Gordon Cooper: Revisited

a reply to: wjgesq

Thank you. A long time ago Jenny Randles said that the argument has been over for 20 years. They exist. And she wrote that nearly 20 years ago.

a reply to: EnPassant

Jenny Randles said that the argument has been over for 20 years.

Do you have a reference for that?

originally posted by: JimOberg
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.

I see, you don't like an astronaut talking about UFOs, so even though he's dead you will try drag his name through whatever mud you can find. In this case, bad investments, which have nothing to do with his stance on UFOs. It's not a smear campaign or attacking the messenger, it's the Scientific Method at work, Oberg-style.

And notice this folks, it's a tiny point, but it's the kind of talking-point bulletin that bears watching closely: Every time Oberg referrences Gordon Cooper discussing UFOs, Oberg belittles Cooper by calling his accounts "STORIES". Every time. Look at the post I'm quoting.

Oberg refers to "Cooper's UFO STORIES". Like it's an old pulp magazine from the 1940s. Stories. You know, like the kind a senile grandfather will tell. And in the same sentence, Oberg refers to his own RESEARCH. Got it? Gordon Cooper-STORIES. Jim Oberg-RESEARCH. Science wins again.

Oberg would have us picture a toddler on Cooper's shaky knee. "Gosh Grampa Cooper, tell me a story about flying saucers!"

See? The insinuation is that Cooper is a Storyteller. Storytelling involves embellishment, fabrication, and fantasy.

Stories. Never referred to as UFO statements. That's far more accurate, anyway; UFO statements, and UFO writings, or UFO accounts, or UFO testimony.

It's a clever but obvious form of bias. An attempt to dismiss any serious ufo event or discussion. Scroll back a while, and you can see how Oberg, and jade too, have used this euphemism consistently.

a reply to: Scdfa

Oberg refers to "Cooper's UFO STORIES". Like it's an old pulp magazine from the 1940s. Stories. You know, like the kind a senile grandfather will tell.

That's an interesting point. I often wonder if Cooper's stories were due to dementia. Not unlike Ronald Reagan.

Daniel Schacter has written extensively on distortions of memory and the “source confusions” that go with them, and in his book Searching for Memory recounts a well-known story about Ronald Reagan:

In the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan repeatedly told a heartbreaking story of a World War II bomber pilot who ordered his crew to bail out after his plane had been seriously damaged by an enemy hit. His young belly gunner was wounded so seriously that he was unable to evacuate the bomber. Reagan could barely hold back his tears as he uttered the pilot’s heroic response: “Never mind. We’ll ride it down together.” The press soon realized that this story was an almost exact duplicate of a scene in the 1944 film A Wing and a Prayer. Reagan had apparently retained the facts but forgotten their source.

Reagan was a vigorous sixty-nine-year-old at the time, was to be president for eight years, and only developed unmistakable dementia in the 1990s. But he had been given to acting and make-believe throughout his life, and he had displayed a vein of romantic fantasy and histrionism since he was young. Reagan was not simulating emotion when he recounted this story—his story, his reality, as he believed it to be—and had he taken a lie detector test (functional brain imaging had not yet been invented at the time), there would have been none of the telltale reactions that go with conscious falsehood.

www.nybooks.com...

Great point Scdfa! But I don't think that's what is being implied.

Just about ALL of UFOlogogy is based on stories. The new buzz word these days is "Narrative". I prefer "UFO Lore" or "mythology".

originally posted by: Scdfa
It's a clever but obvious form of bias. An attempt to dismiss any serious ufo event or discussion. Scroll back a while, and you can see how Oberg, and jade too, have used this euphemism consistently.

How can we account for the striking differences about the Edwards event, between McDonald's 1968 account, and the series of descriptions given by Cooper in later years?

What about the differences between Cooper's narrative of the 1951 German event, and that of all other witnesses? Why are they so different?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Scdfa
It's a clever but obvious form of bias. An attempt to dismiss any serious ufo event or discussion. Scroll back a while, and you can see how Oberg, and jade too, have used this euphemism consistently.

