Gordon Cooper: Revisited

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: CardDown
I've tried, but can't locate a 1973 New York City UFO conference.

Was the whole thing made up, or is it possible the date or location is in error?

My estimate of the date is based on the August 1973 article's reference to a 'recent' event.

But if the quotation is fictional, so might the conference have been -- good point.

Here's the latest exchange, with Cooper's co-author on his autobiography:

here's another dead end overnight. I wrote to Cooper's co-author:

Date: Tue, December 09, 2014 10:01 pm
To: [email protected]

I'm digging into the early 1970's in Gordo Cooper's life when he first 'came out' with his UFO stories, and have found the August 1973 French magazine which contained an alleged transcript of a Cooper interview on UFOs at a NYC international UFO conference. It is the source of the quote used by Columbia Pictures to promote CE3K in 1977, and even after Cooper sued them over it, they are STILL using it. Did you ever hear anything about Cooper even attending such a conference in early 1973? Do you have any information about his lawsuit's conclusion [he described it to me in a letter in 1978]? It appears he was completely innocent in this matter and the quoted material was, as he insisted, fictitious. But how, I wonder, did the hoaxer [possibly an Italian journalist named Benny Manocchia] know of Cooper's UFO interest? The beginning of that chapter in his life remains obscure, can you cost any light into it? Thanks!

His answer:

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:12 AM

I'm sorry, I can't. That was way before I was involved with Gordon, and we never discuss the case. I do know he had strong feelings about UFOs, the existence of ET life, etc. You probably read that in our book, Leap of Faith, yes?

Why do you take the time to research about quotations of an Astronaut who you've already made your mind up on?
What drives you to be on the Internet daily, on all major sites and video uploading sites basically ridiculing anything with an opinion on the UFO phenomenon?

Just an honest question.

I can't speak for Jim but from what I can tell he does thorough research into this stuff because he is interested in GENUINE UFO reports from astronauts. And the definition of UFO here is the original definition UNIDENTIFIED Flying Objects rather than the modern definition of "OMG Itz Alienz!"

Only by clearing out misquotes, obvious misidentifications, etc will the truly strange be uncovered. Jim is an INVESTIGATOR not a believer.

As for his reasons I suspect it may have to do with things like astronaut safety during those missions, after all some of those UFOs could very well be space debris or even high energy particles penetrating the spacecraft and astronaut's eyes/optic nerve.

And perhaps when that stuff is ruled out maybe there could be something even stranger like a leftover alien artifact, etc but you don't get to that stuff by thinking every UFO is evidence of aliens. You get there by -Eliminating- EVERY OTHER POSSIBILITY.

If you do a search of Jim's posts on ATS you will see he often seeks more information on UFO sightings around launches and space missions. His interest is genuine in my opinion. Is he a skeptic? Yes. We all should be when dealing with the unknown because only through well-reasoned logic do we find the truth. Jim is a skeptic of UFOs as evidence of aliens but that doesn't make him a debunker. And revealing the truth behind a sighting or quote does not make him a debunker, it makes him an investigator.

In science, we're open to null results or results which run counter to those which we might hope for. In UFOlogy that seems to have been lost and replaced with a narrative which if an investigator does not subscribe to they are automatically a debunker.

That is no way forward for UFOlogy.

originally posted by: JimOberg

skyblueworld
reply to post by JimOberg

 

That's because he still had a career to finish, he chose his answer well didn't he, or the Mercury missions would of been a no no for him.

Isn't that a leeeetle too convenient? He says something you don't want to believe and so you invent a justification for him lying?

I've never seen any reason to suspect deliberate deception in anything he's been saying. I think the more serious question is, here's a guy of unquestioned integrity and intelligence, do his stories show any patterns of subconscious elaboration and dramatic improvement over the years? It's not like this isn't a very common human narrative-drift effect.

So I'd suggest the first step with assessing Cooper's stories is to figure out why HIS later versions of the Edwards story were so different from his earlier versions AND from the version reported by James McDonald to congress in 1968.

