Credible UFO Quotes by prominent individuals.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Scdfa

Yesterday you said:

Scdfa: posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 09:09 PM
...as well as the late great Carl Sagan, who said "criticism of CSICOP was justified". Did I get that quote right?

And a year and a half ago you said:

Scdfa: posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 01:03 AM
People whose UFO related work I could do without? Carl Sagan tops that list, he single-handedly set Ufology back a great deal, in my opinion. He was enormously popular and influential at the time, and he was grossly inaccurate.

I guess Sagan is only a "great" and reliable source when you want him to be?

You keep speaking about dragging peoples names through the mud, when for months you've done nothing but mock, correct, and insult anyone who doesn't believe as you do. Not to mention speak with conviction that alien beings are on Earth while dodging your own story.

You seem to have placed Gordon Cooper on such a high pedestal that he can do no wrong. Any statement or story told by or about Cooper should be blindly believed and taken at face value with zero investigation into the validity of the statement. Is this the Scdfa methodology for all UFO/aliens cases? After reading your posts for months, it looks like it could be.

And what have you posted that makes you better?

You complain my encounters never happened, then you whine that I haven't written more about them.

I've written a great deal about my encounters in this forum, many details, some that I've never seen written before, but it's not enough for you, why is that?
What exactly have I failed to write about my encounters?
I've talked about their ships, their appearance, what they do, what they say, where exactly have I let you down regarding my alien encounters?

As if you have been encouraging, right?
Who are you kidding.
And seriously, what have you written in here that added to the understanding of alien contact that was more significant than my writing about my family's abductions?
I can't wait to hear your answer.

Now that we've cleared that up.

Carl Sagan. I have little use for him.
I regard him as a shill, and I am convinced he adopted a position on UFOs that would advance his career.
I believe Stanton Friedman, who though Sagan was indeed aware of the reality of alien contact, but chose to pretend otherwise in order to become a celebrity.

As a result, people like me and my family, and every other abductee and contacted in the country, were left out in the cold without resources or even public acceptance. The deliberately ignorant position he took is still being pushed by his protege Neil Disgrace Tyson, the latest celebrity scientist.

The harm these two science clowns have caused affected not only abductees, but all of society. Our country has been held back from a threshold it should have crossed decades ago. Because they placed their trust in these celebrity scientists. They've hurt everyone, shame on them.

I used the term 'late great Carl Sagan' both out of sarcasm, and because he is so beloved by the denialists. It certainly got your attention.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Scdfa...


You can start by answering this question, which you force me to ask again. And it really is a very simple question:

If, as you contend, Gordon Cooper would describe me as "foolishly gullible",
then what words would Gordon Cooper use to describe you, Jim Oberg?

I thought I had, did you miss it a few messages back?

As for what Cooper thought of my work, his polite and thorough letters to me indicate he saw me [a fellow AF officer and a spaceflight colleague as a certified member of the NASA Mission Control Center team] as an investigator who rightfully deserved accurate answers.

Now, do you believe that Cooper saw a UFO on his Mercury-9 flight, based on his explicit statements on that story?

So, according to you, Gordon Cooper would describe me as "foolishly gullible"',
And he would describe you as "an investigator who rightfully deserved accurate answers".

I thought I asked you to answer honestly.
You base this on polite letters you exchanged while he was alive.
I asked what words he would use to describe you today, after you have spent ten years dragging his name through the mud when he can no longer defend himself.
After all, you told me what Col. Cooper would call me today, what would he call you today?

After you have devoted so much time to attacking him, again and again, relentlessly attempting to diminish his reputation, do you honestly think he would describe you simply as " an investigator who rightfully deserves accurate answers"?

Even after you continue to dig up and post his failed financial investments, which you admit have nothing to do with his ufo position?
You think he would react to your smear campaign in such a positive way?
While at the same time he would call a supporter like me "foolishly gullible"?

I'm not sure who you are trying to fool, me or yourself, but if you think you have successfully channelled Gordon Cooper, you know even less about human beings than you do aliens.

originally posted by: Scdfa
....
I thought I asked you to answer honestly......