How can we account for the striking differences about the Edwards event, between McDonald's 1968 account, and the series of descriptions given by Cooper in later years?

What about the differences between Cooper's narrative of the 1951 German event, and that of all other witnesses? Why are they so different?

Still dodging my question, Jim. What drives you to stoop so low to smear and besmirch a person for speaking truthfully about UFOs?

And you do admit that they ALL tell of a flying saucer incident, correct?

Why is your focus on anything other than the extra-terrestrial craft?

Yet you focus instead on Cooper's failed investments?

More Science, Oberg-style!

a reply to: Scdfa
Jim Oberg's question is fair, yours is not. This thread is about Cooper not Oberg. In all your posts, you resort to ad hominem attacks instead of discussing valid points. Can you stay on topic? The inner workings of Jim Oberg are not that interesting to be honest. What IS interesting is Coopers UFO narrative and how it changed and became more elaborate over the years. How do you account for that and still believe in all these fantastic UFO tales? Now THAT is interesting.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa
Jim Oberg's question is fair, yours is not. This thread is about Cooper not Oberg. In all your posts, you resort to ad hominem attacks instead of discussing valid points. Can you stay on topic? The inner workings of Jim Oberg are not that interesting to be honest. What IS interesting is Coopers UFO narrative and how it changed and became more elaborate over the years. How do you account for that and still believe in all these fantastic UFO tales? Now THAT is interesting.

See how often you're wrong, zeta? I can barely keep up with how wrong you are, in fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen you be correct. Not in the Ufo forum anyway.

Which question of mine is not "fair", exactly? Because I've asked several many times now and they seem to stump Oberg .

By the way, I pointed out a few posts back how Oberg uses the term "UFO STORIES" to subtly demean what Gordon Cooper had to say about UFOs.

It's truly amusing to see you take it even further by dismissing Cooper's UFO accounts as "FANTASTIC UFO TALES"! Wowee! Is that a marvel comic book? Is it a pulp magazine from the 50's? Is Buck Rogers involved? Is it lavishly illustrated by Wally Wood or Frank Frazetta? How can I reserve a copy of "FANTASTIC UFO TALES"?

Sorry, zeta, euphemism FAIL.

Now, about these unfair questions of mine...

I can see why Oberg wouldn't want to answer some of them. Like:

"What makes you, Jim Oberg, stoop so low as to drag a dead astronaut through the mud in an effort to diminish the importance of his public statements on UFOs and aliens?"

Or:

"If you take issue with Gordon Cooper's UFO sightings and writings, why have you repeatedly focused on his failed financial investments, which have no bearing on his UFO stance? "

Or:

"Why are you so quick to abandon scientific method and resort instead to a cheap and tawdry smear campaign and downright character assassination?"

Don't like what Gordon Cooper had to say about UFOs and aliens ? Attack the messenger!

I can't see why Oberg won't answer questions that cast a shadow on HIS integrity, he's done the same to Cooper.

a reply to: Scdfa

See how often you're wrong, zeta?

um, no?

Which question of mine is not "fair", exactly

pretty much all of them.

The rest is just the same ad hominem and off topic rant.

which one of coopers stories are correct?

a reply to: Scdfa

See how often you're wrong, zeta?

um, no?

Which question of mine is not "fair", exactly

pretty much all of them.

The rest is just the same ad hominem and off topic rant.

which one of coopers stories are correct?

a reply to: Scdfa

Your questions are actually mostly rants. Maybe you should try a more calm and polite approach if you really are looking for answers. Are you?

Now it looks like you simply need to vent your frustration over people who don't validate and support your beliefs.

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: Scdfa

Your questions are actually mostly rants. Maybe you should try a more calm and polite approach if you really are looking for answers. Are you?

Now it looks like you simply need to vent your frustration over people who don't validate and support your beliefs.

No, I'm not looking for answers, especially not from oberg, jadestar, or zeta. Not about UFOs or aliens. They don't have the answers.

Like most people, they have ventured a guess: Are some UFOs actually vehicles of advanced alien beings who are interacting with humans? Or: Are millions of witnesses, contactees, and abductees lying, hoaxing, or delusional, with all the mountains of photographic, video, and radar evidence simply more hoaxes, or aberrant weather phenomena and top secret military aircraft?

