Astronaut Gordon Cooper's UFO encounter and Government deniability

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
reply to post by NotReallyASecret

 

No it does not. Lets put this into perspective. The B2 bomber was secret for a long time and when people saw it they thought it was a alien spacecraft. I remember as a kid seeing the thing revealed to the news on national TV. I asked my parents why they would reveal a secret aircraft. The answer is simple, they already have newer ones that they are not telling us about that are in service. The cutting edge of the secret aircraft department is about 50 years ahead of the commercial efforts. Soon however, the newer tech will be revealed. The one in service now is claimed by many to be the TR3-B which supposedly uses electro-gravity tech but I don't have proof of such claims.

Has the "secret aircraft department" access to time travel as well?

internationalpics.blogspot.de...

Here it is at it stands:

Officially the White House know zilch about UFOs, unofficially the official part is a blatant lie and the White House has been recieving UFO reports for decades. The main one that I can think of and there is proof of it, was the well-known Iranian incident from the 80s, in which, according to a dispatch list, a report was sent to various organisations and the White House was on it.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Here it is at it stands:

Officially the White House know zilch about UFOs, unofficially the official part is a blatant lie and the White House has been recieving UFO reports for decades. The main one that I can think of and there is proof of it, was the well-known Iranian incident from the 80s, in which, according to a dispatch list, a report was sent to various organisations and the White House was on it.

Yeah I am on the lookout for unequivical incidents the government was involved with.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
Where is the logic here?

I've heard the other explanations, such as military craft.

But since these were spotted since the 1940's, I think that explanation is bullsheeet.

Another explanation is time travel, which is super-bullsheeeet.


They are aliens bro. Live with it.

reply to post by NotReallyASecret


I appreciate your search for the truth, but I fear our govt has buried the truth so deep I fear we may never. I've said for some time that any unequivocal evidence of UFOs is Not with the government, but in the hands of private defense contractors, and has been since the 1950's. Why? Because any evidence of UFOs would be free from FOIA requests when maintained by private companies. This way the evidence can stay buried so far deep no one will ever know for sure. Companies like Lockheed, Batelle, Raytheon, Boeing, EG&G, The Rand Corporation, etc.

Originally posted by earthdude
I just don't see why Cooper decided these UFOs he and others saw were of extraterrestrial origin. He is an intelligent man but his logic in this matter escapes me. Just because something is fast and saucer shaped does not make it from another planet.

He was probably working off the assumption that given current aerospace technology then (and now). Where he'd been to space strapped onto a rocket and then orbited the Earth several times in a small capsule before parachuting to Earth. An object that displayed vastly greater performance capabilities than anything he's seen such as the Saturn V would indicate it didn't belong to us. Sounds logical to me.

Originally posted by lifttheveil
This video may shed more light on the OP for people who don't know what he/she is talking about

Great short interview from a very respected source indeed!

I've seen this before and glad you posted this !

Thanks

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein

Originally posted by IMSAM

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by NotReallyASecret

 

Prove there was government deniability......Or who Gordon Cooper is......Or anything for that matter when you start a thread my friend....

I m no american but when you say who Gordon cooper is it sounds strange because i believe he is a Hero over there.He was the last to be launced to space and did solo an orbital mission

edit on 10-5-2012 by IMSAM because: (no reason given)

Sorry but you missed my point....It has nothing to do with me not knowing....I was offering information to the OP that there is something supposed to be added to a thread started, to assist the reader in what you are talking about.......3 lines of text with nothing else is not enough information....

There was nothing wrong with The OP's presentation.
You were merely nitpicking and if you had nothing to add to the thread you should have moved along.
You are aware these forums DO have moderators ? So you really don't need to make it your mission to police them .

Back on topic.
Gordon Cooper has made many claims of close encounters , but at the end of the day , not a single one can be substantiated.
Regardless of ones reputation , story telling is just story telling unless one has evidence to back them up .

DP

If Gordon Cooper is somehow lieing (which I highly doubt), then the government should have the balls to say that!

Either way, I want a government response.

Maybe the bigger issue is why a claim by any person should be accepted before any verification was attempted, any other witnesses interviewed, any contempory documentation examined. The eagerness of people here to swallow ANY story that supports pre-existing belief, without even the PRETENSE of independent checking, is sad.It's why ufology is the poster child of pseudo-science.

