When Oberg Attacks

[easynow]

Well, first of all, I think some of your responses to him are a little provocative and do not provide real facts, I think that with answers like that is easier for him not to respond as clearly as he should (and as he can, I have seen some clear answers from him, but they are not that frequent).

I've learned from past discussions with Jim, when replying to a spin-zone pro, it's best to be a couple steps ahead of the game. I've noticed when Jim is asked specific questions, the tough questions, he usually avoids answering by changing the subject or invokes the legendary personal attacks.

Those are facts and can be easily proven.

Also, I find it interesting you say my opinions "do not provide real facts" but are willing to believe Obergs-99-opinions are facts.


And fyi, Wether you like it or not or disagree, My initial comment is factual ...

"The truth is, the objects in this video have never been identified or where they came from (originated) and your trying to tell everyone it's just routine !! LOL

PS: this reminds me that I have to see if I can get more information about the video I think is really unexplained and for which he asked me if I had more information.

Can you be more specific ?

Considering all those, I think they are only 98 questions, but who's counting?

Sorry ArMaP but it doesn't work that way, Questions are not facts.

The article is titled "99 FAQs" and formatted with 99 segments and at least four entries are incomplete so as of right now it's really only 95.

Here's the math ...

99
- 4
----
= 95

Of course I'm still studying Obergs article and I see many problems with it already so you never know, the title might have to be changed to 99 or 95 Pinocchio's 

Easy, in my humble opinion Jim Oberg and Phage share the same underwear...
and both are on someone's payroll...
and need more fiber in their diet...

seeker thanks for posting and yeah that's certainly a possibility.

I believe Jim has potential but Page is undoubtedly from spooksville. 

Be thankful He is giving you exposure. Play smart do not fall into a trap that makes you look the fool. Be aware that it is a game he is playing...

Good advice thanks but the playing games part is getting a bit old.

Is he trying to get me to ban him from my channel so he has a talking point to use later on ?

No that would accomplish nothing other than to silence him. Who really visits his website?

Really, I asked this question because I've seen him do that to other folks. He was banned from their Youtube channel so he used it as part of a discrediting game.

Not sure how many people visit the site but imo the UFO section is totally biased and is the exact polar opposite of the commonly used blind believer accusations. (just saying)

As to the actual footage that NASA has NEVER released... he says they have it but we have to know the EXACT time date stamp
Since this information wasn't recorded by Martyn Stubbs when he intercepted them ( and NASA added that info once they recieved the signal. we have NO WAY of giving Jim the requires info

Don't let him fool ya, Jim already knows the information needed and admitted he already had a copy of the footage. When I pressured him to share it with us, I was in a round about way asked to back-off or take it easy on him.

He replied directly to me... but not on THAt thread  it was another one and he said "You are not wrong about me Zorgon"

Yes I remember reading that post and is one reason I believe Jim does know or suspects, amongst all the noise there's in fact a real signal.

Just my opinion 

easy -
Zorgon gave good advice.

Agreed and thanks, your advice is also much appreciated.

Will check out the Mexico topics and yeah I remember the "The Day Before Roswell' thread, that is indeed an excellent post and seeing all? the reports in one place was fascinating. 

That's why I don't play on fields that are pre-arranged with titles involving semantic gimmickry and terminology, like this one, and have therefore started a new thread with a neutral title for discussions here -- and by all means, start others with more specific topics under those same conditions.

As expected, when Oberg attacks and then gets backed-into a corner he runs away !

[JimO]

"...invokes the legendary personal attacks."

"Mythical" would be a better term. If you're not going to argue like a grown-up, I'm outa here.

[Sinny]

"...invokes the legendary personal attacks."

"Mythical" would be a better term. If you're not going to argue like a grown-up, I'm outa here.

Stick around.. I for one want to see what you can prove to me at least.

.. Lots of jibber jabber over here lately 

[WarToad]

"...invokes the legendary personal attacks."

"Mythical" would be a better term. If you're not going to argue like a grown-up, I'm outa here.