They took a guess, and they have guessed incorrectly.

That is not to say that I think their guesses were made lightly, or without weighing a substantial amount of evidence that they felt compelled them to reach their conclusion.I'm certain at least for mr. Oberg it was an educated guess. A VERY educated guess, obviously, his credentials are truly impressive.

But he made an incorrect guess still the same. No shame in that.

In all fairness, the alien presence is a very elusive and clandestine operation. Combine that with a power structure that stands to lose a great deal if the general public were aware of the aliens, and it's no wonder so many are still in the dark. It's no wonder so many have guessed wrong. And once people start arguing their position, no matter how incorrect, it becomes ingrained, It soon becomes too late to ever change their mind, they've invested too much time and energy defending their position, right or wrong. In essence, they become their own oppressor. They re-enforce their own ignorance. It's a sad circle.

I'll be very honest here. I sometimes wonder if I had to guess, which side would I come down on? I think I would probably find the enormous tapestry of evidence to be fairly overwhelming. I'm confident I would. But I will never know, because I never had to guess. Not since 1966, anyway.

So I'm not upset that Oberg is wrong about UFOs, that doesn't frustrate me. No, what upsets me is that he will stoop to the most egregious behavior to keep others from knowing what I know. His treatment of Gordon Cooper is shameful. He should be embarrassed, but he is driven, or perhaps employed, to sink to the lowest level. I don't like bullies, or liars, or those who twist the truth to damage the character and reputation of a brave, heroic man whose only crime was to tell the truth.

You all should be uncomfortable with Oberg's attack of Cooper. But that is up to you.

a reply to: Scdfa

Is there ANY story in Cooper's autobiography 'Leap of Faith' that you would tolerate the slightest doubt about?

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: Scdfa

Is there ANY story in Cooper's autobiography 'Leap of Faith' that you would tolerate the slightest doubt about?

Story? Is it a storybook, Jim? Euphemism FAIL.

Answer my questions, I've asked them a dozen times.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: Scdfa

Your questions are actually mostly rants. Maybe you should try a more calm and polite approach if you really are looking for answers. Are you?

Now it looks like you simply need to vent your frustration over people who don't validate and support your beliefs.

No, I'm not looking for answers, especially not from oberg, jadestar, or zeta. Not about UFOs or aliens. They don't have the answers.

No one has any answers and the answers that are provided stem from simple guesswork. Skeptics will always have doubts until they're satisfied with whatever makes sense to them. Believers don't care one way or another because their minds are made up and they don't need facts as they're easily fooled.

Like most people, they have ventured a guess: Are some UFOs actually vehicles of advanced alien beings who are interacting with humans? Or: Are millions of witnesses, contactees, and abductees lying, hoaxing, or delusional, with all the mountains of photographic, video, and radar evidence simply more hoaxes, or aberrant weather phenomena and top secret military aircraft?

By the way you express yourself you must be a believer. You accept blindly and support blindly. Millions of witnesses of UFOs for sure although not all such witnesses saw something that upon closer examination will turn out to be a UAV. Contactees and abductees? Evidence is still out.

They took a guess, and they have guessed incorrectly.

That is not to say that I think their guesses were made lightly, or without weighing a substantial amount of evidence that they felt compelled them to reach their conclusion.I'm certain at least for mr. Oberg it was an educated guess. A VERY educated guess, obviously, his credentials are truly impressive.

But he made an incorrect guess still the same. No shame in that.

In all fairness, the alien presence is a very elusive and clandestine operation. Combine that with a power structure that stands to lose a great deal if the general public were aware of the aliens, and it's no wonder so many are still in the dark. It's no wonder so many have guessed wrong. And once people start arguing their position, no matter how incorrect, it becomes ingrained, It soon becomes too late to ever change their mind, they've invested too much time and energy defending their position, right or wrong. In essence, they become their own oppressor. They re-enforce their own ignorance. It's a sad circle.

