Best Evidence - Top 10 UFO Cases

[DONTEATUS]

They have pills for that !

[praetorian-legio XIII]

Is this post above by James Oberg, and the post by Anthony Bragalia below ... the final proof that "Debunkers" such as 'Jimmy-boy' cannot be trusted, and that he and his ilk will deploy any false information in their quest to debunk cases, whether genuine or not !..?

http://bragalia.blog...y-brouhaha.html

...I know what I think! ....what about you guys....?

Cheers.

The question is...did our own Jim Oberg know that he was indeed spreading

Can't wait for Obergs response, sure seems like he was just so busted.

[ChrLzs]

Is this post above by James Oberg, and the post by Anthony Bragalia below ... the final proof that "Debunkers" such as 'Jimmy-boy' cannot be trusted

Do you really think that using terms like 'Jimmy-boy' helps you appear credible? In some places, that sort of name-calling would be found quite offensive. Guess not at your place?

he and his ilk will deploy any false information in their quest to debunk cases, whether genuine or not !..?

So, you claim that the photo is false and was knowingly posted as such? Or was it an error that was made and corrected - eg that Trent took it, when it appears that more likely the Life magazine reporter did? In what way does that make the picture 'false'?

If you claim the image is false - on what basis do you make that claim? My quick look at that image and comparison to other images suggests it is genuine, even if it was likely taken by a Life photog and taken some days after the UFO 'claim'. So, is there some problem in showing that ladder and the kid on it? It seems to me that it might be a useful image to show, in order to discuss things like the perspective and depth of field issues and, golly gosh, potential fakery... Indeed, surely Trent was there when it was taken - maybe Trent wanted that image to go out as a bit of a giggle? I don't know, but it's interesting to surmise...

If you just 'feel' that the image isn't genuine, then please say so, and perhaps provide an explanation for your 'feeling'. Otherwise I'd suggest that this is a case of pot meeting kettle..

BTW, what if another well-known poster here was to deliberately post a false claim and then refuse point blank to admit it - should that person never be trusted again...? Be careful how you answer...

[TheMacGuffin]

Is this post above by James Oberg, and the post by Anthony Bragalia below ... the final proof that "Debunkers" such as 'Jimmy-boy' cannot be trusted, and that he and his ilk will deploy any false information in their quest to debunk cases, whether genuine or not !..?

The question is...did our own Jim Oberg know that he was indeed spreading

I have no doubt that he does, since he has been caught doing it many times, but then again there are others of us who also worked for the government and the military that have very different information from his.

Edited December 29, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[ChrLzs]

Here's a link that suggests that yes, it was definitely a Life photograph, despite many different folks on the interwebz claiming otherwise..

Expanded set of Life images from McMinnville UFO case

(Note that I am not endorsing that site as a reference.. {grin})

Oh, and I'm pleased to see MacGuffin here.

Q1. MacGuffin, do you ever post false information?

Q2. Perhaps more importantly, do you admit it when it is pointed out to you?

[TheMacGuffin]

Here's a link that suggests that yes, it was definitely a Life photograph, despite many different folks on the interwebz claiming otherwise..

Oh, and I'm pleased to see MacGuffin here.

Q1. MacGuffin, do you ever post false information?

Q2. Perhaps more importantly, do you admit it when it is pointed out to you?

Never, but neither do I accept something as "false" simply because you and your ilk make that assertion.

I was in the picture about UFOs when you were still learning your ABC's. I knew about these things decades before anyone ever thought of the Internet or YouTube--more than I have mentioned on here.

Edited December 29, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

I can even tell you about a UFO case from 1957 with records that have never been seen by the public. It involved the Shippingport, PA nuclear plant, which was the first commercial atomic reactor in the United States.

Oh yes, they were interested in that. Like I keep saying, they were interested in all things nuclear, going back to the 1940s. This one caused a big investigation, but if you want to know about the real UFO study, you have to go back to the beginnings. It was modeled on the old Manhattan Project and involved many of the same people.

[ChrLzs]

Never..

Clearly, that 'never' was for Question 2. Because he DOES post false information and when called, refuses to admit it. For example..

Here, on the "UFO Witness Urinates On Self" thread (which strangely hasn't been nominated for this Top Ten..), he falsely claimed:

As I told you, I checked and none of {the planets} would have been visible in the Northern Hemisphere at that time

Yet his OWN link very clearly stated, for the time of the sighting, July 2008:

Jupiter - Visible in western part of sky... sets around sunrise.

That information is easily verifiable in any planetarium software or suitable almanac - MacGuffin was simply hoping nobody would check.

I pointed out his misinformation on page 13, and over the next 7 pages of that thread MacGuffin refused to admit his 'error', and he has steadfastly refused to do so since. I call that deliberate misinformation, and I suggest anyone who wants to be careful who they trust, should read that thread thoroughly.

