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

#496    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:21 PM

View PostJimOberg, on 04 November 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

Clumsy attempt at cheating, seems to me. A private website quoting COOPER'S BOOK is hardly validation of Cooper's original story, which has NO basis in any NASA document, memoir, or photograph of the returned spacecraft. Zero evidence.

Cheating?  All I'm doing is quoting the sources that I find on the Internet.  I really do think you should retract that meteorite story, though, because such an event did occur.


#497    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:25 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 04 November 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

Yes, I know they had a camera on the Gemini 5 to take pictures from space for the military.  That's well known and even you agreed with that in your article on Rense, where as usual you go out of your way to attack Cooper like it's some kind of personal vendetta.

I have often wondered if that's exactly what it is.

How can you believe his claim, while still on the recovery carrier, to have seen 'auto license plates' in a photograph taken with a hand-held camera out the Gemini window? Can't you admit he was exaggerating, at the very least -- and since all the experts agree that space film is NEVER developed on the recovery ship, was probably confabulating the story to impress his audiences?


#498    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:26 PM

View PostJimOberg, on 04 November 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

Where did your non-NASA website get that info? Cooper's book?

Come on, you can't prove a story by citing somebody ELSE'S repetition of the same story.

He didn't say "dents". You are falsifying his claim to make it less outlandish than it really was. Clever.


I'm not "falsifying" anything, merely quoting what I found on that website.


#499    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:28 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 04 November 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

Cheating?  All I'm doing is quoting the sources that I find on the Internet.  I really do think you should retract that meteorite story, though, because such an event did occur.  

Why? Because of something of unknown origin and reliability that YOU found on the Internet.

Come off it. Zoser is naive enough to fall for anything, but you've seen too much of the world to be taken in by anonymous claims that conveniently support your going-in positions. You LOOK for such claims to provide the false appearance of 'proof'... as now.

Find any evidence there was ANY external damage to Gemini-5. Look in NASA's records.

The spacecraft is hanging from the ceiling at 'Space Center Houston', come on down.

You find any meteoroid holes in the hull, I'll reimburse your travel expenses.


#500    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:37 PM

View PostJimOberg, on 04 November 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Why? Because of something of unknown origin and reliability that YOU found on the Internet.

Come off it. Zoser is naive enough to fall for anything, but you've seen too much of the world to be taken in by anonymous claims that conveniently support your going-in positions. You LOOK for such claims to provide the false appearance of 'proof'... as now.

Find any evidence there was ANY external damage to Gemini-5. Look in NASA's records.



I'm no expert on meteorites, but perhaps this was the shower that Gemini 5 encountered in August 1965.

"The next important event in meteor studies involved radio-echo observations and the Kappa Cygnids were finally recognized by this technique in the early 1960's. Z. Sekanina detected this stream during the 1961-1965 session of the Radio Meteor Project. Activity was detected during August 23-28 from an average radiant of RA=298.9 deg, DECL=+62.4 deg."

http://www.google.co...x945Wju6NzBNFBg


#501    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:11 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 04 November 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

I'm no expert on meteorites, but perhaps this was the shower that Gemini 5 encountered in August 1965.

Really lame dodge, answering a peripheral issue not even in dispute.

Nobody doubts there WAS a meteor shower.

Only COOPER says his spacecraft was 'holed' -- like jabs from an ice pick -- by meteoroid hits.

There's not one shread of evidence anywhere else -- document, memoir, photograph -- that supports that claim.

Cooper's word [and Internet echoes of it] -- against a universe of unanimous evidence.

Ball's in your court.

Swing away.


#502    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:23 PM

View PostJimOberg, on 04 November 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

Really lame dodge, answering a peripheral issue not even in dispute.


It was not my intention to be "lame" and "dodge" your interrogation, merely to try to identify meteor showers that occurred at the time of Gemini 5 in August 1965.


#503    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,616 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:30 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 04 November 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

Years ago, John Newland used to host this program One Step Beyond, which he always claimed was based on true stories.  In one episode called "The Sacred Mushroom", he traveled to Mexico to test whether these mushrooms could enhance ESP or psychic abilities--whatever term you want to you.  Then at the end he took some of them himself and tried one of those laboratory experiments in a university.  

