Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain! Alleged Super-Skeptic Tells All!

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by BullwinkleKicksButt

 

The third option is irrelevant because it's either a real phenomenon or not.

There's no doubt that UFOs are a real phenomenon but there may be many causes of the phenomenon that have nothing to do with Extraterrestrial visitors , the possibility is there but I'm afraid its way down the list .

I didn't mention ET anywhere.
I have no view point what the phenomenon is, only that the craft appear to be intelligently controlled. It could be absolutely anything, unmanned scout vehicles, robots, time travellers, interdimensional beings, something beyond our understanding. I've got no opinion on it.
I've never personally experienced anything that could have been a UFO. I am also in a position to know certain things about this phenomenon and I have heard nothing officially except what everyone else knows if they look into it.

I can respect Jim and his wealth of knowledge and experience. What I have a difficult time with is when the "super skeptics" spend an inordinate amount of time talking down to people who aren't as well informed. As a matter of fact for someone who came to ATS with a budding curiosity of the ufo phenomenon I found myself to be turned off to how the debate was taking place. My input on the topic basically came to a full stop after a few months.

Skeptics do play a very important role on ATS, they help to give a much needed balance and also help weed out the phony stuff. With that being said, I have seen threads created by said "super skeptic" that was baiting ufo believers here. I don't really see the value in that kind of discourse. Again, I understand the value of the skeptics, I just wish that they wouldn't come across as shills at times because it convolutes their message and confuses people new to the subject.

Cynic: a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. Conspiracy-minded people typically exhibit the pure definition of a skeptic.

Skeptic: a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.

Might have to add that into my signature. When it comes to Alien Encounters I'm a cynic. When it comes to UFO's in general, I'm a believer, I've seen things in the sky I can't explain too. I'm a skeptic when it comes to believing those UFOs are alien craft. I need evidence to support the fact they are, second hand testimony don't cut it for this guy. But i'm not saying they aren't ET, they sure as heck could be.

I have to agree with Jim, the UFOlogy field has done a crap job at filtering out crap. It's a miss mash of different people hawking different books, dvds and whatever else. it's really hard to get to the meat of the story when you spend day in day out filtering out crap.

I think that's why a lot of ATS skeptics are slipping into being cynical about the entire UFO phenomena, it's easy when you have to debunk the same garbage over and over and take nothing but personal attacks as thanks for your efforts.

UFOlogy is a dead field without skeptics. You can make do without cynics, but you need skeptics as they are the ones forcing you to actually look and think, without us questioning your "proof" you just take it all as fact, slap each other on the back, and plan the next road trip to Roswell.

I want to know. I know there are things taking place that are very real, as well as hoaxes, lies, and misdirection. But I want to KNOW what's taking place, regardless of if it's aliens or just jimbob with an RC plane.

If you aren't willing to be wrong, get out of the field, there's simply no room for you at this time.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by torsion
Here's some vintage Oberg. Horizon - Case of the UFOs (1982)

Cool video!! Hadn't realized it was on youtube.

That was my "STS-1 beard". By early 1980,

And I was thinking it was the Stan Friedman look!

Here's another Horizon UFO related documentary from 1994. You're not in this one Jim, but Dr Susan Blackmore is. I worked with her on some Targ/Puthoff inspired Remote Viewing experiments in the early 80s!

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Alleged Super-Skeptic Tells All!

I'd like to take this moment in time to point out that the word "skeptic" has been abused and improperly used in these contexts. Jim Oberg, and others that receive the "skeptic" moniker from conspiracy-minded people are not skeptics, they are cynics.

Cynic:
a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.

I have to agree with jaws1975 here in that Jim certainly can be a butt, a big one, with some of his "baiting" threads (not nice, Jim!) I also feels he falls short in some of his logic, but to call him merely a cynic using the above definition doesn't seem contextually accurate.

I mean I've even heard him concede that "space critters" are a possibility worth considering at one point. Then again, if his cynicism were weighed against his skepticism, yeah, I guess you're right---it would seemingly fall on the cynical side.