One doesn't have to AGREE with proposed prosaic explanations, but at least don't pretend they don't exist, or pretend that research decades ago -- long available on the internet -- does not raise serious questions about the credibility of this single-witness story.

When 'famous people' make pro-UFO statements -- or such statements are attributed to them -- notice how even the most 'serious' ufologists scrupulously AVOID digging into them -- maybe out of fear they will find incovenient facts and explanations that would ruin the propaganda value of the statements. And how they -- for example, Fox in 'I know what I saw' -- falsely claim that alternate explanations don't even exist.

The Edwards AFB Bittick/Gettys case was profoundly investigated by pro-UFO research James McDonald in the mid-1960s and he reported his results in congressional testimony. There was no landing, There was no Gordon Cooper involvement. There was no coverup -- the story was in local newspapers and a formal Blue Book report was submitted, WITH the photographs, which any SERIOUS researcher can obtain.

Cooper has also written -- in 'Leap of Faith' -- that he saved the space shuttle program from a lethal design flaw by relaying a telepathic warning from space aliens, to NASA. Is there ANYONE who wants to believe THAT without a shred of proof?

This is a GREAT case to highlight what is so pathetically wrong with 'modern ufology'. Thanks for bringing it up.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
If Gordon Cooper is somehow lieing (which I highly doubt), then the government should have the balls to say that! Either way, I want a government response.

Would it surprise you to learn that Cooper, after being quietly booted out of the astronaut program, campaigned around the country for various aviation inventions that he endorsed, and based on his endorsement investors gave millions of dollars to the advocates of these projects -- every penny of which was lost to fraud?

They all believed exactly as YOU did, about trusting Cooper. Too bad YOU weren't around to give Cooper's buddies all YOUR money, so you might also have learned an important lesson you seem defiantly resistent to.

Very interesting and credible story about Cooper undergoing anti-aging treatment...

www.andrewsadock.com...

The man he was talking about was identified in his autobiography, he is Dan Fry.

en.wikipedia.org...

So at this stage in his intellectual development, he already believed Dan Fry's stories.

This seems significant to me. Discussion?

The Cooper testimony is usually treated as the 'jewel in the crown' of UFO evidence, but if his stories were never actually investigated -- as my own research indicates -- and is severely at variance with other witnesses, don't we have a pretty eye-opening hypothesis? Even the BEST data, if adequately examined, might not be nearly as solid as it is made to look by presenters who deliberately omit contrary evidence and arguments?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
If Gordon Cooper is somehow lieing (which I highly doubt), then the government should have the balls to say that! Either way, I want a government response.

Would it surprise you to learn that Cooper, after being quietly booted out of the astronaut program, campaigned around the country for various aviation inventions that he endorsed, and based on his endorsement investors gave millions of dollars to the advocates of these projects -- every penny of which was lost to fraud?

They all believed exactly as YOU did, about trusting Cooper. Too bad YOU weren't around to give Cooper's buddies all YOUR money, so you might also have learned an important lesson you seem defiantly resistent to.

What your saying Mr. Oberg, was that Mr. Cooper was a lousy business man. Since I never met him, or had dealings with him (to my knowledge) I can't speak to that fact. But that alone at least for me, does not automatically invalidate what he has said about UFO's It also does not prove it either. As this topic is known to do, were left with more questions then we have answers.

Originally posted by arbiture1200

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
If Gordon Cooper is somehow lieing (which I highly doubt), then the government should have the balls to say that! Either way, I want a government response.

Would it surprise you to learn that Cooper, after being quietly booted out of the astronaut program, campaigned around the country for various aviation inventions that he endorsed, and based on his endorsement investors gave millions of dollars to the advocates of these projects -- every penny of which was lost to fraud?

They all believed exactly as YOU did, about trusting Cooper. Too bad YOU weren't around to give Cooper's buddies all YOUR money, so you might also have learned an important lesson you seem defiantly resistent to.

What your saying Mr. Oberg, was that Mr. Cooper was a lousy business man. Since I never met him, or had dealings with him (to my knowledge) I can't speak to that fact. But that alone at least for me, does not automatically invalidate what he has said about UFO's It also does not prove it either. As this topic is known to do, were left with more questions then we have answers.