Now, do you believe that Cooper saw a UFO on his Mercury-9 flight, based on his explicit statements on that story?

You're stuck. Do you believe EVERY story ABOUT Cooper, out of loyalty?

originally posted by: Scdfa

The harm these two science clowns have caused affected not only abductees, but all of society. Our country has been held back from a threshold it should have crossed decades ago. Because they placed their trust in these celebrity scientists. They've hurt everyone, shame on them.

They made the public denial and mocking on the subject, while the so called 'military-industrial complex' paid a real close attention to the phenomena, for obvious and completely logic reasons.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Scdfa
....
I thought I asked you to answer honestly......

Now, do you believe that Cooper saw a UFO on his Mercury-9 flight, based on his explicit statements on that story?

You're stuck. Do you believe EVERY story ABOUT Cooper, out of loyalty?

Sorry mr. Oberg, but you haven't answered that question yet:


According to you, Gordon Cooper would describe me as "foolishly gullible"',
And he would describe you as "an investigator who rightfully deserved accurate answers".

You base this on polite letters you exchanged while he was alive.
I asked what words he would use to describe you today, after you have spent ten years dragging his name through the mud when he can no longer defend himself.
After all, you told me what Col. Cooper would call me today, what would he call you today?

After you have devoted so much time to attacking him, again and again, relentlessly attempting to diminish his reputation, do you honestly think he would describe you simply as " an investigator who rightfully deserves accurate answers"?

Even after you continue to dig up and post his failed financial investments, which you admit have nothing to do with his ufo position?
You think he would react to your smear campaign in such a positive way?
While at the same time he would call a supporter like me "foolishly gullible"?

Please answer honestly.

originally posted by: Scdfa...
Even after you continue to dig up and post his failed financial investments, which you admit have nothing to do with his ufo position?
You think he would react to your smear campaign in such a positive way?
While at the same time he would call a supporter like me "foolishly gullible"?

Please answer honestly.

Your position that EVERY story by AND about Cooper is 100% true, and that any disloyal verification effort is an 'attack', has boxed you into the 'Mercury-9 UFO' tarpit, since you've GOT to defend the story even though Cooper has denied it. I challenged you to provide a single source where Cooper endorses that story, and you can't provide any, and all we see is squirming about how it's my fault you're not going to provide documentation.

Apropos of the theme of this thread, the credibility of prominent people, the business misadventures chapter of Cooper's life is very relevant, because it shows the catastrophic results of people following your mindset, that Cooper's word is infallible, doesn't NEED checking, and it's an insult to him to even TRY to verify independently any of his statements. The ferocity with which you criticize the dissemination of factually accurate information suggests to me you have an inkling of how damaging this episode could seem to readers here, related to your position of omni-credulity.

“Down to Earth: An Astronaut’s Fame Draws Desperate Cities into Risky Investments” is the namre of the article:

www.jamesoberg.com...
UFO enthusiasts who think that ex-astronaut Gordon Cooper’s NASA career is adequate grounds to believe all the stories he tells about UFOs might be advised to read the feature article in the ‘Wall Street Journal’ for November 7, 1997. The story by staff reporters Ellen Joan Pollack and Carlos Tejada is entitled “Down to Earth: An Astronaut’s Fame Draws Desperate Cities into Risky Investments”, subtitle “Gordon Cooper Was a Hero In Space but Has Trouble Making His Business Fly.”
Investors, both corporate, government, and individuals, gave Cooper’s companies over two million dollars during the 1980s and 1990s, and everybody lost every dime. Cooper says it was all their own fault.
….

Next up was an aviation business idea, where in the early 1980s he flew methanol-powered small airplanes around the country. With his friend Al Bubis, he founded XL Inc. to commercialize the idea, which he claimed was based on his own experience in NASA where he once had to fly a jet back to Houston using methanol. Aside from Cooper’s version of the story there is no documentation it ever happened, and an engineer that XL hired to duplicate the performance was unable to get the same results that Cooper remembered.