Pretty broad brushstroke that, though, SO. Cynical even.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Seriously, the UFO community has failed to adequately filter 'noise' from the cacaphonous torrent of stories, so has been unable to isolate and analyze any true signals possibly buried amongst the static. I think I've proven that with the 'space-caused IFO" cases. That is not an attempt to explain ALL unsolved cases -- just a demonstratation that the UFO advocates have failed to adequately vet their data bases. So try harder -- I do believe it's worth it.

And that was my hope with this thread. I do have a question as related to reports in conjunction with your Open Letter to CSETI:

Did you actually receive some official flak and attempted intimidation for writing and disseminating it?

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt
GUT could you provide us with Jims evidence.

Nope, I provided the letter and my personal opinion that it had an air of passion and sincerity about it. I certainy DO NOT agree with everything in it.

I do feel it is worthy of consideration and that it might help the field of ufology be better informed, and as such, maybe better equipped to tackle the enigma.

Originally posted by torsion
...Dr Susan Blackmore is. I worked with her on some Targ/Puthoff inspired Remote Viewing experiments in the early 80s!

I've always liked you, torsion, but I realize I never knew you. I'm determined to now though!

Have you written about those experiences, and cast of characters, here?

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
On the (fairly safe) assumption that Jim Oberg would not consider such an article to be supported by good evidence unless and until further information/evidence were provided, doesn't the same apply to his claim to have a list of people who have privately talked to him over the years and who were involved in government activities leading to a number of well-known "UFO cases"?

Yeah, you're absolutely right, Isaac, there is that elephant in the room, but it's kind of a strange loop and hurts my head to think about it.

On the one hand, that stance should soften Jim a bit, on the other, are we now disposed to consider his personal experience/story with the same care any of us would hope to receive when we relate our stories...no matter how fantastic?

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by The GUT

 

I'm very surprised to see that he included references to the govt/military using UFOs as a cover for sneaky business, but I'm sure he just said something that most of us have suspected for quite a long time. While I personally believe the UFO phenomena is in many cases real, I have always believed that many UFO reports have been our own people using the phenomena as a cover story for their own hidden agendas- in more than one fashion.

This is not a suspicion it is a fact. I have been personally told so (in public) by a member of the government on record, about aerial activities which were originally "UFO" reports but were in fact intelligence missions whose technologies were now declassified. It's not clear governments intentionally invented "UFO" reports, but rather did not comment. People who are not cleared to comment do not comment, and what random Joe Billy Bob thinks they saw is not their concern.

Originally posted by mbkennel
This is not a suspicion it is a fact. I have been personally told so (in public) by a member of the government on record, about aerial activities which were originally "UFO" reports but were in fact intelligence missions whose technologies were now declassified. It's not clear governments intentionally invented "UFO" reports, but rather did not comment. People who are not cleared to comment do not comment, and what random Joe Billy Bob thinks they saw is not their concern.

I, too, found that the least illuminating of the various assertions in the letter. I think that most folk realize that aspect. Further, I have no problem with our boys in that respect.

If, however, UFO stories have actually been fabricated and elaborated for purposes beyond a quick and convenient cover-story to cloak some of our hi-technology, and I think they have, then that's where my dander gets up. Thanks for weighing in.

reply to post by The GUT


I can understand why one may become irritated at that, but remember, in this scenario the UFO presents a good cover. So, it would stand to reason that they would do this. They want that possibility ingrained in the public psyche. Sucks, because yes, it muddies the waters, but I can see their angle.

Black helicopters outfitted to look like UFOs abducting cattle.

I know I keep saying that, but I just find it hilarious. And it illustrates the point.

Originally posted by mbkennel
This is not a suspicion it is a fact. I have been personally told so (in public) by a member of the government on record, about aerial activities which were originally "UFO" reports but were in fact intelligence missions whose technologies were now declassified.

Oh well, if a member of the government said it then it must be true...

Seriously, which SPECIFIC sightings were caused by intelligence missions?

Are we talking about the few really well-known sightings which non-ufologists have probably seen on TV documentaries (e.g. Roswell, Socorro, Rendlesham etc) or some low value Lights In The Sky ("LITS") reports which few people will ever have heard about?

If so, where is the evidence of that?

(I'd nonetheless be interested in hearing which member of the government said this to you on record and when. I've collated a few such statements, but perhaps your one gives a bit more detail and/or evidence).

