The Citizens' Hearing on Disclosure is Coming

Incidentally Jimbo, one assumes given your claimed regard for beliefs grounded by solid evidence that you are an affirmed atheist? It would be useful I think for the forum to have that confirmed as I have lost count how many times I have had an arch skeptic debunk the ET hypothesis for lack of evidence, only for me to subsequently discover they ascribe to the invisible man in the sky hypothesis.

Originally posted by Oberginator
Incidentally Jimbo, one assumes given your claimed regard for beliefs grounded by solid evidence that you are an affirmed atheist? It would be useful I think for the forum to have that confirmed as I have lost count how many times I have had an arch skeptic debunk the ET hypothesis for lack of evidence, only for me to subsequently discover they ascribe to the invisible man in the sky hypothesis.

That has got to be one of the worst arguments I have ever heard. Logic isn't your thing I guess.

Originally posted by Oberginator
Incidentally Jimbo, one assumes given your claimed regard for beliefs grounded by solid evidence that you are an affirmed atheist? It would be useful I think for the forum to have that confirmed as I have lost count how many times I have had an arch skeptic debunk the ET hypothesis for lack of evidence, only for me to subsequently discover they ascribe to the invisible man in the sky hypothesis.

Were he [mis]representing his religious beliefs as scientific "hypotheses" then you might have a valid point.

He's not, so you don't. You, however, are representing your unsubstantiated beliefs as scientific "hypotheses", so you can expect to be called out on your lack of evidence.



And an account set up to troll a specific member might just be against the TOS... and definitely is more than just a little sad.

reply to post by draknoir2


Good points. I'm just assuming the argument would be: Since you need evidence for aliens in order to believe in them, you can't believe in god either due to the lack of evidence. Therefore, an atheist doesn't believe in aliens but a priest would have to believe in aliens since he believes in god and doesn't need evidence.

But really, I think the argument is just for this one particular instance. I would really like to hear the line of reasoning from the oberg-o-troll. But I don't think it's likely that there will be too much in the way of reasoning.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by draknoir2

 

Good points. I'm just assuming the argument would be: Since you need evidence for aliens in order to believe in them, you can't believe in god either due to the lack of evidence. Therefore, an atheist doesn't believe in aliens but a priest would have to believe in aliens since he believes in god and doesn't need evidence.

But really, I think the argument is just for this one particular instance. I would really like to hear the line of reasoning from the oberg-o-troll. But I don't think it's likely that there will be too much in the way of reasoning.

Then allow me to elucidate

I was merely making the point that if Jimbo was a believer in the invisible man in the sky hypothesis it would be rather hypocritical of him to pretend as if he's really an evidence orientated person.

i know we are not alone

i can't prove this fact, but i know it's true

so do you



remember...

Originally posted by Oberginator

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by draknoir2

 

Good points. I'm just assuming the argument would be: Since you need evidence for aliens in order to believe in them, you can't believe in god either due to the lack of evidence. Therefore, an atheist doesn't believe in aliens but a priest would have to believe in aliens since he believes in god and doesn't need evidence.

But really, I think the argument is just for this one particular instance. I would really like to hear the line of reasoning from the oberg-o-troll. But I don't think it's likely that there will be too much in the way of reasoning.

Then allow me to elucidate

I was merely making the point that if Jimbo was a believer in the invisible man in the sky hypothesis it would be rather hypocritical of him to pretend as if he's really an evidence orientated person.

Well I'm pointing out that the argument sucks since whatever anyone's personal religious, philosophical or spiritual beliefs are, it would have no bearing on the subject. That and you are just imagining what his beliefs are.

So did mean Jim Oberg hurt your feelings or something?

Originally posted by Oberginator

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by draknoir2

 

Good points. I'm just assuming the argument would be: Since you need evidence for aliens in order to believe in them, you can't believe in god either due to the lack of evidence. Therefore, an atheist doesn't believe in aliens but a priest would have to believe in aliens since he believes in god and doesn't need evidence.

But really, I think the argument is just for this one particular instance. I would really like to hear the line of reasoning from the oberg-o-troll. But I don't think it's likely that there will be too much in the way of reasoning.

Then allow me to elucidate

I was merely making the point that if Jimbo was a believer in the invisible man in the sky hypothesis it would be rather hypocritical of him to pretend as if he's really an evidence orientated person.

You seem to freely interchange the terms "belief" and "hypothesis". They are not synonymous, nor are they mutually exclusive. One requires no validation while the other does.

And your trolling is still sad.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Oberginator

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by draknoir2

 

Good points. I'm just assuming the argument would be: Since you need evidence for aliens in order to believe in them, you can't believe in god either due to the lack of evidence. Therefore, an atheist doesn't believe in aliens but a priest would have to believe in aliens since he believes in god and doesn't need evidence.

But really, I think the argument is just for this one particular instance. I would really like to hear the line of reasoning from the oberg-o-troll. But I don't think it's likely that there will be too much in the way of reasoning.

Then allow me to elucidate

I was merely making the point that if Jimbo was a believer in the invisible man in the sky hypothesis it would be rather hypocritical of him to pretend as if he's really an evidence orientated person.

Well I'm pointing out that the argument sucks since whatever anyone's personal religious, philosophical or spiritual beliefs are, it would have no bearing on the subject. That and you are just imagining what his beliefs are.

So did mean Jim Oberg hurt your feelings or something?

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'.

reply to post by Oberginator


Your posts remind me of another member.

........Zorgon........ Is that you?.

I've had a chance to see quite a bit of this hearing, and am quite impressed with this format, much better than reporting directly to the media, since that never works.
The retired members of congress are taking the witnesses testimonies seriously and are asking good questions.
A lot of good advice and encouragement has been provided by the retired members to push this matter further, to get real answers.
This might open the flood gates so that more witnesses come forward with out the fear of ridicule, loss of job, imprisonment etc.
It's just a matter of time before a critical mass of government/defence witnesses is reached before members of the congress can no longer ignore this issue.

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.

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'.

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.

Originally posted by Catch_a_Fire
reply to post by Oberginator

 

Your posts remind me of another member.

........Zorgon........ Is that you?.

Nope.

I''m the ghost of Christmas past, and certainly the ghost of Jimbo's past.

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 there is nothing to address. I wouldn't say that I cry for him, rather I chuckle at your histrionics. Carry on.

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 there 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'?

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.

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.

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?