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.

 

Sensational new Gordon Cooper interview video

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I just came across this recently-posted youtube gem by accident, searching for a related person. It's from 1995 and Cooper is visiting Russia and meeting with ufologists over there. For an hour and a half they ask him wide-ranging questions, on many topics new to me.

He discusses how he believes Dan Fry really did ride a flying saucer [and in his autobio he describes packing a travel bag for a ride Fry promised him, too]. He endorses Billy Meier’s UFO photos as authentic. Recounts many stories from his pilot friends. Plus more details on his own two experiences in the 1950s, on Edgar Mitchell, on why he thinks UFOs are covered with platinum sheaths, about the Utah home-made saucers of Wellings, and more, much more.

Let's get as much of this transcribed and shared as we can. It's slow going with the back-and-forth Russian translation, but the voice quality is adequate.

Video title:
Астронавт США Гордон Купер 26 августа 1995 г в Санкт-Петербурге
Published on Nov 18, 2015
www.youtube.com...

edit on 11-12-2016 by JimOberg because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Dan Fry? Really? Dan Fry? You know who Dan Fry was? One of the earliest "contactees" contemporaneous with George Adamski and Truman Bethurum with fanciful stories of riding on a saucer. Then we have the infamous Billy Meier, caught in so many frauds that without a cult following would be a laughingstock. This is a good example of the logically invalid "argument from authority." Cooper as an astronaut, therefore anything he says must be correct.

Cooper did have some experiences of his own, including seeing "Foo Fighters" in WW II. His most famous sighting was a non-sighting that is often mis-represented. A crew under his command filmed a craft land in the desert and extend its 'landing gear.' Cooper did not actually see the film as projected, nor did he see the original incident. Instead, he placed the developed 35mm film against a window and observed it in its original 35mm size. He reported it. The film was picked up, and he never saw it again.

I have a lot of respect for Cooper, and if you've ever read or seen "The Right Stuff" you now what a larger-than-life character he was. But his choice of UFO stories of which he had no independent knowledge to believe in is really kind of sad because he picked some of the worst ones in history to champion. And his own sightings are rather less than frequently portrayed.



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler....

Cooper did have some experiences of his own, including seeing "Foo Fighters" in WW II.


Close -- that was in Germany in 1951, he discusses it in greater detail on this video than i've ever seen before.


His most famous sighting was a non-sighting that is often mis-represented. A crew under his command filmed a craft land in the desert and extend its 'landing gear.' Cooper did not actually see the film as projected, nor did he see the original incident. Instead, he placed the developed 35mm film against a window and observed it in its original 35mm size. He reported it. The film was picked up, and he never saw it again.


In this video, he reports the film has just been located [in 1995]....

And actually, that Edwards AFB 'landing' story [1957] story needs to be assessed in light of his Dan Fry and Billy Meier unambiguous endorsements here, as opposed to three independent investigations of the Edwards story [linked below] which are studiously covered up by the general UFO media promotion industry. I'm guessing here, but I doubt you've seen them:

Only three people [to my knowledge – let me know of any others you find] ever performed corroboration investigations, with identical result. The event was a slow-drift-pass scintillating shape of still-disputed nature, which never deployed landing legs or landed and took off again. The images and interviews were filed with Blue Book, and can be found in the on-line archives. All direct participants indicated no knowledge of Gordon Cooper’s participation at any point in the event and its aftermath.

The first investigation was conducted in the mid-1960s by James McDonald, the leading “pro-UFO” scientist of his time. He described his results here.

www.project1947.com...
Case 41. Edwards AFB, May 3, 1957, page 75

The second investigation was mine, in the 1980-2 period. You can continue ignoring it as you like. I shared it with Cooper, and he used details from it in his book and interviews.
www.zipworld.com.au...

The third was done for NICAP by Brad Sparks in the 1990-era. Here are his results.
www.nicap.org...



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Guess the film he mentions was refused on the FOI request.

Good find though and fascinating to listen to



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

In this video, he reports the film has just been located [in 1995]....


Really? Where is it?


And actually, that Edwards AFB 'landing' story [1957] story needs to be assessed in light of his Dan Fry and Billy Meier unambiguous endorsements here, as opposed to three independent investigations of the Edwards story [linked below] which are studiously covered up by the general UFO media promotion industry. I'm guessing here, but I doubt you've seen them:


What are you saying here, Jim? What is you assessment of Dan Fry and Billy Meier. Are you really disagreeing here?

In terms of the Edwards AFB landing, the fact is Cooper is not an eye witness to that event. He saw FILM, through a window, and that's all, staring directly at the 35mm film, right? He's not a primary witness. Further, this as not been tied to anything else. It was a craft that landed on a tripod. End of story. You want to claim aliens here? I don't think so.

My contention here is that Cooper's choices of stories to get behind and support are unfortunate in the extreme. He skips Roswell and Bentwaters to focus on Fry and Meier? Unbelievable! I don't know anyone who actually believes Fry. The evidence against Meier is overwhelming from many different sources, from his ray gun found to be a Chinese toy for sale n eBay to wedding cake UFO pieces being part of a bookshelf.

