Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

G.Cooper encountered man-made flying saucers


  • Please log in to reply
573 replies to this topic

#511    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:22 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 05 November 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

As for the Gemini 5 meteorites, all I can find about them is that Cooper said one made a dent of .25 inches in the hull.  I can't find anything from Pete Conrad on this subject at all, one way or the other.

http://www.google.co...qVMp9LQRMZj3VTQ

Please check your link.


#512    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,246 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:50 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 04 November 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

Ahem...  Chrlzs just cited a specific example of your misinformation.  You have yet to cite even one to back up your slanderous statements.

As for mocking, smearing, and attacking your opponents; this is behavior that YOU exhibit on an almost daily basis anymore, and there are literally hundreds of examples on this forum where you've been doing that from nearly day one.  Do you want me to cite some of these?

You accused another poster of distorting the facts of a case and of nefarious intention, yet it was you distorting his words and wrongly denigrating his character.  Here.
You claimed that Gordon Cooper wrote about confiscated UFO photos from Gemini V, and even cited specific pages.  Turns out nothing of what you claimed was in those pages.  Here.
You accused James Oberg of saying that Cooper was "fired," when he never made such a statement at all.  Here.
You claimed that skeptics had denied that McClelland had any involvement with NASA, when no such denial had ever took place.  Here.
You claimed that Edgar Mitchell had publicly stated that NASA had contact with aliens, but he has never made such a statement.  Here.
This thread is just full of examples of your atrocious behavior.  It's also where you accused Chrlzs of being me.  But then, around that period you were accusing almost anyone with a skeptical opinion of being me if you didn't recognize them.

Anyone can do an advanced search where the poster is TheMcGuffin (your previous abandoned account...) or TheMacGuffin where the keyword is "skeptic" to read many posts where you heap bile and slander over and over again upon anyone who has the audacity to point out your fallacies and/or correct your mistakes.  In fact, just about any thread you've participated in will undoubtedly reveal acidic, scalding, disrespectful, and venomous remarks from you about skeptics in general, me and Bade in particular, and several other individuals including Hazzard, DBunker, Chrlzs, Lost_Shaman, 747, DONTEATUS, mcrom, Pericyntheon, The Sky Scanner, bmk, and more.

And this doesn't even count the many posts which have been snipped and/or hidden from public view.





I don't think anybody hates you McG, we're just sick and tired of your games.  You come across as a bitter and angry old man who throws more tantrums than a two year old.





Of course you stand by everything you've said.  To admit your mistakes would be a sign of weakness (in your rather bizarre little world), and you surely can't have that.

Regardless of your refusal to admit to any of these errors, as anyone with an ounce of integrity would be willing to do, they are still blatantly obvious and permanently recorded within the pages of this forum.


If you truly want a character debate, I can gather even more specific examples.  You've literally littered this forum with your nastiness.


I'd rather not, however, so I suggest the following...

Just stop.  We can discuss these cases and the information without all of the mud slinging.  We can debate the topics based on the merit of the information shared, cited, and argued.

Can you do that McG?  Can you find a way to attack the post instead of the poster?  Is it within your capacity to address the message instead of the messenger?

Good post BooNy, thanks for taking the time. I was going to, but frankly, couldn't find the inspiration.

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#513    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:51 AM

View PostJimOberg, on 05 November 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

And you state this without even reading the paper?

Boy, now THAT is proof of ESP for sure.

If you concentrate hard, can you summarize the methodology Mitchell used, and his criteria for scoring the results of the ground 'receivers'?


I think I already did that a few pages back here, just from that interview with Mitchell I posted.

I have never seen any actual report on this experiment, but as I told you before I don't have any interest in ESP and don't see how any of this is applicable to UFOs.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 05 November 2012 - 01:52 AM.


#514    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:55 AM

View Postbadeskov, on 05 November 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Good post BooNy, thanks for taking the time. I was going to, but frankly, couldn't find the inspiration.




Bad, it's late and I'm tired and I just don't want to hear any more of this **** today.  Okay?

Give it a rest for one night, will you?


#515    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:58 AM

View PostJimOberg, on 05 November 2012 - 01:18 AM, said:

We're not talking about 'magic cameras' here, we're discussing a hand-held 35-mm with a humongous lens, pointed out the window of a Gemini spacecraft. There's no way in the real world of optics that it would create surface images with a resolution of centimeters.

Can you imagine such a camera, and estimate its theoretically 'best' ground resolution? How about 100 meters or so -- 10,000 times too gross to see licence plate numerals.

The spacecraft was moving at 8000 meters/sec. Even an exposure of 1/100 of a second would be smeared across 80 meters of ground, or more.



I have never seen these pictures at all, only heard about them.  I don't even care about this issue and you're the only one who seems to be making a big production out of it.  

