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

a reply to: FireMoon

exactly...This is funny to say the least. He says, film supposedly never seen again is found, and his evidence for this is 4 frames that actually fit the original depiction just fine. I just watched the video describing the incident and he said that the filming was done of the object landing and then lifting off and traveling away from them at a great rate of speed.

So 4 frames are shown of an object far off,(which would be consistent with an object traveling away at a great rate of speed wouldn't it?).

So where is this video that has been found? If he can show us a whole video that only shows a far off object, then he might be on to something; however, all this really does is corroborate that a video did in fact exist (if it is in fact four frames from the same video), but does absolutely nothing to discredit the original story.

Jaden

a reply to: jonnywhite

Who besides the BLUE BOOK guy is denying gordon cooper's involvement? I'd really like to know, because Cooper made no mention of personally talking to the blue book guy... He only stated that they sent off stuff to washington. I would imagine the blue book guys involvement would've come after Cooper's involvement.

Jaden

a reply to: JimOberg

If he has video in hand of it, why would he bother to go look for traces.. He says that he looked at the film in the light and saw the detailed close ups, that should be all the evidence one would need. So please, provide us with the raw whole video or go back to debunking the undebunkable.

Jaden

This one looks like it's flying away:

a reply to: Springer

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.

Who pinned the majority of their "belief" that aliens are here on astronauts?
Nobody, that's who.
And first of all, for so many people, it isn't a "belief" at all. It's a fact. Myself included.
I can tell people the facts, and they can either "believe" I'm telling the truth or "believe" I'm wrong. The "believers" are on both sides.
All of you who don't know for a fact that alien contact has been going on for decades are "believers" one way or the other.

But nobody pins their understanding of the issue on astronauts or anybody else. Sure, it's nice to have high-profile people talking truth about alien contact being real, but they aren't important.
The enormity of the situation speaks for itself.

There's too much evidence to rationally pretend that aliens aren't here. Sorry if I had to be the one to say it, but there it is.

Think. If aliens in flying saucers is not the truth, what exactly would that mean?

1. Everyone is crazy. With the exact same delusion. At the same time. And ever since. Worldwide. From all walks of life.

2. Military officers at Roswell including General Roger M. Ramey of the Eighth Air Force, and Maj. Jesse A. Marcel of the 509th Bomb Group Intelligence Office, all went crazy.

3. Photographs, film, video, and radar recordings all went crazy, er, I mean malfunctioned by producing images of disc-shaped craft performing maneuvers that defy our understanding of propulsion and aeronautics.

4. The Air force went Crazy when they released internal documents that conclude UFOs to be ET in 1953.

Sounds logical, right? No aliens? No abductions? No flying saucers?
You'll need a boatload of "belief" to swallow that pill.

Besides, do you think people can't tell a hatchet job when they see one?
We know these astronauts, and we know the people attacking them.
Do you think we really believe that this dissection somehow means the astronauts were not completely correct when they said Alien contact is real?
That's why they're being attacked. We know that.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
So where is this video that has been found?

Cooper didn't use the word "video", he said "film", and film can capture either still images or motion pictures. So while his statement that the film was sent to Washington was accurate, it only contained still images, and Cooper finally admitted to OMNI magazine that he never saw anything himself:

In Search of Gordon Cooper's UFOs

In 1978, in his second interview with Spiegel (this time for OMNI), he (Cooper) evaded any discussion of the Edwards case by saying, "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."

a reply to: Masterjaden

So where is this video that has been found? If he can show us a whole video that only shows a far off object, then he might be on to something; however, all this really does is corroborate that a video did in fact exist (if it is in fact four frames from the same video), but does absolutely nothing to discredit the original story.

Exactly. Debunk Fail. But it's always an education to watch professionals at work.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

snip

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I entered my research with an open mind thinking "where there's smoke, there must be fire", but I never found the fire. I found that often the "smoke" was created by people trying to sell books who liked to embellish stories.

This is exactly right and applies to TV shows equally. I remember in the 70's watching UFOs shows with my father that seemed to come out at least once a month. I was fascinated with the UFO topic as a kid. At the time, what you're presented with on TV was the story. At least it was in my world as a child. With the onset of the internet and beyond, you can do a fairly in depth search through some of those cases. But you need the investigative desire to research and find facts out for yourself. You can't simply watch TV or read an online article and believe. It takes a little work and a lot of searching sometimes to weed through the sensationalized stories to the background facts.