Wouldn't it also be proper to search out other potential witnesses to the 1951 Germany story and the 1957 Edwards story? But aside from mcDonald, has anybody heard of ANYBODY ever doing that? Is there a potential problem in validation requirements, here?

He sure beats the heck out of the misc ramblings and awkward denials of Buzz Aldrin.

originally posted by: EnPassant

JimOberg


Yes, and other sincere stories that he has told.

But the question I'm raising doesn't deal with his stories. It's to ask why, for decade after decade, the UFO community not only didn't WANT to look for verification, they seemed to actively want to NOT know of any problems with his stories that were -- and ARE -- too useful for public relations purposes? So to avoid the risk of the run-of-the-mill misperception rate [>>90%], do NOT take the chance of discovering anything inconvenient.

Is that REALLY the attitude that authentic investigators can use successfully?

You can fight forever against almost anything by questioning the witnesses' ability to see what they are looking at. If this kind of argument was pushed to the limits all kinds of criminals, in court, could go free because the witness, arguably, might have gone goggle-eyed at the critical moment. What you need to do is look at the number of astronauts and pilots who see these things and ask if they could all be making mistakes. To argue they are is saying the Air Force has a bunch of prematurely geriatric nincompoops defending the country. It just doesn't add up to a convincing hypothesis. And then you have to get all the non Air Force sightings and dismiss them on the same basis. Look at it this way. There are two possibilities-

1. There are real ufos. This being the case it is likely that people are seeing what they are looking at and reporting it accurately.

2. There are no ufos. This means there is some kind of mass pathology going on since the 50s and before and it is gathering momentum. Is it likely that thousands of otherwise normal people could have a selective pathology pertaining only to the perception of ufos and are otherwise perfectly normal and function properly otherwise?

You need to get into a higher gear with this. The Alternative Hypothesis does not work because its implications - if you think carefully about them - are absurd and it is harder to believe than the ufo explanation.

Very good post.

originally posted by: wjgesq

originally posted by: EnPassant

JimOberg


Yes, and other sincere stories that he has told.

But the question I'm raising doesn't deal with his stories. It's to ask why, for decade after decade, the UFO community not only didn't WANT to look for verification, they seemed to actively want to NOT know of any problems with his stories that were -- and ARE -- too useful for public relations purposes? So to avoid the risk of the run-of-the-mill misperception rate [>>90%], do NOT take the chance of discovering anything inconvenient.

Is that REALLY the attitude that authentic investigators can use successfully?

You can fight forever against almost anything by questioning the witnesses' ability to see what they are looking at. If this kind of argument was pushed to the limits all kinds of criminals, in court, could go free because the witness, arguably, might have gone goggle-eyed at the critical moment. What you need to do is look at the number of astronauts and pilots who see these things and ask if they could all be making mistakes. To argue they are is saying the Air Force has a bunch of prematurely geriatric nincompoops defending the country. It just doesn't add up to a convincing hypothesis. And then you have to get all the non Air Force sightings and dismiss them on the same basis. Look at it this way. There are two possibilities-

1. There are real ufos. This being the case it is likely that people are seeing what they are looking at and reporting it accurately.

2. There are no ufos. This means there is some kind of mass pathology going on since the 50s and before and it is gathering momentum. Is it likely that thousands of otherwise normal people could have a selective pathology pertaining only to the perception of ufos and are otherwise perfectly normal and function properly otherwise?

You need to get into a higher gear with this. The Alternative Hypothesis does not work because its implications - if you think carefully about them - are absurd and it is harder to believe than the ufo explanation.

Very good post.

Absolutely a great post, EnPassant. Oberg's position is absurd, a joke. He'll tell you no person is capable of giving a reasonably accurate account of any event they witnessed. Not an astronaut, pilot, or cop. Nobody. Not even multiple witnesses. They just aren't qualified.

