What [if anything] does the existence of unsolved cases really prove?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets ...
From my reading of your skepticism over the years, it seems that most of your doubt stems from the same old "they can't get here from there" kind of reasoning. And that has obviously colored all of your analyses. When you know the answer up front, 99% of the work is done. But that assumption is an old one, one that even mainstream science is now discarding.

Enough people are reaching this conclusion that it's my responsibility to make it more clear -- I know of no a priori reasons why Earth cannot be reached by interstellar travelers. None. If I ever even hinted at that view, please let me know where so I can correct it. My assumption is that any non-human intelligence operating in our vicinity can fully control the degree of our observation of it. And there are plenty of reasons they might want to be coy.

Okay, then the time has come for you to stop dancing around the issue.

Please tell us which UFO encounters you conclude to be advanced technology created and piloted by advanced non-human beings.

Thank you in advance.

(By the way, his answer will be "none of them").

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets...
Should we make a list of the things that science has discovered, since 1950, that can mimic the speed, size, maneuverability, color, shape and basic appearance of a UFO? Because that'll be a very short list. It being of length '0', in fact, is not at all indefensible. ....

"Mimic" is an appropriate word indeed, and the degree that partial perceptions cue up "fill in the blank" mental reflexes from memories is something I took a long time to appreciate. After half a century of relatively slow-moving near-horizontal fireball swarms from satellite reentries triggering mass reports of huge mother ships mounted with beacons, engines, and searchlights, the degree to which such a classic perception can be conjured up by any group of bright lights is becoming more clear. Some of the classic cases from the top ufologists in the 1960s [eg McDonald] are in hindsight obvious missile/space events [as in his 1968 Congressional testimony].

More to come...

a reply to: Scdfa

There are no answers here, nor will there ever be. At least from this source.

My assumption is that any non-human intelligence operating in our vicinity can fully control the degree of our observation of it. And there are plenty of reasons they might want to be coy.

Here it is, in its fullest glory, the proof that this person has irrefutably given up the chase. It is clear now that one can not hope to achieve any enlightenment by way of this person. Here is absolute admission that in this person's view nothing can be done, nothing can be proven and nothing can be gained from any study.

One only has to read the thread through.

It pains me to see yet another clear thinker so muddied by questions and propositions that their only recourse is either ignoring the question, belittling the questioner or using doublespeak.

Sad day indeed, however there is light.

One less cloudy day to deal with, to use an analogy.

a reply to: Jonjonj

He's leaving out so much detail to his opinion. I'm guessing he is suggesting in order for interstellar travel you have to bend space and time creating a wormhole so visiting ET would be in our vicinity remaining in this dimension at all times observing us.

Where we argue that visiting ET has left this dimension in order to fly through our skies and abduct people. Jim Oberg is arguing that has never happened.

That would be the only reason why we couldn't observe visiting aliens if they remained hidden in a 4th dimension of some sort. Is that even possible? Do we know enough about 3-d bodies in a 4th dimension in the quantum world?

Jim, I'd like to hear some more detail on this idea that we are not be able to observe visiting ET.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Casting aspersions of ‘brimstone’ seems to me the same level of ad-hom as the ‘other side’ casting aspersions of idiocy and mental illness. Equating scepticism to something devilish is tantamount to playground name-calling. Isn’t ‘brimstone’ as ridiculous a charge as ‘woo woo’ is to anyone who’s seen, or experienced, something extraordinary to them?

No, Kandinski, it is not.
My feeling , and I didn't want to say this directly, but I feel Mr Oberg knows full well that aliens are here, and that there is a certain level of deliberate deception involved.
This is only my opinion, and I don't have any proof, but a man in his position with his credentials?
It seems highly unlikely to me that he doesn't know that alien contact is happening.
I feel it is possible that a person in his position may have very good reasons for denying the truth, but he is certainly intelligent and well placed to know that aliens have been here en masse since the 1940s.

If proves the applying of conventional ideas/explanations for ufo sightings, and encounters is not always successful. If only one Ufo sighting out of the history of ufo sightings is real Alien craft from elsewhere beyond then it matters.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

It is what it is, I have no doubt this person does his job very well.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
...

This might be due to too much vanity after seeing oneself on those NASA documentaries this season. I even saw him use the word "Processese" (Pro-cess-eez) in an episode. A word no scientist has used since before Edison, and doesn't even have a modern definition any more,....

You mean the 'NASA's Unexplained Files" program [not a NASA documentary by any means]? I'm always open to constructive critiques, where did you see me misuse that word [I can't remember ever saying it but then why should I?]-- got a youtube citation, please?

a reply to: JimOberg

Mr. Oberg I have no credit or merit, don't wish to get into the particulars, but ETH is not only possible its likely.

Thank you for your time

are we proclaiming UFO's dead again ?
You know that only bring them back.

Then before ya know it, airline pilots
ground radar and the FAA will have a sighting.
What we see recover and remember is entirely
in control of the species that mastered interstellar travel.

