Skeptic misses point behind UFO book

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: EnPassant

even if the footage is genuine it doesn't prove skinny bob is an alien - morphologicaly he appears as close to a human as a chimpanzee is - if his internal organs, body chemistry and dna were as similar to a human as a chimpanzee's i think we'd be forced to conclude that he was a product of life on earth - a time traveller might be one possibility

Unfortunately there are humans that look more alien then "skinny Bob".

a reply to: EnPassant


First of all, I thank all the members for a highly intelligent and rational conversation in this thread from all angles. I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and integrity of the minds in here.

I kind of agree with this:

Another point is that those who say there are ufonauts (be they alien or otherwise) need only one true flying saucer photo or one true encounter. The counter argument however needs to argue that EVERY photo and encounter is really a misperception or hoax or whatever. This is the great weakness of the counter argument, such as it is. It would have us believe that people are gone bonkers all over the place, seeing beings in flying saucers and all the photos are hoaxed (the clear ones that is.) So it is by no means an even or balanced argument. It's a question of weirdness on one side and incredulity on the other. It is a very unsymmetrical argument and this is worth pondering: ALL FLYING SAUCER PHOTOS ARE HOAXES ??? This is what is to be proved. This is one reason I say it cannot be a simple case by case solution.

That's one thing I wrestle with is the notion that there is no way every single one of these has an earthly explanation. The counter as mentioned above is that the ufonauts only need ONE. This is true on the surface but, and I'm having a hard time picking my wording here, whatever the cause of the unearthly event the chances of that cause only occurring one time is too much for me so at this time I have to look at it like whatever the unearthly explanation we eventually discover for that ONE case ends up being, I'd probably still be mildly skeptical until two or three more cases are found to have the same explanation as the breakthrough case. I hope I said that in an understandable way.

originally posted by: TheBolt ...That's one thing I wrestle with is the notion that there is no way every single one of these has an earthly explanation. ...

This deserves a longer treatment, which I am preparing, in response to the same theme you noticed -- a grown-up exchange of views of the central issue of the entire phenomenon.

It is in the nature of 'unsolved cases' that human limitations prevent you from solving them all -- and some solutions ONLY appear because of a freak availability of one critical datum, whose absence in other cases can only be inferred by the absence of a discovered explanation.

I have quipped before that unsolved murders, missing children, unexplained aviation disasters, and lost socks [or keys] cannot be used to insist on the existence of extraordinary stimuli or agencies.

That's a superficial response that requires elaboration, in work.

Secondly, the existence of a large collection of eyewitness accounts cannot justifiably indicate at least SOME authentic example of some phenomena such as human levitation, mind-to-mind messaging, personal immortality, spontaneous corporeal combustion -- without some cases being put forward for which no other explanation is possible.

And this 'no other explanation' is the rub, because it implies that ALL possible prosaic explanations have been thoroughly catalogued. My own work on missile/space stimuli for famous 'classic' unsolved UFO cases is ONE aspect, but hardly the only one, demonstrating that the candidate list of possible prosaic explanations is NOT complete.

Details to follow, thanks for the patience.

a reply to: Scdfa

But you are deeply involved with CSICOP, isn't that correct? An organization devoted to denying any evidence that supports alien contact, basically. Hmmm.

If you look back at certain philosphers(Hume vs Descartes) or political(crazy liberals vs sensible conservitives) views, we all lean one way or another. Some are on the far right , some the far left, and then those in between who dont know what they believe... but I digress. Just because Jim or rest of us come from a certain point of view, it doesnt mean were being dishonest, its just how we like to think about things.

As I said earlier, it was smart of Kean to point out the particular slant Jim was coming from, so one realizes he doesnt really consider the alien solution as a real possibility. On the other hand, at the end of the day, she still needs to answer his criticism.

Many skeptics will never even get to the point they can accept Belgium sightings as even military, even though the Eupen sighting is outstanding, so I dont think you will ever get the truth from skeptics on cases that have real possibilities. Still sightings like the Yukon case need to be figured out so same mistake isnt repeated.

Many people discount single witness cases out of hand, even though they probably arent all filthy liars. From a research standpoint, they might as well be, because there are too many ways a single person could have been mistaken(drugs, misidentified, over active imagination...) . I think it wise to add short duration sightings like the Yukon to this as well.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

Just because Jim or rest of us come from a certain point of view, it doesnt mean were being dishonest, its just how we like to think about things.