Nope, only Jim Oberg is qualified to tell them what they actually saw, and you can be sure Jim Oberg will tell you it wasn't aliens or a flying saucer!

It takes balls, for a man who was nowhere near any single one of these events, to tell the people who were actually there that they are just too incompetent to accurately describe what they saw. It also takes clinical narcissism and delusions of grandeur.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: wjgesq

originally posted by: EnPassant

JimOberg


Yes, and other sincere stories that he has told.

But the question I'm raising doesn't deal with his stories. It's to ask why, for decade after decade, the UFO community not only didn't WANT to look for verification, they seemed to actively want to NOT know of any problems with his stories that were -- and ARE -- too useful for public relations purposes? So to avoid the risk of the run-of-the-mill misperception rate [>>90%], do NOT take the chance of discovering anything inconvenient.

Is that REALLY the attitude that authentic investigators can use successfully?

You can fight forever against almost anything by questioning the witnesses' ability to see what they are looking at. If this kind of argument was pushed to the limits all kinds of criminals, in court, could go free because the witness, arguably, might have gone goggle-eyed at the critical moment. What you need to do is look at the number of astronauts and pilots who see these things and ask if they could all be making mistakes. To argue they are is saying the Air Force has a bunch of prematurely geriatric nincompoops defending the country. It just doesn't add up to a convincing hypothesis. And then you have to get all the non Air Force sightings and dismiss them on the same basis. Look at it this way. There are two possibilities-

1. There are real ufos. This being the case it is likely that people are seeing what they are looking at and reporting it accurately.

2. There are no ufos. This means there is some kind of mass pathology going on since the 50s and before and it is gathering momentum. Is it likely that thousands of otherwise normal people could have a selective pathology pertaining only to the perception of ufos and are otherwise perfectly normal and function properly otherwise?

You need to get into a higher gear with this. The Alternative Hypothesis does not work because its implications - if you think carefully about them - are absurd and it is harder to believe than the ufo explanation.

Very good post.

Absolutely a great post, EnPassant. Oberg's position is absurd, a joke. He'll tell you no person is capable of giving a reasonably accurate account of any event they witnessed. Not an astronaut, pilot, or cop. Nobody. Not even multiple witnesses. They just aren't qualified.

Nope, only Jim Oberg is qualified to tell them what they actually saw, and you can be sure Jim Oberg will tell you it wasn't aliens or a flying saucer!

It takes balls, for a man who was nowhere near any single one of these events, to tell the people who were actually there that they are just too incompetent to accurately describe what they saw. It also takes clinical narcissism and delusions of grandeur.

Great post of your own!

Never understood how these self professed skeptics and professional debunkers feel entitled to entirely dismiss the observations of others. They profess to embrace the scientific method, yet they forget the role observation and recording play in science.

a reply to: Scdfa

He'll tell you no person is capable of giving a reasonably accurate account of any event they witnessed.

People see what they want to see. Your observations are case in point.

a reply to: wjgesq

Never understood how these self professed skeptics and professional debunkers feel entitled to entirely dismiss the observations of others. They profess to embrace the scientific method, yet they forget the role observation and recording play in science.

So which "observations" do you believe when the "observation" changes over time and becomes more elaborate? Do we also trust "observations" even if that person says that they never made that "observation"?

Lets just say it. People that see UFOs are beyond scrutiny. Cooper did not have a mind capable of experiencing human psychology. Lets not question anything anyone says ever because that's the scientific method! Genius.

originally posted by: wjgesq

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: wjgesq

originally posted by: EnPassant

JimOberg


Yes, and other sincere stories that he has told.

But the question I'm raising doesn't deal with his stories. It's to ask why, for decade after decade, the UFO community not only didn't WANT to look for verification, they seemed to actively want to NOT know of any problems with his stories that were -- and ARE -- too useful for public relations purposes? So to avoid the risk of the run-of-the-mill misperception rate [>>90%], do NOT take the chance of discovering anything inconvenient.

Is that REALLY the attitude that authentic investigators can use successfully?