If that was me, I'd just fess up immediately.. I invite all readers to check out the links and decide for yourselves - why did MacGuffin want UM readers to falsely believe that Jupiter wasn't near the Moon on that night (which matched the witness description perfectly..?

And yes, MacGuffin, I'll keep repeating this example for as long as you criticise others - what you did there was far worse than anything you are attributing to Oberg or me or other 'evil debunkers'.

[TheMacGuffin]

And yes, MacGuffin, I'll keep repeating this example for as long as you criticise others - what you did there was far worse than anything you are attributing to Oberg or me or other 'evil debunkers'.

Says you.

Your agenda should be clear enough to any of the regular readers of these threads.

Edited December 29, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[1963]

Do you really think that using terms like 'Jimmy-boy' helps you appear credible? In some places, that sort of name-calling would be found quite offensive. Guess not at your place?

So, you claim that the photo is false and was knowingly posted as such? Or was it an error that was made and corrected - eg that Trent took it, when it appears that more likely the Life magazine reporter did? In what way does that make the picture 'false'?

If you claim the image is false - on what basis do you make that claim? My quick look at that image and comparison to other images suggests it is genuine, even if it was likely taken by a Life photog and taken some days after the UFO 'claim'. So, is there some problem in showing that ladder and the kid on it? It seems to me that it might be a useful image to show, in order to discuss things like the perspective and depth of field issues and, golly gosh, potential fakery... Indeed, surely Trent was there when it was taken - maybe Trent wanted that image to go out as a bit of a giggle? I don't know, but it's interesting to surmise...

If you just 'feel' that the image isn't genuine, then please say so, and perhaps provide an explanation for your 'feeling'. Otherwise I'd suggest that this is a case of pot meeting kettle..

BTW, what if another well-known poster here was to deliberately post a false claim and then refuse point blank to admit it - should that person never be trusted again...? Be careful how you answer...

A very splendid example of deliberate obtuseness, I hereby grant you the degree of Doctor of Internet Trolling, with all the rights, privileges and honours thereto pertaining. A very nice parchment is coming in the mail – you can display it proudly beside your many collected downvotes.

Your attempt to confuse and therefore downplay the issue is a tediously obvious ploy, and is transparent to all!

But just in case you are being genuinely 'misrekoning', [which I very-much doubt!]...I will paste the main crux of the post from the link that was previously provided for your perusal....

"More importantly, Oberg did not post the other LIFE Trent farm images, just the ‘ladder boy’ photo. Why? He had to have known that there was a series of Trent farm photos, but he chose to selectively post only the one that would immediately suggest a hoax.

OBERG’S ERROR REPEATED

Oberg’s “mistake” was apparently repeated on another site some years later. I next saw the Oberg image posted this past summer on another well-known paranormal website, Unexplained Mysteries. A long-time, respected poster there had reproduced the ladder boy image, adding the statement:“from the same roll of film as the UFO photos.”

[TheMacGuffin]

How did the astronauts measure the distance as 20-30 miles?

Can any case be 'good' if nobody but believers gets to comment on it?

And even he had to eat crow on why of these threads when I showed him exactly what the Skylab astronauts reported in the original documents, but that hasn't slowed him down one bit. He's just hoping that people will forget it and he can go on issuing the cover stories as usual.

[TheMacGuffin]

If that was me, I'd just fess up immediately.. I invite all readers to check out the links and decide for yourselves - why did MacGuffin want UM readers to falsely believe that Jupiter wasn't near the Moon on that night (which matched the witness description perfectly..?

And as I pointed out on that thread, I was the first one to even think of looking for the time of moon rise, sunrise, and the location of the planets on that particular night, but you, Badeskov and the rest of the creepos just went crazy when I did that, because it turned out that none of your "explanations" for the UFO had any validity at all.

One of the "skeptics" posting all the usual drivel did not even dare to show up on here again after I got finished with him. He hasn't been seen in these parts since, so badly was he humiliated, and no amount of "help" from the rest of the skeptical team could salvage him.

But go ahead, just let people read that whole thread and they will quickly see who was telling the truth and who the clowns were.

Edited December 29, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

And no, I don't think that was a great UFO case or even a mediocre case, but just the same all of the "skeptical" explanations turned out to be strictly phony.

[DONTEATUS]

ITs why Mid never speaks out about it ! Way too much insanity !

[TheMacGuffin]

ITs why Mid never speaks out about it ! Way too much insanity !

Or senility.

[JimOberg]

And even he had to eat crow on why of these threads when I showed him exactly what the Skylab astronauts reported in the original documents, but that hasn't slowed him down one bit. He's just hoping that people will forget it and he can go on issuing the cover stories as usual.

