Look around the web enough, and you should find it fairly easy to find a story from an ‘ex-NASA’ employee or someone else of high-up authority breaking news and giving insight into events. However, sometimes these people come across with information that is so explosive, so exciting, that it creates a massive wave of excitement across the web.
One person who has managed to do this as the moment, is James Oberg. Oberg worked at NASA Mission Control in the 1990s. After his time with NASA he moved into becoming a space historian and regularly contributes to journalistic work on the subject.
The thing that makes Mr. Oberg so exciting to us, though, is that he has a lot of things to say about UFOs. Unfortunately, for most people, Oberg isn’t giving the kind of information you would expect. He’s not telling us all about the NASA interceptions and the big UFO encounters we were never meant to hear about – he’s breaking them all down using science as his ally.
The Sad Truth?
Basically, Oberg says that many people who are buying into the theory of seeing UFOs and other objects are misguided. Why? Because we’re apparently so used to seeing objects that move at slower speeds, as well as being too used to our own atmospheric conditions, that the event of seeing something otherworldly like a super-fast space ship would be nothing more than confusing for our brains to handle.
So, basically, we’re too used to seeing things that match the conditions of Earth exactly that when something that breaks the traditional norms we are used to happens, it becomes confusing to us. In a bid to explain what broke the normal rules we know, we turn to extravagant theories about aliens and UFOs.
He believes that many of us struggle with this change on the basis that we’re slowly moving from being a civilization that lives on one planet, to eventually living outside of this planet. To many people, that has created “visually confusing” ideas in their own minds.
However, this goes against the grain of what we’ve been told by other ex-NASA in the past. They tell us far more candid stories about extra-terrestrial dealings and how it’s actually quite commonplace. Typically, these also come with the idea that NASA silences these people afterwards – not in a mob way, of course – and thus it creates a real layer of intrigue and espionage.
Speaking on his own website, though, Oberg said that: “I’ve had enough experience with real spaceflight to realise that what’s being seen in many videos is nothing beyond the norm from fully mundane phenomena occurring in unearthly settings.”
Does this go against everything we’ve been told by NASA ex-employees so far? Who’s telling us the truth, here? Is it Mr. Oberg? Or his colleagues in the past?
Oberg, though, in his typical fashion, has found a good way of disproving UFO theories without insulting or slating anyone along the way. He says that many of the UFO sightings we see, especially recent sights from the International Space Station (ISS) Compound, are simply “space dandruff”.
He claims that these are pieces of objects that have fallen off during space flight – anything from an ice flake to a paint chip – can cause people to be misled by what they see. His explanation is that “we’re not used to the way these objects look when they fall while the space station is travelling” and he says this is the same reason why wee UFO footage in old NASA space shuttle missions.
So, apparently, all of these sightings are just specs of debris…
His other statement, that if spacecraft is in the right position in comparison to where the Sun is at that point, that it can cast a shadow on objects to make them disappear and re-appear within an image. This is apparently known as “twilight shadowing” and has been used many times now to try and debunk theories and ideas from across the web.
But what about the situations we see that aren’t from space shuttles?
For example, last December California residents seen a ridiculous white streak bullet across the night sky. According to Oberg, this was a planned missile test from the US Navy that was seen instead. It was instead a large set of particles from the thruster of the missile itself, rather than anything more exciting.
Apparently, most of us have never seen anything as vibrant or as sharp as a missile before so that’s why it looks crazy. According to Oberg, we’re “used to seeing thin vapour trails left by planes.”
It does seem a bit rude, though, to more or less suggest that because it’s out of normal experience that we simply can’t process it properly. We’ve all seen plenty of footage of missiles being fired thanks to the news always showing us foreign battles and footage of missiles being fired off to space. Is it really that out of our normal experience these days?
We’re not claiming to have anything like the expertise or knowledge of the subject that Oberg does, but it sounds a little simplistic.
We’ve seen some pretty good debate about this side of the discussion, though, which is good. Nothing is worse than the partisan arguments that can take place on this kind of subject so it’s nice to see a calmer approach being taken in many corners. One of the best arguments against this theory, though, can be found on Inquisitr. This is a brilliant read and gives a really intriguing counter-argument to the twilight shadow theory that James has put forward.
The person arguing against Oberg is Jack Kasher, the Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Nebraska. He states that the movement of the pattern is simply too strange, in the video listed above – the 1991 STS-48 UFO mystery – for it to be the ice blocks that Oberg claims. Seen as they move independently, we would be inclined to agree.
However, we have to say that what Oberg claims is likely to be true for certain videos out there; tricks of the mind and photographic manipulation is always a possibility. But, at least in our view, not for every single video that has ever existed – that sounds every bit as crazy as the idea that every video is real!
“The Bad Guy”
For people who want to believe in UFOs and otherworldly events, Mr Oberg isn’t going to much fun!
However, that does not mean he should be attacked, or demonized, or insulted, or hated. Unlike the deep hatred and arrogance you get from other debunkers, Oberg has no problem at all with people continuing to look for evidence. Instead, he’s looking to try and find a way to explain why people jump to the conclusions that they do rather than trying to say they are all wrong, or fools.
Whilst we don’t agree with his idea that the human senses cannot handle things out width what we are used to, we can see why it would be a potentially plausible theory in some cases. We just think we’ve seen enough crazy stuff over the years not to be misled by it when it does actually occur.
Also, the overriding feeling here is that with so many different stories of unexplained phenomena out there, can it all really come down to the mind being unable to process what is going on? It seems crazier than the stuff being real, to us!
However, we deeply respect the work and commitment that Mr. Oberg has put into his discoveries and appreciate how he comes across. Rather than laughing at people or shooting them down, he’s respectfully discussed the subject in a calm and mature manner every time.
We’re more likely to go with Mr. Kasher over Mr. Oberg, but it’s a very interesting debating point in the entire discussion.
The stories, accounts, and discussion in this article are not always based on proven facts and may go against currently accepted science and common beliefs. The details included in the article are based on the reports and accounts available to us as provided by witnesses and documentation.
By publishing these accounts, UFO Insight does not take responsibility for the integrity of them. You should read this article with an open mind and come to a conclusion yourself.
Copyright & Republishing Policy
The entire article and the contents within are published by, wholly-owned and copyright of UFO Insight. The author does not own the rights to this content.
You may republish short quotes from this article with a reference back to the original UFO Insight article here as the "source". You may not republish the article in its entirety.