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

originally posted by: Scdfa
....

The issue is not me not wanting my mind improved by people like Mr. Oberg, the issue is people Jim Oberg not wanting their minds improved by me.
There is a lot they could learn from me on the issue of alien contact. ...

You say you are here to defend the honor and integrity of the astronaut heroes.

1. So you believe Cooper's story about seeing the 3-legged spacecraft land at Edwards in 1957?

2. So you believe Cooper's story about relaying a telepathic warning from space aliens about a shuttle lethal flaw?

3. So you believe Cooper's story about seeing photos he made out-the-window on gemini-5 in which he could read auto license plates?

4. So you believe the story of Cooper's encounter with a UFO near the end of his Mercury-9 spaceflight in 1963?

5. So you believe that the Apollo-8 crew signaled their observation of moon aliens with the code word 'Santa Claus' in 1968?

6. So you believe the Apollo-11 crew reported seeing alien spacecraft near their landing point when they emerged?

7. So you believe an astronaut called down, "We still have the alien spacecraft under observation" in 1989?

8. So you believe Apollo-15 moon walker Jim Irwin's later claim of finding traces of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat?


Please help me better understand what you know about these UFO stories?

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Scdfa

I feel at this point, skepticism of the fact that alien contact is a century-long reality make me question either the skeptic's intellect or their honesty.

You best understand that the "fact" of Alien visitation is not a Fact but a belief before you question anyone's intellect or honesty.

Well it's a fact, problem is apparently you're either uninformed or just choose to ignore the information.

a reply to: JackHill

Well it's a fact

Definition of fact.
A thing that is known or proved to be true.

Alien visitation is not a fact.

originally posted by: JackHill
Well it's a fact, problem is apparently you're either uninformed or just choose to ignore the information.

If this is your evidence, explain how this proves alien visitation:


If that's not your evidence, then you're posting in the wrong thread. That's the UFO from Edwards on May 2, 1957 which is the topic of this thread, which I'd allow to broaden to other Cooper claims and maybe even other astronaut claims but I've had about enough of scdfa hijacking so many UFO threads to say "aliens are here! Aliens are here!" Well, maybe that's true, but that image certainly doesn't seem like good evidence for that claim, does it?

If you've got better evidence for another case, post it in the thread for that case, or make a thread if there's not one already.

a reply to: JimOberg

To accept Cooper's claim about this 'film' against ALL other witnesses and records, it seems to me you would have to accept his similar far-out other claims, like the telepathic warning message from space aliens.

For a guy who has spent decades talking about UFOs, you haven't learned much, if you think telepathic alien contact is "far-out", Jim.

It has been reported thousands of times.
For over forty years.
By hundreds of researchers.
And thousands of witnesses.

You should know that, if you expect to be taken seriously when you speak on this subject.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist.

a reply to: JimOberg

Please help me better understand what you know about these UFO stories?

Jim, you have dodged my questions that I have asked you eleven times now.
Now you have questions for me?

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: JackHill

Well it's a fact

Definition of fact.
A thing that is known or proved to be true.

Alien visitation is not a fact.

Actually, alien visitation is a fact. Your lack of awareness doesn't change that.

And well within your definition of the word, I might add.

I know alien contact to be true, it has been proven to me, and to millions of others who have encountered aliens directly.

Your agreement that it is a fact is not the least bit necessary. Facts do not require universal agreement to be true.

a reply to: Scdfa

It has been reported thousands of times.

1000s of women were also accused of being witches

It doesn't take a rocket scientist.

Whats with this Rocket scientist obsession, is this going to your new signature?

Hows that thread coming along?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If this is your evidence, explain how this proves alien visitation:

Jack Hill never claimed that was his evidence, don't put words in his mouth.
Nor did he claim it proved alien visitation, did he?

Then why are you pretending he did? What do you hope to gain from that tactic?

I've had about enough of scdfa hijacking so many UFO threads to say "aliens are here! Aliens are here!" Well, maybe that's true, but that image certainly doesn't seem like good evidence for that claim, does it?

I'm sure you are tired of hearing from someone who opposes a denialist agenda, but let's stick to the topic, please.

Show me some proof that this is in any way related to Col. Gordon Cooper's film, please.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

1000s of women were also accused of being witches

Thanks for bringing that up.

