Gordon Cooper: Revisited

VoidHawk

VoidHawk

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by FireMoon

 

If you want to dip your toe in the dangerous waters of psychology

Your post reads (well read) like a psych 101 text book example of psychological projection. So what is it about Oberg that gets your goat?

I dont see a Firemoon above your post? Is my browser ignoring some posters or is your post in the wrong place?

ETA: I see the threads just been updated!

It appears someone had their post removed...I didn't feel that it was lacking in manners, at all. Just not in total agreement with someone else's views on the topic at hand.

lovebeck

FireMoon

Click here for more information.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I rather enjoy Mr. Cooper's interviews and feel that he comes across as both truthful and sincere in them. The quote taken from him in 1960 was just a bit absurd. Why wouldn't he put himself out there and inform the public on this topic at the height of his career? Probably because he knew it would be the END of his career in the budding American space program, like duuuhh!

Sorry, Jim. You sure seem to be a pretty smart cookie, but my gut tells me that Mr. Cooper was nothing but honest in his interviews. I, like many others, believe him. In fact, he's one of the very few individuals I actually believe is telling the truth when it comes to this topic. The fact that you feel the need to post quotes from 1960 and debunk his claims REALLY makes me believe he was telling the truth!

RIP Gordon Cooper.

I feel it's really, really sad that there seems to be an inability to look at all sides of a story and put it into perspective. Cooper may have really believed what he was saying. He also may have just been telling stories. Maybe he was even telling the truth as it really happened. But the fact is there is nothing backing up his claims. There is also a lot of inconsistencies with his story. So what do you have in the end? Not much except for an unverified story and a shoulder shrug.

lovebeck
...Sorry, Jim. You sure seem to be a pretty smart cookie, but my gut tells me that Mr. Cooper was nothing but honest in his interviews. I, like many others, believe him. In fact, he's one of the very few individuals I actually believe is telling the truth when it comes to this topic. The fact that you feel the need to post quotes from 1960 and debunk his claims REALLY makes me believe he was telling the truth!

You speak for a lot of intelligent, sincere people, and this goes to the heart of the problem with a major cultural mystery such as the UFO phenomenon -- which is why discussions such as this are valuable.

Does your use of the verb "seem" for your judgment on Cooper indicate your acknowledgement that his public persona, like so many others, is largely a construct of NASA and Hollywood hype and of mass media
'print-the-legend' laziness?

Do your expressions of tolerate-no-doubt confidence in believing everything he has said and written as gospel truth, and your reluctance to even admit of the possibility of the prudence of double-checking with other witnesses, reflect a non-rational, even quasi-religious desperation for SOME source of ultimate truth in this maddeningly ambiguous but irresistibly tantalizing subject?

If he had told you of an aerospace industry investment that would double your money, would you hand over your life savings?

Would you have trusted him THAT much? Or is it just lip service?

Would you ever feel a need to double-check anything he claimed?

lovebeck
It appears someone had their post removed...I didn't feel that it was lacking in manners, at all. Just not in total agreement with someone else's views on the topic at hand.

I didn't mind his post, because it was a standard response that my views on Cooper and his stories aren't worthy of rational consideration due to mental malfunctions on my part [or worse]. Since the post so strikingly AVOIDED any actual argument against my views and claims -- even my simple questions -- that very avoidance, I feel, testified to the quality of my own suggestions. I saw it as a desperate excuse for closed-mindedness against heresy, not as a counter-argument. So from my own point of view, I was not offended by it -- just the opposite.

Jim Oberg the man who worked at NASA when Cooper was an astronaut for how many years? Jim Oberg the man who worked on exactly how many Apollo missions? I wil save you googling it as the answer to both questions is zero. Cooper left NASA 5 years before Jim joined and the missions NASA wil always be historically best known for ceased 3 years before Jim joined them. In other words Jim is the Robert Trujillo of NASA, the bloke who joined after all the really ground breaking stuff had been done and they were about to record St Anger.

Jim Oberg, the man whose own memory drift seems to include him forgetting to make it plain in his posts that he wasn't there for most of the truly ground breaking years. Why is that Jim? Why is it you talk about Cooper as if you were involved with him during his NASA years?

Serious question: how much of your own money would you invest in an aerospace industry startup company endorsed by Cooper, with no independent checking? Let's see how much we all really trust his stand-alone stories.

This is NOT a hypothetical question, by the way.