As I'm sure you probably know Arbitrageur, Jim Oberg has had a crew follow him for years through different message boards. One is missing from this thread. He seems to strike strong emotional chords with some of these people.

Your last comment sounds to me like an insult to the integrity of Jim Oberg's 5Star reputation. I'm replying to you because Jim Oberg is mostly admired for his excellent way of thinking as opposed to the majority of ATS members. You could say that he is a legend and he covers a lot of topics aside from UFOs. He is also a TV "celebrity" being seen and heard on a lot of documentaries. You sound as if you're stating as fact that "Jim Oberg has had a crew follow him for years through different message boards." I don't think that you can provide evidence for that claim. Jim and I have "dueled" for many years, since the '90s in many old, long-gone forums, and when you are interested in UFOlogy you tend to search forums for knowledge and public opinion, pro and con. If you turn out to be an interesting member who most of the time sound as if you know your stuff, your name and others with similar POVs will come up in conversation as someone to show interest in and possibly learn from.

However, I don't consider myself to be in not only Jim's mythical "crew" but I don't belong to any crew. Yet if i know that Jim is communicating in other forums I will look him up and see if I'm interested in the topic. One learns from Jim not only new stuff but also a way to look at things outside of the box. Agreement with him is not guaranteed but he'll make you think. You shouldn't criticize to just lash out. Work with facts,work with evidence. Doing so will endear you not the opposite.

And I'll bet that Arbitrageur was not thinking of Jim Oberg when he made the comments you quoted but that he might have been thinking about authors such as Stanton Friedman who laugh all the way to the banks, thanks to the gullible.

originally posted by: Scdfa
(....)

Think. If aliens in flying saucers is not the truth, what exactly would that mean?

1. Everyone is crazy. With the exact same delusion. At the same time. And ever since. Worldwide. From all walks of life.

2. Military officers at Roswell including General Roger M. Ramey of the Eighth Air Force, and Maj. Jesse A. Marcel of the 509th Bomb Group Intelligence Office, all went crazy.

3. Photographs, film, video, and radar recordings all went crazy, er, I mean malfunctioned by producing images of disc-shaped craft performing maneuvers that defy our understanding of propulsion and aeronautics.

4. The Air force went Crazy when they released internal documents that conclude UFOs to be ET in 1953.

(...)

I'm unsure what you're referring to--perhaps it's air force only--but the CIA concluded there it wasn't ET and wasn't a threat:
www.cia.gov - CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90...

The Robertson panel's conclusions were strikingly similar to those of the earlier Air Force project reports on SIGN and GRUDGE and to those of the CIA's own OSI Study Group. All investigative groups found that UFO reports indicated no direct threat to national security and no evidence of visits by extraterrestrials.

After the report of the Robertson panel, Agency officials put the entire issue of UFOs on the back burner. In May 1953, Chadwell transferred chief responsibility for keeping abreast of UFOs to OSI's Physics and Electronic Division, while the Applied Science Division continued to provide any necessary support.....

The CIA never found any evidence for ET visitation or foreign exotic (or experimental?) technologies in the years after, either.

originally posted by: PlausibleDeniability

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If I remember it right, Cordon's UFO actually landed not that far from where he was standing - all of which he filmed too. So, this white blip in the sky most surely is not anything but an effort to divert off the whole issue.

A lot of people vividly remember it exactly that way, they just SWEAR sincerely that they had watched a video of Cooper describing the object landing in front of him.

No such video has ever been found.

[sigh]

There is a video of him stating exactly that only a few posts up from yours. I've seen several other videos of him stating the same exact thing to multiple independent interviewers over the past few years. I'm surprised that you would post something so blatantly false on here. It's almost laughable considering you have put this a mere 3 posts down from a link to one of the many freely available and easily found videos proving your statement to be completely untrue.

Your post is so utterly ridiculous that you have me wondering if perhaps you have simply worded your statement so poorly that it has caused me to misunderstand what you have written or ...maybe I am suffering from a temporary reading comprehension malfunction brought on by several days of sleep deprivation.

Do you honestly believe that Gordon Cooper never stated on camera that he witnessed this happen?

It seems to me that you are twisting words to suit your argument. Go to YouTube and type "gordon cooper ufo video" (I didn't really have to type the whole thing as the drop down menu beat me to it) and you'll see a ton of similar videos with Cooper being interviewed about the Edwards AFB 1957 UFO and his claim to have been there. So your question is moot 'cause Oberg may have really meant that Cooper's "video" (1957 = film) doesn't exist.

