Gordon Cooper -- New TV Show Claims He Made Treasure Map on Space Mission

New TV show claims Gordon Cooper made a secret 'treasure map' during a space mission [obviously Gemini-5]. I'm really suspicious about this theme.

"During one of his key missions, while Cooper claimed to be scouring the globe for nuclear sites, he actually discovered something else, shipwrecks. Working for decades in secret, using the information he collected while orbiting the Earth, Cooper created a document that he thought could lead to unimaginable wealth - a treasure map from space. Uncover the truth - and the treasure - when COOPER'S TREASURE premieres on Discovery Tuesday, April 18th at 10pm ET/PT."

www.broadwayworld.com...


"Before passing away, Cooper shared his secret with long-time friend Darrell Miklos with the hope that his exploration would continue and the treasure would ultimately be found. Miklos is now setting out on a personal quest to fulfill the legacy of his lost mentor, once and for all realizing Cooper's long-held dream and proving to the world that the mysterious documents hold the key for a new generation of explorers."

a reply to: JimOberg

Very Cool! Was he using some type of ground penetrating radar that could see ship wrecks below the surface? However he could see the shipwrecks it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

a reply to: JimOberg

Estimate of 3,000,000 shipwrecks world wide, I live within 50 miles of more than 20 I personally know... We Brits literally have 1000's of them scattered around our islands.

The thing is though, the sea is highly unforgiving. Only a small number of "lucky" wrecks last more than a few years without being torn apart and spread over huge swaths of seabed.

I'm not sure how much success a good Birdseye view could provide, surviving shipwrecks are rare and more of a modern trait due to the materials ships are made from.

We do find old ships, however it's kind of like finding pristine or well preserved fossils and bodies. It's all down to unique locations that help preserve content within it's location.

Great perspective comments, just what I was hoping for. Thank you!

I think the story Cooper found them is Hollywood hype, but exactly what he COULD have seen is a fascinating question.

This is awesome! I love sunken treasure.
My deceased uncle started me coin collecting in about 1965 with this coin and many others. This coin he gave me is called a cobb. it came from a ship off the coast of Florida. My uncles friend was a diver who retrieved many of these

a reply to: JimOberg

I think if any truth to this exists then it's all about the method of detection used, could they detect precious metals from space in those days for instance.

Because most shipwrecks had cargoes that really isn't worth the effort to retrieve and I have to imagine that the majority of wrecks with a good haul are deep... Because many people search for these treasure troves and the majority of accessible wrecks have been looted.

Technology has been a huge contributor in the more recent findings we hear about.

Not saying it's nonsense, just that clearly a lot more must exist to this treasure map than meets the eye.

a reply to: RAY1990

It's difficult to find an answer of what we are capable of. Watching the documentary that was made on Antarctica (the one that won an acadamy award in the 40's on Gen. Byrd - see youtube), it is interesting that they mention using some kind of sensor that can detect precious metals. I'm not sure exactly what they are using but I haven't been able to find much information on it...

The "Curse of Oak Island" show on the history channel basically says that we have many areas of earth mapped using some other technique. Apparently people get access to this information or the scans themselves? In the show, they mentioned rubies being buried offshore, gold, etc. A third party contacted the people on the show telling them where to look.

My guess is that it is more than just the naked eye he was using...No way to prove it either way...

Anyone have any knowledge of this?

I know that big mining companies can do some kind of density scan that you can create a topological map from to identify different materials but there are many approximations...A company I work for translated the scan data into a 3D representation....

I would love to see those relief maps.Or anyones approximations of such.

Here's an old story I wrote about Cooper's story of his 'magic camera'.... www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: JimOberg
Here's an old story I wrote about Cooper's story of his 'magic camera'.... www.jamesoberg.com...

Even that statement about 2.5" resolution is humbug, to be honest.

Lots of issues with Coopers story but there are stories of astronauts being tasked with additional classified missions by intelligence agencies that were to be kept from their colleagues/superiors.

Cant find the link but it played out as one astronaut "sneaking" off to do their classified task and the rest of the crew "pretending they didn't see them".

a reply to: erikthegreen

Equipment exists that can get a good reading on minerals, I've seen them before on documentaries.

mineral spectrometer

I'm not exactly sure how it works, something to do with lasers and reading the results of minerals being excited... I really don't have a clue.

I only popped in due to my interest in shipwrecks Now I'm looking up Raman spectroscopy...

I'm way out on a limb here and it's something I truly know nothing about but lasers were invented by the time Gemini V was launched and the theory that matter can be excited and read to determine it's composition was established since the 30's

Raman spectroscopy

Does that mean it's possible to analyse materials from space? Not a clue, it's possible I'm literally guessing though because again, I'm pretty clueless here.

Maybe someone who has a clue could chime in.

a reply to: JimOberg

Had a look at JimObergs link and if true and the focal length of the lens was 1250 mm on a 35mm camera thats a max of around 25 times magnification so that would not show much from orbit.

There are a lot of myths regarding what spy satellites can see/photograph most of what is claimed is BS, for example numberplates require about 1 cm per pixel iirc way beter than in use today the size of the mirror required for the optics for that would be MANY times larger than the Hubble.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: JimOberg

Had a look at JimObergs link and if true and the focal length of the lens was 1250 mm on a 35mm camera thats a max of around 25 times magnification so that would not show much from orbit.

There are a lot of myths regarding what spy satellites can see/photograph most of what is claimed is BS, for example numberplates require about 1 cm per pixel iirc way beter than in use today the size of the mirror required for the optics for that would be MANY times larger than the Hubble.

And factor in that with a 1/50 sec exposure the camera would travel 500 feet laterally with the aperture open.

a reply to: JimOberg

True but from orbital height the 500 ft wouldn't be a problem .

What if it wasn't the actual shipwrecks but locations where the natural phenomenon was responsible for many wrecks and he found a few of these areas that have vast amounts of wrecks in a relatively small location.

Taking into account that many ships didn't always carry valuable cargo, if you could find locations where a natural issue was causing many wrecks, you could hedge your beg on there being something valuable in many wrecks.

Another idea is that, maybe he figured out either where wrecks happened but maybe the sea is more shallow now or not even there.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: JimOberg

True but from orbital height the 500 ft wouldn't be a problem .

Why not? Spysats perform image motion compensation by various technical tricks, but a camera fixed in a Gemini window which can only approximately control attitude rates would still be moving its line-of-sight cross Earth surface at approx. the same speed as orbital rate, wouldn't it?

a reply to: JimOberg

Spy satellites have VERY high magnification compared to his camera set up.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: JimOberg

Spy satellites have VERY high magnification compared to his camera set up.

you cam magnify all you'd like, but there's a limit on the resolution you can get that's set by the aperture and the color of light you're imaging with. And beyond that you will not go.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: JimOberg

Spy satellites have VERY high magnification compared to his camera set up.

you cam magnify all you'd like, but there's a limit on the resolution you can get that's set by the aperture and the color of light you're imaging with. And beyond that you will not go.

It was one example I offered to demonstrate that in his later years Cooper told more and more preposterous fantasies to keep getting back on TV. It was sad the way he was exploited by the sensation-seeking media. And by David Letterman, another nasty example.