• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Jim Oberg Has Spoken

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Skymon876

Skymon876

Paranormal Adept
38e280741022.jpg


Jim Oberg is still working for MSNBC as a consultant and frequent responder to UFO cases in the news. I wonder if Jim misses Don joining him on the air. Jim is still up to his routine.
 
RygyWa said:
38e280741022.jpg


Jim Oberg is still working for MSNBC as a consultant and frequent responder to UFO cases in the news. I wonder if Jim misses Don joining him on the air. Jim is still up to his routine.
Click to expand...

I had some back and forth with him on another forum awhile back about astronaut accounts. He never misses an opportunity to trash Gordon Cooper. When the posts turned to the Deke Slayton case, he didn't have anything to say of a debunking nature. He pretty well agreed with me . . . about a UFO! It was a pleasant exchange.
 
Have the Oberg types compiled a list of witness types who ARE considered reliable? Because over the years I get the impression that everyone except skeptical astronomers have been ruled out as having opinions/observations worthy of consideration.
 
Funny how he keeps up with the "pilots aren't reliable witnesses" routine... Its pure nonsense on the face of it. For years pilots reported vertical electrical discharges and scientists dismissed them as nonsense until the discovery of Blue Jets. Pilots factually reported what they saw and science eventually validated it. Blue Book, in its blanket dismissal of UAP failed to predict this, the discovery of poorly documented atmospheric phenomena.
Further, in our experience, pilots are more aware of and more conservative in their commentary about unusual observations than their earthbound counterparts. They know that distance and size and duration of events is a tricky matter. If you look at my paper in the Project Sphere study you will see that they tend to not engage estimations because they know that they are limited in these regards. Pilots these days are nearly always college educated, especially those who are military fliers and end up in commercial aviation.
Even more interesting is that Dr. Haines is a perceptual psychologist and an expert on visual acuity and aviaiton/aerospace human factors and is far more aware of what pilots are capable of seeing and reporting, has more experience with it, than Oberg ever did.... He is well aware of aviation illusions, delusions, failures of perception etc and I have seen him discard cases that I thought were pretty good because he simply was better able to identify what the pilot was really seeing or experiencing... I would take Dr. Haines word over anything Jim Oberg had to say in this regard.
He is simply riding on Leslie Kean's popularity wave.....
 
Ted Roe said:
Funny how he keeps up with the "pilots aren't reliable witnesses" routine... Its pure nonsense on the face of it.
Click to expand...

I had forgotten we had another back-and-forth specifically about pilot sightings. He asked for some feedback about the piece he wrote linked above and I gave him some.

ME: The very simple and logical explanation for that is the pilots provided more detailed accounts of the witnessed phenomenon which made it possible for an explanation to be determined. That would make them better witnesses not poorer ones.

OBERG: This is a thoughtful post, needs some cogitating. Thanks!

This notion stresses a little-recognized issue that the collection of reports that we look at has been already subconsciously pre-sorted, and understanding these sorting criteria may be critical to evaluating the nature of the 'unsolved residue'. Worth thinking about.

Well, I guess that went nowhere. :O)
 
Ted Roe said:
Funny how he keeps up with the "pilots aren't reliable witnesses" routine... Its pure nonsense on the face of it. For years pilots reported vertical electrical discharges and scientists dismissed them as nonsense until the discovery of Blue Jets. Pilots factually reported what they saw and science eventually validated it. Blue Book, in its blanket dismissal of UAP failed to predict this, the discovery of poorly documented atmospheric phenomena.
Further, in our experience, pilots are more aware of and more conservative in their commentary about unusual observations than their earthbound counterparts. They know that distance and size and duration of events is a tricky matter. If you look at my paper in the Project Sphere study you will see that they tend to not engage estimations because they know that they are limited in these regards. Pilots these days are nearly always college educated, especially those who are military fliers and end up in commercial aviation.
Even more interesting is that Dr. Haines is a perceptual psychologist and an expert on visual acuity and aviation/aerospace human factors and is far more aware of what pilots are capable of seeing and reporting, has more experience with it, than Oberg ever did.... He is well aware of aviation illusions, delusions, failures of perception etc and I have seen him discard cases that I thought were pretty good because he simply was better able to identify what the pilot was really seeing or experiencing... I would take Dr. Haines word over anything Jim Oberg had to say in this regard.
He is simply riding on Leslie Kean's popularity wave.....
Click to expand...

Why waste your time:rolleyes: with debunker's :p Maybe its all swamp gas :rolleyes:and pilots just saw a cloud :rolleyes:even though they have to sit highly technical identifications exams.:D Maybe he should fly a plane and try and shoot so called UAP down instead ,one less debunker.:p
 
blowfish said:
Why waste your time:rolleyes: with debunker's :p Maybe its all swamp gas :rolleyes:and pilots just saw a cloud :rolleyes:even though they have to sit highly technical identifications exams.:D Maybe he should fly a plane and try and shoot so called UAP down instead ,one less debunker.:p
Click to expand...

I welcome any exchange with a hard-nosed skeptic. The direct exchanges I've had with Oberg have been pleasant ones. Same with Lance Moody . . . for the most part. :O)
 
What is he channeling McGaha? I would simply repeat my challenge to McGaha over to Oberg.

Simply put: What study are you citing that backs up this claim. Point it out.

The problem is guys like this are content with making stuff up and touting it as the gospel but would pounce and denounce other data for not being scientific or peer reviewed. This is a ridiculous claim and it is absurd that "journalist" have not called it on them.

My McGaha story
 
The case debunkers like Oberg are making is that there is no such thing as a "reliable eyewitness" period, even amongst those whose profession REQUIRES EXCELLENT EYESIGHT.

To say that was bullshit would be an insult to both bulls and shit.
 
CapnG said:
The case debunkers like Oberg are making is that there is no such thing as a "reliable eyewitness" period, even amongst those whose profession REQUIRES EXCELLENT EYESIGHT.

To say that was bullshit would be an insult to both bulls and shit.
Click to expand...

Well, hell all the pilots and police officers better hand in their licences and badges then since we can't rely on them. Next time a police officer says that he saw me commiting a crime I'll take him to court and have the charge dismissed because Oberg says he is not a reliable witness.
 
Oberg makes better sense than you want to admit. He's not talking about pilots and police in the situations they ordinarily deal with, but in highly unusual ones. How many rocket launches do pilots see? How many police regularly watch the sky while on patrol (I hope not many; I want them watching what the humans are doing).
 
Larry King or I found that picture online

Thats DON ECKER ON THE LEFT and HITLER (whoops Jim Oberg) on the Right

All they need now is boxing gloves and a referee
 
Back
Top