Yet CSICOP has been accused again and again of being just that; dishonest. These accusations even come from founding members of CSICOP itself.

originally posted by: Jaellma
So, I ask the skeptics, what would constitute absolute proof?

Fair question, if off-topic...

As a typical skeptic, I don't ask for much in the way of proof, just the items on this short list:

1. I want an alien to come to my place of work and allow me to poke him to be sure he physically exists, and then tug at his face to see if he's just wearing a mask. Anything less would not be conclusive proof.

2. I need both the current pope and the former pope to issue a papal edict declaring the alien to be "probably a swell guy and not a demon."

3. The alien should star in the movie "Paul II", and be at least as funny as Seth Rogan. That should be easy enough.

4. I want the aliens to let me fly their Phoenix 1997 mile-wide triangle ship to my upcoming high school reunion, to impress the girl who stood me up on Prom Night.

5. Dance moves by ET which are unmistakably by ET.

6. Diplomatic relations, but only with Eskimos.

7. The alien must sit down with the panel on "The View".

Is that too much? Too difficult? We're talking about verifying the existence of something questionable. Why settle for less?

originally posted by: Jaellma
So, I ask the skeptics, what would constitute absolute proof?

Easy. I just need a random obnoxious anonymous poster spamming the forum with their personal stories of the reality of ET contact.

More, relating to the issue of hitherto unrecognized prosaic stimuli of classic UFO perceptions, is in this draft report. As I wrote there, until I had seen the pattern repeated across decades and continents, I would not have had any confidence in the notion that bright fireball swarms [or various origins] can be so consistently misperceived. But that is what real evidence is trying to tell us, I believe.

www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: Jaellma
So, I ask the skeptics, what would constitute absolute proof?

Fair question, if off topic -- here's a piece I wrote for 'OMNI' magazine on precisely that question:

www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: TheBolt ...That's one thing I wrestle with is the notion that there is no way every single one of these has an earthly explanation. ...

And this 'no other explanation' is the rub, because it implies that ALL possible prosaic explanations have been thoroughly catalogued. My own work on missile/space stimuli for famous 'classic' unsolved UFO cases is ONE aspect, but hardly the only one, demonstrating that the candidate list of possible prosaic explanations is NOT complete.

Details to follow, thanks for the patience.

And that quote above is extremely, extremely telling. Jim's expertise is but only one aspect. If the entire interested community (both camps) came to coalesce enough to a point of where objective analyses were carried out using the expertise of those like Jim - analysis focusing on individual aspects of the phenomena from both camps - there may be some answers that both camps can agree upon. After all, answers are what we are looking for. Look forward to participating in any future discussions.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Just because Jim or rest of us come from a certain point of view, it doesnt mean were being dishonest, its just how we like to think about things.

Yet CSICOP has been accused again and again of being just that; dishonest. These accusations even come from founding members of CSICOP itself.

Even if he is the devil himself, if Kean has done her homework, she should be able to answer his points.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: 111DPKING111

Just because Jim or rest of us come from a certain point of view, it doesnt mean were being dishonest, its just how we like to think about things.

Yet CSICOP has been accused again and again of being just that; dishonest. These accusations even come from founding members of CSICOP itself.

Even if he is the devil himself, if Kean has done her homework, she should be able to answer his points.

Is it really your contention that someone should have to answer points raised by the devil himself, if such a being were to exist? Sounds like a bad idea, doesn't it? Don't they call the devil the prince of lies? I don't think there is much to be gained from engaging in debate with the devil himself. From all the literature I've read on the subject, dealing with the devil in any capacity usually proves to be a no-win situation, apart from Daniel Webster, and the Charlie Daniels band.

Sure, for a while Van Halen was runnin' with the devil, but look what happened; David Lee Roth went bald and Eddie Van Halen got cancer or something.

To quote the Paul Simon song, "When I was a little boy, and the devil called my name, I said now, who do you think you're fooling?"

Getting back on topic, I thought it was Kean who raised allegations of being misquoted by Oberg? Did I get that right?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Jaellma
So, I ask the skeptics, what would constitute absolute proof?

