Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Paxus

G.Cooper encountered man-made flying saucers

575 posts in this topic

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.theufochronicles.com/2010/09/ufo-debate-oberg-vs-kean.html

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2008/08/csicop-now-csi-ufo-debunkers-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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 !

I have caught Oberg on here telling the most blatant lies, which is why you just have to keep kicking him in the teeth whenever he does it.

He'll never admit he was wrong, but just tries to keep attacking and diverting attention away from it. Naturally the rest of the "skeptical" team and junior wanna-be's on here will join in with him immediately, not matter what outrageous things he says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have caught Oberg on here telling the most blatant lies, which is why you just have to keep kicking him in the teeth whenever he does it.

He'll never admit he was wrong, but just tries to keep attacking and diverting attention away from it. Naturally the rest of the "skeptical" team and junior wanna-be's on here will join in with him immediately, not matter what outrageous things he says.

You are just making yourself look bad McG. You are describing yourself, not James Oberg. It's as blatant as the nose on your face. Only the blind can't see it.

Very sad.

Zero integrity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero integrity.

No, that's you, Boon.

All you ever do on here is try to pick a fight with me, and I hold you in total contempt for it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's you, Boon.

All you ever do on here is try to pick a fight with me, and I hold you in total contempt for it.

More accusations where there should be apologies and admissions of your own incorrect conduct. It really is sad McG.

I do want you to know that despite your transgressions, of which there are many, I still genuinely like you and I appreciate the value that you bring. I just wish that you could find it within yourself to defend your own credibility by admitting your own errors. It does nothing to me or my credibility, but I still can't help but wish that you would take the high road when you are backed into a corner. And make no mistake, you are currently backed into a corner.

It is your choice how to respond to that.

One possible route can paint you in a good light.

The route you've chosen so far does not...

The decision and resulting ramifications are completely on your shoulders. I wash my hands of it for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More accusations where there should be apologies and admissions of your own incorrect conduct. It really is sad McG.

I do want you to know that despite your transgressions, of which there are many, I still genuinely like you and I appreciate the value that you bring. I just wish that you could find it within yourself to defend your own credibility by admitting your own errors. It does nothing to me or my credibility, but I still can't help but wish that you would take the high road when you are backed into a corner. And make no mistake, you are currently backed into a corner.

It is your choice how to respond to that.

One possible route can paint you in a good light.

The route you've chosen so far does not...

The decision and resulting ramifications are completely on your shoulders. I wash my hands of it for now.

You say the exact same things every single time you disagree with me, just like a broken record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean what's the big deal? I caught Oberg lying about Gordon Cooper and the "skeptics" have gone nuts. They really pile on when something like that happens, try to pull every trick in the book.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean what's the big deal? I caught Oberg lying about Gordon Cooper and the "skeptics" have gone nuts. They really pile on when something like that happens, try to pull every trick in the book.

The big deal is that you didn't catch Oberg lying about anything at all and yet you insist on continuing to claim that you have. At first I thought this was sad, but this isn't just sad anymore.

It's pathetic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean what's the big deal? I caught Oberg lying about Gordon Cooper and the "skeptics" have gone nuts.

No you didn't. Only in your imagination, as has been pointed out to you.

They really pile on when something like that happens, try to pull every trick in the book.

Nope. What skeptics have done so far is pointing out, demonstrably, why you are in error. That you wish to continue parading your inability to grasp this is mind-boggling.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you didn't. Only in your imagination, as has been pointed out to you.

Nope. What skeptics have done so far is pointing out, demonstrably, why you are in error. That you wish to continue parading your inability to grasp this is mind-boggling.

You are all just trying to cover for Oberg and divert attention from all the lies he was telling.

I admit that I do enjoy it when you people go nuts like this. You bend over backwards to cover for your own.

The big deal is that you didn't catch Oberg lying about anything at all and yet you insist on continuing to claim that you have. At first I thought this was sad, but this isn't just sad anymore.

It's pathetic.

Look at how how they're freaking out tonight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have caught Oberg on here telling the most blatant lies

No, you haven't. Which is why you won't link to examples.

But right HERE (yes, I'm CITING my claim), I've gone into detail on a recent example of YOUR lies.

Why did you falsely claim that no planets were visible that night? After all, the link you supplied contradicted you. And then you refused to admit your 'error'.

He'll never admit he was wrong

Oh the IRONY!

When will YOU admit you were completely wrong about Jupiter being visible on July 17 2008? And when will you explain how you could possibly claim otherwise when your own reference was very clear?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you haven't. Which is why you won't link to examples.

But right HERE (yes, I'm CITING my claim), I've gone into detail on a recent example of YOUR lies.

Why did you falsely claim that no planets were visible that night? After all, the link you supplied contradicted you. And then you refused to admit your 'error'.

Oh the IRONY!

When will YOU admit you were completely wrong about Jupiter being visible on July 17 2008? And when will you explain how you could possibly claim otherwise when your own reference was very clear?

It should be clear enough by now that these boys are just here to do a hatchet job on Gordon Cooper, and of course on me, since I caught Oberg in some outright lies--again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok ADMINS should do their work abit better because this isn't a debate this is warzone...in every thread, well almost .. Last 3 pages of this tread that i red was nothing more than flaming each other...and no information regarding the thread at hand!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To test the credibility of Cooper's story, I recommend comparing it to the results of the research of James McDonald, as detailed in his 1968 Congressional testimony. It would be more effective if it were first done by somebody defending Cooper's credibility. Any volunteers?

What was the observed flight path of the UFO?

Who were the witnesses? What was Cooper's role?

What was the disposition of the recordings/images?

Simple stuff, but conflicting versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok ADMINS should do their work abit better because this isn't a debate this is warzone...in every thread, well almost .. Last 3 pages of this tread that i red was nothing more than flaming each other...and no information regarding the thread at hand!

I agree with you Nuke_em.

The unfortunate reality is that it has devolved into a character debate, as attempted discussions with McG often do. It is an effective tactic and one which he falls back on whenever he is cornered.

Of course it is just a smoke screen that he tries to use in order to deflect away from his own mistakes and errors. Some people fall for it too.

Personally, I'm quite tired of it and I have been for a very long time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be clear enough by now that these boys are just here to do a hatchet job on Gordon Cooper, and of course on me, since I caught Oberg in some outright lies--again.

tumblr_l5yv3pKTwX1qzpzfmo1_500.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.