In that respect Cooper is very much like Mitchell, who is often misquoted or at least mis-understood as "an astronaut who saw UFOs." He didn't. He was TOLD about aliens UFOs, etc. by others "whom he trusted" and he taked, VERY generally, about what he was told. Hellyer, the Canadian minister of defence, is another example. Well after his retirement he went to a UFO conference in Hawaii (I believe sponsored by Greer) and read Corso's book, then started spouting on UFOs. Now he is often quoted, once again as an "authoritative figure." After all, he was "Minister of Defence"!!!! But all he did is read Corso's book and get excited about it. It's as compelling as Jimmy Carter seeing Venus and reporting a UFO.

People get all gaga eyed when someone they feel is famous says something they'd like to believe. Neither Cooper, nor Mitchell, nor Hellyer saw anything firsthand that is particularly compelling. To tout their "experiences" as something spectacular is an invalid "argument from authority."
edit on 12/11/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler



It's as compelling as Jimmy Carter seeing Venus and reporting a UFO.


Get over yourself, Carter maintained that what he saw was a UFO.



In that respect Cooper is very much like Mitchell, who is often misquoted or at least mis-understood as "an astronaut who saw UFOs." He didn't. He was TOLD about aliens UFOs, etc. by others "whom he trusted" and he taked, VERY generally, about what he was told.


Regardless of whether the stories are firsthand or otherwise, he's just stating his opinion on the questions being asked, and as you say, he trusted these people so he believed them, which is why he seems sincere when discussing the stories



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Hey Great find! I was only just doing some reading on Cooper last night and the Mars missions..



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: LonnyZone
a reply to: JimOberg

Hey Great find! I was only just doing some reading on Cooper last night and the Mars missions..

It was a stroke of dumb luck, I was searching on a Cyrillic spelling of a Russian ufologist and it popped up, since the title is in Russian, a search for 'Gordon Cooper would never hit.

I'm wondering if he made these really bizarre comments about Fry and Meier in OTHER interviews with US programs and they just cut them out because they were TOO looney-looking?



posted on Dec, 11 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
People get all gaga eyed when someone they feel is famous says something they'd like to believe. Neither Cooper, nor Mitchell, nor Hellyer saw anything firsthand that is particularly compelling.
That's certainly true of Mitchell, but Cooper did tell a spectacular tall tale of being in charge of a film crew and filming a UFO landing on a lake bed, and sending the film off to superiors, which was "never to be seen again". Jim Oberg debunked that claim (in the article he referenced here) and I made a thread about it with images from the "film" that was alleged to "never to be seen again":

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

So I think that's a big difference between Mitchell and Cooper: Mitchell didn't claim to have seen anything but Cooper did claim that he not only saw it but "his crew" filmed it.

I look forward to watching the OP video when I get a chance, though it will be painful to watch someone endorsing Billy Meier. Argggh!



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
I just came across this recently-posted youtube gem by accident, searching for a related person. It's from 1995 and Cooper is visiting Russia and meeting with ufologists over there. For an hour and a half they ask him wide-ranging questions, on many topics new to me.

He discusses how he believes Dan Fry really did ride a flying saucer [and in his autobio he describes packing a travel bag for a ride Fry promised him, too]. He endorses Billy Meier’s UFO photos as authentic. Recounts many stories from his pilot friends. Plus more details on his own two experiences in the 1950s, on Edgar Mitchell, on why he thinks UFOs are covered with platinum sheaths, about the Utah home-made saucers of Wellings, and more, much more.

Let's get as much of this transcribed and shared as we can. It's slow going with the back-and-forth Russian translation, but the voice quality is adequate.

Video title:
Астронавт США Гордон Купер 26 августа 1995 г в Санкт-Петербурге
Published on Nov 18, 2015
www.youtube.com...


I like cooper, and its always good to hear open minded people in an area where being open minded to ufo could see you lose your job and career.

But he does bimself no favours by saying billy mieirs photos and footage are real, when they are clearly fake



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Nice find Jim, thanks for bringing it to us.


I thought pretty much everyone knew Cooper had a reputation for "making it play" when he discussed his UFO stuff. As pointed out in this thread (and many others) the facts simply don't support his version of stories.

He lost my interest (and any credibility with the UFO topic) the day he "endorsed" Billy Meier.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Springer

For those not familiar with Cooper's by now well established pattern of extreme narrative embellishment and confabulation, here's a reality check on the Welling saucer incident that Cooper describes in delusional detail on this new-found interview.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
This is all very well & good, bashing Gordon Cooper, Billy Meier, George Adamski etc. but does it actually change anything?

I mean if the purpose is to destroy everyone who has reported and told a story about UFO's, that's going to take a very, very long time

edit on -216002016-12-12T10:56:38-06:000000003831201638122016Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:56:38 -0600 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
This is all very well & good, bashing Gordon Cooper, Billy Meier, George Adamski etc. but does it actually change anything?

