-
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!
Mr. Ecker
- Thread starter williamjwhite
- Start date
Free episodes:
)
So Russell Targ said Ingo was imaginative guy? Okay, is that another way of saying Ingo was full of shit? I don't know Targ, I never met him but I did know Swan ... and more importantly I knew a lot of folks that knew Swan. Ingo was most highly regarded by everyone who knew him, at least to me. I never heard any negative comments about him. Targ has my respect as a physicist but he does love that empirical data ... perhaps the psychic stuff "threw" him off a bit? Penetration is full of weird shit for sure but I think Swan told it as he recalled it, in other words I believe he told the truth.
Vito Saccheri next? Okay, Vito will tell you that I was not there with him or his buddy when his "adventure" with NASA happened. I interviewed him in November of 1995. You say you read my interview, did you hear my interview with Vito? It is in the DMR forum. If you have not .. please listen to it. I could not even guess how many people I have interviewed over the years ... as a researcher and also as a cop. During all that time I had a pretty good bull shit detector ... not infallible but a really-really good one. I did not get even once the indication that Vito was selling me a story. Now, I did say that I was not there so I will chance the possibility that I could have been bs-ed, but I do not think so.
Then you throw Jim Oberg at me? Well I know Jim. Jim O. and I happen to be simpatico on anything having to do with military veteran affairs ... once he wrote me to thank me for my service. But lets be honest ... when it comes to UFO matters Jim is first and formost a debunker. Period! No room to wiggle on that at all. When we met on Larry King Live in June of 92 to debate STS-48 Jim avoided, wiggled and slid around every point I made about that anomaly and tried to change the rules by accusing me to come on to sell magazines and refusing to answer my questions about the shuttle matter. So, I do not take his critique that seriously.
Decker
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Thanks for the detailed reply. It's refreshing to hear from someone who has direct contact with the figures involved and can present other details and ways of seeing an issue. Ingo had me very interested when he was narrating the story of remote viewing aliens on the moon looking somehow at his projected thought form, but I checked out altogether from his story when it got to the part where the gov't agents showed up at the grocery store confirming the 'goddess' in the produce department was actually an alien.
Someone else on the forum provided me a very detailed look at the pipe photo, its origin and a strong recommendation to listen to the DMR episode that you are referring to. I look forward to whittling away more hours of my life on the search for ET. The images were actually quite interesting in that some photos show the pipe and in others it is not there. However, this pipe would have to be a pretty ginormous object would it not? It's quite a mind boggling image if it is not simply a photographic artifact. Are there other examples of lunar anomalies that we see in one photo but then in others are mysteriously not there?
STS-48 is certainly a unique event, but are you saying Oberg's criticisms of Vito S.'s contentions around Leonard and NASA are baseless? For me, be ye skeptic, debunker, curious or a believer, I'm only interested in the critical thought behind your p.o.v., so either Vito is confabulating his NASA experience or Oberg is fabricating his criticism. I know that everyone has motives for believing or not believing, but either way, it's a pretty interesting photo.
Donnie Vienus
Paranormal Novice
Jim Oberg worked with NASA.Its hard to take his position serious on issues pertaining to UFOs etc.He is smart,he must see the conflict there.
Brad
Skilled Investigator
As to the photo mentioned and the idea of an underground facility, while I have no explanation either way, wouldn't such a facility venting out be a bad approach? It seems like it would be a recipe for disaster to have what would be a pressurized area (if they're literally smokestacks). Of course, that's utilizing the assumption things would be set up as they are here and all that.
In any case, is that pipe photo around somewhere? I am interested to see it.
In any case, is that pipe photo around somewhere? I am interested to see it.
Jim Oberg
Skilled Investigator
Championship dodging going on here, guys. Look at my research results and tell me what's in error, especially about Saccheri's dream sequence of the moon UFO archive catacombs in the secret underground tunnels. I took 'Houston sky' writer Rebecca Schatte on a tour of the building, around it, under it, in 1995 or so, she was satisfied the tunnels did not and had never existed. But for the rest of you guys, looking with your own eyes seems anathema. Just wave a banned "NASA" and you close your eyes and minds? Come on, you're smarter than that. See James Oberg's Pioneering Space or google my name and saccheri's.
Jim Oberg
Skilled Investigator
Right, can't make use of testimony and evidence from anybody who actually KNOWS what he's talking about, that could be FATAL to cherished fantasies like STS-48. Criminy.