You can fight forever against almost anything by questioning the witnesses' ability to see what they are looking at. If this kind of argument was pushed to the limits all kinds of criminals, in court, could go free because the witness, arguably, might have gone goggle-eyed at the critical moment. What you need to do is look at the number of astronauts and pilots who see these things and ask if they could all be making mistakes. To argue they are is saying the Air Force has a bunch of prematurely geriatric nincompoops defending the country. It just doesn't add up to a convincing hypothesis. And then you have to get all the non Air Force sightings and dismiss them on the same basis. Look at it this way. There are two possibilities-

1. There are real ufos. This being the case it is likely that people are seeing what they are looking at and reporting it accurately.

2. There are no ufos. This means there is some kind of mass pathology going on since the 50s and before and it is gathering momentum. Is it likely that thousands of otherwise normal people could have a selective pathology pertaining only to the perception of ufos and are otherwise perfectly normal and function properly otherwise?

You need to get into a higher gear with this. The Alternative Hypothesis does not work because its implications - if you think carefully about them - are absurd and it is harder to believe than the ufo explanation.

Very good post.

Absolutely a great post, EnPassant. Oberg's position is absurd, a joke. He'll tell you no person is capable of giving a reasonably accurate account of any event they witnessed. Not an astronaut, pilot, or cop. Nobody. Not even multiple witnesses. They just aren't qualified.

Nope, only Jim Oberg is qualified to tell them what they actually saw, and you can be sure Jim Oberg will tell you it wasn't aliens or a flying saucer!

It takes balls, for a man who was nowhere near any single one of these events, to tell the people who were actually there that they are just too incompetent to accurately describe what they saw. It also takes clinical narcissism and delusions of grandeur.

Great post of your own!

Never understood how these self professed skeptics and professional debunkers feel entitled to entirely dismiss the observations of others. They profess to embrace the scientific method, yet they forget the role observation and recording play in science.

Aside from totally misrepresenting the point of my posts, this stomping and shouting serves to distract from the central question -- how did Cooper's story about the 1957 Edwards event evolve so markedly? Why is it SO different from McDonald's version told to Congress?

originally posted by: wjgesq.....

He sure beats the heck out of the misc ramblings and awkward denials of Buzz Aldrin.

I don't find Aldrin's comments at all opaque or obscure, where are you confused?

The crew observed what turned out to be components of their launch vehicle, as other outbound Apollo crews would also [never returning crews], and also seen and photographed through Earth telescopes. Where's the mystery, except in addled minds?

a reply to: JimOberg

Watch him babble on Larry King.

If that does not provide you with the clarity you desire, nothing will.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

He'll tell you no person is capable of giving a reasonably accurate account of any event they witnessed.

People see what they want to see. Your observations are case in point.

And what observations of mine are you referring to, scarecrow? I don't remember discussing any observations. Perhaps you're confused.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: wjgesq

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: wjgesq

originally posted by: EnPassant

JimOberg


Yes, and other sincere stories that he has told.

But the question I'm raising doesn't deal with his stories. It's to ask why, for decade after decade, the UFO community not only didn't WANT to look for verification, they seemed to actively want to NOT know of any problems with his stories that were -- and ARE -- too useful for public relations purposes? So to avoid the risk of the run-of-the-mill misperception rate [>>90%], do NOT take the chance of discovering anything inconvenient.

Is that REALLY the attitude that authentic investigators can use successfully?

You can fight forever against almost anything by questioning the witnesses' ability to see what they are looking at. If this kind of argument was pushed to the limits all kinds of criminals, in court, could go free because the witness, arguably, might have gone goggle-eyed at the critical moment. What you need to do is look at the number of astronauts and pilots who see these things and ask if they could all be making mistakes. To argue they are is saying the Air Force has a bunch of prematurely geriatric nincompoops defending the country. It just doesn't add up to a convincing hypothesis. And then you have to get all the non Air Force sightings and dismiss them on the same basis. Look at it this way. There are two possibilities-

1. There are real ufos. This being the case it is likely that people are seeing what they are looking at and reporting it accurately.

