G.Cooper encountered man-made flying saucers

[JimOberg]

I never heard that story about Cooper being in telepathic contact with aliens, which is why I didn't comment on it.

It's in his own book. Didn't you read it?

It's discussed in my home page section on Cooper.

I guess you've been afraid to read THAT as well.

Back to my giggle agenda....

[TheMacGuffin]

It's in his own book. Didn't you read it?

It's discussed in my home page section on Cooper.

I guess you've been afraid to read THAT as well.

Back to my giggle agenda....

No, I never read his book and I definitely never look at your homepage.

[bmk1245]

I'm perfectly consistent in that I have always criticized you while you're still alive, and that will not change when you are no longer with us.

[...]

Reminds me of mongolian story: dog comes in the morning to check if master still alive and well, while cat looks for ain't he dead already?

[WhyDontYouBeliEveMe]

everything is possible

[TheMacGuffin]

There's no 'if' about it.

You have royally beclowned yourself and I'm going to giggle over a glass of wine in honor of the delicious moment.

Then why didn't you mention everything that was in the synopsis?

For example, you fail to mention that he was himself conned and ripped off by Dalton Smith? If it was in your own synopsis, then how could you have "forgotten" that?

Edited October 26, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

If it is your synopsis, Mr. Oberg, then I would advise you to put your name on it somewhere, so people like me will be on alert that it should be used with great caution.

In any case, the most it shows is that Cooper was a poor businessman and trusted some very bad characters, not that he is some kind of liar and crook, as you implied.

[JimOberg]

\"

If it is your synopsis, Mr. Oberg, then I would advise you to put your name on it somewhere, so people like me will be on alert that it should be used with great caution.

In any case, the most it shows is that Cooper was a poor businessman and trusted some very bad characters, not that he is some kind of liar and crook, as you implied.

Since I never made that post [evidently a pirated copy -- where as a rule, original authorship is deliberately stripped off], and have no authority over it, you have no justification in proclaiming what I "should" do about labeling it.

The post which I did make is on my own home page, which you recently proudly proclaimed you would never read.

You are now blaming ME for the ignorance you yourself deliberately placed yourself in?

This is turning into a double-header day of beclownment. Time for more wine.

The article I posted on my website places its focus not on any flaws in Cooper's aviation technology judgment [as you misunderstood] but on a much more relevant-to-UFOria issue: the kneejerk gullibility in his assrertions, without any effort at verification, by his audience, because he was an astronaut hero.

This is the same error a lot of people -- yourself included -- are making re other stories he tells.

I'm just suggesting his claims, like my own and yours, should always be double-checked and verified.

Some people who neglected this prudence lost millions of dollars.

That was the reasoning flaw that the article described.

You are, today, just losing your dignity.

Same mistake, different stakes.

I'll drink to that.

[JimOberg]

Then why didn't you mention everything that was in the synopsis?

For example, you fail to mention that he was himself conned and ripped off by Dalton Smith? If it was in your own synopsis, then how could you have "forgotten" that?

I'm not following you. I made a brief mention of the issue -- should I have placed the entire text in this thread?

Whatg good would that have done you since you don't read long posts anyway -- as you have said before?

[TheMacGuffin]

\"

Since I never made that post [evidently a pirated copy -- where as a rule, original authorship is deliberately stripped off], and have no authority over it, you have no justification in proclaiming what I "should" do about labeling it.

You are, today, just losing your dignity.

Same mistake, different stakes.

I'll drink to that.

I read your whole little synopsis, but you just came on here to smear Gordon Cooper and I corrected it, using your own words--or so you say.

Your name wasn't even on the thing so as far as I was concerned anyone could have written it.

[booNyzarC]

lol

[TheMacGuffin]

lol

I don't believe you any more than I do Oberg.

[TheMacGuffin]

By the way, among other lies that Oberg told was that Gordon Cooper was "fired" from NASA when the fact was that he quit after he wasn't given a chance to land on the moon.

That was in 1970.

http://www.google.co...kEJehEnSc99ZqZQ

Edited October 26, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[booNyzarC]

I don't believe you any more than I do Oberg.

[badeskov]

I would take that as a compliment

For a number of reasons, but oh well....

Cheers,

Badeskov

[TheMacGuffin]

I would take that as a compliment

And I've paid you the same one many times. I have never seen any reason to change my mind about that.