Hi Jim,
Thanks for dropping by.
Thanks for dropping by.
"Then you throw Jim Oberg at me? Well I know Jim. Jim O. and I happen to be simpatico on anything having to do with military veteran affairs ... once he wrote me to thank me for my service. But lets be honest ... when it comes to UFO matters Jim is first and formost a debunker. Period! No room to wiggle on that at all. When we met on Larry King Live in June of 92 to debate STS-48 Jim avoided, wiggled and slid around every point I made about that anomaly and tried to change the rules by accusing me to come on to sell magazines and refusing to answer my questions about the shuttle matter. So, I do not take his critique that seriously."
Decker
Now, if you are not familiar with Jim and I doing Larry King Live and you wondered why I stated that Jim did not answer me when I pointed out various questions about the STS-48 mission ... here is the DMR show where I discussed it on LKL. The first hour deals with the Phobos II question and the second hour is STS-48. For your listening enjoyment.
http://www.dqrm.com/shows/DMR/2012/wk10/dmr-12-th.mp3
Decker
http://www.dqrm.com/shows/DMR/2012/wk10/dmr-12-th.mp3
Decker
Jim - either you secretly frequent this forum or you googled something and it took you here? Either way, welcome to the forum and if you are still around, I'd like to ask your opinion on the relatively recent English Channel event in which an airline Captain and passengers, claimed to have seen 2 objects of enormous size. Apparently control tower radar and the pilot of another aircraft also were witnesses. Our sometime resident skeptic Lance Moody never got back to me on this one so I am grabbing the chance to ask yourself, seeing as you are called as an expert by TV programs and suchlike.
In case you are unfamiliar with this case, you can google 'Captain Ray Bowyer' and you will find information no problem. I haven't heard or read a single possible prosaic explanation for this case and wonder if you know of any? Thanks Jim.
In case you are unfamiliar with this case, you can google 'Captain Ray Bowyer' and you will find information no problem. I haven't heard or read a single possible prosaic explanation for this case and wonder if you know of any? Thanks Jim.
ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM
Whittingham
Ingo Swan was on the money and just reading the late Terry Hansen book Missing Time which is mind blowing indeed . The problem is some folks are scared to admit those in charge would never BS the public and it's institutions. Until you have experience the strange awareness yourself it looks BS can tell you dam scary more than facing a killer.
Skymon876
Paranormal Adept
Well look who has arrived. Your arrival is so timely Mr. Oberg. How pleasant it is to be graced with your presence. Share your omnipotent wisdom with us peanut pushing UFO people.
Skymon876
Paranormal Adept
Question for Jim: Why did you not answer Don when he asked you the question state above on Larry King?
Second Question for Jim.
Also please respond to Robert Hastings expose on your employment history.
Robert Hastings wrote:
Consequently, here is the situation: In what is arguably the most dramatic nuclear weapons-related UFO incident ever revealed, two former U.S. Air Force officers insist that one of our experimental nuclear warheads was actually shot down by a flying saucer. And who is responsible for publishing the first debunking article about the Big Sur incident, in which it is claimed that the UFO encounter never happened? Why, a PR guy working for the U.S. government's nuclear weapons program!
… Ironically, over the years, a great many UFO skeptics have used the supposedly accurate "facts" presented in George's article to dismiss the UFO link with nuclear weapons in general, and the Big Sur UFO Incident in particular. Needless to say, very few of those same skeptics will ever buy a book called, UFOs and Nukes, so they will mistakenly continue to believe that Kingston George's article is the last word on the Big Sur case.
Furthermore, the CSICOP-Nukes Connection does not end with Kendrick Frazier. James Oberg, one of CSICOP's leading UFO debunkers, once did classified work relating to nuclear weapons at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, located at Kirtland AFB, just down the road from Sandia Labs.
From 1970–72, Oberg was an Air Force officer whose assignments with the Battle Environments Branch at the weapons lab involved the development and utilization of computer codes related to the modeling of laser and nuclear weapons. Oberg also served as a "Security Officer" while at the weapons lab and was, therefore, responsible for monitoring the security procedures used to safeguard the classified documents generated by his group.
After Bob Jacobs went public with the UFO shoot-down story, Oberg wrote to him, chastising Jacobs for revealing "top secret" information. In his MUFON UFO Journal article, Jacobs wrote that after he broke his silence, "I was contacted by a variety of investigators, buffs, cranks, proponents and detractors alike. James Oberg, a frequent 'mouthpiece' for certain NASA projects and self-styled UFO Debunker wrote to disparage my story and to ask provocatively, 'Since you obviously feel free to discuss top secret UFO data, what would you be willing to say about other top secret aspects of the Atlas warhead which you alluded to briefly …?' I told Mr. Oberg where to put his misplaced cynicism."
