posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 08:00 AM
See www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html for helpful suggestions.
Do you have any sense of possible reliability issues with a user-edited reference site?
Sorry, unfair I know but couldn't resist
Not unfair at all. Doublecheck EVERYONE. That's why posts like the earlier one on links to actual full video files are so much more trustworthy than
And you can also put more reliance on posted information that you KNOW has been the target of YEARS of intense examination to find and flaunt errors
in it -- like mine, for example, since an entire generation of 'young guns ' UFO buffs' have been out gunning for any vulnerable chinks in the data
and analysis. In the end they usually just give up and whine, "Well, I can't believe it", and consider that a refutation.
Cooper's claim to have seen the 'landing' video at Edwards collapses when compared to the Blue Book report and photos [which anybody can purchase
from the National Archives -- it did NOT 'disappear'], and on Gettys' written testimony -- I have the letter -- that the object never landed, and
Cooper wasn't involved -- they didn't even know he'd been on base at that time. James McDonald verified this in 1968 congressional testimony when
he presented inter alia THIS exact case -- no landing, no mention of Gordon Cooper.
The only way Cooper knew their names was he read them in the report I prepared and mailed him in 1982. He also 'added' details to his subsequent
narrative that he ONLY could have found in that report.
Why would Cooper tell the story so differently? Maybe because after alienating himself from the spaceflight community through his own misbehavior and
misjudgments, UFO conventions were the only public events he got invited to, and who cared WHAT you told them as long as they adored you? After all,
as their performance to this day confirms, enough of them will believe Anything and never bother to check.