Fair question, if off topic -- here's a piece I wrote for 'OMNI' magazine on precisely that question:

www.jamesoberg.com...

interesting article - but i think demonstration of advanced knowledge would leave the door open to the possibility of temporal manipulation

for me the only possible 'proof' would be on a biological level - there's a possibility that dna and proteins might be common across space but the genetic and anatomical characteristics of life on different planets would be sufficiently unique to confirm extraterrestriality imo

a reply to: Scdfa

Getting back on topic, I thought it was Kean who raised allegations of being misquoted by Oberg? Did I get that right?

Jim's article on NBC showed 10 cases in her book that he claims have been solved. If this is true, and she has no rebuttal, she simply over stated her case. We all make mistakes, it happens, she needs to re-evaluate the criteria she uses.

I think its a fair point that if these cases can be dis-proven, where does that leave the rest? Why should we have any confidence whatsoever in the rest of it? Throw out the single witness sightings and short duration cases and see what falls out.

originally posted by: Jaellma
I guess the conclusion I am coming to is: "what exactly is PROOF of alien existence?

1) An alien landing in the middle of a football field during the Superbowl being witnessed by millions?

2) The government admitting aliens are real and showcasing all captured alien paraphernalia for the masses to dissect?

3) Thousands of alien craft& beings lining the skies and the lands for all to see, touch, smell and feel?

What, pray exactly, is proof?

How subjective will our interpretation be if all 3 criteria listed above are met?

I get the feeling many skeptics will debunk and dismiss all listed categories as contrived scams, Hollywood props, government crafts, swamp gas etc, etc.

I guess we'll just have to wait for any of those things to happen. At the moment the only things listed above which actually can be proven real are contrived scams, Hollywood props, government crafts, and swamp gas.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed


There is a common pattern I have seen with all the main stream talking heads, and that is to attempt a conclusion that no non human intelligence is here, coming here, or been here, in order to keep the status quo uneventful and as mundane as possible. ....

If this is a pattern you have 'seen', as well as what you have 'seen' inside the minds and motives of these people, I suggest you consider the possibility that YOU are a poor observer, and that your inability to even concede that possibility is blinding you to a better understanding of this fascinating cultural phenomenon.

I've tried -- and it seems, failed -- to make clear that determining prosaic explanations for many 'classic' cases of ufology has NO bearing on disproving fundamental issues of alien intelligence visiting our planet -- it would be possible for it to be occurring with NO detectable signs, based on reasonable assumptions of their technology. And I have consistently maintained that a more diligent assessment of these kinds of stories has a lot of valuable lessons to teach. And that it is not skeptics who have brought serious UFO studies into disrepute, it's believers who 'see' things they way you seem to.

Any clearer?

I considered I might be a poor observer, but then I carefully examined everything I know and did so WITHOUT any personal bias. I did this even though I knew I would be wasting my time.
Anyone who would say in public that UFO's are never extraterrestrial space craft in any case, and then puts forth the extremely ignorant and naive statement :

"People see things at the limits of their vision" (In other words, when people see a UFO, it is always "at the limits of their vision" and then People only see UFO's as alien spacecraft they must be "Filling in the blanks from their imaginations and from their fears. (Because there is no such thing as alien spacecraft near Earth according to our transparantly epically stupid leaders and officials.
Because you already think you know your own conclusions are true, and you can't tell that you aren't as smart as you feel you are, so you make statements that to you make sense and are logical sometimes, (I bet you don't even believe half of your own BS). But when you say the things that you do to someone in a position to know the truth Like I have been fortunate to come to know, your arguments look put together without much thought.

I have heard you make many suggestions what a sighting is, only to see much more credible people totally shred your explanation every single time. Bruce Maccabees is one good example of the type of person who always destroy your hastily put together explanations.

This shows that YOU ARE THE POOR OBSERVER. Not me. I have connections in the field to know a few things about who and what is flying around our unfriendly sky's, in the Army, The Navy, and the FAA.

You are smarter than the the dumbest of them all though, James Graham. (He is also infinitely more arrogant, but only 1 -1/2 times as pompous. Not sure if that is a compliment, but it is better than nothing.

But you could easily do better than you have been by not using insults, demeaning speech, and ridicule, BECAUSE the truth stands on it's own merit and doesn't need any propping up, so if the things you find yourself saying are true, then stick with the facts and drop the "counter Intel officer act" Using ridicule and other similarly constructed arguments expose a total lack of truth within your arguments, because you know that you do not truly know for sure in every case, so that void is filled using ridicule as a method to give strength to an argument by attempting to make anyone else look misinformed and foolish.

