Dan Aykroyd tells HuffPost Show hosts he has seen four UFOs

originally posted by: WHWIV ... And by flinging mud, I meant the back and forth between yourself, Jim, and Scdfa. It was getting a little off the rails and started to take away from the conversation rather than adding to it.

I complained when he accused me of calling Aykroyd a liar, and I hadn't. Your advice on a more proper response would be appreciated. Where have I ONCE attacked his motives or character? Where's the mud?

a reply to: JimOberg

Just no, dude. No. I will not start this circle-jerk with you. I have seen this so many times in threads you post in. Someone disagrees and you turn it into a game of "haha, see there now, got ya!" Instead of just saying I didn't say that, you get snarky.

People aren't perfect. You're a people too.

And I will give my advice on whatever response I please.

originally posted by: WHWIV
I don't think it's really blind belief in celebrity accounts, it's more like "this person has, potentially, a lot to lose by saying these things." Now, unfortunately people also have something to gain these days because of how popular the entire UFO subject has become. So we've circled back around.

Fair question. And the answer might be delicate. How should we attempt to answer it in Cooper's case, without examining the position he actually was in after being eased out of NASA, relative to his estranged colleagues and the space community in general, who had lost millions in investment schemes imprudently promoted by Cooper on the basis of his public image? VERY sensitive theme.

originally posted by: WHWIV
a reply to: JimOberg

Just no, dude. No. I will not start this circle-jerk with you. I have seen this so many times in threads you post in. Someone disagrees and you turn it into a game of "haha, see there now, got ya!" Instead of just saying I didn't say that, you get snarky.

People aren't perfect. You're a people too.

And I will give my advice on whatever response I please.

I stand rebuked, and thank you for standing up. There WAS a better way to respond -- as you have pointed out. The 'bet' was provocative grandstanding. Cycle stops here.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: JimOberg

Seriously, when entertaining an audience is the main desire [and it's an honorable motive], stories take on a life of their own. Look what happened to poor Gordon Cooper!

Folks, the only thing that happened to "poor Gordon Cooper" is Jim Oberg keeps dragging his name through the mud. Again and again.

I asked Oberg to defend his debunker organization CSICOP, which has been accused of falsifying data and fraudelent testing by almost everyone, including CSICOPs own founding members, but Jim Oberg ignored that opportunity to clear the air.
Instead, he chose to go back to attacking a heroic American astronaut who is no longer here to defend himself.

Why?

Why is Jim Oberg so determined to go after Gordon Cooper? Maybe he will tell us, I don't know.

But it may be because Jim Oberg has worked many years, as has his organization CSICOP, to explain UFO sightings as rocket launches, satellite re-entries, and witness incompetence.

Whereas, Gordon Cooper felt strongly that some UFOs were indeed aliens.

Gordon Cooper stated publicly that he first saw a UFO in 1951, and throughout his life he held claim until his death that the U.S. government is indeed covering up information about UFOs.

Here is a quote from Gordon Cooper from the UFO documentary "Out of the Blue":

"I believe that these extra-terrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets. Most astronauts were reluctant to discuss UFOs".

Gordon Cooper was a hero, and Oberg wants to ruin his good name.

Gordon Cooper was an Air Force Colonel, an aerospace engineer, a United States Air Force test pilot, and he was one of the original seven Project Mercury astronauts. Mercury was the first manned space program, and Cooper was right there blazing the way into space.

Col. Cooper was the pilot for the longest, and the last Mercury spaceflight, and was the last American to be launched alone for a solo orbital mission.

In 1965, Cooper flew as Command Pilot of Gemini 5.

Here are a few of the awards and honors Gordon Cooper received:

Air Force Master Astronaut badge

Legion of Merit Distinguished Flying Cross with cluster

NASA Distinguished Service Medal

NASA Exceptional Service Medal

American Campaign Medal

World War II Victory Medal

Army of Occupation Medal

National Defense Service Medal

Air Force Longevity Service Award with four clusters

The Collier Trophy

the Harmon Trophy

the DeMolay Legion of Honor

The John F. Kennedy Trophy

The Iven C. Kincheloe Award

The Air Force Association Trophy

The John J. Montgomery Award

The General Thomas D. White Trophy

The University of Hawaii Regents Medal

The Columbus Medal

The Gordon Cooper Technology Center in Shawnee, Oklahoma is named after Cooper.

Cooper was inducted into the International Space Hall of Fame in 1981

Gordon Cooper was inducted into the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame

In short, Gordon Cooper is one of the most reputable men of the 20th century, and perhaps the most reputable UFO witness to ever state so publicly.

Tarnishing his reputation in an attempt to diminish the legitimacy of ufology is something I have a problem with.

I'd hate to think I'm alone on that. But if I have to defend Col. Cooper alone, I will.

Who is more credible? A well-respected astronaut, or some low-level bureaucrat? Yes, that is a retorical question............

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: JimOberg

Seriously, when entertaining an audience is the main desire [and it's an honorable motive], stories take on a life of their own. Look what happened to poor Gordon Cooper!

Folks, the only thing that happened to "poor Gordon Cooper" is Jim Oberg keeps dragging his name through the mud. Again and again.

I asked Oberg to defend his debunker organization CSICOP, which has been accused of falsifying data and fraudelent testing by almost everyone, including CSICOPs own founding members, but Jim Oberg ignored that opportunity to clear the air.
Instead, he chose to go back to attacking a heroic American astronaut who is no longer here to defend himself.

Why?

Why is Jim Oberg so determined to go after Gordon Cooper? Maybe he will tell us, I don't know.

But it may be because Jim Oberg has worked many years, as has his organization CSICOP, to explain UFO sightings as rocket launches, satellite re-entries, and witness incompetence.

Whereas, Gordon Cooper felt strongly that some UFOs were indeed aliens.

Gordon Cooper stated publicly that he first saw a UFO in 1951, and throughout his life he held claim until his death that the U.S. government is indeed covering up information about UFOs.

Here is a quote from Gordon Cooper from the UFO documentary "Out of the Blue":

"I believe that these extra-terrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets. Most astronauts were reluctant to discuss UFOs".

Gordon Cooper was a hero, and Oberg wants to ruin his good name.

Gordon Cooper was an Air Force Colonel, an aerospace engineer, a United States Air Force test pilot, and he was one of the original seven Project Mercury astronauts. Mercury was the first manned space program, and Cooper was right there blazing the way into space.

Col. Cooper was the pilot for the longest, and the last Mercury spaceflight, and was the last American to be launched alone for a solo orbital mission.

In 1965, Cooper flew as Command Pilot of Gemini 5.

Here are a few of the awards and honors Gordon Cooper received:

Air Force Master Astronaut badge

Legion of Merit Distinguished Flying Cross with cluster

NASA Distinguished Service Medal

NASA Exceptional Service Medal

American Campaign Medal

World War II Victory Medal

Army of Occupation Medal

National Defense Service Medal

Air Force Longevity Service Award with four clusters

The Collier Trophy

the Harmon Trophy

the DeMolay Legion of Honor

The John F. Kennedy Trophy

The Iven C. Kincheloe Award

The Air Force Association Trophy

The John J. Montgomery Award

The General Thomas D. White Trophy

The University of Hawaii Regents Medal

The Columbus Medal

The Gordon Cooper Technology Center in Shawnee, Oklahoma is named after Cooper.

Cooper was inducted into the International Space Hall of Fame in 1981

Gordon Cooper was inducted into the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame

In short, Gordon Cooper is one of the most reputable men of the 20th century, and perhaps the most reputable UFO witness to ever state so publicly.

Tarnishing his reputation in an attempt to diminish the legitimacy of ufology is something I have a problem with.

I'd hate to think I'm alone on that. But if I have to defend Col. Cooper alone, I will.

Who is more credible? A well-respected astronaut, or some low-level bureaucrat? Yes, that is a retorical question............

Everybody needs to be double-checked, here's what happened to imprudent hero worshippers

www.jamesoberg.com...

From what I understand, these "Nordic operatives" are given driver licenses and are trained to get acclimated into society. I think the birthplace on wiki comes from public records, so what exactly does he fill in there? Would really be nice to be able to look at his college records.

Someone should invite him to lunch and see how he reacts

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: JimOberg

Seriously, when entertaining an audience is the main desire [and it's an honorable motive], stories take on a life of their own. Look what happened to poor Gordon Cooper!

Folks, the only thing that happened to "poor Gordon Cooper" is Jim Oberg keeps dragging his name through the mud. Again and again.

I asked Oberg to defend his debunker organization CSICOP, which has been accused of falsifying data and fraudelent testing by almost everyone, including CSICOPs own founding members, but Jim Oberg ignored that opportunity to clear the air.
Instead, he chose to go back to attacking a heroic American astronaut who is no longer here to defend himself.

Why?

Why is Jim Oberg so determined to go after Gordon Cooper? Maybe he will tell us, I don't know.

But it may be because Jim Oberg has worked many years, as has his organization CSICOP, to explain UFO sightings as rocket launches, satellite re-entries, and witness incompetence.

Whereas, Gordon Cooper felt strongly that some UFOs were indeed aliens.

Gordon Cooper stated publicly that he first saw a UFO in 1951, and throughout his life he held claim until his death that the U.S. government is indeed covering up information about UFOs.

Here is a quote from Gordon Cooper from the UFO documentary "Out of the Blue":

"I believe that these extra-terrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets. Most astronauts were reluctant to discuss UFOs".

Gordon Cooper was a hero, and Oberg wants to ruin his good name.

Gordon Cooper was an Air Force Colonel, an aerospace engineer, a United States Air Force test pilot, and he was one of the original seven Project Mercury astronauts. Mercury was the first manned space program, and Cooper was right there blazing the way into space.

Col. Cooper was the pilot for the longest, and the last Mercury spaceflight, and was the last American to be launched alone for a solo orbital mission.

In 1965, Cooper flew as Command Pilot of Gemini 5.

Here are a few of the awards and honors Gordon Cooper received:

Air Force Master Astronaut badge

Legion of Merit Distinguished Flying Cross with cluster

NASA Distinguished Service Medal

NASA Exceptional Service Medal

American Campaign Medal

World War II Victory Medal

Army of Occupation Medal

National Defense Service Medal

Air Force Longevity Service Award with four clusters

The Collier Trophy

the Harmon Trophy

the DeMolay Legion of Honor

The John F. Kennedy Trophy

The Iven C. Kincheloe Award

The Air Force Association Trophy

The John J. Montgomery Award

The General Thomas D. White Trophy

The University of Hawaii Regents Medal

The Columbus Medal

The Gordon Cooper Technology Center in Shawnee, Oklahoma is named after Cooper.

Cooper was inducted into the International Space Hall of Fame in 1981

Gordon Cooper was inducted into the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame

In short, Gordon Cooper is one of the most reputable men of the 20th century, and perhaps the most reputable UFO witness to ever state so publicly.

Tarnishing his reputation in an attempt to diminish the legitimacy of ufology is something I have a problem with.

I'd hate to think I'm alone on that. But if I have to defend Col. Cooper alone, I will.

Who is more credible? A well-respected astronaut, or some low-level bureaucrat? Yes, that is a retorical question............

Everybody needs to be double-checked, here's what happened to imprudent hero worshippers

www.jamesoberg.com...

Of course everyone needs to be double-checked. But sometimes all you have is witness testimony, which is the basis for much (but of course not all) of our legal system. If all witness testimony overnight was deemed unreliable, our legal system would fall apart. But just like in court, more weight is given to credible witnesses vs non-credible witnesses.

Is that true what the one poster mentioned about the organization you belonged to CSICOP? Has it falsified data and done fraudulent testing? Did other founding members say those accusations were true?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: WHWIV
I don't think it's really blind belief in celebrity accounts, it's more like "this person has, potentially, a lot to lose by saying these things." Now, unfortunately people also have something to gain these days because of how popular the entire UFO subject has become. So we've circled back around.

Fair question. And the answer might be delicate. How should we attempt to answer it in Cooper's case, without examining the position he actually was in after being eased out of NASA, relative to his estranged colleagues and the space community in general, who had lost millions in investment schemes imprudently promoted by Cooper on the basis of his public image? VERY sensitive theme.

This is character assassination of a great heroic astronaut who is no longer here to defend himself.

I asked Oberg to defend his debunker organization CSICOP, which has been accused of falsifying data and fraudulent testing for decades, even by CSICOPs founding members.

Oberg has remained absolutely silent on this. Imagine that.

Even the Discovery Channel sued them for rigging a test to guarantee results that supported his debunker agenda.

Not a peep in addressing allegations towards him and his organization, despite numerous requests.

Oberg would much rather drag a hero astronaut through the mud.

Now Oberg is going after his failed investments.

I will defend Gordon Cooper against this debunker's scurrilous mudslinging until they throw me out of here.

I can't help but see the parallel to the McCarthy hearings, when good people had finally had enough of McCarthy ruining the lives and reputations of upstanding citizens.

I will simply quote Joseph Welch, talking to McCarthy:

"Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

Personally, I doubt it.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

The legal system begins with physical proof of a crime. Seems different to me.

That CSICOP fuss occurred 40 years ago dealing with astrology, a subject I have zero interest in.

I would prefer to be criticized by what I have written, or claimed in public speaking. Eight-second sound bites on TV news or documentaries, I have no control of context and editing, and would like to be asked for clarification if it's ambiguous or subject to misinterpretation.

ADD: My criticism was aimed at people who trusted Cooper's say-so on a professional subject, sole source, no independent checks. Cooper's own judgment, and character, were not meant to be the object of the story, sorry if that was unclear or too easily misinterpreted or misrepresented.

You will notice that that attack has distracted from responding to original, documented investigations I have conducted [and references to other research], allowing avoidance of fact-based debate. I refrain from speculating on motives for doing so.

a reply to: Scdfa

With your mindset, we should all think you're crazy because you belong to a group of people like Billy Meier who believe they were abducted by aliens? Is that how it works? Or do we address each one individually?

Instead of deflecting and pointing fingers at other people unrelated to the topic of the OPs thread, why don't you read over Jim Obergs article on Aykroyd and his explanation and comment on it. Point out where his information is weak and lacks evidence (as your belief does) and can't be supported with facts.

Then explain what this "resounding NO" and belief in his UFO claims is based on. Because he's a celebrity? Because he seems honest? Because of your experience, his experience is automatically a fact? Do you even question why he continues to tell this telepathic spiral UFO story, while refusing all of the facts that can be traced to sources and factual data? That does nothing to his credibility?

With Jim Oberg, I don't jump on the bandwagon just because he has celebrity in the skeptic world. Because he seems honest. Because we may share the same views. I read his articles and search to see if what he says can be backed up. This is type of method you should be using for these UFO/alien stories. Have you done that with Dan Aykroyd? Anything questionable about his stories at all? Or is this a blind belief?

If you're honestly searching for facts of UFOs and aliens, you should be questioning everything. You should welcome any factual data to weed out misinformation. You do the opposite. You take every thread off topic, pull it into the gutter, and turn it into this childish obsessive game. You haven't added to and enlightened the forum, you've degraded it. I'm sure that's exactly what the site owner wants. Good job, Scdfa!

Now, can you stay on topic and give me a straight response? Specifically what I've highlighted in yellow- Or will this be more of your mental gymnastics?

a reply to: Scdfa

Maybe you should start a thread on CSICOP? I would be interested in hearing more about it. Was the CSICOP article that was posted about Aykroyd inaccurate or fraudulent? if not, I'm not really seeing the point. CSICOP seems like the kind of organization that would be under attack by fanatical groups. Being critical is one thing but your accusations are a little over the top and you haven't provided any links anyway.

a reply to: bluemooone2

Nope. There is no debate. UFO's exist...yes. But they are not from outer space. They are from planet earth, they may not be identifiable but they have an explanation. The more fantastic something appears to be the more prosaic the eventual explanation is. It is a rule of life.

I wish flying saucers and aliens were real. I really do. That would be really cool. But they aren't. There has never been credible evidence and with virtually everyone carrying a camera in their cell phones these days....there is no evidence other than anecdotal. There are things in science that are hard to explain but often occur. When we see it our minds go to what we think we understand and then we create fiction. I thought I saw a flying saucer once as a kid. I went 40 years believing it. Then I saw a video of what a satellite looks like when it loses its orbit and comes back to earth. It was exactly what I saw.

They don' t exist folks. Never will.

originally posted by: icewater
a reply to: bluemooone2

Nope. There is no debate. UFO's exist...yes. But they are not from outer space. They are from planet earth, they may not be identifiable but they have an explanation. The more fantastic something appears to be the more prosaic the eventual explanation is. It is a rule of life.

I wish flying saucers and aliens were real. I really do. That would be really cool. But they aren't. There has never been credible evidence and with virtually everyone carrying a camera in their cell phones these days....there is no evidence other than anecdotal. There are things in science that are hard to explain but often occur. When we see it our minds go to what we think we understand and then we create fiction. I thought I saw a flying saucer once as a kid. I went 40 years believing it. Then I saw a video of what a satellite looks like when it loses its orbit and comes back to earth. It was exactly what I saw.

They don' t exist folks. Never will.

Well, that settles that. Unfortunately, despite your authoritative tone, you're completely wrong on all counts. It would actually be quite difficult for you to be any more incorrect.

But, guessing is iffy at best.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: JimOberg

Seriously, when entertaining an audience is the main desire [and it's an honorable motive], stories take on a life of their own. Look what happened to poor Gordon Cooper!

Folks, the only thing that happened to "poor Gordon Cooper" is Jim Oberg keeps dragging his name through the mud. Again and again.

I asked Oberg to defend his debunker organization CSICOP, which has been accused of falsifying data and fraudelent testing by almost everyone, including CSICOPs own founding members, but Jim Oberg ignored that opportunity to clear the air.
Instead, he chose to go back to attacking a heroic American astronaut who is no longer here to defend himself.

Why?

Why is Jim Oberg so determined to go after Gordon Cooper? Maybe he will tell us, I don't know.

But it may be because Jim Oberg has worked many years, as has his organization CSICOP, to explain UFO sightings as rocket launches, satellite re-entries, and witness incompetence.

Whereas, Gordon Cooper felt strongly that some UFOs were indeed aliens.

Gordon Cooper stated publicly that he first saw a UFO in 1951, and throughout his life he held claim until his death that the U.S. government is indeed covering up information about UFOs.

Here is a quote from Gordon Cooper from the UFO documentary "Out of the Blue":

"I believe that these extra-terrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets. Most astronauts were reluctant to discuss UFOs".

Gordon Cooper was a hero, and Oberg wants to ruin his good name.

Gordon Cooper was an Air Force Colonel, an aerospace engineer, a United States Air Force test pilot, and he was one of the original seven Project Mercury astronauts. Mercury was the first manned space program, and Cooper was right there blazing the way into space.

Col. Cooper was the pilot for the longest, and the last Mercury spaceflight, and was the last American to be launched alone for a solo orbital mission.

In 1965, Cooper flew as Command Pilot of Gemini 5.

Here are a few of the awards and honors Gordon Cooper received:

Air Force Master Astronaut badge

Legion of Merit Distinguished Flying Cross with cluster

NASA Distinguished Service Medal

NASA Exceptional Service Medal

American Campaign Medal

World War II Victory Medal

Army of Occupation Medal

National Defense Service Medal

Air Force Longevity Service Award with four clusters

The Collier Trophy

the Harmon Trophy

the DeMolay Legion of Honor

The John F. Kennedy Trophy

The Iven C. Kincheloe Award

The Air Force Association Trophy

The John J. Montgomery Award

The General Thomas D. White Trophy

The University of Hawaii Regents Medal

The Columbus Medal

The Gordon Cooper Technology Center in Shawnee, Oklahoma is named after Cooper.

Cooper was inducted into the International Space Hall of Fame in 1981

Gordon Cooper was inducted into the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame

In short, Gordon Cooper is one of the most reputable men of the 20th century, and perhaps the most reputable UFO witness to ever state so publicly.

Tarnishing his reputation in an attempt to diminish the legitimacy of ufology is something I have a problem with.

I'd hate to think I'm alone on that. But if I have to defend Col. Cooper alone, I will.

Who is more credible? A well-respected astronaut, or some low-level bureaucrat? Yes, that is a retorical question............

Everybody needs to be double-checked, here's what happened to imprudent hero worshippers

www.jamesoberg.com...

Of course everyone needs to be double-checked. But sometimes all you have is witness testimony, which is the basis for much (but of course not all) of our legal system.

The standard of science with regards to extraordinary claims, is a bit higher than the standard of the legal system. I don't understand why people don't get that.

If all witness testimony overnight was deemed unreliable, our legal system would fall apart.

If we held science to the same standard then "eyewitness testimony" would have "proven" the following:

Canals exist on Mars.

A planet between the Sun and Mercury called "Vulcan".

Active volcanos on the moon.

A second moon of Earth

I could go on.... the old astronomy journals are filled with fantastical observations which later proved out to be incorrect when checked out.

Eyewitness testimony even within the legal system is the lowest form of evidence and in scientific circles it's anecdotal unless confirmed through other means.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Scdfa
If you're honestly searching for facts of UFOs and aliens, you should be questioning everything. You should welcome any factual data to weed out misinformation. You do the opposite. You take every thread off topic, pull it into the gutter, and turn it into this childish obsessive game. You haven't added to and enlightened the forum, you've degraded it. I'm sure that's exactly what the site owner wants. Good job, Scdfa!

^^^ THIS 100%

So glad you said this.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
If all witness testimony overnight was deemed unreliable, our legal system would fall apart. But just like in court, more weight is given to credible witnesses vs non-credible witnesses.

More and more cases are being overturned because of coerced, falsified, or unreliable witness testimony, which is why in my state the death penalty was dropped. The legal system will not fall apart... it will just come more into line with scientific standards of evidence.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

Maybe you should start a thread on CSICOP? I would be interested in hearing more about it. Was the CSICOP article that was posted about Aykroyd inaccurate or fraudulent? if not, I'm not really seeing the point. CSICOP seems like the kind of organization that would be under attack by fanatical groups. Being critical is one thing but your accusations are a little over the top and you haven't provided any links anyway.

Maybe you should start a thread on telling people to start other threads? You whine about it incessantly.

If I'm incorrect about anything I've said regarding CSICOP, let me know.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

If you're honestly searching for facts of UFOs and aliens, you should be questioning everything. You should welcome any factual data to weed out misinformation. You do the opposite.

Actually, it is You who do the opposite. If you're honestly searching for facts of UFOs and aliens, you should be asking me.

I'm apparently one of a very few on this site who does not have to rely on information from others or even the historical record to know for certain that alien contact and alien abductions are a matter of fact. Not a matter of idle speculation, and not a matter of fantasy or wishful thinking. An absolute fact.

And I'll tell you why I'm one of the few on here who knows. It's because you people chased them out. The anger, the insults, the attacks by haughty illiterates, it's absurd and offensive. No one who knows would put up with the small minded, venomous attacks.

And these attacks come from people like you who are really just guessing about aliens. Isn't that correct? You're guessing, nothing more to it then that, don't kid yourself that you aren't guessing. And most of you have guessed wrong. You've guessed wrong, probably a long time ago, and you're more interested in defending your faulty guess than knowing the truth. You've invested far too much time and energy into your position to ever change your minds. You're stuck. So it's easier for you to just attack anyone who threatens your world view, even when it is with the truth. Even when it's being offered to you on a silver platter, like I have done. I've offered my knowledge for free, too. No book, no video, no seminar.

I'm sure many people who know first hand have come in here, and I'm sure you chased them all out in short order. Good job, "truth seekers"!

To be honest, I'd have bailed on this clown convention long ago, but that would make too many of you happy.

a reply to: Scdfa

It's true. ATS is not a safe place to talk about contact or abduction of a paranormal kind. Truth is though, Scdfa, I've yet to find any online community - that is right and safe, for that venue of support and conversation.

CdT