By the way, Jim Oberg's letter implies government activities far beyond rocket launches and black projects have caused reports of some sightings.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


I wondered as well if he may be speaking of things like psyops to influence the abduction phenomena, but he has stated before he doesn't concern himself with that stuff. ...

I'd be interested in hearing as well, but I doubt he is willing to clarify. And I respect that decision.

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Are we talking about the few really well-known sightings which non-ufologists have probably seen on TV documentaries (e.g. Roswell, Socorro, Rendlesham etc) or some low value Lights In The Sky ("LITS") reports which few people will ever have heard about?

If so, where is the evidence of that?...

You mentioning those cases brought Bennewitz back to mind. In that case we have a man, a good citizen and apparently a patriot, who not only has sightings, but films them, and then it's fairly well-documented he had his head and life messed with in rather cruel ways. Who do we find at the center of it: That merry ol' trickster Doty. Who was still active military (AFOSI) at the time, ahem.

If they were only protecting top secret terrestrial projects, shame on them that took part in wrecking his life.

If, obversely, they were actually hiding something of a ufological nature, shame on them twice!

Btw, Isaac, are there any verified pics/video taken by Bennewitz in the public domain?

Also, I can't help but wonder if Kecksburg is a player here.
Maury Island?

Originally posted by The GUT
You mentioning those cases brought Bennewitz back to mind. In that case we have a man, a good citizen and apparently a patriot, who not only has sightings, but films them, and then it's fairly well-documented he had his head and life messed with in rather cruel ways. Who do we find at the center of it: That merry ol' trickster Doty. Who was still active military (AFOSI) at the time, ahem.

As and when I ever get around to looking into the Aviary and related issues properly, then I'd start by seeking out the documents relating to the disinformation of Paul Bennewitz.

I don't know if you've done this already.

Greg Bishop's interesting book "Project Beta" refers to a number of official documents, but doesn't include them all within the book. (Incidentally, some of the information in that book seems to be sourced from Moore, an individual with, ahem, questionable credibility. If I recall correctly, it emerges quite late in the book that Moore was friends with Bishop - which I thought explained why some of Moore's information was repeated without being subject to serious health warnings).
www.amazon.com...


I've just ordered another book on Paul Bennewitz, to arrive in a day or two, by Tim Green Beckley:
www.amazon.co.uk...

That book apparently includes a full copy of "The Bennewitz Papers" by Christa Tilton, which I'd been thinking about buying for a while (but it tends to be offered for sale rarely and for silly amounts of money):
www.amazon.co.uk...

I may also get Lambright's book, "X Descending":
www.xdeskpublishing.com...
www.amazon.com...'___'HQ8/

Btw, Isaac, are there any verified pics/video taken by Bennewitz in the public domain?

Stills, yes. Video, not sure.

Some of the stills can be seen at:
beerandcigarettesradio.com...

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Greg Bishop's interesting book "Project Beta" refers to a number of official documents, but doesn't include them all within the book. (Incidentally, some of the information in that book seems to be sourced from Moore, an individual with, ahem, questionable credibility. If I recall correctly, it emerges quite late in the book that Moore was friends with Bishop - which I thought explained why some of Moore's information was repeated without being subject to serious health warnings).

Those are some very interesting pics! Thank you, yet again.

I think Greg has pretty much demonstrated his strengths and integrity as a researcher. I don't mean to suggest that you questioned that, btw, and I agree that William Moore has to be looked at with eyes askew.

One way we might look at Moore, however, is that he admitted to being a cad to his seeming detriment. If that's so, then one might look at him as being a more credible source than the charlatans he outed and distanced himself from.

Hard, documentable evidence as relates this field is, and will probably remain, hard to come by. We hope for "evidence" in the hard sense, but that doesn't mean "evidentiary items" aren't pathways, sometimes, to accurate conclusions.

Originally posted by The GUT
I think Greg has pretty much demonstrated his strengths and integrity as a researcher. I don't mean to suggest that you questioned that, btw,

I certainly wasn't questioning that. I think I've previously recommended his book as being a very interesting look at the Paul Bennewitz affair and various members of the Aviary.

Edit: See, for example, the comments I made back in 2007 at:
www.theparacast.com...

the book that I've personally considered the most interesting within the last 3 years is probably Greg Bishop's "Project Beta" (2005);

I would have preferred to see more of the relevant documents, but realise that including a lengthy appendix containing all the relevant documents may not be possible in a commercial publication.