….Cooper’s next plan for financing was to find a desperate small community in need of jobs that his airplane plans could provide. Over a period of several years he negotiated with five towns, while ‘regaling local politicians with tales from space’ and handing out autographed photographs.
His negotiations with Edinburg, Texas, began in 1991. “Here was this hero, this national hero,” recalled Rudy De La Vina, then the mayor. “We believed in Colonel Cooper,” recalled Alejo Salinas, Jr., then a city commissioner. The town decided to loan Cooper’s company $1.3 million, a major chunk of its annual budget, although other local entities were suspicious. The independent ‘Council for South Texas Economic Progress’ warned that there were “many unanswered questions and huge gaps in Galaxy’s financial statements and bonafides,” but when compared with the reputation of an astronaut hero, these views were ignored.
In 1992, Cooper led the town’s Fiesta Hidalgo parade to celebrate the deal. “There was a glimmer of hope for development,” Salinas remembered. Then, he continued, “they took our glimmer, and they took our money.” Added Charlie Espinoza, the one commissioner out of five who had voted against the deal, “It was too good to be true.”
…. By then Cooper was already negotiating with other towns. He went to Macon, Georgia, but his demand to take over existing facilities was rejected. He went to his own home town, Shawnee, Oklahoma, and promised them 2,000 new jobs within four years, if the city would finance the entire project. His home town said no.
…. According to court documents reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, Cooper denied any wrongdoing and blamed all of the failures on each of the towns.

.

a reply to: karl 12


This is an inspiring post and I just want to explain something very fundamental to understanding the non-human visitation enigma. They aren't trying to protect humans from traumatic experiences when they cloak the memories. The object is to force human subjects to make a very important choice. They want these subjects to decide for themselves if they will remain in their ignorant, obliviousness of the greater environment or if they will pursue the knowledge and implications for their related experiences. This is why the subjects are always left with "introduction-memories", which lead to the realization of lost time and the prospect of abduction. This is also the reasoning for not providing comfort from physical pain during the medical procedures, even though these procedures could be performed upon the human subjects without any distress at all. The reality factor in the human psyche is that sense of trauma which always has to do with physical pain and psychological distress (fear).

It is the primeval instinct level of humanity that the beings connect with in order to drive some hard cold facts into our brains. Things that we don't want to accept. Things about the universe and things about ourselves and our species more definitively. On another level, the expression of the 'experiencers' who have told their stories has resonated with others, creating a kind of brotherhood of uniqueness. These people have become somewhat immune to the denial of fundamental problems in their society, and have thus become separated from the indolent social thought process.

There are many levels of understanding within this social event and the beings themselves can be plainly understood as psychological and social 'processors'.

If there were an easy way to process the human psyche with some simple event such as landing at the White House, this would have occurred. Unfortunately, humanity suffers not only from ignorance, but also from a naive trust in false leadership which harbors deep underlying social agendas. And this is something that only the most visceral reality experience can change.

a reply to: JimOberg

I can't believe you continue to dodge this rather simple question. You're more evasive than most flying saucers.

I ask you for the third time:


According to you, Gordon Cooper would describe me as "foolishly gullible"',
And he would describe you as "an investigator who rightfully deserved accurate answers".

You base this on polite letters you exchanged while he was alive.
I asked what words he would use to describe you today, after you have spent ten years dragging his name through the mud when he can no longer defend himself.
After all, you told me what Col. Cooper would call me today, what would he call you today?

After you have devoted so much time to attacking him, again and again, relentlessly attempting to diminish his reputation, do you honestly think he would describe you simply as " an investigator who rightfully deserves accurate answers"?

Even after you continue to dig up and post his failed financial investments, which you admit have nothing to do with his ufo position?
You think he would react to your smear campaign in such a positive way?
While at the same time he would call a supporter like me "foolishly gullible"?

Please answer honestly.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: JimOberg

I can't believe you continue to dodge this rather simple question. You're more evasive than most flying saucers.