You're absolutely right, this attack on Col. Gordon Cooper is a witch-hunt.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

a reply to: Scdfa

Facts do not require universal agreement to be true.

Facts can verified. That's what makes them facts.

I want to figure out exactly what're the differences between Cooper's claims and those in official case which is recorded.

I'm not a ufologist. I don't evne know what NICAP means. Do not know much about the history, so I'm like toddler right now.

I know the blue book case number is 4715, but do not know how to search blue book for it. Here's blue book's site:
bluebookarchive.org/default.aspx

Here's the case on NICAP:
www.nicap.org/570502edwardsafb_dir.htm

Does anyone know when NICAP was first made aware of this case and kept a record of it?

I want to know exactly who was involved. So far, I know of these individuals:
1) James D. Bittick - camara operator (rank?)
2) John R. Gettys, Jr. - camara operator (rank?)
3) Frank Baker - supervisor (rank?)

Bittick and Gettys saw the object above some 500 yard away. They radioed Baker and he soon informed them to film it. According to NICAP, they started filming when it was about a mile away. Some involved reported they could see details on the object which are not seen in the photos available on NICAP. For example, it's stated "They photographed what they described as a golden luminous domed-saucer shaped object with holes or ports around the dome about 100 ft in diameter about 1 mile in the distance." No holes or ports or dome are visible in the photos below.

These're the photos on NICAP (4 of them):
Plate 609
Plate 614
Plate 620
Plate 651

The numbers on the photos increase by 6 until 620 and then jump to 651. Is there any meaning to that?

EDIT:
Ok, NICAP has copies of the blue book documents, here:
www.nicap.org/reports/570502edwards_report.htm

But does the current blue book website have these documents?

Some (or all?) of the photos are included in the document copies. But I, not being a pro, do not see much detail in them.

Also want to add the two camaramen could apparently view the object through a small tracking telescope on the aparatus they used. They did this--I'm led to believe--before the filming started. (NOTE: This comes from Micheal Swords book, so it should be confirmed)

Also want to add the quote below located at:
www.nicap.org/reports/570502edwards_UAG.htm

Lt. Colonel Raymond Klein checked on the balloon launch and obtained the data on it (it was being followed and recorded at ten-minute intervals). Klein knew exactly where that balloon was throughout the theodolite filming experience, and wrote ATIC with his analysis: “Based on the above track made and the location of the observers at the time of sighting, the weather balloon released at Edwards could not have been the unidentified object reported.”

(the above quote actually comes from a book by Micheal Swords, so I'd want to first confirm it's historically accurate)

Does this mean Klein was involved in this case too? Or was his analysis at a much later time? How many others might have been involved indirectly when the film was being processed and later examined?

originally posted by: jonnywhite
I know the blue book case number is 4715, but do not know how to search blue book for it. Here's blue book's site:
bluebookarchive.org/default.aspx

It's nice to see someone checking the facts of the case, but I'm not sure if you're reading the thread; it seems like you're not and you should because there's some useful information on these pages.. There's a search tab on your link so that's where you search, but you don't even have to because I already posted the search result related to the photos on page one and again in the second post on page 6 here.

As I've already said several times there are 41 photos in the bluebook case and I don't know why NICAP only has 4 plates, but from the description, all the photos were just small white dots either round or elliptical in shape so even if you found the other 37 plates you'd just see more very similar, which is what you see in the blue book case file.

I've seen conflicting reports about whether it was a balloon or not but all accounts seem to suggest it drifted across the sky so even if it wasn't that balloon I suppose it could have been another balloon, or an alien spaceship that drifted across the sky like a balloon. People talking about wind direction need to take into account that wind direction varies with altitude.

We can't say what the object was for sure, but what we can say is that Gordon Cooper made up the story about it landing, a story he didn't try to defend when challenged, and he admitted he never saw anything himself. Apparently he embellished the story a little more each time he re-told it until it got so out of hand that he couldn't defend it so ultimately he didn't even try. This is the part so many people seem to gloss over but it's very significant.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thanks for the blue book link you gave, here:
bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=NARA-PBB93-511

I note it says "Roll 93". I assume this is an identifier? I counted 42 images, but I probably counted 1 extra. I looked for numbers--like 609 and 614--and found none. I couldn't see any details in those images either. They're very poor photocopies, or whatever they're. The negatives, if available, would have more detail, I'm sure. However, being not a photo expert, I can't be trusted to be correct.

