Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

G.Cooper encountered man-made flying saucers


  • Please log in to reply
573 replies to this topic

#46    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 27 October 2012 - 08:00 AM

View Post1963, on 27 October 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Jim Oberg is indeed a 'classical-debunker', in as much as he is a clever man that always has an answer to any conundrum!...


There are lots of this type of person here.  The main fault of them is that they don't listen to the people who were there at the time.

Edited by zoser, 27 October 2012 - 08:01 AM.

Posted Image


#47    Norbert Dentressangle

Norbert Dentressangle

    misanthropic nihilist

  • Member
  • 26,164 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tanybwlch

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 27 October 2012 - 08:11 AM

Why is it that anyone who does not have the same opinion as oneself is a Debunker? Why do people seem to find it very difficult to understand that people often have different views to themselves. This need not mean that they are deliberately trying to mislead, or employed by governments to do so.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#48    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 27 October 2012 - 08:22 AM

View Post747400, on 27 October 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

Why is it that anyone who does not have the same opinion as oneself is a Debunker? Why do people seem to find it very difficult to understand that people often have different views to themselves. This need not mean that they are deliberately trying to mislead, or employed by governments to do so.

They push the party line of the authorities and academic community in the face of overwhelming evidence with an undue arrogance and sense of dismissal.  They give no credence to the public, police, military officials, astronauts, and other distinguished men of science who happen to be convinced that the phenomena is real.

The biggest criticism of all is that they just don't listen to the eyewitnesses.

Hope this helps.

Posted Image


#49    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,076 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 27 October 2012 - 08:36 AM

View Post747400, on 27 October 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

This need not mean that they are deliberately trying to mislead, or employed by governments to do so.

It need not mean that...but I think people have a general feel...a sixth sense, if you like....about who is and who isn't.

'By their fruits ye shall know them'....... :)



edit...and what zoser said....


.

Edited by bee, 27 October 2012 - 08:38 AM.


#50    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,648 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 27 October 2012 - 08:57 AM

View Post1963, on 27 October 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

As for James Oberg...well,  I thought that you beyond banging your head against a brick wall like this! , which is what you are doing when trying to discuss the merits of any case with the likes of 'good ol' Jim Oberg'! :whistle:
I'm puzzled by the whistling icon..  Is this approach of attacking the messenger somehow funny/ironic?

Quote

No matter what you say about ufology , or whatever mystifying account of a truly-anomalous event you bring to the table, ..it will unfailingly be summarily  dismissed by the classical-debunker such as Jim is!
And if it is dismissable, then what is wrong with that?

Quote

Sure...the guy is intelligent.!
Gee, maybe you should listen and learn then..  And if you dispute something, refute it with proper research.

Quote

And is undoubtedly a great free-flowing debunker that has a great skill in appearing to 'know his onions' when flashing his technical-rhetoric in an attempt to bamboozle us 'simple-folk'
Well, if he upsets you that much you could try:
1. Not reading his posts.
2. Refuting his points with proper research.

Quote

...transmogrified temperature-inversion...
Which case, exactly, was this?  Or is this an attempt to be sarcastic? - if so, it's not a good look.  Maybe you could ... refute his points with proper research..?

Quote

Jim Oberg is indeed a 'classical-debunker', in as much as he is a clever man that always has an answer to any conundrum!...
Every one?  Gee, maybe there *are* answers to (almost) every conundrum?  And if his answers are wrong, are you now going to .. refute his points with proper research..?  If not, then I gotta say this is all a big load of (MacGuffin-esque) ad-hominem.

Quote

...even when they are more unlikely than the more obvious unconventional indication
Being more or less unlikely isn't really the point here, and unless the 'more likely' explanation is one for which there is solid evidence (eg ET visitation), then I'm afraid it's 'likelihood' is irrelevant - as you would well know if you have done any real research.

Quote

...and the rest,..he just  fudges!
Will the handwaving never stop?  How about you ... refute his points with proper research..

Are you noticing a repeating trend here?

Quote

And all in the traditionally time-tested manner of pedantry scientific intellectual that would have you believe that he is some kind of a latter-day Albert Einstein!
Would you mind backing that one up, as well?  Can you point out examples of this behavior, specifically?  Or are you just handwaving and attacking the person *again*?

PS  Bee and Zoser, maybe you should be reading this and checking the mirror, too..