These threads.. top debunkers sound like
trixter gods when they type. Why so cryptic ?
it just makes people more suspicious.

originally posted by: JimOberg
"Mimic" is an appropriate word indeed, and the degree that partial perceptions cue up "fill in the blank" mental reflexes from memories is something I took a long time to appreciate. After half a century of relatively slow-moving near-horizontal fireball swarms from satellite reentries triggering mass reports of huge mother ships mounted with beacons, engines, and searchlights, the degree to which such a classic perception can be conjured up by any group of bright lights is becoming more clear. Some of the classic cases from the top ufologists in the 1960s [eg McDonald] are in hindsight obvious missile/space events [as in his 1968 Congressional testimony].

More to come...

Yes, there you go again... satellite re-entries? In the early 1950's? Nope. And you're again implying that UFO sightings are simply reports of distant lights in the sky. Nope. And no mention of Special Report 14 in your reply. Just as predicted.

Do you really think that the Battelle scientists working on the SR14 data weren't able to tell when a witness report was probably describing a meteor? The astronomers, even?

As we'd find out later in the Condon Report, most people are pretty good witnesses most of the time. Reading Special Report 14, where they describe their methods, you can tell that they erred on the side of caution. About 1 in 4 of its UFO sightings were explained or identified as meteors and planets.

Those early green fireballs in the southwest U.S., by the way, were never adequately explained. Unless I missed something.

I can guess what you're going to say here next. Something about how there are many different things that can look strange and produce a stimuli, and how those things can combine in an infinite number of ways, often enough creating the illusion or perception of a UFO.

For hundreds of thousands, more likely MILLIONS of sightings? That doesn't pass the smell test. Nor the data test. Since 1955, actually.

Again, you've tried to stray from the Special Report 14 issue and data, as predicted. By introducing re-entries -- a non-issue in the early 1950's -- and other light-in-the-sky events into the mix. All of that was already accounted for.

Again, Special Report 14, the most comprehensive statistical study of UFOs ever undertaken, concluded that it's extremely unlikely that the Unknowns are just simply misidentified or not-yet-identified Knowns. I'm not surprised that your responses have strayed away from that.

And besides 'data', on a more basic level, what does the gut say? When a group of professionals, with everything to lose, says that a disc-shaped object was hovering at ground level within 50 feet of them, and that the disc then shot straight up through the atmosphere in an instant... well, yeah, I think most reasonable people would say that we had better listen to what they say.

Some sightings are just so amazing, at such close range, with multiple witnesses, that misperception is basically not even a realistic possibility. It would be about as likely as any one of us mistaking the keyboard for our car.

Those McDonald cases, by the way... you probably know that many of them were solved by him, correct? You probably know that he angered many pro-UFO researchers by his conservative, skeptical view on a lot of otherwise admired cases? If you think his objectivity as to UFO evidence was doubtful... well, you're one of very few skeptics, even.

Also, that you think any significant number of "great cases" has since been solved just doesn't mean that much, given how low your threshold is for accepting a skeptical explanation. If I recall correctly, you think the RB-47 case has been 'solved'. I don't think most people, after seeing the skeptical version of the evidence, would agree.

I suppose the main point here has to do with what Hynek would later call the high-strangeness, high-credibility cases. The uncomfortable fact is that there's a whole class of UFO cases, a small percentage, that are so strong and so strange that a skeptical explanation -- a natural or man-made stimuli -- cannot even really be proffered without compromising one's credibility. The most the skeptic can say about those kinds of cases is that all those people must be lying.

Put another way, you'd have to believe that UFO witness fraud has been so widespread over all these years that it's created tens of thousands of very odd sightings. And to me, accepting the idea that all of those high-strangeness/high-credibility cases must be due to human fraud or human misperception would be evidence of borderline misanthropy.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Top five sir, spill it = p

Its hard to find good lists of top cases. Just saw a recap of the Levelland case on Hangar 1, havent had a chance to research much yet but seems solid at the moment, strange some of the best cases dont get much attention.

originally posted by: JimOberg


I've seen no convincing arguments that advanced ETI or any non-human technology CANNOT be present on Earth.

I suppose you should ask yourself, how important can it be if you're convinced or not of the existence of 'aliens' beings to the people who actually had a real contact with 'them'...

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Top five sir, spill it = p

Its hard to find good lists of top cases. Just saw a recap of the Levelland case on Hangar 1, havent had a chance to research much yet but seems solid at the moment, strange some of the best cases dont get much attention.

Well said, but I'm sure that the best cases, the most convincing cases of alien contact, are cases that we have never heard of, and never will.

Only a tiny percentage of cases are reported. I'll testify to that. Back in the day there were absolutely no resources available, no place to report your encounter even if you had the courage to do so.

This is what happened. True story.

We call our local police to report the sighting. Their response:

"We don't take UFO reports. Call the airport, see if they had any reports of anything weird in the sky."

So we call the airport. Their response:

"We don't take UFO reports, so if anyone else saw it we wouldn't have a record of that. You should call the nearest military base, see if they were flying anything weird."

