.

Originally posted by fleabit
I just get amused at some of the higher profile folks like Jim (and not only him), who feel it's their duty to debunk every case, even if the logic behind the reasoning is ludicrous. Tehran - rich kids in jets? I'm thinking not. Of course, another top debunker said in a book that they were chasing Jupiter, and two separate jets had malfunctions. And so it goes.

Imo, these folks should just play it like the Air Force - ignore those cases completely. They found out the hard way what a mistake it was to comment on a case. i.e. Roswell. Their stance since, aside from the laughable "research" projects, has been: we don't concern ourselves with that. It's better to keep quiet I think, than to concoct a ridiculous theory about why it is something mundane, just for the sake of feeling they have to do so.

I do appreciate Jim's professional attitude however, and that he does approach many of those cases which really don't have merit with a level head, to shoot them down, just as they should be.

Fleabit, some of the know-it-all knee-jerk must-have-been-X put-downs of many stories is really embarrassing to me, too. If we can't approach this bizarre, tantalizing subject with full awareness of how LITTLE we know and understand, and how MUCH we all think we 'know' that is flat-out wrong, we'll keep up the dance of delusion that has been going on for decades, and getting nowhere.

It's because I readily admit there could be -- almost certainly ARE -- some stimuli of significant value and interest AMONG the mass of reports that I want to help filter them out. Cosmonaut Kovalyonok's report of a morphing cloud he saw over the Indian Ocean -- not ice crystals, for sure. Cash-Landrum's Christmas helicopters -- a clue to WHAT activity, exactly? Many others.

We don't need to agree on the answers, if we can agree on the right questions.