Nonetheless, I favorited it and got a pile of links now on this.

The NICAP apparently has a copy of the blue book documents here:
www.nicap.org/reports/570502edwards_report.htm

Here're 20 images (I only count 19 unique pictures; but it says 22):
www.fold3.com/image/6790620/
(Plate numbers: 606-p.76 602 602 610 616 612 618 620 622 624 626(625-29?) 635 637 639 641 643 645 647 651 653-p.95)

Plate numbers 609 and 614 on the nicap home page for the case are missing from that sequences of images.

Is there any indiciation how long they filmed and how many stills would be produced? Here we have only an example of 41 unlabeled shots and 21 (including 609 and 614) unique shots with plate numbers. Does this indicate any possbility there're missing frames or shots from what's available?

I also see the air force officially concluded this was the balloon which was released on 0740 and was dismissed previously by the Lt. Colonel Raymond Klein at the base. They conclude his analysis was wrong. I'm also a bit stunned BOTH of the camaramen (if I recall right?) said it was the size of a basketball at arms length. The blue book conclusion is this is impossible, as it would be nearly a mile in size. They also refer to witness inaccuracy, especially regarding angles, sizes and distances. Additionally, one of the observors had apparently already seen a ufo and mentioned it in one of the questionnaires. They cited this as an example of unreliability.

Here's their analysis (you have to look around a bit for all of it):
www.fold3.com/image/6790377/

So by their own estimate, Gordon Cooper isn't the only one who's unreliable, in fact, they say the whole case was a mistake...
Source: www.fold3.com/image/6790372/

This case is considered as having been improperly handled. It did not come to the attention of ATIC (?) until well after the press had received it; the Edwards AFB PIO (?) officer made statements to the press that it was "unknown", when investigations disclose that he was informed it was a balloon; and the local commander could have solved the case by making local ijnquiries of his v arious units.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
Is there any indiciation how long they filmed and how many stills would be produced? Here we have only an example of 41 unlabeled shots and 21 (including 609 and 614) unique shots with plate numbers. Does this indicate any possbility there're missing frames or shots from what's available?

I wondered the same thing. Just look at your numbers of the 19 pictures which go from 602 to 653. That suggests over 50 numbers in sequence, yet only 41 are in the bluebook file. Now if the sequence ran from 613 to 653 and the first 11 were missing, I'd be a lot more concerned to know what was in the first 11. However when you look at this sequence of pictures where the object changes in size very little, I doubt there's anything earth-shaking in the missing sequence numbers, if there are missing images. There could be any number of reasons why the sequence isn't continuous and has a few gaps but I don't know the reason and it's not something that keeps me up at night.

I also see the air force officially concluded this was the balloon which was released on 0740 and was dismissed previously by the Lt. Colonel Raymond Klein at the base. They conclude his analysis was wrong. I'm also a bit stunned BOTH of the camaramen (if I recall right?) said it was the size of a basketball at arms length. The blue book conclusion is this is impossible, as it would be nearly a mile in size.

Well if it was the size of a basketball at arm's length, why is it such a tiny dot in their pictures? That doesn't add up.

So by their own estimate, Gordon Cooper isn't the only one who's unreliable, in fact, they say the whole case was a mistake...

Human witnesses are notoriously unreliable because we think we are better at getting details right than we are, but as any simple book of optical illusions shows we have plenty of ways of getting details wrong and witness estimates of size, distance and speed are notoriously unreliable. One of the most common examples of this is with meteors or meteorites. People think it went down just over the next hilltop when it fact it probably went down tens or hundreds of times farther away than the witness thinks.

As for the air force conclusion, you probably know that if the air force concluded the sky is blue, there are people who might insist the air force is lying about that too because they lie about everything. OK I admit they don't have the best reputation for always being truthful, so really what you have to do is consider all the evidence for yourself and decide if their explanation is plausible. In this case, it seems to me that perhaps it is, though I don't think anybody bought Hynek's swamp gas explanation on another case so you have to judge each case on its own merits.