Why should someone who knows their topic and makes alternative down-to-earth suggestions be such a problem to you folk?  I mean, it couldn't possibly be that you are biased towards a particular 'hypothesis' (term used very loosely), surely?

All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - ChrLzs

#51    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,076 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 27 October 2012 - 09:46 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 27 October 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

PS  Bee and Zoser, maybe you should be reading this and checking the mirror, too..

I'm happy to check the mirror.......



Quote

Why should someone who knows their topic and makes alternative down-to-earth suggestions be such a problem to you folk?  I mean, it couldn't possibly be that you are biased towards a particular 'hypothesis' (term used very loosely), surely?


bias works both ways....(did you see what I think about the Phoenix Lights?)

Oberg's problem is lack of trust as to his motives...no matter how many 'likes' or back up he receives (from some) on the forum.


.

Edited by bee, 27 October 2012 - 09:48 AM.


#52    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,648 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 27 October 2012 - 12:02 PM

View Postbee, on 27 October 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

I'm happy to check the mirror.......
So am I.  I'm biased towards - The Scientific Method.  Towards real evidence.  Towards provable, repeatable, testable hypotheses.

Quote

bias works both ways....(did you see what I think about the Phoenix Lights?)
No, sorry.  But pointing to any individual case will reflect more on that case than any perceived bias..

That's *why* it's NOT about who is posting what.  It's about the facts (or otherwise) that are being posted.

Hey, I'll admit being heavily biased against people like Jaime Maussan - and others who have defrauded and hoaxed in the past (and I'm happy to prove that by posting specific cases..).  But if Jaime ever manages to come up with a decent case, I'll be happy to endorse it.  If he comes up with a set of facts that I cannot refute .. he wins.

Quote

Oberg's problem is lack of trust as to his motives...no matter how many 'likes' or back up he receives (from some) on the forum.
Rubbish.  That is a very obvious Ad Hominem.  Note that unlike the charlatans and frauds like the Maussans and Meiers, NO-ONE here has yet refuted Oberg's suggestions..  Do you - yes or no?  If yes, please state, specifically, what you are refuting and why.

If you can't debate and refute the facts, and instead attack someone's motives (as you, Zoser, MacGuffin, 1963 are doing) - then you tell me - who are the biased ones?  Those who attack the person and not the facts?  Or those that ask for verification of testimony and 'facts' and offer suggestions and alternatives?

And I would also ask, on what basis do you claim he has ulterior motives?  Just the fact that he proposes known/earthly possibilities?  Or is it that he (like me) does not take witness testimonies at face value and (like a *real* researcher) chases up on what can actually be verified?

I've seen Oberg's work on several topics, including things like missile/rocket-stage trail 'ufos' and the motion of debris around the ISS/Shuttle, and I find his analyses very interesting, and generally ... correct.  I'm not seeing any similar analyses from those questioning Oberg's motives or skills..

So I'm simply asking the 'critics' - either refute the stuff he posts, or drop the ad hominems.

All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - ChrLzs

#53    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 27 October 2012 - 12:36 PM

Has anyone compared Cooper's version of the Edwards event with the detailed study of it by James McDonald as presented in his 1968 Congrerssional testimony? McDonald's motives and ideology were overwlemingly pro-UFO so none of the most frequently used incantations here can be used against HIM.

Compare the accounts.

Unless you're too scared to.


#54    synchronomy

synchronomy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario Canada

  • Facinating

Posted 27 October 2012 - 12:53 PM

View PostChrlzs, on 27 October 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

So am I.  I'm biased towards - The Scientific Method.  Towards real evidence.  Towards provable, repeatable, testable hypotheses.

Hey, I'll admit being heavily biased against people like Jaime Maussan - and others who have defrauded and hoaxed in the past (and I'm happy to prove that by posting specific cases..).  But if Jaime ever manages to come up with a decent case, I'll be happy to endorse it.  If he comes up with a set of facts that I cannot refute .. he wins.
Have to admit, Jaime Maussan's presentations don't do much for me.  Video's of what appear to be clusters of balloons shaped like candy canes and snakes don't fly with me.   It's unfortunate there's a number of popular ufologists that allow economic gain to infuence their presentations.
Honestly, I can't name one ufologist that I would believe everthing they say.
That being said, I still hold myself out to be a believer in the ETH.

