Astronaut Gordon Cooper talks about his UFO encounters

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: nOraKat

we saw some crazy things at night and during day there

Go on...................... You just can't stop there

Lost interest pretty quickly in defending Gordon Cooper's later-in-life storytelling, eh?

ELABORATE

Eh? I was just hoping for a bit of insight on motherships or orbs etc. Did we get our wires crossed Jim?

Look at the title of this thread.

a reply to: nOraKat

I really hate how people take pot-shots at Jim.

Here's a guy with actual experience in the field. (check!)
He's (apparently) got a decent science education (check!)
He's rational and doesn't leap to unwarranted conclusions (check!)
He's pleasant enough, even when repeatedly attacked (check!)

He doesn't necessarily agree with dim-witted, unsupported, and foolish theories of UFOlogy
(burn him! burn the witch!).

I'm not especially pointing this at you.. others are far worse.. but I wanted to backup not just
Jim, but also GUT.

Kev

a reply to: Kevin2024

Fear buys time is the most simple one (I still think to this day the Belgian Triangle wave likely served that purpose). Extra seconds can matter in a war situation.

Another one I'm thinking of is something like 'augmented camouflage'. 'QR codes'/patterns zipping through the sky being percieved as something totally different. You need to manipulate the 'human reference table', but who knows ...

Just throwing some concepts around, not based on anything.

Still, The Art of War meets tech ...

originally posted by: zeroPointOneQ
a reply to: Kevin2024

Still, The Art of War meets tech ...

That's a great quote.

The best thing for the world of UFOlogy would be if the US government
got out of the business of using it as a new religion / distraction, and let
the adults at the table get to work, on what actually exists.

Kev

originally posted by: Kevin2024
a reply to: nOraKat

I really hate how people take pot-shots at Jim.

Here's a guy with actual experience in the field. (check!)
He's (apparently) got a decent science education (check!)
He's rational and doesn't leap to unwarranted conclusions (check!)
He's pleasant enough, even when repeatedly attacked (check!)

He doesn't necessarily agree with dim-witted, unsupported, and foolish theories of UFOlogy
(burn him! burn the witch!).

I'm not especially pointing this at you.. others are far worse.. but I wanted to backup not just
Jim, but also GUT.

Kev

Thank you, Kev. I personally have come to respect Jim Oberg over the years. Took me a while, but when treading these waters it is of great assistance to not fall for everything that comes along and Jim is great when it comes to solid information and poking holes in certain "mythologies."

I'm kind of sorry that I drug him in here. I find him to be more openminded, too, than he comes across or is given credit for.

originally posted by: Kevin2024
a reply to: nOraKat

I really hate how people take pot-shots at Jim.

Here's a guy with actual experience in the field. (check!)
He's (apparently) got a decent science education (check!)
He's rational and doesn't leap to unwarranted conclusions (check!)
He's pleasant enough, even when repeatedly attacked (check!)

He doesn't necessarily agree with dim-witted, unsupported, and foolish theories of UFOlogy
(burn him! burn the witch!).

I'm not especially pointing this at you.. others are far worse.. but I wanted to backup not just
Jim, but also GUT.

Kev

I agree with you on your analysis of Jim Oberg. However, he does have a chink in his armor. He will fight you to the death if you dare challenge his views on STS-48 and other space anomalies especially because he hasn't been in space and works from the same materials we earthbound critics work with. When it comes to these events he fails in the common sense department.

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Kevin2024
a reply to: nOraKat

I really hate how people take pot-shots at Jim.

Here's a guy with actual experience in the field. (check!)
He's (apparently) got a decent science education (check!)
He's rational and doesn't leap to unwarranted conclusions (check!)
He's pleasant enough, even when repeatedly attacked (check!)

He doesn't necessarily agree with dim-witted, unsupported, and foolish theories of UFOlogy
(burn him! burn the witch!).

I'm not especially pointing this at you.. others are far worse.. but I wanted to backup not just
Jim, but also GUT.

Kev

I agree with you on your analysis of Jim Oberg. However, he does have a chink in his armor. He will fight you to the death if you dare challenge his views on STS-48 and other space anomalies especially because he hasn't been in space and works from the same materials we earthbound critics work with. When it comes to these events he fails in the common sense department.

ALL spaceflight fails the 'common sense' argument, it is inherently 'unearthly'.

It's not a matter of folks with ordinary life experience not knowing the realities of spaceflight. They know a LOT about spaceflight, most of it actually wrong. Hence the ease of misinterpreting really weird-looking videos.

My reports are based on far MORE information than the UFO blogs provide, dug out from internal NASA data bases and direct contact with on-site witnesses. Let me know which factual claims I make in my STS-48 report you find to be implausible. .

MEANWHILE back on theme -- THREE independent investigations of Cooper's narrative of a UFO landing at Edwards AFB In 1957 found it to be unworthy of belief. Why do you deny even the existence of such reports?

Jim in Mission Control

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Kevin2024
a reply to: nOraKat

I really hate how people take pot-shots at Jim.

