Found? Gordon Cooper's 1957 UFO film "sent...to...Washington...never to be seen again"

a reply to: JimOberg
Thanks for posting that interview.

a reply to: JAY1980
Why does anybody make anything up? Or why do people make UFO hoaxes?

I don't really know, but I know that they do it, and I can only guess that the reasons for doing it are as varied as the people doing the fabrication.

It did blow up in his face when the photographer said that Cooper had nothing to do with the incident. To Cooper's credit, rather than persist in the lie and claim otherwise when his story was challenged, his response was to just refuse to discuss it further, which I guess seemed like a better alternative to him than to admit he was "exaggerating" his role. I put "exaggerating" in quotes because claiming he had involvement when he had none and only happened to be on the base could be more accurately called other things.

When it comes to the topic of UFOs, it's probably a good idea to question everything.

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ain't know how much of a myth, but here's the thing out of the devils mouth: Gordoned

Well one thing about it dead men cannot argue in their defense:
That coupled with the revisionist policies that seem to infect most of past history, what is one to believe ?

originally posted by: 727Sky....
Well one thing about it dead men cannot argue in their defense:

You do realize my results were published in 1986, and Cooper did his major TV interviews in the twenty years more that he lived?

So back off on the tut=tutting for supposedly picking on dead men who can't respond.

Just saying.

Like JIm says, if someone tells you they saw a UFO, are you just going to believe them? Or will you examine the trail of evidence to either prove, disprove or at least filter out the untruths?

For as I can tell, there were not two incidents. There was just one. And the people involved have stated Cooper had no involvement with the case. Neither does their account corroborate Cooper's statements. Furthermore, his story has changed over the years. It's not just there's no evidence, but that some of his statements are untrue too.

Investigate. Deny ignorance.

In the X-Files there was a line made popular "I want to believe." I think it's true. We want to believe. Forget the facts.

a reply to: slapjacks

I guess my question is this. If Gordon Cooper was making things like this up in 1957 and that's a possibility. Yet in 63 he piloted the final mercury flight, in 65 command pilot of Gemini 5. I have no dog in this hunt and never heard of this case before. But he had a knack for making things up, filing false information, generally untrustworthy yet he continued on in pretty important roles for 8 years after that? How on earth does it make sense to continue to go to a man that cannot be trusted to be honest about what he is seeing, etc in a position that would seem to require that honesty is needed.

Again never heard of this, it could be a lie, if it is the bigger issue would seem to be NASA employing a known/ proven liar and putting him in a position like that.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: slapjacks

I guess my question is this. If Gordon Cooper was making things like this up in 1957 and that's a possibility. .

There's no indication he even talked about this until 1973-4 at the earliest, after he had left the astronaut corps in secret disgrace that NASA Public Affairs wanted covered up for the reputation of the manned space program. So your timeline is not a real problem.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: slapjacks

I guess my question is this. If Gordon Cooper was making things like this up in 1957 and that's a possibility. .

There's no indication he even talked about this until 1973-4 at the earliest, after he had left the astronaut corps in secret disgrace that NASA Public Affairs wanted covered up for the reputation of the manned space program. So your timeline is not a real problem.

Did he not file a report of what he saw in 57 when it happened? I might not be getting it. So did he see all this and nothing was ever said until later or did he file a report of what he saw in 57 but not reveal what he reported until later?

Did he not file a report of what he saw in 57 when it happened? I might not be getting it. So did he see all this and nothing was ever said until later or did he file a report of what he saw in 57 but not reveal what he reported until later?
.

These are good questions. Establishing a timeline and then looking at preconditions and consequences along that line helps narrow the range of plausible hypotheses.

There is no record that Cooper filed a separate report independent of the Blue Book report that Davis was directly central to initiating. Nobody recalls hearing him speak of the event until interviews in the mid-1970s and even then it was only as an indirect recollection of other people's stories.

The earliest verifiable take on Cooper's UFO tales was a conversation reported to me in 1976 by the head of NICAP, who related that Cooper only recently mentioned to him a sighting over Germany that he later attributed to weather balloons. I have my logbook entry of that exact conversation. He recalled no mention of any event at Edwards AFB, least of all a UFO landing story.