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan

#55    hacktorp

hacktorp

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2010

Posted 27 October 2012 - 04:31 PM

View PostJimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Too bad you weren't around in the 1980s when Cooper, unwillingly retired from NASA in disgrace, spent his time hawking a string of money-making aviation industry schemes. People thought like you did -- his word alone was adequate proof the ideas were legit. People lost MILLIONS of dollars as the schemes collapsed, and often, the principals were jailed.

I wish you could have put a few thousand bucks of your own into one of those projects. You might have learned -- at great cost -- a lesson in 'trust but verify' that you clearly still need, chronically hurrahed by NASA hero-worship propaganda.

An utterly ignominious attempt to discredit the man with tawdry character assassination.  Cheap and cheesy.  Why didn't you mention he got divorced?  That would truly complete your sordid attack.  Shameful and vile.

Book-sale envy is an ugly thing.  Does it hurt that Cooper sells many more books than you posthumously?


#56    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 27 October 2012 - 04:41 PM

View Posthacktorp, on 27 October 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

An utterly ignominious attempt to discredit the man with tawdry character assassination. ...  Shameful and vile.

Pleaser compare Cooper's later version of the Edwards incident with the detailed case study of it by James McDonald in his congressional testimony in 1968, and explain the differences.


#57    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 18,450 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 27 October 2012 - 07:34 PM

Jim is quite right on the Cooper list of spoof`s & Goof`s ! All men & women can be lead to the Dark side,or $ side of life its in our DNA. or ATM or box under the BED.

This is a Work in Progress!

#58    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 27 October 2012 - 08:52 PM

View Postzoser, on 27 October 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

There are lots of this type of person here.  The main fault of them is that they don't listen to the people who were there at the time.


I proved that Oberg was 100% wrong about Cooper be fired from NASA and that he was also distorting his record in business to make him look like a crook.  That's about all there is to say on the subject of Oberg.

To call him a debunker is being too kind.  It's much worse than that.


#59    1963

1963

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:BEDLAM

  • When the day is through,and the nightsky shades the blue,and the swallows cease to sing as they fly!.......

Posted 27 October 2012 - 11:57 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 27 October 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

I proved that Oberg was 100% wrong about Cooper be fired from NASA and that he was also distorting his record in business to make him look like a crook.  That's about all there is to say on the subject of Oberg.

To call him a debunker is being too kind.  It's much worse than that.

Yes indeed MacGuffin, ...it appears that you are most probably right about there being more to James Oberg than him being just  merely 'another debunker'!
And also it seems abundantly clear that the CSICOP organisation ( later renamed CSI ) that he co-founded has clear indications of being no more than a governmental disinformation operation!...Therefore suggesting that anything [no matter how assertively plausible] that Mr Oberg, and anyone else connected with that particular organisation says to explain or debunk any testimony or anomalous event, should be treated with 'utmost suspicion', or ignored altogether!

Of course these comments will be jeered and profoundly-derided by James's disciples on the forum...but then that's par for the course with these wannabe-debunkers that have had their heads turned by the soundly-scientific presentations  of Oberg's explanations "opinions" of the identity of an anomalous sighting!
But if his fanatical supporters that are quick to vituperously leap to his defence did any actual "research" of their own into the subject that they were actually defending...then they might just pause a little before wading in!...But then again..?...knowing the modus operandi of these characters...perhaps not!

There are a plethora of accusations of 'disinformation-agent' against him around the websites, from some quite believable accusers ,...and  though i'm sure that not every stone thrown at him will be justified...but  Here are a couple of mighty suggestive links to Robert Hastings articles in which he makes it abundantly clear that 'good ol' Jimmy Oberg' and his cohorts at CSI have some 'less than transparent motivations' for debunking all manner of otherwise truly anomalous phenomena into a seemingly general misidentification of some prosaic objects   !

http://www.theufochr...rg-vs-kean.html


http://www.theufochr...s-kendrick.html


No doubt, there will be those that will refuse to absorb the information that is presented in the links, and go on to  brand Robert Hastings as an idiot, or a liar....but the facts are there to be checked,...and my conclusion is that 'James Oberg' is a very good candidate for being a government sanctioned debunking-disinformation-agent!...What do you think?...


Cheers buddy.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
...I found the Smoking Gun at last!!!!!!!!.....https://www.youtube....h?v=fGKOcuANNQo

#60    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 28 October 2012 - 12:55 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 27 October 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

I'm puzzled by the whistling icon..  Is this approach of attacking the messenger somehow funny/ironic?



It's just that you are so funny, cuddly and lovable that you make everyone here want to burst out into happy tunes.  LOL





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users