Here's a guy with actual experience in the field. (check!)
He's (apparently) got a decent science education (check!)
He's rational and doesn't leap to unwarranted conclusions (check!)
He's pleasant enough, even when repeatedly attacked (check!)

He doesn't necessarily agree with dim-witted, unsupported, and foolish theories of UFOlogy
(burn him! burn the witch!).

I'm not especially pointing this at you.. others are far worse.. but I wanted to backup not just
Jim, but also GUT.

Kev

I agree with you on your analysis of Jim Oberg. However, he does have a chink in his armor. He will fight you to the death if you dare challenge his views on STS-48 and other space anomalies especially because he hasn't been in space and works from the same materials we earthbound critics work with. When it comes to these events he fails in the common sense department.

ALL spaceflight fails the 'common sense' argument, it is inherently 'unearthly'.

It's not a matter of folks with ordinary life experience not knowing the realities of spaceflight. They know a LOT about spaceflight, most of it actually wrong. Hence the ease of misinterpreting really weird-looking videos.

My reports are based on far MORE information than the UFO blogs provide, dug out from internal NASA data bases and direct contact with on-site witnesses. Let me know which factual claims I make in my STS-48 report you find to be implausible. .

MEANWHILE back on theme -- THREE independent investigations of Cooper's narrative of a UFO landing at Edwards AFB In 1957 found it to be unworthy of belief. Why do you deny even the existence of such reports?

Jim in Mission Control

Oberg:

Let me know which factual claims I make in my STS-48 report you find to be implausible.

No sense in opening a can of worms, I don't want to derail the thread. In the appropriate thread I'll be glad to chime in.

wait wait wait, so the iron clad, unassailable refutation of everything Cooper says in this video, courtesy of our very own Man of Science Jim O, boils down to "he told some tall stories and made some bad financial decisions", rounded out with some salty aspersions cast on his mental stability because he had Parkinsons?
not saying i wholeheartedly believe everything Cooper said, or even that there's anything particularly noteworthy in this video, but as a "Science Answer" that's pretty spectacularly tasteless

originally posted by: continuousThunder
wait wait wait, so the iron clad, unassailable refutation of everything Cooper says in this video, courtesy of our very own Man of Science Jim O, boils down to "he told some tall stories and made some bad financial decisions", rounded out with some salty aspersions cast on his mental stability because he had Parkinsons?
not saying i wholeheartedly believe everything Cooper said, or even that there's anything particularly noteworthy in this video, but as a "Science Answer" that's pretty spectacularly tasteless

Thanks for steering the thread back on track.

Edwards landing case, 1957

Only three people [to my knowledge – let me know of any others you find] ever performed corroboration investigations, all three with identical result. The original event was a slow-drift-pass scintillating shape of still-disputed nature, which never deployed landing legs or landed and took off again. The images and interviews were filed with Blue Book, and can be found in the on-line archives – nothing disappeared [it was even written up in local newspapers, and a UFO newsletter, at the time]. All direct participants indicated no knowledge of Gordon Cooper’s participation at any point in the event and its aftermath.

The first investigation was conducted in the mid-1960s by James McDonald, the leading “pro-UFO” scientist of his time. He described his results here. www.project1947.com...
Case 41. Edwards AFB, May 3, 1957, page 75

The second investigation was mine, in the 1980-2 period, in response to a direct challenge from Gordon Creighton of Britain’s “Flying Saucer Review”. I interviewed direct participants including one of the cameramen and Hubert Davis, the young AF officer on ‘Blue Book duty’ at the base [who first interviewed the cameramen, who had come directly to him]. I shared it with Cooper, and he used details from it in his book and interviews.
www.zipworld.com.au...

The third was done for NICAP by Brad Sparks in the 1990-era. Here are his results. www.nicap.org...

Why is all of this news to you guys?

Why is all of this news to you guys?

The best answer to your question is that the forum is now composed of new, mostly young, members who are learning to use their wings and you and your exemplary body of work is not as well known to them. Scan the members' names and you will recognize only a few of them. So, school continues and the mental level of the "students" is sub-par. Also notice the threads' titles, nothing about Roswell, Lazar, space UFOs, alleged aliens or alien abductions, etc. Times have changed but it's always good to see your name still hanging on. My hat's off to you.

originally posted by: Lathroper

Why is all of this news to you guys?

The best answer to your question is that the forum is now composed of new, mostly young, members who are learning to use their wings and you and your exemplary body of work is not as well known to them. Scan the members' names and you will recognize only a few of them. So, school continues and the mental level of the "students" is sub-par. Also notice the threads' titles, nothing about Roswell, Lazar, space UFOs, alleged aliens or alien abductions, etc. Times have changed but it's always good to see your name still hanging on. My hat's off to you.

Likewise --it's always good to get new questions, new data sources, and help promulgate effective internet search techniques for folks with a passion for outer space, all flavors.

I posted links to the three known investigations of Cooper's story of a UFO landing at Edwards AFB in 1957, two of them by respected pro-UFO experts. I'm disappointed that nobody wants to discuss their findings.