In regard to the business dealings, what I'd like to make more clear is that people who trusted Cooper based merely on his reputation earned honorably as a NASA astronaut, lost millions of dollars of their own money.

That very same attittude is exhibited by people who say, there's no NEED to verify Cooper's stories from indep-edent sources, he has such a wonderful reputation as a hero astronaut, his word doesn't NEED double-checking.

That's the point I meant to make.

Secondly, in assessing his own judgment of OTHER people's claims [and self-assessing his own ability to properly assess those claims], the bad business calls DO come into play, along with his own credulity regarding the contactee claims of Dan Fry.

But that's also a secondary issue, because he also has presented first-person stories of impressive personal experiences.

Those are the stories that I, apparently alone, suggest ought to be investigated with regard to the testimony of other people there at the time, rather than merely accepting Cooper's narrative as gospel without regard to anyone else's testimony.

Does Cooper's story stand on its own without checking?

Those who said 'yes', regarding the business deal claims, lost millions of dollars as a consequence of trusting Cooper's word.

Those who STILL say 'yes', regarding his UFO claims, still say yes. What have they lost?

reply to post by JimOberg


I agree with you here mate. Don't take their story's on face value without any research or evidence to put forward.

HOWEVER...This is exactly as you said a "hero" astronaut... That's not some country hick on too much booze and its not a 7/11 clerk who is just out for attention. This is one of the few people who have done what the rest of us haven't and probably wont get the chance to do in our lifetime.

That alone gives credibility to what he says, he HAS been up there, we have NOT. unfortunately its as simple as that... and if he decides to lie we can never prove him wrong and if he tells the truth well why on earth should he have to bring forth evidence?

this man has been to the abyss and back his story is the only story until we all go up there =D

Originally posted by Aarcadius
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I agree with you here mate. Don't take their story's on face value without any research or evidence to put forward.

HOWEVER...This is exactly as you said a "hero" astronaut... That's not some country hick on too much booze and its not a 7/11 clerk who is just out for attention. This is one of the few people who have done what the rest of us haven't and probably wont get the chance to do in our lifetime.

That alone gives credibility to what he says, he HAS been up there, we have NOT. unfortunately its as simple as that... and if he decides to lie we can never prove him wrong and if he tells the truth well why on earth should he have to bring forth evidence?

this man has been to the abyss and back

his story is the only story until we all go up there =D

Thanks for the detailed and candid reply.

I think you are suggesting that people who have counterfeit UFO experiences -- misperceptions, honest mistakes, memory lapses -- are somehow less intelligent than other people who don't have such flaws.

This view is embodied in the common meme that to suggest somebody has misperceived a prosaic phenomanon as a UFO is an 'insult to their intelligence', and it only happens to stupid, ignorant people . Pejorative put-down words such as the one you used, 'hick' or 'clerk', solidify this judgment.

My own experience is that the opposite is true. The process of interpretation of fragmentary perceptions is one that cues up existing memories in a person's brain to 'fill in the gaps' in a partial perception, and often people with the most experience or knowledge or education have much wider past perceptions than other people, and they also have a more instinctive desire to 'make sense' out of an experience, based on their previous experience base. But that can lead them, more often than a less expereinced or intellectually active person, to edit [and supplement] their raw perceptions into a narrative consistent with their expectations.

Specific example: this is why the NTSB accident investigators PREFER the grandmother or the 'clerk' as a source of eyewitness reports of an aircraft accident, to a pilot or an engineer. In their experience, they have found that the former will provide accurate accounts of raw perceptions -- sight, sound, direction, duration -- while the latter will subtly introduce into their narrative features of how they THINK the accident must have occurred. By trying to explain it rather than merely report it, they subconsciously and inadvertantly edit -- by omission, by stress, by interpretation -- the testimony. Their very intelligence leads them astray.

Then there is the normal human urge to dramatize a 'good story', especially to please the target audience -- and also to centralize the narrator's role in the story, from the periphery to the main protagonist. Oral historians have well documented the process whereby witnesses evolve their stories over a sequence of many re-tellings, all through complete innocence and with no conscious intent to deceive.