No, what happened was that it became clear that nobody had 'measured' the distance, they had deduced it from the difference is sunset at the station and the object. But that deduction included several unspoken assumptions that I suggested were not iron-clad, and that other explanations for the time difference -- such as the object entering Skylab's own shadow -- were also plausible.

And it could indeed have been tens of miles away. But the observations as reported did not REQUIRE it to be, it could just as easily have been a lot closer and smaller.

[TheMacGuffin]

No, what happened was that it became clear that nobody had 'measured' the distance, they had deduced it from the difference is sunset at the station and the object. But that deduction included several unspoken assumptions that I suggested were not iron-clad, and that other explanations for the time difference -- such as the object entering Skylab's own shadow -- were also plausible.

And it could indeed have been tens of miles away. But the observations as reported did not REQUIRE it to be, it could just as easily have been a lot closer and smaller.

Why don't you tell them everything for once?

[JimOberg]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

I always found it curious that the lines-of-sight to the Trent/McMinnville object crossed beneath an overhead power line that was usually conveniently cropped out of most published versions of the photos, and one other photo on the same roll had one of the Trent kids standing by a stepladder in the yard with a mischievous grin on his face. I'd bet not 1 UFO buff in 1,000,000 has ever seen -- or been shown -- THAT photo. Anybody hereabouts?

Is this post above by James Oberg, and the post by Anthony Bragalia below ... the final proof that "Debunkers" such as 'Jimmy-boy' cannot be trusted, and that he and his ilk will deploy any false information in their quest to debunk cases, whether genuine or not !..?

http://bragalia.blog...y-brouhaha.html

...I know what I think! ....what about you guys....?

Cheers.

The question is...did our own Jim Oberg know that he was indeed spreading

The origin of the 'other' photos wasn't clear on the LIFE website and I'm aware that there's a suggestion the photos were taken later, and that certainly could be true. If so, one can only wonder at why the scene was reenacted the way they did, with the ladder right under the overhead line.

The question remains unsettled but I have no problem going along with findings that the photo is of later origin.

The bigger question remains: why do the two lines-of-sight from the changed positions of the original photographer seem to criss-cross beneath the overhead wire? As if something were hanging down from it?

Edited December 29, 2012 by JimOberg

[DingoLingo]

I have no doubt that he does, since he has been caught doing it many times, but then again there are others of us who also worked for the government and the military that have very different information from his.

Hmm Guff.. you have said it so many times.. that you were in the military and with the ufo side of things.. you could tell stories of reports etc that have never gone public.. and yet.. you have never actually posted anything verifying it..

as I said before mate.. for all we know you could be a 16 year old kid.. sitting in his basement taking a break from playing COD.. nothing personal but I really cannot take your word on face value..

Jim on the other hand.. actually has the credentials .. proved that he is who he says he is.. so I'll be honest.. when he puts his opinion on something across I listen..

[TheMacGuffin]

Hmm Guff.. you have said it so many times.. that you were in the military and with the ufo side of things.. you could tell stories of reports etc that have never gone public.. and yet.. you have never actually posted anything verifying it..

Well, hmm, hmm, hmm, another Aussie Dingo has barked.

Not only can I post all kinds of UFO reports and records that few people outside of my line of work know about, but I have--many times--and no one has been able to deny that these are real.

You can't post anything even remotely like what I know about UFOs.

As for dear old "Jim", he's one of the biggest phonies out there.

[DingoLingo]

again.. reports.. not facts.. theories.. not facts..

dont get my wrong Guff.. when it comes to the majority of the 'ufo's are here crowd' that post here.. I actually enjoy reading what you post.. even though I see the proof your trying to put across.. I still do enjoy it..

forgot to put this in..

Dingo's dont bark btw

Edited December 29, 2012 by DingoLingo

[TheMacGuffin]

again.. reports.. not facts.. theories.. not facts..

dont get my wrong Guff.. when it comes to the majority of the 'ufo's are here crowd' that post here.. I actually enjoy reading what you post.. even though I see the proof your trying to put across.. I still do enjoy it..

forgot to put this in..

Dingo's dont bark btw

They're not only here, Dingo, but some of them are downright dangerous and not to be toyed with or made light of, and whether you believe me or not, I know whereof I speak.

[TheMacGuffin]

again.. reports.. not facts.. theories.. not facts..

Dingo's dont bark btw

That I didn't know. I always thought that they must make some kind of dog-like noises.

[White Unicorn]

That I didn't know. I always thought that they must make some kind of dog-like noises.

And Mac Guffin does admit to what he doesn't know

[DingoLingo]

They're not only here, Dingo, but some of them are downright dangerous and not to be toyed with or made light of, and whether you believe me or not, I know whereof I speak.

I am sure you know what your speaking of..

now me.. I would say you need to lay off the magic mushrooms.. but hey.. each to their own..