As far as I can tell, you are the only one on the Internet who keeps bringing up this stuff over and over ad nauseum.

I think I'm to the point where I just don't want to hear about this any more, and cannot find any more information about it.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 05 November 2012 - 01:59 AM.


#516    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:01 AM

View PostJimOberg, on 05 November 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

Please check your link.


You check it.  I'm sick of hearing about it.


#517    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,246 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:11 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 05 November 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

Bad, it's late and I'm tired and I just don't want to hear any more of this **** today.  Okay?

Well, that is fine, however this was my first post today so give it a break, will you? You are the one saying you reap what you sow and that is indeed very true.  

Quote

Give it a rest for one night, will you?

Oh, I will. Frankly, I have no interest in conversing with you, so don't worry.

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#518    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:24 AM

View Postbadeskov, on 05 November 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

Well, that is fine, however this was my first post today so give it a break, will you? You are the one saying you reap what you sow and that is indeed very true.  



Oh, I will. Frankly, I have no interest in conversing with you, so don't worry.



Good, good, I don't care, as long as you just leave me alone.  PLEASE.


#519    1963

1963

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,106 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:BEDLAM

  • When the day is through,and the nightsky shades the blue,and the swallows cease to sing as they fly!.......

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:54 AM

View PostJimOberg, on 04 November 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

I'm sorry that you and '1963' are so uninformed about this alleged von Braun quotation.

My only suggested remedy is that you READ MY POSTS ON THIS DANG THREAD.

Posted Yesterday, 06:18 AM 383
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=1869735

But as you seem so eager to avoid polluting your brain with any of the information that I've suggested may be helpful to you
IF
[big IF]
you really want to understa\nd this stuff better,
rather than just tickle your ego with self-aggrandizing fantasies,
permit me to doubt you'll bother with this link, as well.

[sigh]

Someday you'll be ready. The material will still be on my website to help you out of your swamp.

Hey Jim,..Thanks for the [indirect] reply! :tu:

It was an informative read that I had previously missed, ..which is a shame because I could have saved myself a couple of hours trying to track down the origin of the quote!

To cut a long story short...I managed to 'blunder' my way to  the German newspaper "Neues Europa" 1st jan 1959...but so far, could not produce an archived copy.
In your post you mentioned the two sources that you thought responsible for the story...Good and McClelland ...but I would like to throw a third option your way....While I was searching the web, I came up with this link that states that ..."In their book , "Flying Saucers Are Hostile" , printed in 1967, that authors Brad Steiger and Joan Whritenour, states that it was to them that Von Braun first mentioned the 'unknown powers' deflecting the satellites, and then went on to elaborate further in the German newspaper"


http://old.disinfo.c.../pg2/index.html

..I checked to see if I could find the book and passage,..and found that the book was real,...but have not found a copy to read yet!...

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/B000OZW6M6

....and as I believe that this pre-dates the other two references ...I would suggest that this could be the original source of the quote.

I will try to find a readable copy of both the book and the newspaper when I have more time....and perhaps we can get to the bottom of whether the quote is merely myth or not?...because I believe that a quote such as this, coming from a man like Von Braun , could be something special!...Though I know that you probably don't think so. lol.

Cheers.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

#520    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:59 AM

View Postbadeskov, on 05 November 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Good post BooNy, thanks for taking the time. I was going to, but frankly, couldn't find the inspiration.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Thanks Bade.  I'd like to hope that this will be the end of it, but only time will tell.  If the truth be told I'm extremely doubtful, but I sure as hell would like to be proven wrong this time.  Enough is enough is enough, and I hope that McG agrees to just drop all of this nonsense to focus on the cases, questions, and issues.



View PostTheMacGuffin, on 05 November 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

Bad, it's late and I'm tired and I just don't want to hear any more of this **** today.  Okay?

Give it a rest for one night, will you?

Perhaps you'll think about that the next time you are considering launching another character attack against members of this forum.  Don't be surprised if you get other responses from other individuals that you named in this most recent attack.  I suggest you just take your well deserved licks and let it rest.  Then I suggest you drop your vendetta against skeptics in general.

The strength of your arguments and any related cited references should stand on their own merits if they are substantial enough.  That will give you more than enough to rest on your laurels if it comes to pass.