I ask you for the third time:



Please answer honestly.

The mods probably wouldn't like my honest answer, otherwise your bizarre demand that I channel the ghost of Gordon Cooper is mostly arousing perplexed bewilderment, since it has nothing to do with the theme of the thread. Your demand that we believe EVERY STORY from Cooper, or even just ABOUT Cooper, is directly on theme.

You assured us that you believed the story about Gordon Cooper encountering a UFO on his Mercury-9 flight.

When I pointed out that Cooper himself never told that story, but has instead denounced it as a money-making fabrication, you acted stupefied and aimless. You're clearly not about to admit you were taken in by an Internet hoax -- just as all those investors in Cooper-endorsed aviation scams were taken in. But at least you, unlike them, didn't lose millions of dollars of their savings.

The issue of credibility, or lack of it, is pretty clear [you've never shown that anything I've said was UNTRUE, just that it was all sorta inconvenient for the things YOU wanted to believe]. Come on, accept the fact that the Mercury-9 story was bogus, don't you believe Cooper?

a reply to: Scdfa


I'm not interested in following you around the board gathering snippets and putting them together to form a story. You've been asked by many members to start your own thread about your abductions. For some reason, you still choose to have people ask you questions in someone else's thread.

As if you have been encouraging, right?
Who are you kidding.

How can anyone be encouraging to someone who repeatedly comes across angry and defensive? There have been people encouraging of your story regardless of your treatment.

And seriously, what have you written in here that added to the understanding of alien contact that was more significant than my writing about my family's abductions?
I can't wait to hear your answer.

I don't support alien contact as a fact. The burden of proof is on the claimant, not on the person who denies it.

As a result, people like me and my family, and every other abductee and contacted in the country, were left out in the cold without resources or even public acceptance. The deliberately ignorant position he took is still being pushed by his protege Neil Disgrace Tyson, the latest celebrity scientist.

The harm these two science clowns have caused affected not only abductees, but all of society. Our country has been held back from a threshold it should have crossed decades ago. Because they placed their trust in these celebrity scientists. They've hurt everyone, shame on them.

You want to place the blame on people like Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson for the abductees lack of evidence? They have held back this overwhelming evidence from the people? Other than lots of stories, what evidence would that be?

You also describe Carl Sagan as a shill. Both Sagan and J Allen Hynek were involved with Blue Book reviewing the same evidence. Hynek came out a believer, while Sagan was not. How much further have we come with Hyneks scientific study of Blue Book and many subsequent UFO/alien cases? Did we finally have definitive evidence that aliens are on Earth? Or was he half shill, half sincere? You'll answer half and half, I'm sure. What a convoluted path you have to weave through to find answers.

I used the term 'late great Carl Sagan' both out of sarcasm, and because he is so beloved by the denialists. It certainly got your attention.

Doesn't that kinda negate the seriousness of your question about CSICOP?

a reply to: JimOberg

The mods probably wouldn't like my honest answer, otherwise your bizarre demand that I channel the ghost of Gordon Cooper is mostly arousing perplexed bewilderment, since it has nothing to do with the theme of the thread.

No, no, it is you Mr. Oberg who started this, when you stated what Gordon Cooper's opinion of me would be.

Cooper would have thought you foolishly gullible.

I simply asked what Col. Cooper would have thought of you, today, after you have spent ten years dragging his name through the mud when he can no longer defend himself.
After all, you told me what Col. Cooper would call me today, what would he call you today?

After you have devoted so much time to attacking him, again and again, relentlessly attempting to diminish his reputation?

After you continue to dig up and post his failed financial investments, which you admit have nothing to do with his ufo position?
You think he would react to your smear campaign in a positive way?

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: JimOberg

The mods probably wouldn't like my honest answer, otherwise your bizarre demand that I channel the ghost of Gordon Cooper is mostly arousing perplexed bewilderment, since it has nothing to do with the theme of the thread.

No, no, it is you Mr. Oberg who started this, when you stated what Gordon Cooper's opinion of me would be.

