UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jan > Jan 8

Re: James Oberg On O'Hare UFO - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:08:36 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:19:37 -0500
Subject: Re: James Oberg On O'Hare UFO - Maccabee

>From: Ed Gehrman <egehrman.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:24:28 -0800
>Subject: James Oberg On O'Hare UFO


>Posted: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 4:55 PM by Alan Boyle



>"On the other side, NBC News space analyst James Oberg - a
>longtime UFO skeptic - says the evidence that's come to light so
>far isn't all that compelling. "It's just sad that we keep
>getting these reports which are of zero evidential value," he
>told me. "It's sad because there's a lot of strange stuff in the
>air that we do need to know.


>The O'Hare incident is being taken more seriously than most
>sightings because the reports are coming from aviation
>professionals rather than untrained onlookers. But Oberg argues
>that the professionals don't always make the best eyewitnesses
>because they tend to favor flight-related explanations for what
>they see. "NTSB investigators say that the worst observers of an
>aviation accident are aviation personnel," Oberg said. "It's
>because a pilot will usually want to understand what happened,
>and in his initial perceptions and later retellings will stress
>the facts that support his initial interpretation."

This is classic Obergism or application of the "Oberg Rule:" the
witnesses can 't be believed if the report does not result in an
accurate identification.

This is because, accofrding to the Oberg rule, witnesses report
their 'interpretations' of what they saw and these
interpretations are wrong.

Oberg wants everyone to infer from this that the _Descriptions_
are wrong.

What Oberg fails to admit is that in most cases the valid,
"earthly" _explanations_ are based on witness _descriptions_. It
is the job of the investigator to separate the _description_
from from the _interpretation_. Oberg treats the witnesses sort
of as follows: if the report seems consistent with an
'Unearthly' explanation, then the witness has reported an
_interpretation_ and the description can't be trusted
(regardless of the apparent quality of the description contained
within the report).

Such a report can be discarded because it has "zero evidential
value." (This is an echo of the Project Twinkle final report in
which is says that, although there were numerous films of
strange objects over White Sands, triangulations were not done
and therefore "no information was gained." (PS: this was a lie.
See White Sands films at www.brumac.8k.com)

ON the other hand, in the Oberg interpretation, if the witness
report seems consistent with an 'earthly' explanation, then the
witness provided an accurate description.

In this case we have about a dozen descriptions from various
points of view that have allowed a crude but useful
triangulation. This increases the liklihood that the
descriptions are valid, regardless of any interpretation that
may be superimposed on the descriptions.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com