2. There are no ufos. This means there is some kind of mass pathology going on since the 50s and before and it is gathering momentum. Is it likely that thousands of otherwise normal people could have a selective pathology pertaining only to the perception of ufos and are otherwise perfectly normal and function properly otherwise?

You need to get into a higher gear with this. The Alternative Hypothesis does not work because its implications - if you think carefully about them - are absurd and it is harder to believe than the ufo explanation.

Very good post.

Absolutely a great post, EnPassant. Oberg's position is absurd, a joke. He'll tell you no person is capable of giving a reasonably accurate account of any event they witnessed. Not an astronaut, pilot, or cop. Nobody. Not even multiple witnesses. They just aren't qualified.

Nope, only Jim Oberg is qualified to tell them what they actually saw, and you can be sure Jim Oberg will tell you it wasn't aliens or a flying saucer!

It takes balls, for a man who was nowhere near any single one of these events, to tell the people who were actually there that they are just too incompetent to accurately describe what they saw. It also takes clinical narcissism and delusions of grandeur.

Great post of your own!

Never understood how these self professed skeptics and professional debunkers feel entitled to entirely dismiss the observations of others. They profess to embrace the scientific method, yet they forget the role observation and recording play in science.

Aside from totally misrepresenting the point of my posts, this stomping and shouting serves to distract from the central question -- how did Cooper's story about the 1957 Edwards event evolve so markedly? Why is it SO different from McDonald's version told to Congress?

No, Oberg, that is not the "central question" to anything but your attempted character assassination of a brave and heroic astronaut.

The real central question is why a man like you is so desperate, and willing to stoop so very low, to slander and defame a hero like Gordon Cooper? What terrible inner impulses drive a person to work so hard to twist the truth, to stray so far from the scientific method, all in a losing effort to mislead the public about the reality of alien contact?

And no offense, but either you know full well that aliens and alien abductions are the truth, or you're stunningly incompetent and were ridiculously overpaid by NASA. In which case, as a taxpaying citizen, I'd like to petition you to pay back the salary you earned.

a reply to: Scdfa

And what observations of mine are you referring to, scarecrow? I don't remember discussing any observations.

The ones in your post. You made up a bunch of stuff that has no bearing on reality.

Perhaps you're confused.

not at all.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: wjgesq

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: wjgesq

originally posted by: EnPassant

JimOberg


Yes, and other sincere stories that he has told.

But the question I'm raising doesn't deal with his stories. It's to ask why, for decade after decade, the UFO community not only didn't WANT to look for verification, they seemed to actively want to NOT know of any problems with his stories that were -- and ARE -- too useful for public relations purposes? So to avoid the risk of the run-of-the-mill misperception rate [>>90%], do NOT take the chance of discovering anything inconvenient.

Is that REALLY the attitude that authentic investigators can use successfully?

You can fight forever against almost anything by questioning the witnesses' ability to see what they are looking at. If this kind of argument was pushed to the limits all kinds of criminals, in court, could go free because the witness, arguably, might have gone goggle-eyed at the critical moment. What you need to do is look at the number of astronauts and pilots who see these things and ask if they could all be making mistakes. To argue they are is saying the Air Force has a bunch of prematurely geriatric nincompoops defending the country. It just doesn't add up to a convincing hypothesis. And then you have to get all the non Air Force sightings and dismiss them on the same basis. Look at it this way. There are two possibilities-

1. There are real ufos. This being the case it is likely that people are seeing what they are looking at and reporting it accurately.

2. There are no ufos. This means there is some kind of mass pathology going on since the 50s and before and it is gathering momentum. Is it likely that thousands of otherwise normal people could have a selective pathology pertaining only to the perception of ufos and are otherwise perfectly normal and function properly otherwise?