Here is my logbook:


A widely circulated internet story of a "Ferrando tape" interview from 1973 turns out to have been a complete hoax by a French paranormal magazine [I have the issue]. Columbia Pictures used quotations from an English translation of that French original, to promote CEIIIK in 1978 and put some excerpts on the package of a "bendable extraterrestrial figurine" it sold with the movie, and Cooper sued them to stop using a false quotation attributed to him. I can't find the outcome of the lawsuit, but as of last year, Columbia Pictures still had the hoax quotation in its promotional package for the DVD set.

Here's that bogus quote used in 1978 and still in circulation despite Cooper's lawsuit.

While going through my files I found these letters from a buddy of Cooper's in Germany in 1951 that was another variation on what they may have seen. Don't forget that in this time frame Soviet Migs could outclimb and outrun the jets Cooper's unit were using.






As per Bonner's suggestion I contacted the reunion committee, got a mailing list of the veterans, and wrote letters to them all, getting about a dozen replies -- as reported in my original study released in 1984 and online for about twenty years now.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If anybody is listening to anything Jim Oberg has to say about the reality of UFOs, they have done zero research into the topic. The man is a professional skeptic on a mission to debunk all UFO sightings. Do people still not know this?

a reply to: Urantia1111
As some of the ATS moderators like to say, "Attack the ball, not the player".

This is a very specific case with specific events and witnesses involved. If you have other information which can shed a different light on this specific case, feel free to share it; opposing viewpoints are welcome as they should be on a discussion board.

However your tactic of making sweeping claims about one person suggests you don't really have anything useful to say about the facts in this case. As Jim Oberg pointed out, he's not the only person to investigate this and to come to this conclusion. What about Brad Sparks? Do you have something nasty to say about him too or do you have anything useful to contribute regarding the results of his investigation which largely corroborates what Jim Oberg found?

originally posted by: JimOberg
Here's the view of Brad Sparks after his own exhaustive investigation --
Cooper's story was unworthy of belief.
www.nicap.org...

I've done a lot of research on the topic of UFOs and while it's true that Jim Oberg is a skeptic, what my research has led me to learn is that in many cases, his skepticism is well justified by the facts. I entered my research with an open mind thinking "where there's smoke, there must be fire", but I never found the fire. I found that often the "smoke" was created by people trying to sell books who liked to embellish stories. So I offer you this advice:

1. Attack the ball, not the player
2. Present better facts if you have them
3. You too need to do more research of you haven't learned to be skeptical of some information circulating about UFOs.

If you're not skeptical of Gordon Cooper's claims in this case, I believe it is you who needs to do more research.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Jim Oberg wrote a very informative article about Gordon Cooper's UFOs. In fact he did such a great job I'm citing his article as one source:

snip

Now as good as that article is, there is one thing that it mentions which seems to be really hard to find on the internet, which is the UFO film mentioned by Cooper: "the film was there and was sent forward to the safekeeping somewhere in Washington, never to be seen again." Well if it was never to be seen again as Cooper said, no wonder it's hard to find, right? Except as Oberg explains, it was to be seen again in the project blue book files, and aside from Oberg few people seem to be aware of this or have seen the film. Contrary to Cooper's claim they were "never to be seen again":

Uggielicious: "I like your style! For the uninitiated, I would have liked to have the start of your comments referring to the fact that according to Oberg and the other researchers he mentions that Cooper has no connection to the story. That way, as one reads the rest of your post one is not tying Cooper to the story, he's out of sight, out of mind. The other day when I started exchanging ideas with Oberg on his thread on Edgar Mitchell and Cooper's Edwards AFB UFO was mentioned I read a comment by someone that the photos were in some archive, I think MUFON but not sure, I was going to embark on a search but the description of the UFO seen in photo/film wasn't going to reveal detail that could be appreciated. Your inclusion of said photos proves the description correct and while I laud your effort you have to admit that they aren't worth a hill of beans and could have remained unseen".

snip

According to Oberg's article, the Air Force said it can prove the object is a balloon:

the Air Force said it had been a weather balloon (as the witnesses had been told the very day of their sighting) and had the evidence to prove it. In a letter to a UFO newsletter in June 1957, Major Robert F. Spence of the Edwards AFB Office of Information Services wrote as follows: "The alleged UFO was conclusively identified as a balloon from a weather unit a few miles west of the observer's location. This was corroborated by an independent report which discloses that this balloon was being tracked at that time with precision recording devices..."