This was a serious program and he took some scientists and professors with him to Mexico to see if there was anything to it.







excuse the interruption.....


thanks for that TMG. I enjoyed it. Very interesting. I think that the military remote viewing programmes

must have used something, like this...or synthesized chemicals like the ones in the mushrooms.

but that's another topic.


please continue....:)


.

Posted Image


#504    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:39 PM

View PostJimOberg, on 04 November 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

Really lame dodge, answering a peripheral issue not even in dispute.

Nobody doubts there WAS a meteor shower.

Only COOPER says his spacecraft was 'holed' -- like jabs from an ice pick -- by meteoroid hits.

There's not one shread of evidence anywhere else -- document, memoir, photograph -- that supports that claim.

Cooper's word [and Internet echoes of it] -- against a universe of unanimous evidence.

Ball's in your court.

Swing away.

Jim, would you be able to quote exactly where Cooper said anything about there being holes?  Apologies if you have done so already.  Based on this PDF from your site, I don't see any reference to Cooper saying there were holes.

Now, you do seem to indicate that there weren't even dents in any of the NASA documentation and I haven't read it all for myself to confirm, but neither do I see any reference to Cooper saying that there were holes.  Just dents as MacGuffin's previous link indicated.  Can you clarify this discrepancy?


#505    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:59 PM

View PostJimOberg, on 04 November 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

How can you believe his claim, while still on the recovery carrier, to have seen 'auto license plates' in a photograph taken with a hand-held camera out the Gemini window? Can't you admit he was exaggerating, at the very least -- and since all the experts agree that space film is NEVER developed on the recovery ship, was probably confabulating the story to impress his audiences?

Even with their regular cameras, they got pretty good pictures of Tucson, Arizona in 1965, but I can't claim to have seen any of the military pictures.

Posted Image


http://www.google.co...29,r:3,s:0,i:81

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 05 November 2012 - 12:30 AM.


#506    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:07 AM

View Postbee, on 04 November 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

excuse the interruption.....


thanks for that TMG. I enjoyed it. Very interesting. I think that the military remote viewing programmes

must have used something, like this...or synthesized chemicals like the ones in the mushrooms.

but that's another topic.


please continue.... :)


.


On ATS, Oberg said of Edgar Mitchell

"You are not helpless. You can also calibrate the dependability of Mitchell's judgment on fringe claims.

For example, read his 1971 paper on his private space ESP experiment on Apollo-14 and see how flakey the methodology was and how unjustified the grandiose conclusions were. Read it for yourself."


http://www.google.co...gzTLdaGWkmjAEfA



As I already posted on here, I just don't see how they were any different from all kinds of similar ESP experiments that were going on at the time, so I don't think this makes Mitchell crazy or "flaky".

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 05 November 2012 - 12:18 AM.


#507    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:17 AM

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

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 05 November 2012 - 12:17 AM.


#508    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:12 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 04 November 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

Jim, would you be able to quote exactly where Cooper said anything about there being holes?  Apologies if you have done so already.  Based on this PDF from your site, I don't see any reference to Cooper saying there were holes.

Now, you do seem to indicate that there weren't even dents in any of the NASA documentation and I haven't read it all for myself to confirm, but neither do I see any reference to Cooper saying that there were holes.  Just dents as MacGuffin's previous link indicated.  Can you clarify this discrepancy?

Yes, I'd better do so -- I looked for the book and will find it, and get the exact words and page citation.


#509    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:18 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 04 November 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

Even with their regular cameras, they got pretty good pictures of Tucson, Arizona in 1965, but I can't claim to have seen any of the military pictures.

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.

See the fundamental problem?

HOW can anybody with minimal knowledge of cameras believe Cooper's story?

Edited by JimOberg, 05 November 2012 - 01:18 AM.


#510    JimOberg

JimOberg

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2007

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:21 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 05 November 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

On ATS, Oberg said of Edgar Mitchell

"You are not helpless. You can also calibrate the dependability of Mitchell's judgment on fringe claims.

For example, read his 1971 paper on his private space ESP experiment on Apollo-14 and see how flakey the methodology was and how unjustified the grandiose conclusions were. Read it for yourself."

As I already posted on here, I just don't see how they were any different from all kinds of similar ESP experiments that were going on at the time, so I don't think this makes Mitchell crazy or "flaky".

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'?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users