Please hang around.  Too many at this site just pat each other on the back and agree with everything.  It would be nice to see some honest debate.

[zorgon]

Eye-opening to 'see ourselves as others see us' and what imaginary speculations are sparked by such silly suppositions. I post to forums from several different keyboards and from time to time from widely scattered locations, I do realize that depending on screen size I type differently. To the best of my knowledge, nobody else has ever posted under my name on ATS.

I will take some time and find the posts that made me go 'huh?'   We figured you were either someone else or were 'under the influence'   You do have both JimO and JimOberg at ATS

[Amaterasu]

My assessment?  The evidence is overwhelming that the probability that We do NOT deal with extraterrestrial Beings on this planet is, statistically speaking, nil.  And by a fair margin.

I always ponder Those who give fair effort to debate the issue.  [shrug]

The problem as I see it is having any public work that cannot be monitored by the public.  We should not be able to produce 99 (or even 98) questions about the specifics that some One is answering.  Just sayin'.

And if We take the profit out of war, what need of "national security" would there be to hide stuff that is used by Ones with power (money) to any use They want?

Anyway, welcome, Jim.  Nothing personal.  [smile]

[JimO]

I'm not even gonna try to 'prove' we are NOT under observation by ETI, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if we were -- and we would notice them to the exact degree THEY decided we could.  One of the unmentioned delicious ironies of this apparent paradox is that there are even human-comprehensible reasons to culturally quarantine our planet, but then the observers must be wondering what it is that we think we're seeing, because they know it isn't them. Poachers? Claim jumpers? Ghosts?

The specific sub-topic of spaceflight is where I claim special insights, which are not easy to acquire except through experience, directly or from people who've been there and later talk all night one-on-one about the wonders they've experienced, and also close-at-hand by operating in Mission Control with live screen TV and voice links day after day after year after year. It's fundamentally alien, out there, to our billion year biological sensor development and our lifetimes of fine-tuning interpretive wetware to identify visual input fast enough to keep us from being eaten, or run over. 

And then there's the unique chance to actually map out known space/missile related sky spectacles and see how significantly some witnesses -- the smarter they are, the MORE likely -- will 'fill in' fragmentary data with familiar memories. I would NEVER have believed how dynamic and creative this process can be, unless I'd studied and mapped out a large number of such phenomena and consequent perceptions. But it's an approach that's been anathema to those who want to a priori proclaim levels of witness reliability based on actually irrelevent factors. Those are the lessons I've wanted to share.

[Senduko]

I'm not even gonna try to 'prove' we are NOT under observation by ETI, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if we were... ....

Would the real Jim Oberg please stand up?:p I never thought I would hear something like this come out of your mouth. This small community might see a whole new level of Jim Oberg hehe.

Anywho, i'm gonna re visit Zorgon's navy space command thread and see what your stance was on the matter ( for future reference hehe ). I'm really looking forward to see more of your new ' mild ' side.

[ArMaP]

Also, I find it interesting you say my opinions "do not provide real facts" but are willing to believe Obergs-99-opinions are facts.

I said "some", and if they are opinions then they are not facts, right?

And where did I say that I believe the 99 (or 98) responses to the questions are facts?

Can you be more specific ?

Yes.

I don't remember which thread it was that I posted my favourite unexplained video, one that shows some white spots moving from the right to the centre of the screen, with a thunderstorm on Earth in the background, and in which many people see the white spots making a circle but ignore what looks like a large balloon-like object going down in the direction of the thunderstorm and getting apparently "squashed" on the upper layers of the atmosphere above the thunderstorm.

Jim asked if I could find any date/time reference for that video, but I haven't had the time (for that and much more ).

Sorry ArMaP but it doesn't work that way, Questions are not facts.

I never said they were, I don't know where did you get that idea.

The article is titled "99 FAQs" and formatted with 99 segments and at least four entries are incomplete so as of right now it's really only 95.

Here's the math ...

99
- 4
----
= 95

You ignore the repeated numbers that I posted. 

