Amazing collection of NASA UFO footage from missions

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by JimOberg

 

G'day Jim

I guess one could look into the various names that arise in Cooper's NASA bio & start to investigate direct & tangential relationships.

Don't you find it curious that the list ends in 1975??

G'day again Jim

Based on some desktop research (not extensive, but as time allows), there appears to be very little information about Cooper post '75.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by ocker


G'day Ocker

It's a conundrum.....

Cooper's down home, folkesy (even macho) persona on the one hand.....

.....& his very unusual claims on the other hand

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

That was a great video made up almost entirely of background sattelite fly-by's, lens flare, compression artifacts, and space junk.

Now, one or two of the clips were decently cool, but all the rest is nothing more than man made junk floating around up there.

Originally posted by ocker
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim ... yes i have read the report.

OK, for those who haven't, is this an accurate summary of the report:

1. At agreed upon times during the mission, Mitchell
concentrated on ESP card images one after the other for an agreed-on interval.

2. Participants on Earth opened their minds at this exact time and wrote down the sequence of images they saw. They did this for as many of
the agreed-on times as possible (some could not do them all).

3. After Mitcehll returned, his records and the ground
participant records were turned over to another investigator
who matched the ground sequences to the space sequence that
had occurred simultaneously.

4. Matches were counted. Statistical analysis followed showing the
results better than random by a significant factor.

Is that more or less the way it happened?

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Based on some desktop research (not extensive, but as time allows), there appears to be very little information about Cooper post '75.

Nov 7, 1997 Wall Street Journal --
summarized here:
www.jamesoberg.com...

Originally posted by JimOberg

OK, for those who haven't, is this an accurate summary of the report:

1. At agreed upon times during the mission, Mitchell
concentrated on ESP card images one after the other for an agreed-on interval.

2. Participants on Earth opened their minds at this exact time and wrote down the sequence of images they saw. They did this for as many of
the agreed-on times as possible (some could not do them all).

3. After Mitcehll returned, his records and the ground
participant records were turned over to another investigator
who matched the ground sequences to the space sequence that
had occurred simultaneously.

4. Matches were counted. Statistical analysis followed showing the
results better than random by a significant factor.

Is that more or less the way it happened?

This question seems to have shut down further discussions.

It was a trick question, of course -- I'm describing the experiment the way it is commonly described in public and on TV and the talk shows. But not the way it was truthfully described in the original paper.

1 & 2. The 'sendings' and 'readings' were NOT simultaneous, they were scattered all across the mission's timeline. Some readings even occurred BEFORE the prsumably matching 'sendings'.

3. Mitchell performed the matchups, and tried various ways to assign readings to sendings -- sometimes applying different criteria to different receivers, sometimes assigning readings that had occurred near-simo to different sendings. He settled on the 'right' matchup as being the one that he found the best statistical significance. He had no pre-experiment criterion, only post-experiment ad hoc shuffling to make the stats turn out 'good.

4. The score was 'significant' because he counted 'misses' as 'hits' -- that is, the raw scores showed LESS correct answers than by chance, which he concluded was a positive success.

I applaud his curiosity, dedication, and imagination -- always have, always will.

I do not agree that his experiment showed anything except creative scorekeeping.