And take up jogging.

By the way, I am an expert in human sociology and behavior motives and so when people do things like LIE, or make stuff up quickly like I have seen you do with the landing saucer case on the dry lake bed at Edwards AFB with Gordon Cooper. You said in a recent documentary that He wasn't even on base at the time, then quickly said "although he was on base" (Big contradiction), And then continued on with the NASA tradition of discrediting our Astronauts.

Based upon your sometimes careless and care free approach to debunking unknowns, I see you are really just a cheap PR man for NASA. And when you have said in the past that you don't get paid for that, and you do it for prosaic and humanitarian reasons, who can blame them for not paying you for your propping up the status quo?

If you do not know and, or,employ the truth 100% of the time, you will be discovered. When you do what you do in the future, remember the former Axiom I just stated as "rule number one".

And then keep going back to it until you no longer need to fear discovery.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Thanks for the detailed response which in no way do I find offensive.

You wrote : "Anyone who would say in public that UFO's are never extraterrestrial space craft in any case," but I have no recollection of ever saying that, I've always tried to make clear that I believe the question of alien presence on Earth is non-disprovable. It is entirely possible it is occurring, the only question I feel competent to offer opinions on, is whether specific events can ONLY be explained by such presence, and I am persuaded in such cases, that is not true. I will try to be more clear about this in the future.

Please be cautious in judging my views based on televised 10-second soundbites edited and contexted without my control.

a reply to: JimOberg
From your Omni magazine quote-

An old contactee described the homeland of his alien friends as "the constellation Ganymede."

Since Ganymede is a moon of Jupiter, this and similar nonsensical ravings led some serious UFO theorists to suggest that the aliens were trying to deceive earthlings and retard our planet's progress by providing false astronomical data. But that silly explain-everything hypothesis is meaningless --under its umbrella, every ridiculous utterance would prove the aliens real.

Such pseudo-poetic, pseudo-scientific gibberish clearly aims at bad metaphysics, not good science

One contactee was even told they came from "A small galaxy near Neptune." (you should have no difficulty spotting what is wrong here.) But would aliens really speak like this? And why would they? They would and I can explain why.

It has been suggested (I forget the name but it does not matter) that if aliens were to contact people they might provide them with false information to deflect undue attention. Especially from scientists. Perhaps the aliens are not interested in proving themselves and want to sow confusion. The behaviour of theses ufos is clearly deliberately ambiguous. They want to be seen but they don't want everyone to see them. What seems to be happening here is they are being selective about who they contact and by saying silly stuff they are deliberately driving many people away (especially academics); they don't want wholesale belief amongst earthlings. But they do want some believers.

This is not the only way these beings deceive and play games. In many cases of flying saucers and dirigibles it appeared that the flying saucer/dirigible was 'broken down' and they were fixing it. Well well, here we are fixing our stuff and lo, a friendly earthling comes along to help. How fortunate!

The flying saucers are not broken down. This is a ruse, a little game they play, perhaps to calm the witness, or distract him, or buy time, or to make an appeal to his willingness to help, or to deflect his attention from the real agenda (which may involve missing time). This theme of game playing emerges in many aspects of the phenomena and the fact that they play games with scientific concepts and new age ideas may be telling us something about them. I find it very interesting that this theme of game playing and deception has emerged in different aspects of the phenomena and it is one of the quirks that links dirigibles to flying saucers; the occupants of both are playing similar games. (incidentally the woman who they told they were from a small galaxy near Neptune knew this could not be true.)

a reply to: EnPassant

What seems to be happening here is they are being selective about who they contact and by saying silly stuff they are deliberately driving many people away (especially academics); they don't want wholesale belief amongst earthlings. But they do want some believers.

perhaps their sense of humour is like their spaceships - way beyond our scientists

a reply to: EnPassant

The behaviour of theses ufos is clearly deliberately ambiguous.

Can you give a real example of something that is clearly and deliberately ambiguous?
I mean, how do you determine that something is deliberately ambiguous? I guess you first have to assume that something is being intentionally ambiguous but that something is the thing that is ambiguous in the first place which means it could just as easily be something else. I think what you are saying is that they are blending in so well with misperceptions that nobody can differentiate between the two.