By the way, Gordon Cooper was not only wrong about these photos that were "never to be seen again", but he also apparently "exaggerated" his involvement with this whole UFO story as explained in the article.

Uggie: "I have a problem with the balloon explanation because even though it is on the record that certain technicians using the proper equipment have placed a balloon on the spot, on the hour, where Bittick and Gettys found themselves when they had their sighting. It seems all well and good and the balloon being the object they saw sounds convincing. BUT, there's their testimony that they are experienced balloon identifiers and their description of what they saw that's on the record is: Oberg says this is the way McDonald described it: "James D. Bittick and John R. Gettys... were at the time Askania cameramen on the test range, and spotted the domed-disk UFO just as they reached Askania #4 site at Edwards, a bit before 8:00 AM that day ..." Oberg continues: "Bittick estimated that the object lay about a mile away when they got off the first shot, though when first seen he put it at no more than 500 yards off. He and Gettys both said it had a golden color, looked somewhat like an inverted plate with a dome on top, and had square holes or panels around the dome." They are NOT describing a good, ol' balloon! So, how can a confirmed balloon develop a dome with details? Will the mystery ever really be solved? But more importantly who gives a you know what! This non-event is not really newsworthy. But Mitchell is a good target 'cause he's alive and blabbing constantly about things he has no real knowledge of".

The only thing I really have to add to Oberg's article are the photos of the "missing" film, and my question to ATS:

Does the flattened appearance of the object resemble a "flying disc", and do you think it's possible that balloons could have actually accounted for some reports of flying discs? Note I didn't say all, just some.

Uggie: "A balloon from directly underneath being of a solid color could look like a plate but without a sharp edge since the balloon doesn't have 'em. Many balloons have been reported as UFO sightins, it goes without saying. And remember Captain Thomas F. Mantell the hot pilot who chased a balloon much higher than he could go to safely thinking he was chasing a UFO and crashed and died. But he wasn't a UFO casualty, it was a careless casualty. Chasing a UFO with a slow, propeller-driven airplane!

In an interview for the Disclosure Project, Cooper also mentions physically handling the Edwards AFB film.
Comments below begin at 4:30 YouTube

Interviewer: Did you watch the film?
Cooper: We didn't have a chance to run it. I had a chance to hold it up to the window and look at it... certainly good film.
Interviewer: Good close up shots.
Cooper: Good close up shots.

---------------------------------------------

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I entered my research with an open mind thinking "where there's smoke, there must be fire", but I never found the fire. I found that often the "smoke" was created by people trying to sell books who liked to embellish stories.

This is exactly right and applies to TV shows equally. I remember in the 70's watching UFOs shows with my father that seemed to come out at least once a month. I was fascinated with the UFO topic as a kid. At the time, what you're presented with on TV was the story. At least it was in my world as a child. With the onset of the internet and beyond, you can do a fairly in depth search through some of those cases. But you need the investigative desire to research and find facts out for yourself. You can't simply watch TV or read an online article and believe. It takes a little work and a lot of searching sometimes to weed through the sensationalized stories to the background facts.

As I'm sure you probably know Arbitrageur, Jim Oberg has had a crew follow him for years through different message boards. One is missing from this thread. He seems to strike strong emotional chords with some of these people.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If I remember it right, Cordon's UFO actually landed not that far from where he was standing - all of which he filmed too. So, this white blip in the sky most surely is not anything but an effort to divert off the whole issue.

A lot of people vividly remember it exactly that way, they just SWEAR sincerely that they had watched a video of Cooper describing the object landing in front of him.

No such video has ever been found.

[sigh]

There is a video of him stating exactly that only a few posts up from yours. I've seen several other videos of him stating the same exact thing to multiple independent interviewers over the past few years. I'm surprised that you would post something so blatantly false on here. It's almost laughable considering you have put this a mere 3 posts down from a link to one of the many freely available and easily found videos proving your statement to be completely untrue.

Your post is so utterly ridiculous that you have me wondering if perhaps you have simply worded your statement so poorly that it has caused me to misunderstand what you have written or ...maybe I am suffering from a temporary reading comprehension malfunction brought on by several days of sleep deprivation.

Do you honestly believe that Gordon Cooper never stated on camera that he witnessed this happen?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Except as Oberg explains, it was to be seen again in the project blue book files

And of course, the file was complete and NOT sanitized for "Blue Book" consumption...

