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

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So your issue is with Cooper not the incident?


Edit: meant to reply to Jim

Not quite.

My issue is with people who believe a sexy UFO story without checking it, especially in the case of a celebrity, and with those who suppress inconvenient investigative results for stories of major public relations value.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: MysterX
The myth is that people think Cooper had an encounter with a UFO in 1957.

The reality is that he didn't, even by his own admission. Again Cooper said: "I'd just as soon not get into the Edwards incident. I didn't get to see anything personally, it was all second hand evidence really."

Cooper is also quoted as saying he doesn't discuss the incident in too great a detail as 'not to raise too many official eyebrows'...so take your Cooper quote - pick.

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: MysterX
The myth is that people think Cooper had an encounter with a UFO in 1957.

The reality is that he didn't, even by his own admission. Again Cooper said: "I'd just as soon not get into the Edwards incident. I didn't get to see anything personally, it was all second hand evidence really."

Cooper is also quoted as saying he doesn't discuss the incident in too great a detail as 'not to raise too many official eyebrows'...so take your Cooper quote - pick.

Where, exactly, can I read that, please?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So your issue is with Cooper not the incident?


Edit: meant to reply to Jim

Not quite.

My issue is with people who believe a sexy UFO story without checking it, especially in the case of a celebrity, and with those who suppress inconvenient investigative results for stories of major public relations value.

That applies both directions. People who believe automatically and people who dismiss automatically suffer from the same problem on opposite sides of the coin. Same thing with people setting out to always prove or disprove something. If that's the stated goal of either than it makes it real hard to accept at face value what they say without looking into other things.

Basically if person A is always looking to prove the existence of ufo's , they come out with something like we'll my confidential informant from super secret government says this happened and I have videos to prove it I pause.

Likewise someone whose stated goal comes along and says they reported a fleet of ufo'S from space on this space mission but what that actually saw was a fleet of fishing vessels on earth and didn't know it. It also gives me pause.

Basically I am much more comfortable with the average Joe trying to find the truth than say others with stated goals of proving or disproving something. If that's your stated goal upfront won't all your research and evidence be slanted to your goal?

As far as this specific case, I'll take your word for it, especially with his own words he saw nothing. Have fun.

a reply to: JimOberg

Why bother to tolerate those people then, if you have such an issue with the stories, why don't you, being a NASA insider go directly to the organ grinders, record the conversation and post the results here for all of us to see?

It should clear things up quite nicely and you'd feel a lot easier about educating people who mistakenly believe in 'sexy UFO' stories without checking them...wouldn't you?

It's quite simple to contact the various NASA and ex-NASA personnel to corroborate exactly what they said on record and what they didn't say, even for someone like myself who has no connections to the USA, let alone NASA..so you, with your credentials should have an even easier time of it than i did when i successfully contacted and conversed with Ex-Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who replied personally when i politely enquired about the so-called 'footprints' that others had claimed he had seen on the moon (that were not from the astronauts)..he promptly denied the footprint story and instead clarified that what he was referring to were small tokens and objects left hidden in their gear as a joke by NASA personnel prior to launch...so that was directly from the horses mouth so to speak.

Of course, it's no longer possible to speak with Cooper..unless you have a strong belief in spiritualism and mediumship..but you could have got him on record before his death, and can still right now get the many other ex-astronauts and ex-NASA personnel on the record who are still alive and have UFO quotes attributed to them, that you feel are misquotes or erroneous in their content.

Then you wouldn't need to hang around ATS as much as you do dispelling the myths an having to endure 'issues' with people who don't know the facts..would you.

If the record is wrong, surely you with the access you must have ought to set the record right...with proof and recorded facts straight from the people themselves, rather than slanging matches of 'he said, she said, yes it is, no it isn't' exchanges on this board.

Up to you of course..perhaps you just enjoy the ignorance too much to do anything real about it?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: MysterX
The myth is that people think Cooper had an encounter with a UFO in 1957.

The reality is that he didn't, even by his own admission. Again Cooper said: "I'd just as soon not get into the Edwards incident. I didn't get to see anything personally, it was all second hand evidence really."

Cooper is also quoted as saying he doesn't discuss the incident in too great a detail as 'not to raise too many official eyebrows'...so take your Cooper quote - pick.

Where, exactly, can I read that, please?

Of course you can...just do a simple search and you'll find thousands, possibly millions of results.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks...

Likewise someone whose stated goal comes along and says they reported a fleet of ufo'S from space on this space mission but what that actually saw was a fleet of fishing vessels on earth and didn't know it. It also gives me pause....