You are in no position nor do I think you're qualified to make blanket statements such as "In all fairness, the alien presence is a very elusive and clandestine operation. Combine that with a power structure that stands to lose a great deal if the general public were aware of the aliens, and it's no wonder so many are still in the dark." You have no idea of what you are saying and I'll bet the farm against your alleged knowledge.

I'll be very honest here. I sometimes wonder if I had to guess, which side would I come down on? I think I would probably find the enormous tapestry of evidence to be fairly overwhelming. I'm confident I would. But I will never know, because I never had to guess. Not since 1966, anyway.

So I'm not upset that Oberg is wrong about UFOs, that doesn't frustrate me. No, what upsets me is that he will stoop to the most egregious behavior to keep others from knowing what I know. His treatment of Gordon Cooper is shameful. He should be embarrassed, but he is driven, or perhaps employed, to sink to the lowest level. I don't like bullies, or liars, or those who twist the truth to damage the character and reputation of a brave, heroic man whose only crime was to tell the truth.

You all should be uncomfortable with Oberg's attack of Cooper. But that is up to you.

Why do you call it an attack? Do you know something about Cooper and his alleged experiences that Oberg doesn't? He has been consistent in this and other forums about what is public knowledge plus an insider's knowledge which I think is beyond your ken.

Cooper is an American space hero but he is also a believer in ET without any evidence to support his belief. When it comes time to accept or not his claims about a filmed non-human craft one has to keep an open mind and not be swayed by a belief system that does not deal with reality. Only evidence is the convincing factor. One cannot call Cooper a liar and all one can do is simply wonder and leave it at that. Unless, of course, someone goes into the Government's Indiana Jones warehouse and finds all of the films and photos that have been confiscated particularly of events such as Cooper swore to and makes them finally public.

THAT'S DISCLOSURE!

a reply to: skyblueworld

Are you still trying to convince yourself or others that UFO's are real?

I am very surprised that there are any of you left. I thought most people made up their minds already and lost interest. I guess the fact no alien races have publicly made any contact may leave doubt in some minds.

Gordon Cooper and his testimonies actually made it to prime-time television a decade (or less ago) on some big shows aired on the Science Channel. I remember being surprised to hear it since he was an astronaut. I am sure many people saw the show. Unfortunately the people that need convincing do not watch these type of shows, and the people that watched it - science-minded people, do not need to be convinced.

It is fortunate that many astronauts have come forward to tell their UFO stories. They give some of the most credibility to UFO sightings because their observations are more discerning the the average person. Another Astronaut that has come forward with his stories is Story Musgrave. His was perhaps even a biological entity flying in open space.

What amuses me is the size of the stereotypical silver disk UFO's. I can't imagine more than one or two passengers on there (unless they are really tiny beings and we already know from accounts that they are not that small), so what this tells me is that they could not be confined in there for too long. This brings me to the conclusion that either a) they bend space-time or something like that and come from very far away (light years) really fast within hours, or b) are coming from a base that is close by - either inside the moon, on Earth inside a mountain, or deep in our deepest oceans, or all of the above.

Fortunately, I am not in the camp of being doubtful because I have seen them for myself with my own eyes. The first was in New York City in the late 70's that was a mass sighting. Many people ran up to the roofs of the buildings and I remember looking around and seeing a bunch on people on every adjacent roof. Everybody was looking in the same direction. I looked in that direction and surprisingly it was the very stereotypical silver disc UFO. At first people were wondering if they were filming a movie and wondering whether it was a prop. After hovering there for a while, and then descending, people started to realize that it was not. It was not afraid of being seen, in fact was probably trying to be seen. It landed behind some buildings and after a while took off. I believe it made the newspaper shortly after the event.

a reply to: Scdfa

Dude! Seriously.

sto·ry


1. an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.
"an adventure story"


2. an account of past events in someone's life or in the evolution of something.
"the story of modern farming"

Yes, they are UFO stories being told by Cooper. But it really doesn't matter what you call them because they are what they are; unverified accounts from someone's past that changed and became more elaborate over time. (How do you account for that by the way?).