If you think I'm wrong, you're welcome to your opinion.

originally posted by: Uggielicious

originally posted by: PlausibleDeniability

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If I remember it right, Cordon's UFO actually landed not that far from where he was standing - all of which he filmed too. So, this white blip in the sky most surely is not anything but an effort to divert off the whole issue.

A lot of people vividly remember it exactly that way, they just SWEAR sincerely that they had watched a video of Cooper describing the object landing in front of him.

No such video has ever been found.

[sigh]

There is a video of him stating exactly that only a few posts up from yours. I've seen several other videos of him stating the same exact thing to multiple independent interviewers over the past few years. I'm surprised that you would post something so blatantly false on here. It's almost laughable considering you have put this a mere 3 posts down from a link to one of the many freely available and easily found videos proving your statement to be completely untrue.

Your post is so utterly ridiculous that you have me wondering if perhaps you have simply worded your statement so poorly that it has caused me to misunderstand what you have written or ...maybe I am suffering from a temporary reading comprehension malfunction brought on by several days of sleep deprivation.

Do you honestly believe that Gordon Cooper never stated on camera that he witnessed this happen?

It seems to me that you are twisting words to suit your argument. Go to YouTube and type "gordon cooper ufo video" (I didn't really have to type the whole thing as the drop down menu beat me to it) and you'll see a ton of similar videos with Cooper being interviewed about the Edwards AFB 1957 UFO and his claim to have been there. So your question is moot 'cause Oberg may have really meant that Cooper's "video" (1957 = film) doesn't exist.

Cooper's claim to have been the boss of the cameramen is widespread, and his dramatic recreation of holding the film up to the window to view it. What I had questioned was the assertion that Cooper had claimed to have been at the sighting itself. I have never seen or read any such claim directly from him -- although numerous folks, even on this thread, have claimed to have heard exactly such a statement from Cooper.

That's what I was asking about, that's what I was challenging about, and that's what those who MADE the claim have failed to provide -- while blaming me for not being able to find it on my own.

My hypothetical timeline for the story is that Cooper, who was on base then, heard about the story or read about it in the newspaper [see contemporary clipping posted yesterday, above].

Only about 1976-7 did he add the story to his repertoire as something that had happened, then year by year, centrifying his role into the action. He didn't even mention the names of the cameramen until the mid-1980s, after he had received a review draft of my report on my interviews with Gettys [he did add the detail 'sergeants'' but that was his imagination in action, both men were civilian contractors]. The three landing gear and touchdown also appeared out of thin air then, about thirty years after the actual event.

a reply to: Uggielicious
This was resolved earlier. Oberg knows of the posted video I'm sure, but people who watch that video seem to miss the part about "then the photographers came into my office and told me what happened" which really means that Gordon Cooper didn't see what happened, didn't know what happened, and that's why he said the photographers had to tell him.

To PlausibleDeniability's credit he/she realized this was the case after re-watching the video and that Jim Oberg was right, there is no such video where Gordon Cooper says he saw the UFO personally, because he didn't say that. Cooper later confirmed to Omni he didn't see anything himself. According to the photographers they didn't even go into his office and tell him what they saw, but they did see and photograph something, and Cooper was on the base, and possibly heard about it through the grapevine.

a reply to: jonnywhite

The CIA never found any evidence for ET visitation or foreign exotic (or experimental?) technologies in the years after, either.

Well that settles that! Whew!

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: slapjacks

I guess my question is this. If Gordon Cooper was making things like this up in 1957 and that's a possibility. Yet in 63 he piloted the final mercury flight, in 65 command pilot of Gemini 5. I have no dog in this hunt and never heard of this case before. But he had a knack for making things up, filing false information, generally untrustworthy yet he continued on in pretty important roles for 8 years after that? How on earth does it make sense to continue to go to a man that cannot be trusted to be honest about what he is seeing, etc in a position that would seem to require that honesty is needed.

Again never heard of this, it could be a lie, if it is the bigger issue would seem to be NASA employing a known/ proven liar and putting him in a position like that.

You can apply your last comment to Barack Obama.

Since we on this forum are not talking to his buddies, co-workers, etc., we don't know what Cooper was really like in his work environment. Maybe he was a card and maybe he was serious. Maybe he started making things up to test his mates' credulity and laugh at them if they believe him. Since the majority of humans are believers he found it easy to build a bigger ego of which he lost control, for a while.

One lead I never followed was to compare the reporting procedures Cooper claimed to have performed against what he was REQUIRED to do by AF reg 200-2.