99 - 4 = 95
95 + 3 (the three repeated numbers) = 98

[sky otter]

I'm not even gonna try to 'prove' we are NOT under observation by ETI, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if we were -- and we would notice them to the exact degree THEY decided we could.  One of the unmentioned delicious ironies of this apparent paradox is that there are even human-comprehensible reasons to culturally quarantine our planet, but then the observers must be wondering what it is that we think we're seeing, because they know it isn't them. Poachers? Claim jumpers? Ghosts?

The specific sub-topic of spaceflight is where I claim special insights, which are not easy to acquire except through experience, directly or from people who've been there and later talk all night one-on-one about the wonders they've experienced, and also close-at-hand by operating in Mission Control with live screen TV and voice links day after day after year after year. It's fundamentally alien, out there, to our billion year biological sensor development and our lifetimes of fine-tuning interpretive wetware to identify visual input fast enough to keep us from being eaten, or run over. 

And then there's the unique chance to actually map out known space/missile related sky spectacles and see how significantly some witnesses -- the smarter they are, the MORE likely -- will 'fill in' fragmentary data with familiar memories. I would NEVER have believed how dynamic and creative this process can be, unless I'd studied and mapped out a large number of such phenomena and consequent perceptions. But it's an approach that's been anathema to those who want to a priori proclaim levels of witness reliability based on actually irrelevent factors. Those are the lessons I've wanted to share.




Dear Jim..if i may call you that..
i know your name but not your fame as these guys were gushing about..pro and con

and was just staying in observer mode...
but dang i like that post..it says alot..

i have never been able to identify anything i have been witness to
Poachers? Claim jumpers? Ghosts?
i will have to add those when i question what is happening..funny never gave that list a consideration 
and as i tell these guys, that  me being low tech
i just remain a very skeptic observer...i said skeptic - not stupid


when you say
The specific sub-topic of spaceflight is where I claim special insights
are you staying with what the public has been told or more speific personal eye witness stuff?
personal participatioin in?
what kind of passport do you need to leave the planet?..have you got one? and even more on point..have you used it? 

fine-tuning interpretive keep us from being eaten, or run over
now that sounds like a great topic..how close have we come?
and what do you think our chances really are as a general populace and not a specific group?

obviously i'm not to smart in the witness area cause i only wind up with more questions than can be answered ..especially after that old pat on the head...so i mostly stay in observation mode
and look for  fragmented clues that may get dropped now and then...
Those are the lessons I've wanted to share. PLEASE DO..

so if you have lessons/personal observations / hints as to what to pay attention to
  to share along those lines..i will stay tuned
somebody said that you like a good argument..wellllll perhaps some pointed questions as we go




tossin coins at cha

[Amaterasu]

I'm not even gonna try to 'prove' we are NOT under observation by ETI, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if we were -- and we would notice them to the exact degree THEY decided we could.  One of the unmentioned delicious ironies of this apparent paradox is that there are even human-comprehensible reasons to culturally quarantine our planet, but then the observers must be wondering what it is that we think we're seeing, because they know it isn't them. Poachers? Claim jumpers? Ghosts?

The specific sub-topic of spaceflight is where I claim special insights, which are not easy to acquire except through experience, directly or from people who've been there and later talk all night one-on-one about the wonders they've experienced, and also close-at-hand by operating in Mission Control with live screen TV and voice links day after day after year after year. It's fundamentally alien, out there, to our billion year biological sensor development and our lifetimes of fine-tuning interpretive wetware to identify visual input fast enough to keep us from being eaten, or run over. 

And then there's the unique chance to actually map out known space/missile related sky spectacles and see how significantly some witnesses -- the smarter they are, the MORE likely -- will 'fill in' fragmentary data with familiar memories. I would NEVER have believed how dynamic and creative this process can be, unless I'd studied and mapped out a large number of such phenomena and consequent perceptions. But it's an approach that's been anathema to those who want to a priori proclaim levels of witness reliability based on actually irrelevent factors. Those are the lessons I've wanted to share.