With Cooper's stories we see exactly that process even when he talks about spaceflight events. His yarn about his spaceship being pounded by a swarm of meteors, leaving puncture marks in the hull, is straight out of a 1950s sci-fi B-movie, but it never happened -- the Gemini-5 spacecraft was examined on the ground, and is now on public display, and no dents were ever noted, or are now visible. His brief version of Jim McDivitt's encounter with a beer-can-shaped UFO in 1965 contains at least a dozen factual errors that 'improved' the story, but diminished its evidentiary value to zero. Cooper's own claim to have saved the space shuttle from a lethal design flaw by relaying to NASA a telepathic warning from space aliens evaporates when compared to the total absence of any records of any subsequent repairs to the hardware described.

So when his stand-alone stories are assessed, his narrative style needs to be considered, and his intelligence and courage are unconnected with the veracity -- or lack -- of the claims.

And when such an investigation shows his stories to be totally at variance with the recollections of EVERY other witness who could be contacted, the sad conclusion must be that his claims fail to register as accurate.

And when the negative results of these investigations, posted for years on the Internet, are withheld from documentaries and books that highlight Cooper's stories as 'top evidence', some other much less innocent and much less honest process might really be involved.

I know many of you are per-programmed to hatye on Jim Oberg, ignorantly believing he is part of the "machine" But it you took one second to look into his claims, math and other sundries you would feel foolish in your beliefes.

It is people like James that will separate the bs from the stuff that needs REAL consideration. But becasue it is fashionable amount the dough eyed ignorant believers to denounce anyone "official" except when it fits thier fantasies, lol) there is no hope of this subject moving forward.

James, your wasting your time. I admire you for it, but yo understand the mentality your working with here and I'm trying to figure out what you mean to accomplish, for ever on person who actually understand what you are saying and does further investigation, a thousand idiots take his/her place.

It's about the click-thoroughs, not the truth. But then again, any thread your in delivers in the click through department, so I guess that's why ATS tolerates you.

Originally posted by JimOberg
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I think you are suggesting that people who have counterfeit UFO experiences -- misperceptions, honest mistakes, memory lapses -- are somehow less intelligent than other people who don't have such flaws.

What does intelligence have to do with credibility? has there been a hillbilly in space? no.. has there been a 7/11 clerk in space? no. Has there been a school teacher in space? no. has there etc... NO

stop trying to make it out like i give a damn who is more intelligent or how they chose to live their lives.. the fact is the rest of the world is simply not important in this topic... its about whats beyond what we know and understand.

NOT OTHER PEOPLE no... The "HERO" astronaut ... YES...if you'd like ill color code the info that doesn't seem to sink in.

We are not having a common chat about a person seeing something in the sky. we are talking about the elite group of men(at first sorry) that have been above what we call existence! after all, we all base our thoughts and our lives on what happens on this floating rock... these men have left it and ventured where no man has been before. and not you or i can in anyway speak any less of them then "HERO'S". so for you to say that he isn't telling the truth? WHO are you! your simply a nobody doing a pointless job that will in 50 years time be nothing.. THEY ARE "HERO'S" and forever will be remembered.

And that IMO makes them ALOT more credible then your average "joe".

reply to post by gameisupman


I think you are placing a bit too much faith in Jim Oberg. His organization CSICOP was involved in making a couple of NOVA specials a few years back, and there are some pretty strong indications that Phillip Klass, Jim Oberg and other CSICOP members took a rather heavy-handed approach in helping squash abductee claims. Here is an excerpt from Terry Hansen's 'Missing Times' book (excellent read BTW):

ufoupdateslist.com...

At one point Harvard's Dr. John Mack threatened to sue NOVA over libelous content in their original cut of 'Kidnapped by Aliens?' special. These segments were eventually removed, by NOVA insisted that it wasn't due to the legal pressure from Dr. Mack's lawyers. There is good reason to believe that these defamatory segments would have been left in the special had Dr. Mack not spoken up.

While Jim Oberg uses the concept of guilt by association to discredit Gordon Cooper and his relationship with Mr. Fry (not to mention Cooper's bad business practices), the same guilt by association can be made with Jim and his CSICOP buddies (most notably Klass) and helping make that claptrap of a UFO special on NOVA.

I am not saying either is right, but this sword cuts both ways. Who to believe? Make up your own mind, and take anything Jim Oberg or Gordon Cooper says with the same proverbial grain of salt.