#521    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,215 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:03 AM

View Postsynchronomy, on 03 November 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

I've seen the conversation with Goldwater.  He has done good work in the past and brought many things of value to the table, but in recent years, I believe, he has gone over the edge.  I suspect he had an excellent career filled with dreams and aspirations, but suddenly all that was torn from him and I think it has deeply hurt him.  He seems to have a "no holds barred" approach to the ETH.

edited for spelling

Barry Goldwater took the people for a ride when he purposefully released the draft report of the GAO evaluation of the Roswell incident, because it had been fudged and claimed that records were destroyed that should not be. This was proven to be incorrect, and the records were very much up for destruction.
When Goldwater deliberately released the wrong version to create an air of mystery, he lost the plot and crossed the line into the land of the credulous. I do not feel he deserves to be considered after being shown to deliberately dupe the public to push a flying saucer story.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#522    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:15 AM

View Post1963, on 05 November 2012 - 02:54 AM, said:

Hey Jim,..Thanks for the [indirect] reply! :tu:

It was an informative read that I had previously missed, ..which is a shame because I could have saved myself a couple of hours trying to track down the origin of the quote!

To cut a long story short...I managed to 'blunder' my way to  the German newspaper "Neues Europa" 1st jan 1959...but so far, could not produce an archived copy.
In your post you mentioned the two sources that you thought responsible for the story...Good and McClelland ...but I would like to throw a third option your way....While I was searching the web, I came up with this link that states that ..."In their book , "Flying Saucers Are Hostile" , printed in 1967, that authors Brad Steiger and Joan Whritenour, states that it was to them that Von Braun first mentioned the 'unknown powers' deflecting the satellites, and then went on to elaborate further in the German newspaper"


http://old.disinfo.c.../pg2/index.html

..I checked to see if I could find the book and passage,..and found that the book was real,...but have not found a copy to read yet!...

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/B000OZW6M6

....and as I believe that this pre-dates the other two references ...I would suggest that this could be the original source of the quote.

I will try to find a readable copy of both the book and the newspaper when I have more time....and perhaps we can get to the bottom of whether the quote is merely myth or not?...because I believe that a quote such as this, coming from a man like Von Braun , could be something special!...Though I know that you probably don't think so. lol.

Cheers.

Good lead, let's follow it up later.... via www.jamesoberg.com


#523    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,812 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:18 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 05 November 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

I have never seen these pictures at all, only heard about them.  I don't even care about this issue and you're the only one who seems to be making a big production out of it.  

As far as I can tell, you are the only one on the Internet who keeps bringing up this stuff over and over ad nauseum.

I think I'm to the point where I just don't want to hear about this any more, and cannot find any more information about it.

How can we believe Cooper's claim is anything but an old pilot's 'war story' to impress his audiences?

I know the question makes you sick -- that's a feature, not a bug, of it.


#524    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:37 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 05 November 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

Perhaps you'll think about that the next time you are considering launching another character attack against members of this forum.  Don't be surprised if you get other responses from other individuals that you named in this most recent attack.  I suggest you just take your well deserved licks and let it rest.  Then I suggest you drop your vendetta against skeptics in general.

The strength of your arguments and any related cited references should stand on their own merits if they are substantial enough.  That will give you more than enough to rest on your laurels if it comes to pass.


I know what I saw, Boon.  I know more than I've told on here, and it's enough.  I really have no need to argue with anyone about it.

Things are very different from the way you see them, but do I really have to say any more about this at all?  No, I don't think so.

Am I trying to convince you of anything?  No, of course not, and there is really no need for me to do so.  I know what I know and it's enough.

View PostJimOberg, on 05 November 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

How can we believe Cooper's claim is anything but an old pilot's 'war story' to impress his audiences?

I know the question makes you sick -- that's a feature, not a bug, of it.

I have no way of knowing that, but neither do you.


#525    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:46 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 05 November 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

Barry Goldwater took the people for a ride when he purposefully released the draft report of the GAO evaluation of the Roswell incident, because it had been fudged and claimed that records were destroyed that should not be. This was proven to be incorrect, and the records were very much up for destruction.
When Goldwater deliberately released the wrong version to create an air of mystery, he lost the plot and crossed the line into the land of the credulous. I do not feel he deserves to be considered after being shown to deliberately dupe the public to push a flying saucer story.

I met him once, you know.  I didn't vote for him and didn't agree with him politically, but in my opinion he was always a straight shooter.  I have known my share of politicians over the years, more than I can talk about, and Goldwater was always a person of real integrity.  Like him or not, agree with him or not, you always knew where he stood.

I can say that even though my family and I were always on the other side of the political spectrum.  As I said, all this is more complicated than people realize.  Goldwater really was told to back off of this stuff and he never liked being told that.  He thought the Congress was entitled to know more, just on general principles, and too much was being kept secret from the public and the legislative branch.

My family, even though we were military we were also on the statist side of the political divide, if you know what I mean.  Some call it the 'progressive' side but basically it favors a very strong executive and central state to deal with all the domestic and foreign problems we face--and that also means secrecy.

I was brought up thinking that this was just the "modern" way of doing things, but Goldwater was worried about the direction it had taken.  It was too much like a fascist or authoritarian state, and all the older constitutional principles were being left behind.

I know he was concerned about all that.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 05 November 2012 - 04:34 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users