You are free to believe those stories just as anyone else is free to examine them and make what they will from them. To me, Cooper's UFO stories represent an interesting building block to the UFO mythology. There is nothing wrong with believing his stories are not based on reality. Nobody is obligated to believe them.

Why would you want to discourage people from examining the facts of this case or any other case?

As I said, You all should be uncomfortable with Oberg's attack of Cooper. But that is up to you.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: Scdfa

Your questions are actually mostly rants. Maybe you should try a more calm and polite approach if you really are looking for answers. Are you?

Now it looks like you simply need to vent your frustration over people who don't validate and support your beliefs.

No, I'm not looking for answers, especially not from oberg, jadestar, or zeta. Not about UFOs or aliens. They don't have the answers.

I suppose YOU are the only one who has answers? Oh well, thanks anyway for being honest about being simply a believer, not someone who is actually looking for the truth. No need to take you seriously then.

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: skyblueworld

Are you still trying to convince yourself or others that UFO's are real?

I am very surprised that there are any of you left. I thought most people made up their minds already and lost interest. I guess the fact no alien races have publicly made any contact may leave doubt in some minds.

Gordon Cooper and his testimonies actually made it to prime-time television a decade (or less ago) on some big shows aired on the Science Channel. I remember being surprised to hear it since he was an astronaut. I am sure many people saw the show. Unfortunately the people that need convincing do not watch these type of shows, and the people that watched it - science-minded people, do not need to be convinced.

It is fortunate that many astronauts have come forward to tell their UFO stories. They give some of the most credibility to UFO sightings because their observations are more discerning the the average person. Another Astronaut that has come forward with his stories is Story Musgrave. His was perhaps even a biological entity flying in open space.

What amuses me is the size of the stereotypical silver disk UFO's. I can't imagine more than one or two passengers on there (unless they are really tiny beings and we already know from accounts that they are not that small), so what this tells me is that they could not be confined in there for too long. This brings me to the conclusion that either a) they bend space-time or something like that and come from very far away (light years) really fast within hours, or b) are coming from a base that is close by - either inside the moon, on Earth inside a mountain, or deep in our deepest oceans, or all of the above.

Fortunately, I am not in the camp of being doubtful because I have seen them for myself with my own eyes. The first was in New York City in the late 70's that was a mass sighting. Many people ran up to the roofs of the buildings and I remember looking around and seeing a bunch on people on every adjacent roof. Everybody was looking in the same direction. I looked in that direction and surprisingly it was the very stereotypical silver disc UFO. At first people were wondering if they were filming a movie and wondering whether it was a prop. After hovering there for a while, and then descending, people started to realize that it was not. It was not afraid of being seen, in fact was probably trying to be seen. It landed behind some buildings and after a while took off. I believe it made the newspaper shortly after the event.

Thanks for the excellent post, nOraKat! That sighting you had is fascinating! And yes, once it happens to you, you no longer have to "guess". You know.

It's funny you use the term"stereotypical" silver disc. I know what you mean; the alien ships we see in movies and tv shows have grown so complex, so detailed, so much more elaborate than the flying saucers we associate mostly with 1950s sightings and bad black and white science fiction movies. So much so, that when you are confronted with the reality of an actual flying saucer in front of you, the first thing you think is- "you're kidding, right? A flying saucer? What a cliche!"

You expect a more elaborate structure, like the Millenium Falcon, or the ship from Close Encounters; lots of antennas, segmented hull, delicate complex filigree. But nope, the reality is a flying saucer, smooth and silver. Timelessly graceful, like an old Corvette.

See folks, this is SUBSTANTIAL evidence for the reality of UFOs.

If it were mere delusion, the image of the ship would have changed with our societal perception of what an alien ship should look like. But it hasn't. It's still a flying saucer, which seems antiquated by our current cultural perception.

In fact, there are those deniers who suggest that ufo sightings are just delusions we base on what we see in sci-fi movies. Were that the case, we'd be seeing Klingon battle cruisers, Tie fighters and x-wings. We are not, we see flying saucers.

Furthermore, this is a great way to weed through 90% of hoaxed videos, they always base their ships on overly-complex designs.