There's a thread on Chiao's encounter, where the checkable evidence for the fishing fleet explanation [mainly weather satellite photos of the area showing exactly the lights Chiao described seeing] is argued out thoroughly, do you want to meet over there to defend your rejection of the idea, or is your mind simply closed against any prosaic explanations?

Good for you on your flexibility on the Cooper story in light of new evidence. You might find the same thing will happen with the Chiao story. He certainly quickly accepted it.

ADD -- Leroy and I are old buddies from shuttle days, he's into asteroid deflection strategies now, we discussed them and the 'UFO fleet' story recently, here: www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: MysterX
The myth is that people think Cooper had an encounter with a UFO in 1957.

The reality is that he didn't, even by his own admission. Again Cooper said: "I'd just as soon not get into the Edwards incident. I didn't get to see anything personally, it was all second hand evidence really."

Cooper is also quoted as saying he doesn't discuss the incident in too great a detail as 'not to raise too many official eyebrows'...so take your Cooper quote - pick.

Where, exactly, can I read that, please?

Of course you can...just do a simple search and you'll find thousands, possibly millions of results.

FAIL

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: MysterX
The myth is that people think Cooper had an encounter with a UFO in 1957.

The reality is that he didn't, even by his own admission. Again Cooper said: "I'd just as soon not get into the Edwards incident. I didn't get to see anything personally, it was all second hand evidence really."

Cooper is also quoted as saying he doesn't discuss the incident in too great a detail as 'not to raise too many official eyebrows'...so take your Cooper quote - pick.

Where, exactly, can I read that, please?

Of course you can...just do a simple search and you'll find thousands, possibly millions of results.

FAIL

SUCCESS...i've identified you as a lazy searcher who seems to want others to do your legwork for you. Nobody does my research but me...and you want to rely on others to do yours and then presumably bitch and moan when they do?

Not likely matey...the internet is your informational oyster, seek and ye will find.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Reallyfolks...

Likewise someone whose stated goal comes along and says they reported a fleet of ufo'S from space on this space mission but what that actually saw was a fleet of fishing vessels on earth and didn't know it. It also gives me pause....

There's a thread on Chiao's encounter, where the checkable evidence for the fishing fleet explanation [mainly weather satellite photos of the area showing exactly the lights Chiao described seeing] is argued out thoroughly, do you want to meet over there to defend your rejection of the idea, or is your mind simply closed against any prosaic explanations?

Good for you on your flexibility on the Cooper story in light of new evidence. You might find the same thing will happen with the Chiao story. He certainly quickly accepted it.

ADD -- Leroy and I are old buddies from shuttle days, he's into asteroid deflection strategies now, we discussed them and the 'UFO fleet' story recently, here: www.jamesoberg.com...

The only closed minded people are the automic accept/disprove people and those with an upfront stated goal of proving or disproving these things. If that's your stated goal then that's where research will lead you. That's in any thing, not just this.

A lot of things these I flat out don't know and simply intake the information. I have no background in image analysis which I am quite honest about. So what I do is look at what I have a background in. If that doesn't help me identify something or nothing I've seen I simply say I don't know. What I can do is look at other explanations for or against any topic and say , based on my own background and experience does it make sense. Yes or no, if it does ok possible, if not, I don't buy it. But just because I don't buy one explanation for or against it doesn't automatically make the opposite true. In the end I myself do not know. And if anyone truely did know without doubt, question. Why my assumption would be game over. Afterall you don't get much competition on 1+1=2. It is what it is, not really a debate.
Me, I am probably very open on all this stuff. Differennce between automatically accepting/rejecting or stating a goal like that upfront. And in taking information and trying to apply it to what you know to see if any particular explanation is believable. If so stick with it, if not move on to the next. It's really all any open minded person can do while the rest do their thing

a reply to: MysterX

Good idea, check out www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.com to see how far I've gotten. Sorry for the hodge=podge disorder.

originally posted by: MysterX
you want to rely on others to do yours and then presumably bitch and moan when they do?

I'd rather bitch and moan about you making claims you can't or at least won't back up.

I can type "elvis lives" into search and get over six million hits, which tells me exactly nothing. You didn't even provide an exact quote to search for so looking for a needle in a haystack would be easier than trying to search for your claim.

Here's the 1978 letter Cooper wrote to the UN.

setiathome.berkeley.edu...

He explicitly enumerates his personal UFO experience.

