The Citizens' Hearing on Disclosure is Coming

reply to post by Oberginator

You don't find it odd that a man demanding evidence to substantiate the ET hypothesis would send an angry letter to someone who provided such evidence in which he criticised him for revealing 'secret UFO sightings'?

Well since the man himself has given you permission to post the letter......let's be having it then!

Originally posted by lambros56
Well I watched all five days of the hearings and really enjoyed every bit of the coverage.
I'm surprised hardly anyone on ATS seemed to have watched these hearings.

I thought the whole presentation was first class and hope they have more of these hearings.
Don't know if the media will get involved but find it sad that people still mock this issue through ignorance and manipulation.

Very few are interested in learning, most are interested in arguing.
LOL

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by Oberginator

 

You don't find it odd that a man demanding evidence to substantiate the ET hypothesis would send an angry letter to someone who provided such evidence in which he criticised him for revealing 'secret UFO sightings'?

Well since the man himself has given you permission to post the letter......let's be having it then!

He can post whatever he wants allegedly by or from me -- let's see if anything says remotely what he has already claimed it said.

Re the other comment above, the sad thing is that there is a lot of real research that enthusiastic part-timers can constructively perform, that will advance the current low level clarity of this fascinating topic.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Oberginator

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Oberginator

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Oberginator

Never once, I just think he's a poisonously disingenuous blowhard who demands evidence on the one hand, but then chides people in private letters for revealing 'secret UFO sightings'.

Ohhhhh.......I see. So it's your life's mission to point this out to everyone? So you're like a terminator only an oberg-inator? Are you from the future? But wouldn't an oberginator make more obergs? Anyway, carry on, It's kind of funny.

Ohhhhh....I see, so you don't address anything I've said, rather you cry for poor old Jimbo.

you didn't really say anything other than sling some insults at someone, so therein is nothing to address. I wouldn't say that I cry for him, rather I chuckle at your histrionics. Carry on.

You don't find it odd that a man demanding evidence to substantiate the ET hypothesis would send an angry letter to someone who provided such evidence in which he criticised him for revealing 'secret UFO sightings'?

What I find odd is that your name is oberginator. If a terminator terminates, an oberginator oberginates. So are you trying to make more obergs? And isn't setting up an account for the purpose of trolling someone just a tad ...sad? And I could care less what letters Jim oberg sends to people. What if i set up an account to troll you? Oberginatorinatotornator. Yeah, now you are going to get it. I'll show you.

edit on 4-5-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

How about answering my question rather than making small talk.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Oberginator
You don't find it odd that a man demanding evidence to substantiate the ET hypothesis would send an angry letter to someone who provided such evidence in which he criticised him for revealing 'secret UFO sightings'?

This is delicious. By all means, publish the alleged letters. Let's see if anything says what you are claiming they say, while NOT revealing what you claim to have.

Folks can visit my home page www.jameoberg.com/ufo.html to see what new evidence and analysis I have offered over the years.

Where's yours?

After Bob Jacobs went public with the UFO shoot-down story, Oberg wrote to him, chastising Jacobs for revealing “top secret” information. In his MUFON UFO Journal article, Jacobs wrote that after he broke his silence, “I was contacted by a variety of investigators, buffs, cranks, proponents and detractors alike. James Oberg, a frequent ‘mouthpiece’ for certain NASA projects and self-styled UFO Debunker wrote to disparage my story and to ask provocatively, ‘Since you obviously feel free to discuss top secret UFO data, what would you be willing to say about other top secret aspects of the Atlas warhead which you alluded to briefly...?’ I told Mr. Oberg where to put his misplaced cynicism.

Bob Jacobs went on to publish the letter in question in a book.

reply to post by Oberginator

How about answering my question rather than making small talk.

I answered your question. My answer is "I don't care". Im pretty sure that was clear. Now how about you answer my questions which are much more interesting.
1. Is it not sad to set up an account for the sole purpose of trolling another member?
2. Is not the name you chose to troll said person, not exactly well thought out?
3. Are you over the age of 13?

Isn't Jacobs the guy who hypnotized women and asked for their alien soiled underpants so he could examine them for DNA?

Originally posted by Oberginator
After Bob Jacobs went public with the UFO shoot-down story, Oberg wrote to him, chastising Jacobs for revealing “top secret” information. In his MUFON UFO Journal article, Jacobs wrote that after he broke his silence, “I was contacted by a variety of investigators, buffs, cranks, proponents and detractors alike. James Oberg, a frequent ‘mouthpiece’ for certain NASA projects and self-styled UFO Debunker wrote to disparage my story and to ask provocatively, ‘Since you obviously feel free to discuss top secret UFO data, what would you be willing to say about other top secret aspects of the Atlas warhead which you alluded to briefly...?’ I told Mr. Oberg where to put his misplaced cynicism.

