UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jan > Jan 9

Re: James Oberg On O'Hare UFO - Hall

From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:23:28 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:46:15 -0500
Subject: Re: James Oberg On O'Hare UFO - Hall

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


>>"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.


Excellent commentary. Methinks Jim Oberg, whom I once thought was
a fair-minded skeptic, is just about as intellectually
(dis)honest as his late lamented idol Phil Crass [Klass].

 - Dick

[ 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