It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Astronaut Gordon Cooper's UFO encounter and Government deniability

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:42 PM
One thing I do not get is WHY never lie detectors are used to show everybody is something someone speaks true or not - or its more advanced form - seeing the signals/charges that the brain uses when lying to see who is credible and who is not. That;s what I would do to anybody.

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:27 PM

Originally posted by TheReligiousHoax
reply to post by gameisupman

I think you are placing a bit too much faith in Jim Oberg. His organization CSICOP was involved in making a couple of NOVA specials a few years back, and there are some pretty strong indications that Phillip Klass, Jim Oberg and other CSICOP members took a rather heavy-handed approach in helping squash abductee claims. Here is an excerpt from Terry Hansen's 'Missing Times' book (excellent read BTW):

At one point Harvard's Dr. John Mack threatened to sue NOVA over libelous content in their original cut of 'Kidnapped by Aliens?' special. These segments were eventually removed, by NOVA insisted that it wasn't due to the legal pressure from Dr. Mack's lawyers. There is good reason to believe that these defamatory segments would have been left in the special had Dr. Mack not spoken up.

While Jim Oberg uses the concept of guilt by association to discredit Gordon Cooper and his relationship with Mr. Fry (not to mention Cooper's bad business practices), the same guilt by association can be made with Jim and his CSICOP buddies (most notably Klass) and helping make that claptrap of a UFO special on NOVA.

I am not saying either is right, but this sword cuts both ways. Who to believe? Make up your own mind, and take anything Jim Oberg or Gordon Cooper says with the same proverbial grain of salt.

If the sword of skepticism 'cuts both ways', how come it's rarely used to slice at claims that people LIKE to believe without corroboration? I'm not asking anybody to believe ANY single source, myself included -- just look at all sides of the evidence, don't ignore it or deny it even exists.

There's no 'guilt by association', there is "calibration of credulity levels". Cooper's autobio shows he believed Fry's stories and even believed that Fry was arranging a flight for Cooper on a UFO -- he packed a bag to take along. When he got Valeries Ransome's channeled 'space alien warning', he says he went to NASA personally to alert them about a possible threat -- that's credulity, fer shoor.

As for 'pretty strong indications' of my involvement in 'quashing' claims, I suggest your imagination and eagerness to conjure up evidence from your imagination may have run away from your logical powers. And it has nothing to do with the question of double-checking Cooper's stories -- which, so far, few sgow any concern that it should be needed at all.

Case in point: Cooper's claim to have seen a UFO land at Edwards AFB in 1957. Suppose -- just suppose -- that a respected pro-UFO researcher had checked out that case. Would you believe HIS description of it? I do. How about it?

edit on 21-5-2012 by JimOberg because: typo

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:41 PM
reply to post by TheReligiousHoax

....I think you are placing a bit too much faith in Jim Oberg. His organization CSICOP was involved in making a couple of NOVA specials a few years back, and there are some pretty strong indications that Phillip Klass, Jim Oberg and other CSICOP members took a rather heavy-handed approach in helping squash abductee claims.

As well they should have, but if you think that is "heavy handed, then your thin skinned. Maybe you could present some heavy handed claims that authenticate alien abductions? Yeah, didn't think so. And yes, I read your little fantasy book you mentioned in your post, and I have a better understanding of your mental disability now, thanks.

posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:57 PM

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by arbiture1200

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
If Gordon Cooper is somehow lieing (which I highly doubt), then the government should have the balls to say that! Either way, I want a government response.

Would it surprise you to learn that Cooper, after being quietly booted out of the astronaut program, campaigned around the country for various aviation inventions that he endorsed, and based on his endorsement investors gave millions of dollars to the advocates of these projects -- every penny of which was lost to fraud?

They all believed exactly as YOU did, about trusting Cooper. Too bad YOU weren't around to give Cooper's buddies all YOUR money, so you might also have learned an important lesson you seem defiantly resistent to.

What your saying Mr. Oberg, was that Mr. Cooper was a lousy business man. Since I never met him, or had dealings with him (to my knowledge) I can't speak to that fact. But that alone at least for me, does not automatically invalidate what he has said about UFO's It also does not prove it either. As this topic is known to do, were left with more questions then we have answers.

In regard to the business dealings, what I'd like to make more clear is that people who trusted Cooper based merely on his reputation earned honorably as a NASA astronaut, lost millions of dollars of their own money.

That very same attittude is exhibited by people who say, there's no NEED to verify Cooper's stories from indep-edent sources, he has such a wonderful reputation as a hero astronaut, his word doesn't NEED double-checking.

That's the point I meant to make.

Secondly, in assessing his own judgment of OTHER people's claims [and self-assessing his own ability to properly assess those claims], the bad business calls DO come into play, along with his own credulity regarding the contactee claims of Dan Fry.

But that's also a secondary issue, because he also has presented first-person stories of impressive personal experiences.

Those are the stories that I, apparently alone, suggest ought to be investigated with regard to the testimony of other people there at the time, rather than merely accepting Cooper's narrative as gospel without regard to anyone else's testimony.

Does Cooper's story stand on its own without checking?

Those who said 'yes', regarding the business deal claims, lost millions of dollars as a consequence of trusting Cooper's word.

Those who STILL say 'yes', regarding his UFO claims, still say yes. What have they lost?

Put simply I agree with you that Mr. Cooper having been an astronaut decades ago alone can not validate what he said on the UFO issue. Perhaps it is assumed that his bona fides would alone validate the more extraordinary of his claims. Regardless of his technical background, observational skills he acquired decades ago can only be one factor in our assessments. First, that WAS decades ago. And while people often think that someone trained as he was by itself endows him with all the required credibility for anyone evaluating his statements about UFO's, It can only be a small piece of it.

I did separate his history as an astronaut, and his business "skills", the later he obviously lacked. There is the broader issue of credibility. For what its worth, at least to me, any "wow" factor being an astronaut may have for anyone, to assume that translates into business insight would be ridiculous. If there are questions as to his honesty, I have never heard anything about it publicly, and I personally only know what the MSM has reported, since I never met the man. There is a reasonable case in evaluating his judgment however, which would apply across the field.

As usual, the validity of what he said about UFO's requires more then one mans resume. More then that for me, concerning any business venture someones resume is a tiny piece that would be needed even to convince me water is wet. And I shower daily. I have never personally seen a UFO. Its safe to say for that issue, one persons word may or may not impress, but I need more.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in