Bob Jacobs went on to publish the letter in question in a book.

So you really don't have any letters [you said plural], only one claim by another guy about me asking about missile secrets, not UFO secrets. You had said,

Originally posted by Oberginator
... I just think he's a poisonously disingenuous blowhard who demands evidence on the one hand, but then chides people in private letters for revealing 'secret UFO sightings'.

and the evidence you offer to defend your nasty accusations is 1] hearsay, 2] false regarding number of claimed letters 3] irrelevant to the core of your complaint, the quoted phrase of CHIDING about 'secret UFO sightings.'

No wonder you make your moves under cover of darkness and deception. Thanks for making your methods and mentality clear.

ADD --As to the story of Jacobs, here's some other information you no doubt hope your target audience never sees.
www.csicop.org...

Originally posted by Oberginator
How about answering my question rather than making small talk.

Curious, another anonymous poster over at HuffPo with an interesting handle makes almost identical comments:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Jowber 03:31 PM on 05/04/2013
One must assume that debunker/skeptics are atheists, no? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but if you go out of your way to make fun of people, belittle people and judge people because you want "evidence", it would be pretty hypocritical if you believe in God. It wouldn't surprise though, these people wreak of hypocrisy.

08:28 AM on 05/04/2013
If you read the comments by debunkers/skeptics they almost are always snarky, rude and demeaning. These people see that pathetic trait everyday when they look in a mirror. No wonder they view the rest of humanity the same way. To say thousands and thousands of people are liars??? Presidents, governors, senators, military commanders, police officers, doctors, lawyers etc. You are absolutely right, there is no evidence that they will ever accept. Yet their standard response to everything is "where's the evidence?". I truly wonder why they come here, it honestly makes no sense to me. They are never going to change our minds, just as we are never going to change theirs. So there goal is to come here and act childish? To what end? Again, they are such miserable souls, it's no wonder they have no faith in humanity.

BTW, "these people wreak of hypocrisy", he meant "reek", but had trouble with written English vocabulary.

Jowber 03:31 PM on 05/04/2013
To say thousands and thousands of people are liars??? Presidents, governors, senators, military commanders, police officers, doctors, lawyers etc.

Some REALLY bad examples in that list.

These people see that pathetic trait everyday when they look in a mirror.

I wonder if "Jowber" sees the pathetic traits of a stalker/troll when he looks in the mirror.

This is the Bob Jacobs story


He does sound very convincing....

Unfortunately, it's hard to take Bill Nye seriously.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
This is the Bob Jacobs story
[snip link]

He does sound very convincing....

Agreed. He does sound that way. But all stories SHOULD be checked, don't you agree? And if you refuse to read the assessment by another better-informed witness, you can preserve your self-delusion effortlessly: www.csicop.org...

Unfortunately, it's hard to take Bill Nye seriously.

Totally agree. I've always thought Bill Nye sounded like a pontificating blow-hard, but then, people have called ME that too, not entirely without justification, so I better be a little more charitable. But Nye here, and elsewhere, displays a sad unfamiliarity with the UFO phenomenon and an over-exaggerated sense of his own omniscience.

Originally posted by draknoir2

These people see that pathetic trait everyday when they look in a mirror.

I wonder if "Jowber" sees the pathetic traits of a stalker/troll when he looks in the mirror.

So what I gather is that he read something in a book that portrayed someone in a bad light and decided to troll this person without really much thought.

I don't mean to be a suck up but Jim Oberg comes here as Jim Oberg so he is clearly putting it out there.

Speaking as someone who wants to be anonymous, I can say whatever stupid thing i want without any repercussions. It's entertaining, and I can get a real job without too much worry.

Even worse, is someone who can come here anonymously and portray themselves as "someone" and say whatever they want about someone without much of a thought.

So if oberg-o-troll is judging the character of someone who uses their real name, what can he posibly say of his own character?

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
This is the Bob Jacobs story

He does sound very convincing....

Unfortunately, it's hard to take Bill Nye seriously.

When your professional title is "The Science Guy" it is to be expected.

Originally posted by JimOberg

But all stories SHOULD be checked, don't you agree? And if you refuse to read the assessment by another better-informed witness, you can preserve your self-delusion effortlessly: www.csicop.org...

Agreed. What I find interesting is the context of the clip. It's CNN. It's Larry King. There's a panel of very believable witnesses, Hastings and then there is Bill Nye, The Science Guy.

I am certain that most people who watched this came away convinced by these stories. I saw this when it aired and was convinced myself. It was on CNN afterall. What more checking can you do?

Thanks for the article and does shed some light on the actual facts even though it ruined every episode of Star Trek for me with regards to light beams in space.

So I think Jacobs is convincing because he is convinced himself. Can people really make this stuff up in their own heads and convince themselves of its reality?