FireMoon
Jim Oberg the man who worked at NASA when Cooper was an astronaut for how many years? Jim Oberg the man who worked on exactly how many Apollo missions? I wil save you googling it as the answer to both questions is zero. Cooper left NASA 5 years before Jim joined and the missions NASA wil always be historically best known for ceased 3 years before Jim joined them. In other words Jim is the Robert Trujillo of NASA, the bloke who joined after all the really ground breaking stuff had been done and they were about to record St Anger.

Actually Jason Newsted would better fit your analogy.


St. what?

reply to post by skyblueworld


Thanks for the summary.

Further to my suggestion to compare the two versions of the May 3, 1957, Edwards AFB UFO sighting, here is James McDonald's description of it, as reported in 1968.

www.ufoevidence.org...
page 44, case 41, Edwards afb, may 3, 1957.

What are the significant differences between this account and Cooper's later account?

How can those striking differences be reconciled?

And if anybody's ambitious, they can look up the blue book case number in the on-line national archives, and compare its account. Or they can check with the AF officer who took the first interviews, Hubert Davis, now long retired but still sharp.

The 'Project Blue Book' case number is 4715, you can find it, and a discussion of it, on line.

As an alternative to accepting Cooper's story as sole-source gospel, an investigator might choose to compare it to the Blue book report and to James McDonald's 1968 report. Differences can be noted, and their significance can be assessed, and possible explanations can be offered.

Or one can opt to ignore all such supportive evidence, and pretend it doesn't exist.

What's your choice?

It seems my question remains unanswered, alas. But there's still time to study all the material, no rush.

JimOberg
...But the question I'm raising doesn't deal with his stories. It's to ask why, for decade after decade, the UFO community not only didn't WANT to look for verification, they seemed to actively want to NOT know of any problems with his stories that were -- and ARE -- too useful for public relations purposes? So to avoid the risk of the run-of-the-mill misperception rate [>>90%], do NOT take the chance of discovering anything inconvenient.

Is that REALLY the attitude that authentic investigators can use successfully?

JimOberg
The 'Project Blue Book' case number is 4715, you can find it, and a discussion of it, on line.

FWIW there seems to be three records in the fold3 archives on the case ...

File XXXX. May 2, 1957. Edwards AFB, California. Project 10073 Record Card (106 pages)
File 4715. May 2, 1957. Edwards AFB, California. 41 Photos (claims 41 but only 17)
File 4750. May 2, 1957. Edwards AFB, California. 22 Photos (claims 22 but 23?)

And then a month later at Edwards (looks unrelated) ...

File XXXX. June 26, 1957. Edwards AFB, California. Project 10073 Record Card (21 pages)

I uploaded an OCR'ed version of the May 2, 1957 10073 Record Card and photos to Scribd for those who would like to download it:

1957.05 - Edwards AFB, California UFO Record Card and Photos (Blue Book)

No mention of Cooper anywhere in the report, but it certainly fits the description on pages 92 and onwards in "Leap of Faith."




Some interesting reading!

I'd sure like to see film 7-3745-343. I wonder if that would be FOIA-able?

*thumbs up*

reply to post by Xtraeme


Good work, X.

Somehow the case report, and McDonald's based on follow-up interviews with three witnesses, omit any mention of the object extending landing gear and touching down. It just drifted by.

Gettys later, in a 1982 letter to me, explicitly confirmed that Cooper had no connection, they didn't even realize he had been on base at the time. Hubert Davis, the AF officer who took down the original testimony, independently concurred: Cooper was not around, the men did not 'work' for him, he never had access to the film they took.

There is unanimity of every other direct eyewitness and first-generation investigator of this case.

No landing.

No Gordon Cooper anywhere involved.

No 'disappearing' of the report and photos.

How can we suppose the later story from Cooper arose?

And are there other space-related stories from Cooper that follow the same creative, imaginative narrative template??

JimOberg
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Good work, X.

Just looking to establish the basic facts. =)

Somehow the case report, and McDonald's based on follow-up interviews with three witnesses, omit any mention of the object extending landing gear and touching down. It just drifted by.

Have you personally, or do you know if Condon or McDonald, accessed to the film? It seems like the film is the main object of debate.

No 'disappearing' of the report and photos.

Not entirely true. 24 photos are missing from case 4715. (checked it more closely and now I see it's about 3 images per page)

How can we suppose the later story from Cooper arose?

And are there other space-related stories from Cooper that follow the same creative, imaginative narrative template??

It's hard to imagine what Cooper would hope to gain from such a story. Listening to his tone in this interview (@30:12), I think you'll agree when I say he doesn't sound particularly excitable.