You need to get into a higher gear with this. The Alternative Hypothesis does not work because its implications - if you think carefully about them - are absurd and it is harder to believe than the ufo explanation.

Very good post.

Absolutely a great post, EnPassant. Oberg's position is absurd, a joke. He'll tell you no person is capable of giving a reasonably accurate account of any event they witnessed. Not an astronaut, pilot, or cop. Nobody. Not even multiple witnesses. They just aren't qualified.

Nope, only Jim Oberg is qualified to tell them what they actually saw, and you can be sure Jim Oberg will tell you it wasn't aliens or a flying saucer!

It takes balls, for a man who was nowhere near any single one of these events, to tell the people who were actually there that they are just too incompetent to accurately describe what they saw. It also takes clinical narcissism and delusions of grandeur.

Great post of your own!

Never understood how these self professed skeptics and professional debunkers feel entitled to entirely dismiss the observations of others. They profess to embrace the scientific method, yet they forget the role observation and recording play in science.

Aside from totally misrepresenting the point of my posts, this stomping and shouting serves to distract from the central question -- how did Cooper's story about the 1957 Edwards event evolve so markedly? Why is it SO different from McDonald's version told to Congress?

No, Oberg, that is not the "central question" to anything but your attempted character assassination of a brave and heroic astronaut.

The real central question is why a man like you is so desperate, and willing to stoop so very low, to slander and defame a hero like Gordon Cooper? What terrible inner impulses drive a person to work so hard to twist the truth, to stray so far from the scientific method, all in a losing effort to mislead the public about the reality of alien contact?

And no offense, but either you know full well that aliens and alien abductions are the truth, or you're stunningly incompetent and were ridiculously overpaid by NASA. In which case, as a taxpaying citizen, I'd like to petition you to pay back the salary you earned.

How does Cooper's story about the 1957 Edwards event evolve so markedly from McDonald's version told to Congress?

You do admit they are inconsistent, right?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: wjgesq

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: wjgesq

originally posted by: EnPassant

JimOberg


Yes, and other sincere stories that he has told.

But the question I'm raising doesn't deal with his stories. It's to ask why, for decade after decade, the UFO community not only didn't WANT to look for verification, they seemed to actively want to NOT know of any problems with his stories that were -- and ARE -- too useful for public relations purposes? So to avoid the risk of the run-of-the-mill misperception rate [>>90%], do NOT take the chance of discovering anything inconvenient.

Is that REALLY the attitude that authentic investigators can use successfully?

You can fight forever against almost anything by questioning the witnesses' ability to see what they are looking at. If this kind of argument was pushed to the limits all kinds of criminals, in court, could go free because the witness, arguably, might have gone goggle-eyed at the critical moment. What you need to do is look at the number of astronauts and pilots who see these things and ask if they could all be making mistakes. To argue they are is saying the Air Force has a bunch of prematurely geriatric nincompoops defending the country. It just doesn't add up to a convincing hypothesis. And then you have to get all the non Air Force sightings and dismiss them on the same basis. Look at it this way. There are two possibilities-

1. There are real ufos. This being the case it is likely that people are seeing what they are looking at and reporting it accurately.

2. There are no ufos. This means there is some kind of mass pathology going on since the 50s and before and it is gathering momentum. Is it likely that thousands of otherwise normal people could have a selective pathology pertaining only to the perception of ufos and are otherwise perfectly normal and function properly otherwise?

You need to get into a higher gear with this. The Alternative Hypothesis does not work because its implications - if you think carefully about them - are absurd and it is harder to believe than the ufo explanation.

Very good post.

Absolutely a great post, EnPassant. Oberg's position is absurd, a joke. He'll tell you no person is capable of giving a reasonably accurate account of any event they witnessed. Not an astronaut, pilot, or cop. Nobody. Not even multiple witnesses. They just aren't qualified.

Nope, only Jim Oberg is qualified to tell them what they actually saw, and you can be sure Jim Oberg will tell you it wasn't aliens or a flying saucer!