Cooper would have thought you foolishly gullible.

I simply asked what Col. Cooper would have thought of you, today, after you have spent ten years dragging his name through the mud when he can no longer defend himself.
After all, you told me what Col. Cooper would call me today, what would he call you today?

After you have devoted so much time to attacking him, again and again, relentlessly attempting to diminish his reputation?

After you continue to dig up and post his failed financial investments, which you admit have nothing to do with his ufo position?
You think he would react to your smear campaign in a positive way?

That's hilarious. He opines what Cooper might think of you, then accuses you of asking him to channel Cooper's ghost for an opinion on himself. What is the psychological term for that? Delusion? Denial?

Why do you think this individual has this running ad hominem attack against Gordon Cooper?

It is easier to attack the person than attack the evidence Gordon Cooper brought to the UFO issue? Doesn't this person realize this is a logical fallacy?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Scdfa


I'm not interested in following you around the board gathering snippets and putting them together to form a story. You've been asked by many members to start your own thread about your abductions. For some reason, you still choose to have people ask you questions in someone else's thread.

But it seems like you are already following him around.

It is the members choice whether they want to start a thread on their experience, we at ATS should feel privileged if the member ever decided to share such an incredible and difficult life experience with us, total strangers; yet you feel the poster is obligated to share it just because they have mentioned it in many threads? I'm not sure where this sense of entitlement comes from.

Anyway, let me help you. If you are really just interested in the members experiences and it is not just feigned interest as an excuse to hassle the person more, this is what you do. Click on their name, their board will come up, click on their posts, there aren't that many, and you can go through them and see which ones discussed abduction related experiences. That is if you are very interested. If you are not that interested I guess you won't bother.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

It is easier to attack the person than attack the evidence Gordon Cooper brought to the UFO issue?

Cooper brought no more evidence to the table than any other military witness , he told a good story but as far as I'm aware there's no corroborating testimony to back up what he claimed.
I respect Gordon Cooper the man but also doubt Cooper the UFO experiencer.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

It is easier to attack the person than attack the evidence Gordon Cooper brought to the UFO issue?

Cooper brought no more evidence to the table than any other military witness , he told a good story but as far as I'm aware there's no corroborating testimony to back up what he claimed.
I respect Gordon Cooper the man but also doubt Cooper the UFO experiencer.

So you are saying military witnesses especially astronauts are considered unreliable witnesses? How about military witnesses who are also aeronautical engineers and, well, here is his bio:

ORGANIZATIONS: The Society of Experimental Test Pilots, The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, The American Astronautical Society,

SPECIAL HONORS: The Air Force Legion of Merit, The Air Force Distinguished Flying Cross, The Air Force Distinguished Flying Cross Cluster, The NASA Exceptional Service Medal, The NASA Distinguished Service Medal, USAF Command Astronaut Wings, The Collier Trophy, The Harmon Trophy, The Scottish Rite 33, The York Rite Knight of the Purple Cross, The DeMolay Legion of Honor, The John F. Kennedy Trophy, The Ivan E. Kincheloe Trophy, The Air Force Association Trophy, The Primus Trophy, The John Montgomery Trophy, The General Thomas E. White Trophy, The Association of Aviation Writers Award, The University of Hawaii Regents Medal, The Columbus Medal, The Silver Antelope,

So his credibility is similar to any other military witness?

Gordon Cooper Bio

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

So you are saying military witnesses especially astronauts are considered unreliable witnesses?

No , I'm saying that as with many other UFO stories Coopers is unsubstantiated by any evidence or corroborating testimony from others involved.

So his credibility is similar to any other military witness?

Why wouldn't it be ? , as I said in my reply I respect Gordon Cooper but that doesn't mean I think him infallible.
Steven Greer is a doctor , does that mean I should believe what he says because doctors are highly qualified and respected ?

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE....

It is easier to attack the person than attack the evidence Gordon Cooper brought to the UFO issue? Doesn't this person realize this is a logical fallacy?