My point is that many "debunkers" work on the principle that if there is ANY possibility that a non-ET explanation exists, that a priori dismisses any possibility of the explanation having an ET origin.

I suggest that probabilities be discussed rather than the black/white IS ET/ISN'T ET stance be taken.  What are the probabilities in each case?  Debate on that might prove more productive.

[JimO]

My point is that many "debunkers" work on the principle that if there is ANY possibility that a non-ET explanation exists, that a priori dismisses any possibility of the explanation having an ET origin.

Many do, and you and I probably have the same list of un-favorites, some of them with three-letter last names beginning in 'N' and ending in 'E', but not otherwise to be singled out.

On the other hand, I've explicitly spelled out the kinds of 'informational evidence' that I would find very compelling indicators of ETI contact, and discussed several 'close calls' along those lines, on my home page -- let me get the link.

ADD: http://www.jamesoberg.com/1998quest_ufo.html

I think it's a fair question to ask ANY proponent of any interpretation, to spell out the kind of evidence that would REFUTE their assessment. I wish more people would try it, even as a mental exercise.

[Sinny]

My point is that many "debunkers" work on the principle that if there is ANY possibility that a non-ET explanation exists, that a priori dismisses any possibility of the explanation having an ET origin.

I suggest that probabilities be discussed rather than the black/white IS ET/ISN'T ET stance be taken.  What are the probabilities in each case?  Debate on that might prove more productive.

I like this post, and Jims.
Both raise pertitnent points which directly reflect what's been on my mind.
It's been 4 years since I had my personal encounter with the intelligent UFO.
The fact that it intentionally interacted with me has always fuelled my search for answers. Not only have I undergone a scientifoc and political roller coaster, but a spiritual one also.. I've encountered and contemplated things that I would never before have percieved. As it stands at the moment, I've worked my way through a lot of the crap, and thus I can look forward to a more discerning and knowledgable future.. CurrentIy can only remain dumb-founded at the possility that we are home to our own 'supernatural' reality, and can only assume the rest of the universe is also home to a 'supernatural' reality. By 'supernatural', I mean limitless things beyond our 5 sense perception. If the universe is infinate, we can never truly know, but only ever grow.

... I was taking this somewhere.. But I'll thread it in a more appropriate place..

[Sinny]

Many do, and you and I probably have the same list of un-favorites, some of them with three-letter last names beginning in 'N' and ending in 'E', but not otherwise to be singled out.

On the other hand, I've explicitly spelled out the kinds of 'informational evidence' that I would find very compelling indicators of ETI contact, and discussed several 'close calls' along those lines, on my home page -- let me get the link.

ADD: http://www.jamesoberg.com/1998quest_ufo.html

I think it's a fair question to ask ANY proponent of any interpretation, to spell out the kind of evidence that would REFUTE their assessment. I wish more people would try it, even as a mental exercise.

Just checked out your link, and what you might suggest as 'evidence'.
In each example you requested that an alien species provide specific information, ever predictive or scientific.

The problem with that is, we have no idea in what form ETI would come, nor how they 'view' us.

What if actual aliens made contact and did make predictions about world events.. There's that much of that 'going on' that we'd probably miss it anyway.

What about the instances such as the Meier predictions, is it not true that some of them are an enigma? Hatonn of the Phoenix Journals made many predictions that came true.. Does this mean we have proof of ETI.. ?

Then there is their perception of us, and what we are to them. Why would alien beings be pivvy to scientific questioning by us? Or you?

Maybe we are on a prison planet, maybe 'they' have a 'prime directive' not to pass on such information?

Possibilities are endless.

And thus,  I'd like to see other examples from yourself as to what constitutes as 'proof'.

Do UAP's contitute as evidence toward anything?

As a side note, according to the opening OP of this thread you dismissed some UFO's as *not* being ET, whilst also *not* identifying them your self... Do you refute that claim, or do you stick to it? And could you provide a brief explantion?

[sky otter]

thanks for the link..will check it out as soon
sorry to ask  questions on ground you feel to  have already covered