[badeskov]

And I've paid you the same one many times.

Yes, you have and, by all means of respect, it means very little to me.

I have never seen any reason to change my mind about that.

That is too bad, I was hoping that you would be listening to my arguments.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[booNyzarC]

I would take that as a compliment

For a number of reasons, but oh well....

Cheers,

Badeskov

Oh I do.

[1963]

I don't believe you any more than I do Oberg.

Really MacGuffin...?

I'll grant you that Boony is on the wrong side of the fence with regards to the ETH, but is in no way comparable to James Oberg!...in fact in my humble opinion, Boony is one of the good-guys in the sceptic-camp!...inasmuch as he is willing to at least consider other than prosaic possibilities !

lol![/b]]

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'!

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!

Sure...the guy is intelligent.!..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' into believing that the pilot, astronaut or any other responsible (actually on the spot) witness was in fact ...merely seeing some unruly ice particle , or transmogrified temperature-inversion, and not the solid 30ft disc that he was trying so hard to "shake off , or avoid collision with" that he/she testified to!

Jim Oberg is indeed a 'classical-debunker', in as much as he is a clever man that always has an answer to any conundrum!...His combination of intelligence and technical experience enable him to offer a prosaic explanation to most anomalous-events [even when they are more unlikely than the more obvious unconventional indication]...and the rest,..he just fudges!

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!

With such a character as this...you cannot reason!...His mind was made up about any case before he even heard about it!

You may find this article on Debunkers interesting, as along with others, it specifically mentions our own Jimmy Oberg and proceeds to set the records straight about their age old method of debunkery.....

http://www.bibleufo.com/debunking.htm

....It is a fairly long page, but definitely worth the read!

....And another thing about James Oberg is that over at ATS he implied that he may just believe that "there was something to the UFO phenomenon" afterall ....but I have yet to see him discuss just what he meant by that statement?...and just which parts of "the UFO phenomenon wasn't nonesense" to him...?

<a name="pid14190391" style="color: rgb(216, 212, 208); font-size: 11px; background-color: rgb(48, 48, 48); ">

Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix

Oberg has no more idea of whats going on than you or I. The difference is its his job to belittle any notion that the UFO phenomenon is real. A pretty sad job really when you think about it. Anyone trully interested in the subject hasnt taken him seriously for years.

You have no more idea about what I really think about the UFO phenomenon than [insert your favorite metaphor for arrogant ignorance here]. You fantasize nasty delusional insinuations about my motives to defend your own biases. You exemplify what is self-destructive and counter-productive about the intellectually self-ghettoized 'UFO culture;' and why it has never -- and at this rate never will -- established scientific credibility.

Shame on you. If it WERE all nonsense, your behaviour would merely be amusing, if libelous. Since I don't believe it is ALL nonsense, your behavior seems to me to be destructive and reprehensible.

Is somebody paying YOU to keep the topic a laughing stock, and a well-deserved subject of ridicule, to camouflage their activities from general public awareness? It's working.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread844153/pg1

Cheers buddy.

[DONTEATUS]

Too many UFO`s Too Little proof,But ! ANd thats a BIG BUTT ! WIth all respect to G.Cooper we should Keep Looking and listening to all the posibilities !

[JimOberg]

1963: "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' into believing that the pilot, astronaut or any other responsible (actually on the spot) witness was in fact ...merely seeing some unruly ice particle , or transmogrified temperature-inversion, and not the solid 30ft disc that he was trying so hard to "shake off , or avoid collision with" that he/she testified to!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' into believing that the pilot, astronaut or any other responsible (actually on the spot) witness was in fact ...merely seeing some unruly ice particle , or transmogrified temperature-inversion, and not the solid 30ft disc that he was trying so hard to "shake off , or avoid collision with" that he/she testified to!"

Which astronaut case are you referring to here, if you wouldnt mind getting specific?

[zoser]

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 October 27, 2012 by zoser

[Space Commander Travis]

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.

[zoser]

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.

[bee]

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 October 27, 2012 by bee

[ChrLzs]

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'!

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

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?

Sure...the guy is intelligent.!

Gee, maybe you should listen and learn then.. And if you dispute something, refute it with proper research.

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.

...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..?

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.

...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.

...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?

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?