That was *AFR 200-2

AIR FORCE REGULATION THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
No. 200-2 WASHINGTON, 12 AUGUST 1954


I spent an hour or two, years ago, looking over the document and then watching and rereading Cooper's stories, and I couldn't see any indication Cooper was doing what he was supposed to by that reg.

Which would be expected if he was just making it up decades later, since he wouldn'r remember the reg at all by then. but in 1957, he'd have had a copy of the reg right in front of him.

Does somebody want to do a side-by-side narrative analysis of Cooper's reporting story versus what the reg actually required him to do? Might be illuminating.

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If anybody is listening to anything Jim Oberg has to say about the reality of UFOs, they have done zero research into the topic. The man is a professional skeptic on a mission to debunk all UFO sightings. Do people still not know this?

You don't understand your mind and minds in general. It is "normal" to be a skeptic, you're not born a believer and become one only because of constant mental conditioning from less than mentally stable authorities such as parents, teachers, etc. If you're not a skeptic chances are that you may be a believer. It is preferable to be an open-minded skeptic so that you don't believe without evidence while considering that one doesn't know everything and there are sufficent strange events happening to humans to give one reason not to make a judgement.

But one of the drawbacks of being a skeptic is that people make claims and expected to have their words accepted as fact because they say so. It is obvious that Oberg has not yet seen what is considered a UFO or UAO in daylight with enough detail to take it out of the human-constructed category. For as soon as he has such an experience you'll be dealing with a new Oberg.

That's how it happened to me. I was never a believer and when I got into UFOlogy I wondered what it felt like to see UFO, something that started happening with increasing frequency. I had to wait approximately 25 years of wonderment before I joined that "exclusive" club and my doubting and skepticism ended. I know that UFOs are real and have no idea whose they are, what they are and where they come from. But I am still a skeptic and will always demand irrefutable evidence. And belief exists only where there is no evidence. Evidence cancels or neutralizes belief. Skepticism has no room for belief. A skeptic's life can be a joy when research blows a claim out of the water. My life is a joy.

a reply to: Hongkongphooey

Hongkongphooey said: "No, I don't think so, I am speaking about the very same James Oberg who is a professional debunker! Why is he allowed to besmirch astronauts but we are not allowed to besmirch him???"

What the hell is wrong with you and those of your ilk? The thread is titled: "Found? Gordon Cooper's 1957 UFO film "sent...to...Washington...never to be seen again". Why don't add to the thread constructively instead of using it as your platform to spew hate when you could never match wits with Oberg and you obviously must be jealous of his superior knowledge compare to your less-than-superior knowledge?

A valued member of not just this forum but ATS in general offers his vast research into the topic, presents evidence that supports his conclusion and instead of learning not only how to properly research but how to present the results of that research, he is constantly attacked not only for bursting some members' bubble of a possible "hero" of for simply doubting.

Be a contributor, not a detractor.

a reply to: Uggielicious

Hongkongphooey said: "No, I don't think so, I am speaking about the very same James Oberg who is a professional debunker! Why is he allowed to besmirch astronauts but we are not allowed to besmirch him???"

What the hell is wrong with you and those of your ilk? The thread is titled: "Found? Gordon Cooper's 1957 UFO film "sent...to...Washington...never to be seen again". Why don't add to the thread constructively instead of using it as your platform to spew hate when you could never match wits with Oberg and you obviously must be jealous of his superior knowledge compare to your less-than-superior knowledge?

A valued member of not just this forum but ATS in general offers his vast research into the topic, presents evidence that supports his conclusion and instead of learning not only how to properly research but how to present the results of that research, he is constantly attacked not only for bursting some members' bubble of a possible "hero" of for simply doubting.

Be a contributor, not a detractor.

Please save it for someone less familiar with Jim Oberg's work.

And since when is defending the positions of a heroic astronaut "spewing hate"?

And Jim Oberg can't even prove this is Gordon Cooper's film, correct?
That's why the title of the thread is "Found?"
Oberg puts a question mark in there because he's guessing again, with no proof.
This is another of Mr.Oberg's fishing expeditions, in his endless vendetta against a true American hero.
There is nothing here.

You know, I'm not worried about anyone damaging Col. Cooper's reputation, his legacy is assured.
It's only the reputation of his detractors that will be called into question.

a reply to: Uggielicious

It is obvious that Oberg has not yet seen what is considered a UFO or UAO in daylight with enough detail to take it out of the human-constructed category. For as soon as he has such an experience you'll be dealing with a new Oberg.

I'm not sure that Ufology needs either one?