Gettys later, in a 1982 letter to me, explicitly confirmed that Cooper had no connection, they didn't even realize he had been on base at the time.

Interesting. I'd love to read a copy of the letter if you have the time to scan it. Sounds like an eye-opener!

Something's definitely not right with this case. Thanks for your patience and dedication Jim,
-X

Xtraeme
Interesting. I'd love to read a copy of the letter if you have the time to scan it. Sounds like an eye-opener!

I definitely owe the pdf to this forum, let me dig it out.

The YouTube interview is misleading. The interviewer asks: "The vehicle that you describe, how similar was it to the very first sighting back in 1951?" He goes on to explain very similar etc. When in fact, he didn't even see this "vehicle". In other interviews, he's asked if he watched the video and he responds, no. I remember watching this show when it originally aired and thought to myself that it was an impressive account. It was only until I researched it myself, that I found out he was only telling a story second hand. He in fact never saw this craft, but, goes on to respond to her question as if he had. I was fooled when I originally saw it.

In part of the interview that was edited out, he responds to another incident in which he thought he saw a UFO. It begins at 0:52 in the video below.

I chased one, one time in an airplane. Boy it looked like a big saucer really high and I had an afterburner going and got as high as I could in this airplane. As I started pulling up close to it, I had a very shame-faced look on my face when I realized it was a big weather balloon with the radio pack hanging under it.

So it seemed he did have a tendency to believe in UFOs.

Sensationalized TV programs like this do nothing constructive to help this phenomena. They only perpetuate myths. I believe this show did the same type of thing with JAL 1628. Editing the story and leaving out facts.

reply to post by JimOberg


I'll bite, but I would need more information about his endorsement. Is it face to face? Is there a Q&A? You said this isn't hypothetical. Did this actually happen or did you mean that it isn't rhetorical? If this actually happened what was the perceived ROI? What was his assessment of the risk?

Without any other information I would risk anywhere from 2% to 5% of my capital with no independent checking. Can you quantify the risk of my actions? I doubt it, but if you can I'm very interested. I believe in the end it is a gamble either way.

In any case, I don't think the analogy works. Losing money has a direct effect on people's lives, but UFOs don't. People perceive Gordon Cooper as a trustworthy individual. It seems like you are laying down bread crumbs for people to follow.

Would you ever feel a need to double-check anything he claimed?

You give the impression that you have followed up on this. It is clearly in your wheelhouse. Is there something tangible that points to a clear cut lie?

And are there other space-related stories from Cooper that follow the same creative, imaginative narrative template?

This really boils down to his character. Like the investment question, there is no clear answer and in the end it is about your gut reaction. I find him to be a credible individual despite the information you have provided so far. A survey would be interesting.

Gettys later, in a 1982 letter to me, explicitly confirmed that Cooper had no connection, they didn't even realize he had been on base at the time. Hubert Davis, the AF officer who took down the original testimony, independently concurred: Cooper was not around, the men did not 'work' for him, he never had access to the film they took.

Cooper just flat out lied? Did you approach Cooper about the letter? If so what did he say?

Sadly, this still boils down to character because the same skepticism can be applied to Davis and the account you gave. This is especially true when almost 100% of us are so far removed from the events.

compressedFusion
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I'll bite, but I would need more information about his endorsement. Is it face to face? Is there a Q&A? You said this isn't hypothetical. Did this actually happen or did you mean that it isn't rhetorical? If this actually happened what was the perceived ROI? What was his assessment of the risk?

Here are a number of case studies I've done about the inadvisability of using stories from Cooper as sole-source determinators of reliable truth. It's a sad tale.

“Down to Earth: An Astronaut’s Fame Draws Desperate Cities into Risky Investments”
‘Wall Street Journal’, November 7, 1997.
www.jamesoberg.com...

Speculation on why Cooper had a grudge against NASA
www.jamesoberg.com...

Exaggeration/fabrication #1= Meteor ‘bangs’ and dents in his spaceship
www.jamesoberg.com...

Exaggeration/fabrication #2= Reading license plates in photos he took from space
www.jamesoberg.com...

Exaggeration/fabrication #3= Confabulation/fictionalization of Gemini-5 launch prep narrative
www.jamesoberg.com...

Exaggeration/fabrication #4= Saving shuttle through space alien warning
www.jamesoberg.com...

JimOberg
In July 1960 Cooper was interviewed by Yvonne S. Durfield and had this to say about UFO's. "I don't take UFO's seriously. I would be very skeptical."

They got to him