Despite Oberg's charge, Jacobs has correctly pointed out that because Major Mansmann had told him that the UFO encounter "never happened", he had no personal knowledge of the classification level attached to the incident.
In any event, it is almost certain that Oberg would not have criticized Jacobs for exposing "top secret UFO data", had he known that Jacobs would subsequently publish his remark. So, here we have one of CSICOP's leading UFO debunkers—whose public stance is that UFOs don't even exist—angrily asking Jacobs in a private letter whether he would also openly discuss "other" top secret aspects of the missile test …
Rest of expose here: Robert Hastings • Articles -- Reporter Duped by UFO Debunkers
Second Question for Jim.
Also please respond to Robert Hastings expose on your employment history.
Robert Hastings wrote:
Consequently, here is the situation: In what is arguably the most dramatic nuclear weapons-related UFO incident ever revealed, two former U.S. Air Force officers insist that one of our experimental nuclear warheads was actually shot down by a flying saucer. And who is responsible for publishing the first debunking article about the Big Sur incident, in which it is claimed that the UFO encounter never happened? Why, a PR guy working for the U.S. government's nuclear weapons program!
… Ironically, over the years, a great many UFO skeptics have used the supposedly accurate "facts" presented in George's article to dismiss the UFO link with nuclear weapons in general, and the Big Sur UFO Incident in particular. Needless to say, very few of those same skeptics will ever buy a book called, UFOs and Nukes, so they will mistakenly continue to believe that Kingston George's article is the last word on the Big Sur case.
Furthermore, the CSICOP-Nukes Connection does not end with Kendrick Frazier. James Oberg, one of CSICOP's leading UFO debunkers, once did classified work relating to nuclear weapons at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, located at Kirtland AFB, just down the road from Sandia Labs.
From 1970–72, Oberg was an Air Force officer whose assignments with the Battle Environments Branch at the weapons lab involved the development and utilization of computer codes related to the modeling of laser and nuclear weapons. Oberg also served as a "Security Officer" while at the weapons lab and was, therefore, responsible for monitoring the security procedures used to safeguard the classified documents generated by his group.
After Bob Jacobs went public with the UFO shoot-down story, Oberg wrote to him, chastising Jacobs for revealing "top secret" information. In his MUFON UFO Journal article, Jacobs wrote that after he broke his silence, "I was contacted by a variety of investigators, buffs, cranks, proponents and detractors alike. James Oberg, a frequent 'mouthpiece' for certain NASA projects and self-styled UFO Debunker wrote to disparage my story and to ask provocatively, 'Since you obviously feel free to discuss top secret UFO data, what would you be willing to say about other top secret aspects of the Atlas warhead which you alluded to briefly …?' I told Mr. Oberg where to put his misplaced cynicism."
Despite Oberg's charge, Jacobs has correctly pointed out that because Major Mansmann had told him that the UFO encounter "never happened", he had no personal knowledge of the classification level attached to the incident.
In any event, it is almost certain that Oberg would not have criticized Jacobs for exposing "top secret UFO data", had he known that Jacobs would subsequently publish his remark. So, here we have one of CSICOP's leading UFO debunkers—whose public stance is that UFOs don't even exist—angrily asking Jacobs in a private letter whether he would also openly discuss "other" top secret aspects of the missile test …
Rest of expose here: Robert Hastings • Articles -- Reporter Duped by UFO Debunkers
Audio glimpse directly from Jacobs about problems he was confronted with after he went public:
(Audio) Robert Jacobs and how he lost his job at the University of Maine :
02.Robert Jacobs-128k.mp3 - File Shared from Box
Extraction from my post here:
The Great Ecker-Klass Debate | The Paracast Community Forums
PCarr
Paranormal Adept
Was the second sentence intended to follow from the first? What argument are you making?
Last edited:
Donnie Vienus
Paranormal Novice
Its that long ago, I forgot I even said it.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
So is there any work @Gene Steinberg being done to have Mr. @Decker & @Jim Oberg on together for a moon anomalies roundtable "discussion" & debate? There seems to be a lot of interest on both sides to promote their contrasting points of view. It would make for an excellent show!