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 >http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/02/25212.aspx >Posted: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 4:55 PM by Alan Boyle ----- <snip> >"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. <snip> >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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp