It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Found? Gordon Cooper's 1957 UFO film "sent...to...Washington...never to be seen again"

page: 12
55
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I am the Grandson of Frank E. Baker. I have original photos from this encounter at Edwards.




posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Dddomek
That's very interesting!

Do they look anything like the photos in the opening post?
If not do you want to post a few scans of them?



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
nice try, but this is not it
the full movie showns the object landing nearby



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
nice try, but this is not it
the full movie showns the object landing nearby


I look forward to full disclosure.

What else did Baker pass on about the incident?

Did he know Cooper was involved, or not?

Thank you for contributing. How did you learn of this group?



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord
I can tell you haven't read the link on the third line of the opening post.
I suggest you do, it's an informative read.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

i never saw the movie myself, however it certainly featured the object landing, its common ufological knowledge



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: JimOberg

i never saw the movie myself, however it certainly featured the object landing, its common ufological knowledge


[sigh] Yet another tribute to the wisdom of famed American folk-humorist Will Rogers who once joked, "It ain't what you don't know what makes you look foolish, it's what you DO know what ain't so."



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

proof it dint land?



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: JimOberg

proof it dint land?


Prove it wasn't a time machine, you go first.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: JimOberg

proof it dint land?
The rules of UFOlogy say:

*If an astronaut (or former astronaut) says something that supports UFOlogy then you must assume it's true, even if you have a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

*If an astronaut (or former astronaut) says something that doesn't support UFOlogy, then the slightest sliver of evidence can debunk what they say, and even if you don't have that, then you can just assume they're saying what they've been told to say by the powers that be to keep the secrets of UFOlogy.

So, UFOlogy always wins using these rules. If someone was searching for the truth, they might need to consider using a different set of rules but don't count on that from the UFOlogy faithful.

Do you think if Baker's grandson related that his grandfather never said Gordon Cooper was involved, that would make any difference? I don't; UFOlogists would just ignore that like they do all the other evidence that doesn't support what they want to believe.

You still haven't read that link, have you?

edit on 20171120 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

no time portal detected



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

i could not care less about astronauts and military, have people forgot about the richard doty incident?
they are less trustwhorty than even we dirty peasants



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: Arbitrageur

i could not care less about astronauts and military, have people forgot about the richard doty incident?
they are less trustwhorty than even we dirty peasants

So, we have former military man Richard Doty who liked to present fictional stories as fact.
We also have former astronaut Gordon Cooper who liked to present fictional stories as fact, as he did when he said the UFO landed when as far as I can tell, it did not.

I don't have any argument with either of those.

So I can see why you wouldn't want to trust either of those stories, and healthy skepticism is good, regardless of whether the sources are former or present military or astronauts. But I don't assume that just because those two men lied that all men who held the same professions are liars. I don't assume they are all trustworthy either, I look at the details of each claim and try to determine what seems most credible based on all available evidence.

What I don't understand is why you think the UFO landed if you don't trust the former astronaut who said it landed, it seems like you're inconsistent or self-contradictory in saying this:


originally posted by: humanoidlord
nice try, but this is not it
the full movie showns the object landing nearby
Only according to a former astronaut whom you don't trust, so why are you saying it landed? If you don't trust him why isn't it plausible that your lack of trust is justified, and it never landed?

edit on 20171124 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Sent to Washington??
Red flag

All lies



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

gordon never saw the ufo himself, just the movie of it
though i believe him because he is an trustworthy man, unlike doty who openly worked in the disinformation agency



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: Arbitrageur

gordon never saw the ufo himself, just the movie of it
though i believe him because he is an trustworthy man, unlike doty who openly worked in the disinformation agency
So if you believed Cooper was trustworthy all along, why did you even make this post?


originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: Arbitrageur

i could not care less about astronauts and military, have people forgot about the richard doty incident?
they are less trustwhorty than even we dirty peasants
Doty has nothing to do with this case and bringing up your distrust of astronauts when the subject astronaut is one you trust seems totally contradictory. Are you just trolling here?

Also, didn't Cooper say he was supervising the film crew that shot that film? What does he mean he was supervising them if he wasn't with them and didn't see the UFO when they made the film of it?



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

source for that supervising the crew thing?
i made this post because i can
and if you think i am a troll just look at my profile



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: humanoidlord
Well go troll somewhere else then, stop making BS posts contradicting yourself saying you don't trust the astronaut and then saying you do trust the astronaut, and bringing up people unrelated to the case like Doty.

In addition to apparently telling the producers he was supervising the film crew, he also gives what sounds like a first-hand account of watching his film crew pick up their cameras and move closer to the landed UFO while they were filming, so he tries to make it sound like he was right there.



Edwards AFB - 1951 - Astronaut Cooper describes how he was supervising the filming of F-86 fighter jets, when a saucer-shaped UFO flew over Edwards.


It was only later, after his lying was exposed, that he said he never actually saw the UFO himself and tried to back out of the story, which should be an obvious sign that he was lying to begin with, yet you trust him, or you don't trust astronauts, it depends on which of your contradictory posts we are supposed to believe.

edit on 20171124 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: FireMoon
The film was sent to project blue book. You can see the project blue book case file here which mentions 41 photos, but the quality isn't good, however it's good enough to tell that the photos are similar to the photos from the Nicap source.

bluebookarchive.org...

I'm not sure exactly how Nicap tracked down those four better quality images, or if there are more of the 41 images in higher quality like those. Nicap doesn't have a reputation for hoaxing and given the similarity of the images to what's in the bluebook file, I don't see why you have such doubts, unless you're accusing the bluebook files of containing falsified records. By the way the nicap link works in archive.org and the links to the images themselves are not dead, just the index link is dead.


Declassified versions of BlueBook files, (the ones that were the counterparts to the publicly released ones), easily prove that the BlueBook project often falsified reports for public consumption. It is indisputable that they did this. It's even common knowledge at this point that they often did this.



posted on Nov, 24 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Declassified versions of BlueBook files, (the ones that were the counterparts to the publicly released ones), easily prove that the BlueBook project often falsified reports for public consumption. It is indisputable that they did this. It's even common knowledge at this point that they often did this.
Does that include producing or adding faked or the wrong images with a report? If you say yes, I'll need an exact citation for that please, not a general claim.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join