It takes balls, for a man who was nowhere near any single one of these events, to tell the people who were actually there that they are just too incompetent to accurately describe what they saw. It also takes clinical narcissism and delusions of grandeur.

Great post of your own!

Never understood how these self professed skeptics and professional debunkers feel entitled to entirely dismiss the observations of others. They profess to embrace the scientific method, yet they forget the role observation and recording play in science.

Aside from totally misrepresenting the point of my posts, this stomping and shouting serves to distract from the central question -- how did Cooper's story about the 1957 Edwards event evolve so markedly? Why is it SO different from McDonald's version told to Congress?

No, Oberg, that is not the "central question" to anything but your attempted character assassination of a brave and heroic astronaut.

The real central question is why a man like you is so desperate, and willing to stoop so very low, to slander and defame a hero like Gordon Cooper? What terrible inner impulses drive a person to work so hard to twist the truth, to stray so far from the scientific method, all in a losing effort to mislead the public about the reality of alien contact?

And no offense, but either you know full well that aliens and alien abductions are the truth, or you're stunningly incompetent and were ridiculously overpaid by NASA. In which case, as a taxpaying citizen, I'd like to petition you to pay back the salary you earned.

How does Cooper's story about the 1957 Edwards event evolve so markedly from McDonald's version told to Congress?

You do admit they are inconsistent, right?

Pay back the people. Jim, it's the right thing to do. And stop avoiding the question: why is a man like you so desperate, and willing to stoop so very low, to slander and defame a hero like Gordon Cooper? What terrible inner impulses drive a person to work so hard to twist the truth, to stray so far from the scientific method, all in a losing effort to mislead the public about the reality of alien contact?

Please answer the question.

a reply to: Scdfa

why is a man like you so desperate, and willing to stoop so very low, to slander and defame a hero like Gordon Cooper? What terrible inner impulses drive a person to work so hard to twist the truth, to stray so far from the scientific method, all in a losing effort to mislead the public about the reality of alien contact?

This could have been the most overly dramatic post of 2014. Too bad its 2015 now.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

why is a man like you so desperate, and willing to stoop so very low, to slander and defame a hero like Gordon Cooper? What terrible inner impulses drive a person to work so hard to twist the truth, to stray so far from the scientific method, all in a losing effort to mislead the public about the reality of alien contact?

This could have been the most overly dramatic post of 2014. Too bad its 2015 now.

I'd like to thank the Academy.

Long-obsolete loyalty to the NASA-manipulated astronaut worship cult is touching. But for many people the results have been massive monetary losses. Here's an object lesson involving Cooper exploiting his hero status on behalf of investment schemes that bilked naïve folks out of millions of dollars:

www.jamesoberg.com...

Everybody, myself included, requires advocatus diaboli background checks for verification of authenticity.

When folks are ready to apply such prudent vetting to Cooper's UFO stories, my research over the past thirty years may be of use.

a reply to: JimOberg

The article describes Cooper being conned out of several fortunes and having the business acumen of a village idiot. The man sounds like he was naive, gullible and a dumb optimist. By golly I feel a tear in my eye for Stephen Greer! That man would have seen Cooper as the golden goose! Goddamn!

BUT your approach is offensive because it's smearing the darned fool to suggest he was a conman. Don't go so low Jim when you can stick to facts.

The facts (and three shakes of deduction) already tell anyone with a spit of brain-sense that the saucer story was a shaggy dog tale. Pretending he was a financial conman just ain't fair play. And Jim you've done great work brushing away the green stink of BS about NASA. Keep it clean and people listen. Going low makes you look bad.

Good day!

Never intended to say HE was the con man, he was the unwitting tool of con men [and I pointed out HE had invested and lost all of HIS money too].

The point I intended to make is that foolish no-need-to-verify-a-hero credulity by OTHER people led to THEIR misfortune.

Too bad all the current crop of like-minded folks weren't around back then, to pour their life savings into such Cooper-vouchsafed schemes.