The bottom line for me is there's nothing about this case which suggests to me it couldn't have been a balloon, unless you want to believe Gordon Cooper's made-up landing story, but if he wouldn't even defend his own story and admits he never saw anything himself, it seems like that story should get about zero weight in figuring out what happened.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
One of the camera operators says they took approx 40 frames, apparently manually. That seems right based on what we got. Here:
www.fold3.com/image/6790553/

One also stated it had a 15 power telescope viewer on it.

Either a quick (and effective) coverup of this case was underway early on or he's a liar. I can't blame this on bad memory or exaggeration. He sold a whopper and knew it was a whopper and didn't care. It's just like his claim he saw license plates with the camera on Gemini-5.

And honestly after looking at the blue book documents, I have no evidence backing Gordon's accounting of the events. Which is more likely, a big ufo coverup, like in the movies (starring Christian Bale), or a liar?

I'll never understand people who tell fake stories like this. I know they're out there. It's trolling, but people want it. He abused his celebrity status. He abused people's time and trust. Didn't care at all.

But it's not just people like him that fuel this. It's us. Many of us, one time or another. Intellectual dishonest or laziness. Throwing our trust behind something without inspecting it. Desire to believe fantastic things or things easy to swallow, especially that. Real world is disorderly and frustrating and demanding. It's tempting to believe the fake stories which wrap up everything nicely just for us, like a movie or play.

Found a possible discrepancy in the sources on the NICAP site:

www.nicap.org/reports/570502edwards_mcd.htm

Bittick estimated that the object lay about a mile away when
they got the first shot, though when first seen he put it at no more than 500 yards off. He and Gettys both said it had
a golden color, looked somewhat like an inverted plate with a dome on top, and had square holes or panels around
the dome. Gettys thought that the holes were circular not square.

www.nicap.org/reports/570502edwards_UAG.htm

Both Bittick and Baker thought that there was a series of black dots near the dome, which might have been portholes. Gettys did not remember seeing that.

First source is from McDonald's case #41 writeup and the 2nd is from Micheal Sword's book UFO's and Government: A Historical Inquiry.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Uggielicious
As to Cooper's UFO claim while aboard Mercury-9, it is best to keep an open mind in absence of evidence pro or con.

What exactly did Cooper claim about Mercury-9 that we should keep an open mind about? Have you got a quote from him?

Uggie: "Mercury 7 - Atlas 9 - I was not being specific but I failed myself when I did not offer a source and now I find out I was wrong in even getting involved with that topic. To make up for it, thanks to your pointing out that a quote should have been de rigueur, I provide a little bit of info below. Arbit, someone else would have probably jumped on my case and I'm glad I'm dealing with a gentleman/gentlewoman. Thanks".

snip

en.wikipedia.org...
"Cooper claimed to have seen his first UFO while flying over West Germany in 1951, although he denied reports he had seen a UFO during his Mercury flight.[15]"

rationalwiki.org...
Mercury 9 UFO
15 May 1963. Many UFOlogists have erroneously reported that Cooper saw a UFO during this mission. It was described as "a greenish object moving east to west,"[3] or "a greenish UFO with a red tail"[4]
These descriptions are garbled accounts of the flashing beacon experiment that was an important part of the flight. At 03:25 GET Cooper flipped a switch and ejected a six-inch spherical tracking target equipped with a xenon strobe. The purpose of the experiment was to test his ability to see the target under various lighting conditions. From the mission transcript:[5]
03:25:06 "I am on fly-by-wire, have armed the squib -- pitching up very very slowly, and will deploy the flashing light at the minus 20 degree point. Flashing light is deployed."
Not until about 90 minutes later did he see it, and reported to the Muchea tracking station:
05:05:03 "Have been looking for the flashing beacon. ... This light's in sight, it is below me. It is quite a brownish, reddish brown and considerable altitude above the ground. Every time I fire a pitch-down thruster I get a shower of these little fireflies. The light is flashing now. ... It's quite bright -- quite discernible ... it appears to be about 10 to 12 miles away, about the order of a second magnitude star."

gdnunes.hubpages.com...
"Gordon Cooper was a believer in UFOs. Although he denied rumors that he had seen a UFO during his Faith 7 flight,"

originally posted by: jamespond

originally posted by: Uggielicious

Ah, the good ol' there's life all over the universe and we can't be the only "intelligent" life in creation theory. If that is what you meant, then I'm here to tell you that we humans is all there is. We can prove we exist, no so for any other place in the universe. You might counter with "What about the occupants of UFOs, the aliens, they gotta be ETs." Regardless of certain reports no one knows what's in those unusual aerial objects. Whether there are occupants or they are remotely controlled by unknown beings that have stayed secret to us, there is no evidence the whole package is of extraterrestrial in origin.