One way we might look at Moore, however, is that he admitted to being a cad to his seeming detriment. If that's so, then one might look at him as being a more credible source than the charlatans he outed and distanced himself from.

"More credible" than some of the others involved in this drama isn't exactly high praise.

Hard, documentable evidence as relates this field is, and will probably remain, hard to come by.

Well, Greg Bishop's book "Project Beta" refers to some documentation - so obtaining and examining copies of those documents would be a good start.

That documentation may lead to other material, which may answer the question I've posed elsewhere (but relevant in this thread):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But where's the evidence of military disinformation in relation to UFOs (other than in relation to one or two very limited instances, such as Project Beta) instead of, say, certain people having a laugh at the expense of the gullible and/or seeking to make a bit of money?

Originally posted by The GUT
There's also Gerald Haines official history of the CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90, of course, which contains some information but again; nothing that approaches the magnitude and variety of the Open Letter to CSETI.

For anyone not familiar with that item, published in a CIA publication, I'll post the most relevant (and controversial) section:

CIA's U-2 and OXCART as UFOs

In November 1954, CIA had entered into the world of high technology with its U-2 overhead reconnaissance project. Working with Lockheed's Advanced Development facility in Burbank, California, known as the Skunk Works, and Kelly Johnson, an eminent aeronautical engineer, the Agency by August 1955 was testing a high-altitude experimental aircraft--the U-2. It could fly at 60,000 feet; in the mid-1950s, most commercial airliners flew between 10,000 feet and 20,000 feet. Consequently, once the U-2 started test flights, commercial pilots and air traffic controllers began reporting a large increase in UFO sightings. (44) (U)

The early U-2s were silver (they were later painted black) and reflected the rays from the sun, especially at sunrise and sunset. They often appeared as fiery objects to observers below. Air Force BLUE BOOK investigators aware of the secret U-2 flights tried to explain away such sightings by linking them to natural phenomena such as ice crystals and temperature inversions. By checking with the Agency's U-2 Project Staff in Washington, BLUE BOOK investigators were able to attribute many UFO sightings to U-2 flights. They were careful, however, not to reveal the true cause of the sighting to the public.

According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States. (45) This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project. While perhaps justified, this deception added fuel to the later conspiracy theories and the coverup controversy of the 1970s. The percentage of what the Air Force considered unexplained UFO sightings fell to 5.9 percent in 1955 and to 4 percent in 1956. (46)

In relation to footnote 44 of Gerald Haines’ article (“44. See Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach, The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2 and OXCART Programs, 1954-1974 (Washington, DC: CIA History Staff, 1992), pp. 72-73” also referred to in footnote 45 of the article by Gerald Haines), the relevant book is available online at:
www.cia.gov...

By the way, I've previously posted a table of references to discussion of the article published by Haines. That table of one or two dozen discussions in various books may be a useful starting point for anyone looking into these issues:
www.isaackoi.com...

While stretching my usual rules for inclusion in the relevant tables of references (which are generally limited to discussions in books), I included a reference to an article by Bruce Maccabee entitled “CIA's UFO Explanation Is Preposterous”, which focuses on the material at footnotes 44 and 45 of Gerald Haines’ article. That article by Bruce Maccabee available online on his website at:
brumac.8k.com...

The claim that the U-2 caused "over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950's through the 1960's" is, to put it gently, preposterous. The U-2, with its 80 ft long by 6 ft wide (front to back) wingspan flew at 60-70,000 feet and at that altitude was essentially invisible during the day.

It created no contrail because of the lack of moisture at that altitude. It was, after all, intended to be invisible! During the hour before sunrise and the hour following sunset it would be possible for an unpainted aircraft to reflect the sun enough to be visible, perhaps with a reddish glow resulting from the reddening of sunlight (caused by passage of the sunlight through the atmosphere, which acts like a filter that removes blue and green relative to red). High altitude balloons (e.g., Project Skyhook) did cause some UFO reports during these times of day and were so identified by the Air Force and civilian investigators. However, only a small fraction of sightings occur during these times. The largest fraction of sightings is at night when the U-2 can't be seen and the next largest fraction is during the daytime.