I think so. www.nybooks.com...

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Oberginator
How about answering my question rather than making small talk.

Curious, another anonymous poster over at HuffPo with an interesting handle makes almost identical comments:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Jowber 03:31 PM on 05/04/2013
One must assume that debunker/skeptics are atheists, no? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but if you go out of your way to make fun of people, belittle people and judge people because you want "evidence", it would be pretty hypocritical if you believe in God. It wouldn't surprise though, these people wreak of hypocrisy.

08:28 AM on 05/04/2013
If you read the comments by debunkers/skeptics they almost are always snarky, rude and demeaning. These people see that pathetic trait everyday when they look in a mirror. No wonder they view the rest of humanity the same way. To say thousands and thousands of people are liars??? Presidents, governors, senators, military commanders, police officers, doctors, lawyers etc. You are absolutely right, there is no evidence that they will ever accept. Yet their standard response to everything is "where's the evidence?". I truly wonder why they come here, it honestly makes no sense to me. They are never going to change our minds, just as we are never going to change theirs. So there goal is to come here and act childish? To what end? Again, they are such miserable souls, it's no wonder they have no faith in humanity.

BTW, "these people wreak of hypocrisy", he meant "reek", but had trouble with written English vocabulary.

I assure you Jimbo, that is not a post made by me. The point it makes though is an obvious one; and myself, this individual, and many others have made it in the past. You either believe in evidentiary principles or you do not. Whilst religious views may ostensibly be a matter of personal conscience, when those holding such views enter into debates where they dismiss a proposition because they believe it lacks evidence, I think it is incumbent on them to appreciate the thin rhetorical ice upon which they skate. The ET hypothesis is supported by evidence objectively far stronger than the claims made by any of the Abrahamic religions, and yet the former invites socially acceptable derision, the latter demands of people conceited respect; it simply isn't considered polite to tell proponents of the invisible man is the sky hypothesis that they are deluded crackpots.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by JimOberg

But all stories SHOULD be checked, don't you agree? And if you refuse to read the assessment by another better-informed witness, you can preserve your self-delusion effortlessly: www.csicop.org...

Agreed. What I find interesting is the context of the clip. It's CNN. It's Larry King. There's a panel of very believable witnesses, Hastings and then there is Bill Nye, The Science Guy.

I am certain that most people who watched this came away convinced by these stories. I saw this when it aired and was convinced myself. It was on CNN afterall. What more checking can you do?

Thanks for the article and does shed some light on the actual facts even though it ruined every episode of Star Trek for me with regards to light beams in space.

So I think Jacobs is convincing because he is convinced himself. Can people really make this stuff up in their own heads and convince themselves of its reality?

I think so. www.nybooks.com...

'Can' defines a near infinity of possible actions, all that is pertinent in this instance is the likelihood that the individual concerned would do what you suggest; have you any evidence? Of course not, because when it comes to this issue you are a supporter of the principle of argumentative inequity; you demand evidence which you then summarily dismiss, then you then make claims bereft of any evidence.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by draknoir2

These people see that pathetic trait everyday when they look in a mirror.

I wonder if "Jowber" sees the pathetic traits of a stalker/troll when he looks in the mirror.

So what I gather is that he read something in a book that portrayed someone in a bad light and decided to troll this person without really much thought.

I don't mean to be a suck up but Jim Oberg comes here as Jim Oberg so he is clearly putting it out there.

Speaking as someone who wants to be anonymous, I can say whatever stupid thing i want without any repercussions. It's entertaining, and I can get a real job without too much worry.

Even worse, is someone who can come here anonymously and portray themselves as "someone" and say whatever they want about someone without much of a thought.

So if oberg-o-troll is judging the character of someone who uses their real name, what can he posibly say of his own character?

More lachrymose nonsense in defence of poor old Jimbo.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
This is the Bob Jacobs story
[snip link]

He does sound very convincing....

Agreed. He does sound that way. But all stories SHOULD be checked, don't you agree? And if you refuse to read the assessment by another better-informed witness, you can preserve your self-delusion effortlessly: www.csicop.org...

Unfortunately, it's hard to take Bill Nye seriously.

Totally agree. I've always thought Bill Nye sounded like a pontificating blow-hard, but then, people have called ME that too, not entirely without justification, so I better be a little more charitable. But Nye here, and elsewhere, displays a sad unfamiliarity with the UFO phenomenon and an over-exaggerated sense of his own omniscience.

edit on 6-5-2013 by JimOberg because: typos

Whoa! Now back up there cowgirl, why is the guy peddling the CSICOP approved version of events "better-informed". The fact that his take on the issue accords with your own isn't a valid answer.

Originally posted by draknoir2


When your professional title is "The Science Guy" it is to be expected.