Riight...

a reply to: deckdel

So, this white blip in the sky most surely is not anything but an effort to divert off the whole issue.

Exactly. In general terms, I tend to trust UFO deniers almost as much as I trust tobacco industry spokesmen.

I'm not making any accusations about anybody, or any particular thread, least of all this thread. I want to make it clear I'm speaking in general terms here, but sometimes I wonder.
Did you ever wonder about how some people work so hard, thread after thread, post after post, day after day, and month after month, with the focused goal of convincing people that alien contact isn't real? Did you ever wonder why? Ever ask yourself who would be so active at promoting that singular point? Why would someone be so 9-to-5 dedicated? To labor over a topic they don't believe in in the first place?

Who really works that hard at anything other than their profession?

I post some long posts, and let me tell you, it is time consuming, it can take hours to write a post, and editing, to make your point well. Yet my posts are short, and few and far between compared to denier posts. And the only reason I am involved as I am is because my family and I encountered aliens directly. I can't for the life of me imagine I'd care enough to post much of anything about this subject otherwise.

Yet, some denier threads are huge, taking hours to compose and type. Add to that the time necessary to go looking for smear story after smear story? Then punch it up with graphics like an office presentation? Then the follow-up posts? That's a lot of man-hours.
Then, it's on to the next smear story.

I suggest people watch the documentary "Masters of Deception". It sheds light on how in this day and age, powerful interests who wish to sway public opinion or slow public awareness of an issue routinely employ spokespeople who portray themselves as independent and unconnected to any vested interest. That is a simple fact.
Thank goodness the couldn't happen with something as fictional as alien contact and alien technologies.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I totally agree with you on all points! Many years ago, I was a moderator/manager on a Yahoo group about UFO's & the Paranormal and this guy from NASA turns up one day to debunk everything, his name was.....let me remember...it's coming to me....mmmm... oh yeah James Oberg, does that ring a bell?

Now growing up in the 60's and 70's Astronauts had the highest respect, you would never have been able to question their integrity, that is until they started speaking about UFO's and all of a sudden these trusted people who actually went into space were now game to be laughed at! people who had experienced what none of us had - space travel!

Even today, I would rather trust the words of Astronauts like Gordon Cooper, Edgar Mitchell and even Story Musgrave (who did a complete 180 on his views of Aliens after he left NASA) than a paid disinfo debunker like Jim here

JIm Oberg the expert on UFO's and Aliens and yet what part of the 'Disclosure Project' do you represent? The Dumb Downed society more like LOL

a reply to: Hongkongphooey

I would rather trust the words of Astronauts like Gordon Cooper, Edgar Mitchell and even Story Musgrave (who did a complete 180 on his views of Aliens after he left NASA) than a paid disinfo debunker like Jim here

JIm Oberg the expert on UFO's and Aliens and yet what part of the 'Disclosure Project' do you represent?

Oh, my heavens! I find your accusations to be reckless and groundless, and an affront to my sensibilities, sir, and I politely request you refrain from further besmirching.
I'm afraid you simply must be speaking about a different Jim Oberg, sir!

originally posted by: PlausibleDeniability
There is a video of him stating exactly that only a few posts up from yours....

Do you honestly believe that Gordon Cooper never stated on camera that he witnessed this happen?

Re-watch the video. He says the photographers saw it, he doesn't say he saw it. Then at 2:15 he says "they came into my office and told me what happened". Why would they do that if he was there and saw it himself and already knew what happened?

You have to pay attention to details, this is the same video that was posted earlier:

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Hongkongphooey

I would rather trust the words of Astronauts like Gordon Cooper, Edgar Mitchell and even Story Musgrave (who did a complete 180 on his views of Aliens after he left NASA) than a paid disinfo debunker like Jim here

JIm Oberg the expert on UFO's and Aliens and yet what part of the 'Disclosure Project' do you represent?

Oh, my heavens! I find your accusations to be reckless and groundless, and an affront to my sensibilities, sir, and I politely request you refrain from further besmirching.
I'm afraid you simply must be speaking about a different Jim Oberg, sir!

No, I don't think so, I am speaking about the very same James Oberg who is a professional debunker! Why is he allowed to besmirch astronauts but we are not allowed to besmirch him???