In response to explicit challenges from leading ufologists who asked me why Cooper's stories should not be taken at face value, I performed original investigations of other witnesses, other documentation, other related narratives by Cooper that COULD be thoroughly checked, then shared those results. I found his narratives unworthy of credibility, which was deemed an 'attack' and a 'smear' by those who did not want them checked at all.

What "credible evidence" do YOU think Cooper brought to the UFO issue? How did YOU validate it?

For example -- why should anyone automatically believe the story of a UFO encounter on Cooper's Mercury-9 spaceflight in 1963?

Good interview with USAF Staff Sergeant Richard Clark discussing the 1968 Minot AFB B-52 UFO Incident (and radarscope film).

RC Well, you know it had to have been a UFO. You know, we had nothing that could do the kind of speed that it had back then and to be able to change directions, I mean, flying with the plane and changing directions while still maintaining, I mean, you’re going—


TT The plane was going between 230 and 280.


RC OK, yeah, I mean, it’s going like this and then all of a sudden it’s over here, and it’s still going this way [indicating object motion with hand], I mean, even if we had something that could go that fast it could not—it’s going to go that fast this way [indicating straight line motion with hand] and—


TT In one direction.


RC —but it can’t go that way too. And that’s why it was phenomenal..


Thread

Tom Tulien's Website

Turkish pilots recall UFO sightings

"I left later in Yugoslavia airspace, we have seen two thousand meters away from an object. First we thought the aircraft. However, the light cluster will attract our attention to the sharpness of what is wondering we have. Light set, passed in front of us after 10 minutes. Suddenly he took on three primary colors. several times the normal plane in a big way began to fly in front of us. They said they have not seen such a body when we contacted the Istanbul tower. Fields, scattering their multicolored lights rose to 44 thousand feet and turned into a ball of white light. Then he disappeared into sharp rises a white ball of light.

Turkish Airline Pilot T.K. Selahattin - October, 1989 on a flight from Zurich to the Turkish town of Antalya.



"On the return from Osaka, continuing on the same route we included the team of four aircraft we saw that object. We came upon us out. Right continued over us on the cross. We saw a strong light, silver color and cannot take care of UFO shape We have not seen. He came to our very close. I did not believe UFOs, I believe that mission. I believe 5 years. We were flying three pilots. 38 thousand feet in 6 hours after departure, 4 were flying plane in the same direction. In front of me again THY flight from Shanghai was there behind me Lufthansa aircraft. Upcoming we saw a strong light. He came to our very close . Silver color and do not look, do not open your eyes. An incredible power, there were ten forces. Different anything, burn your eyes. Our plane was seen in all three pilots. He came upon us out. He continued right above us on the cross. They were between 35-45 seconds. Therefore see four teams simultaneously. Strange thing is that everyone thinks it onto itself. If it was hallucinating about a person, but the team has seen the four planes.

Turkish Airlines pilot Ibrahim Bilir - light from Osaka, Japan to Istanbu

Retired Turkish general claims close encounter with UFOs

Greek jets are not the only aerial adversaries Turkish planes have engaged in the skies, according to a retired general who has claimed he encountered unidentified flying objects over western Turkey while serving as a pilot:


The objects accompanied the pilots for 15 minutes as they passed from Balıkesir to the Aegean city of Denizli, Karakuş said, adding that he warned another pilot who wanted to fly toward them not to do so after deciding the objects did not look like planes. “One of my friends meanwhile turned his [plane’s] lights off. This time [the UFOs] got close to the third plane. They moved on to the second one when the third one also turned its lights off,” Karakuş said, adding that when he looked to his left at that moment, he could not see anything other than a yellow beam of light.“They moved to my left side when I also turned my [plane’s] lights off, the retired general said, adding that shortly afterwards, four to five lights resembling plane lights appeared. “Then they disappeared with a sudden maneuver..”

a reply to: karl 12

Karl, just throwing random UFO stories into the circle doesn't advance anybody's understanding.

But now that you're here, back on topic, do YOU believe Cooper encountered a UFO on his Mercury-9 space flight in 1963?