So we call the military base. Their response:

"We don't take UFO reports. We suggest you call your local police."

That is exactly what happened.

There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza.

So how many other people has this happened to?
It was impossible to bring these UFO events forward.

Most of what we could know about aliens goes completely unknown, and Mr. Oberg has the audacity to ask if there is anything to learn from unsolved UFO cases?

I'd laugh if it was a little less painful.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
...

This might be due to too much vanity after seeing oneself on those NASA documentaries this season. I even saw him use the word "Processese" (Pro-cess-eez) in an episode. A word no scientist has used since before Edison, and doesn't even have a modern definition any more,....

You mean the 'NASA's Unexplained Files" program [not a NASA documentary by any means]? I'm always open to constructive critiques, where did you see me misuse that word [I can't remember ever saying it but then why should I?]-- got a youtube citation, please?

You never misused the word, it was just hearing it used plus not seeing it used since I read an old book on Aristotle, and knowing the way you present your opinions about the subject of UFO's, or IAC's, made it stand out sharply, and it looks like I went past "constructive" earlier, which wasn't my intent, at least not in a hostile way. your Having an elevated status makes discussions a little tougher, so I'll remember to accommodate.

From observing a lot of what certain people say, when they are in a position to be heard more often like you are, it shows patterns or trains of thought about a person, which can be profiled, which I know you are aware of, and so after awhile, hearing basically the same styles, belief systems, data presentation methods, etc.,

It pretty much says everything, and if there is any subterfuge being used, or anything is out of place, (like when some really blatantly obvious fact about some case is totally ignored), shows motives, or maybe reveals a persons true nature about the subject. As a constructive hint, and if I were in your shoes, I would document my own statements and writings, what I say about things, and use that to know not to keep repeating the same things for too long. Especially if you have a vested interest in convincing folks a certain way, not that you do or anything like that, just saying..



It shows through pretty quick, and for some, it doesn't matter and can be seen immediately when someone is saying things that they don't actually believe. I know when you say things, but don't actually believe it yourself by the way you "place the item" into your explanations.

For example. "It was probably a lens error or exposure setting" and it is okay to use that if it is actually true, and even if it isn't if you choose, but tossing it out there instead of considering or seeking to know what actually caused the anomaly shows up in how you say it, and that is what I am talking about. The intent of the speaker can be seen when certain "grab bag" explanations are offered up, even when they have merit.

I t

a reply to: Scdfa

This is only my opinion, and I don't have any proof, but a man in his position with his credentials? It seems highly unlikely to me that he doesn't know that alien contact is happening. I feel it is possible that a person in his position may have very good reasons for denying the truth, but he is certainly intelligent and well placed to know that aliens have been here en masse since the 1940s.

J. Allen Hynek was a senior scientist who debunked UFO sighting reports and then concluded that something unusual was going on. He was therefore an 'insider' and someone who was intimate with the upper echelons of the USAF and rubbed shoulders with CIA heavyweights. His books were increasingly open-minded to the possibility of the ETH and yet even he couldn't find certainty in 'aliens.' He finally edged towards what he called 'metaterrestrials;' beings that were actually from here on Earth...or in the space that Earth exists in.

Richard F Haines is another senior scientist who worked for NASA as Chief of the Space Human Factors Office. He left as recently as 1988 and continued consulting for NASA into the 1990s. He's all-in for the ETH and has arrived at that point from the same available information you and I have. I know this because I pay attention.

The point I'm making here is that 'position and credentials' don't necessarily lead to access to privileged information. If Hynek and Haines haven't had special information, what would make Mr Oberg privy to such evidence...if it exists?

If it's the case that Hynek, Haines and Oberg have had no knowledge to confirm 'aliens,' it will also be the case that accusing one of them of 'brimstone' is unfair, inaccurate and mildly slanderous. Essentially, instead of simply disagreeing with someone, you're blaming their difference of opinion on being in league with Satan.

C'mon? You can at least chuckle and concede the point that you got carried away. We can all of us disagree all day long and do so with smiles on our faces. So let's smile and discuss these topics as friends and rivals rather than mortal enemies.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed.....


It pretty much says everything, and if there is any subterfuge being used, or anything is out of place, (like when some really blatantly obvious fact about some case is totally ignored), shows motives, or maybe reveals a persons true nature about the subject. As a constructive hint, and if I were in your shoes, I would document my own statements and writings, what I say about things, and use that to know not to keep repeating the same things for too long. Especially if you have a vested interest in convincing folks a certain way, not that you do or anything like that, just saying.....

You gotta realize we have no control over the use of our 'sound bites' on these kinds of shows. Seems to me that the analysis you describe would only really be valid for looking at entire speeches, not the out-of-our-control concatenation of brief snippet. But it sounds like a reasonable approach for that situation. Thanks for explaining.

In the written reports on my home page I do try to cite checkable sources, here's an example :
www.jamesoberg.com...

a reply to: JimOberg

and how can we check you can swim twenty metre's ?



im sure you're going to have to get a video on the go for that

congrats btw , I believe you

funbox