He does not even mention the Edwards AFB event.

a reply to: JimOberg

Here's the 1978 letter Cooper wrote to the UN.
He explicitly enumerates his personal UFO experience.
He does not even mention the Edwards AFB event.

Perhaps because he didn't personally experience anything at Edwards AFB.

I remember when Cooper made the "I'd rather not get into the Edward sighting, it was second hand info, I didn't see anything personally" (I paraphrased that) comment. I also remember looking into it back in the late 1980's or early 1990's and realizing that one of my childhood heroes had fallen from the media constantly seeking him out (back in his Astronaut days) to him seeking media attention just about any way he could get it.

That is my personal opinion of what he was doing and I haven't yet figured out what his motivation was, I write it off to his wanting attention like he got back in the 1960's. It's very human to desire the limelight when you've had and lost it.

Because of the facts this case presents it's a hard pill for those who pinned the majority of their belief that Earth is being visited by aliens on the claims made by certain former astronauts, I get that. What I don't get is why, when presented with facts that don't require, or even remotely appear to be part of the "big coverup" people can't accept it for what it is.

Hoaxers, hucksters, and promoters come from all manner of backgrounds. While it's exceptionally bad when one of the handful of people (relative to entirety of humanity) who have actually been "out there" starts "making it play", we have to remember that even though a guy has been off the planet he's still a guy, a human with all the frailties and desires of every other imperfect human.

Putting these "famous" stories right is not only the moral thing to do, it's imperative if we're ever going to figure out what is really happening with this phenomenon.

In that light, I want to thank Arbitrageur for this thread.

a reply to: Springer
Thanks. I remember the version I saw of Gordon Cooper's account of the 1957 incident added an animation of a saucer with 3 landing legs coming out and making a landing, and it made quite an impression on me. At the time I saw that, I didn't have any reason to doubt him.

I know I felt a little deflated when it dawned on me that he really didn't see anything himself, and that the photographers didn't see it land.

My intention for this thread was only to make some hard to find images easier to find, but it has turned into a much more interesting discussion which I didn't expect. I expected there might be some debate about whether the object is really a balloon or not, but I didn't expect this many people who still think Cordon Cooper actually saw the 1957 UFO, whatever it was.

I'd also like to echo the sentiment that this really shouldn't be a debate between "believers" and "skeptics", but rather as jkrog liked to point out, we are all seeking the same thing....the truth. Even though the truth in this case isn't what we hoped it would be, there are still other cases that are more interesting, where witness stories can be corroborated.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Arb and I agree there are reports with important information, and we agree on a methodology to identify them. For now, that's all we need. I second the applause for the thread.

One of the Gettys letters to me suggested HE had a number of prints and had loaned them to NICAP, I wonder if that's the source of the higher-quality images.

It's tempting to conclude all UFO stories are like this one. The reason it has survived is because people do not investigate. They enable themselves to feed its master. Most of them conclude since it's Gordon Cooper saying it then it must be true. Similarly, if an airline pilot or a military man or a police officer says they saw a UFO--or anybody who seems mildly credible to them--then most people will conclude it's true and not seek to confirm or deny the reality of their statements. THIS is why Ufology exists.

What's even worse is many will conclude it's true even if the witness is not especially credible. And confirmation bias also is present, meaning it fits, so it must be true! No further detective work is necessary.

The next thing one must ask is WHY? I think the answer is simple. People want to believe life is out there. They want to believe even moreso that it's intelligent. Somehow, this fills a void inside, like religion does or maybe spiritualism. I think it's tied to a desire inside for a higher power, a higher reality. It gives us a place in the scheme of things. And it's all the more powerful if the person perceives the aliens as benevolent and highly spiritually evolved. It becomes divine, even supernatural. Our alien benefactors will protect us, or at least ensure righteousness prevails. It's sure better than having to handle s*** on our own.

a reply to: MysterX

Since when does "not corroborated" equate to "Myth" and 'Unreal'?

It doesn't. The words an impartial person ought to have used are 'Unconfirmed' and 'unproven'.

If nothing else, your choice of words says much more about your personal bias and belief regarding Coopers' testimony and not much at all about it's accuracy or lack thereof.

You are right. Absolutely. Keep up the great posts.

a reply to: JimOberg

Not quite.

My issue is with people who believe a sexy UFO story without checking it, especially in the case of a celebrity, and with those who suppress inconvenient investigative results for stories of major public relations value.

Of course.
This Gordon Cooper has a lot of nerve, being such a celebrity with his sexy UFO talk. Who does he think he is? A Kardashian?

Thank you for clearing up all these allegations from people who are familiar with your work.