I mean if the purpose is to destroy everyone who has reported and told a story about UFO's, that's going to take a very, very long time


Its not bashing everyone who has seen a ufo. Its bashing people like mieir who is clearly a fraud.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
This is all very well & good, bashing Gordon Cooper, Billy Meier, George Adamski etc. but does it actually change anything?

I mean if the purpose is to destroy everyone who has reported and told a story about UFO's, that's going to take a very, very long time


Don't deflect or play reduction-ad-absurdum, they are obvious signs of logical pathologies that label you.

The credibility of Gordon Cooper's narratives and his judgment is the specific issue here. Is there any story he has told that you feel confident in trusting on his sole say-so? Name one.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg



The credibility of Gordon Cooper's narratives and his judgment is the specific issue here. Is there any story he has told that you feel confident in trusting on his sole say-so? Name one.


I wasn't aware that was the purpose of this thread, however if Gordon Cooper offended you in some way in the past, then you should just let it go Jim


Let me ask then, on the flip side, what do you think his reasoning was for telling these stories, regardless of narrative or judgement?



Don't deflect or play reduction-ad-absurdum, they are obvious signs of logical pathologies that label you.


Is that so? The only labels I see here are on my clothes and I'm not telling you where I shop



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Let me ask then, on the flip side, what do you think his reasoning was for telling these stories, regardless of narrative or judgement?
I'm no expert but I don't think confabulation is based on reasoning. I was trying to research it recently and I found an interesting pdf at MIT which told me something about what is and isn't known about confabulation, which if you are really interested in more information about this you might want to explore:

What is confabulation?
What I found was interesting is that we all probably confabulate to at least some small degree and again it doesn't seem to be based on reasoning, rather lack of reasoning and it demonstrates some not so logical human behavior patterns, like this 1977 research the link cites on page 3:


Confabulation has also been reported in young children reporting their memories, in subjects of hypnosis, and in normal people in certain experimental settings. When normal people are asked about certain choices they made, they can produce something that sounds rather like a confabulation. Nisbett and Wilson (1977) set up a table in a department store with pairs of nylon stockings and asked shoppers to select the pair they preferred. Unbeknown to the shoppers, all of the pairs were identical. People tended to choose the rightmost pair for reasons that are not clear, but when asked the reason for their choice, the shoppers commented on the color and texture of the nylons. When they were told that the nylons were identical, and about the position effects, the shoppers nevertheless tended to resist this explanation and stand by their initial reasons. As with patients with neurological disease, the question that is raised by such behavior is, why didn’t the shoppers reply that they didn’t know why they preferred that pair of nylons?

Rather than being merely an odd neurological phenomenon, the existence of confabulation may be telling us something important about the human mind and about human nature.
The article said it might be linked to storytelling which is also part of human nature:


There is also a clear connection here to the human gift for storytelling. Many confabulations are plausible little stories, about what one did over the weekend, or why one can’t move one’s arm. We all have little stories we tell ourselves and others, especially when we are asked why we did something. Lovers, for instance, are notorious for asking, ‘‘Why do you love me?’’ Often we are not really sure—we simply are drawn to the person; so much of what is important in relationships happens below the level of explicit awareness. However, we usually offer up some sort of account: ‘‘I like your eyes,’’ or ‘‘I like your enthusiasm.’’ We also each have a sort of personal story that we tell to ourselves and others—about how interesting, successful, ethical, honest, etc., we are. Are these phenomena at the normal end of a continuum, with confabulating people with neurological disorders at the other?
So confabulating a little may be normal but at the other end of the continuum where Gordon Cooper's confabulation resides, it's not normal. The article discusses some potential physiological reasons why this might occur, but apparently it's hard to pin down in universal terms and there are many different conditions that can cause it. However my guess is that Cooper has no logical "reasoning" as you put it for doing this, and he could be suffering from one of the disorders mentioned in that link, known to cause this type of behavior.

edit on 20161212 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Interesting theory, you could be forgiven for thinking there's confabulators everywhere



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum
One reason confabulators won't have any "reasoning" for doing it is that they don't even know they're doing it. If you ask them "why did you just make up that whole story that never happened the way you said", maybe the story is made up, but the confabulator thinks it really happened, or at least they are unable to distinguish between stories that really happened and those that didn't happen.


edit on 20161212 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
There's no call for any of us to point any fingers, it seems it's a far-too-common human trait.

By Shanika Gunaratna CBS News December 9, 2016, 5:38 PM
Study: Half of people "remember" events that never happened

www.cbsnews.com...

Another 'must see' report on memory and hitherto-unrecognized weaknesses in it, important for those of us deeply engaged in assessing human testimony, is NOVA's program last February called 'Memory Hackers'.

www.broadwayworld.com...
edit on 12-12-2016 by JimOberg because: add links



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join