That's why it's referred to as "THE UFO MYSTERY". No one knows anything and the last place you are going to find what would convince you is certainly not this forum. And I hope that you don't fall back on Drake's "equation" in which zero results in other numbers.

How do you know that no one knows anything? Have you personally had access to the files that every US government agency holds on UFO's? You do realise that when most of the files I refer to were completely blacked out when they were released to the public under FOI requests? How do you know that no one knows what's gong on when our governments are sat on so much info about the topic that they refuse to release? They absolutely do know what's going on but they refuse to tell us.

I do not accept arguments or claims that the US gov't, or any gov't, has any information that could not be found in the ATS archives. The blacked out documents with which we are all familiar with, in my opinion and thanks to "CLEAR INTENT: The Government Coverup of the Ufo Experience" by Lawrence Fawcett and Barry J. Greenwood and included plenty of sample images. History tells us that in the 1940s tensions between us and the Russians stiffened and the US gov't must have been anxious to know what was militarily going on there. UFO events such as Roswell revealed that we were spying on them with various airborne contraptions. Some of them might have been seen and reported as UFOs. Bam! Reports may have included specific sighting locations which might have driven the Russians to become interested and those who were involved became aware of sensitive areas and we became aware of them. A report of a UFO is received and there's certain information included about the sighting location or other details that could have revealed personnel, location, equipment, etc., and that's the kind of information that the gov't wanted censored. All kinds of information, some not having a connection to UFOs but methods of gathering information. In my opinion, if those documents were declassified and you could see clear ones I don't think you'll see any esoteric information about any special and secret knowledge about UFOs and/or alleged aliens or knowledge of life anywhere than on planet earth".

Anyway besides all that it's actually my own logic leads me to believe that a universe of such size can't just be for us. One day the truth of this matter will come out and it will be looked back on in future generations in the same way as we look back at people now who used to believe the world was flat or that the earth was the centre of the universe. We realise now that these ideas are unbelievably silly and when the truth comes out about extra terrestrials, people will view it in the same way, because it's a complete waste of space, especially for such a sub standard species such as ours. If you have an ounce of intelligence, a universe just for humanity doesn't make any sense at all, sorry but it just doesn't.

Uggie: "Well, my 77-year-old logic says that until we can acquire irrefutable proof of beings not from earth given the lack of evidence, it's us. The "truth of this matter" is meaningless at the moment for there is no truth, just speculation alleged alien abduction reports aside. You wrote your last sentence with emotion. I must have an ounce of intelligence 'cause you're treating me as an equal and you must consider yourself intelligent".

a reply to: jonnywhite
Thanks again for your research and your additional links and comments, as this is the kind of discussion this thread was intended to generate.

Regarding squinting at something seen through a telescope far away, the famous case of Percival Lowell meticulously drawing the appearance of the martian channels or "canals" comes to mind. When we got better telescopes and ultimately sent orbiters to Mars, it became clear that the canali were some kind of optical illusion that Lowell was seeing:

Percival Lowell

I don't think anybody thinks he had any intent to deceive, but this is just one example of why eyewitness accounts are not entirely reliable even when people are trying their best to be truthful.

So I think Percival Lowell probably did see those canali as he drew them, and maybe the photographer in the Edwards case did see portholes, and probably both were being truthful. That doesn't mean they were there.

We've seen other cases where our minds try to "fill in the blanks" in what we observe, sometimes adding details that aren't there. We have several excellent cases of this now with satellite re-entries.

a reply to: Uggielicious
It's good that you're learning about the sometimes dubious ethics of UFO promoters, and I'm not implying there aren't UFOs, just that there are plenty of people out there who will distort the truth to suit their own purposes and agenda. A lot of that goes on in the UFO field, and I can't hold you responsible for that...we've all been victims of such deception at some point and in your case I see someone wising up, while I see others who keep falling for the same deceptions and even defending them.

By the way if you had read Jim Oberg's question very carefully between the lines, he was sort of hinting that not everything we hear in the media may be as it seems to be, and that's probably not truer anywhere than with astronauts and UFOs.