Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Paxus

G.Cooper encountered man-made flying saucers

575 posts in this topic

Well, you have to remember that Corso was an Army officer, as I was, basically a military intelligence type. I know the old jokes about how military intelligence is an oxymoron or military intelligence is to intelligence what military music is to music.

I have said before that I thought the Army had its own UFO investigation going in World War II and perhaps before, prior to the time that the Air Force became a separate service in 1947. It has more information about UFOs that people realize, just because ground troops have reported them in every war, and I'm sure those reports make their way up the line to whoever is really doing the classified UFO investigation.

Corso really did have all the jobs he claimed, and probably had some real information about UFOs. He was right in there with all those old Research and Development Board people who we know were heavily involved in the early UFO investigations. These were the same people that Robert Sarbacher was talking about, and if anyone had the real story on UFOs they did.

Of course, he later said that his ghostwriter exaggerated and sensationalized some of the details, but he always stuck by his basic story.

Interestingly, the documentary filmmaker Robert Emenegger met Corso many years before his Roswell book came out, and said that he did indeed have some real information about UFOs, although not exactly what appeared in The Day after Roswell book.

So Friedman's criticisms are probably more to do with the co-author of the book? That would make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would that the Army never seemed to get publicly called on the carpet about UFOs like NASA and the Air Force always did, but behind the scenes they were very interested in the subject and went around just gathering information in their quiet way.

So Friedman's criticisms are probably more to do with the co-author of the book? That would make sense.

That's what Corso said before he died.

I don't think the military ever really got out of the UFO business, although the Air Force was certainly very glad and relieved to get out of the PUBLIC side of the business after Blue Book was closed down. They were getting a high percentage of reports that were valueless, but that doesn't mean that all UFO reports were. Far from it. The military has known that for decades and they really would have been the village idiots if they hadn't.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never falsified ANYTHING or misinformed anyone. That's what you always say about me, but your extreme bias is obvious.

If they kicked people off of here for bias, every single one of you UM "skeptics" would be gone, without exception. That definitely includes you, Boon, Bad, Hazzard, and Oberg. None of you are even remotely "objective" no matter how much you pretend to be, and you spend much of your time mocking, smearing and attacking your opponents.

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.

You just hate me because I fight back hard against you, and you post the same lies about me constantly.

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.

Yes, I stand by everything I've said on here, and you can go to hell.

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Here I was trying to be nice and reasonable today, and then this prick shows up to bait me some more.

Yes, Boon, I do get tired of it--and of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here I was trying to be nice and reasonable today, and then this prick shows up to bait me some more.

Yes, Boon, I do get tired of it--and of you.

The post I quoted was from today. If that's what you consider being nice and reasonable, you've got some serious misunderstandings about social norms.

If you expect that kind of BS to just be ignored, you're mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The post I quoted was from today. If that's what you consider being nice and reasonable, you've got some serious misunderstandings about social norms.

If you expect that kind of BS to just be ignored, you're mistaken.

I understand you well enough, and I was responding to similar posts from your fellow "skeptics", whose favorite sport on here is trying to bait me. Admit it, Boon, you guys do that every chance you get.

You do it every day, but you never bring up any UFO cases of your own? Have you ever even posted a single one? Not that I can recall. None of you do.

You don't even post any UFO cases to refute them, but all you do is attack, demean and criticize those who do. You're a egotist, too, and you try to make every single thread center on you instead of the actual subject.

You're doing it right now, trying to derail this thread after I attempted to answer some questions and make several serious points without any rancor.

And then you show up--again. Just what is your real purpose for being here, Boon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now watch, Boon will make another long post about himself, further trying to derail the thread. Yes, I understand their tactics very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand you well enough, and I was responding to similar posts from your fellow "skeptics", whose favorite sport on here is trying to bait me. Admit it, Boon, you guys do that every chance you get.

You do it every day, but you never bring up any UFO cases of your own? Have you ever even posted a single one? Not that I can recall. None of you do.

You don't even post any UFO cases to refute them, but all you do is attack, demean and criticize those who do. You're a egotist, too, and you try to make every single thread center on you instead of the actual subject.

You're doing it right now, trying to derail this thread after I attempted to answer some questions and make several serious points without any rancor.

And then you show up--again. Just what is your real purpose for being here, Boon?

Now watch, Boon will make another long post about himself, further trying to derail the thread. Yes, I understand their tactics very well.

Speaking of tactics, you attack my character then present me with a no-win situation of accusing me further, asking me specific questions, and then claiming that if I respond to those statements I'm somehow "derailing" the thread and/or "making it about me."

Just stop with the character attacks already McG. I'm growing extremely tired of your games and unsubstantiated denigrating remarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listed about half a dozen stories from Cooper that I suggested could be validated by comparison with other sources, which would be a useful research technique.

Re the Edwards case, the stark differences betwen Cooper's version and McDonald's led some defenders to suggest there were TWO different UFO fly-bys in May 1957 [with the same two cameram,en, it seems], one without a landing and one WITH [for Cooper's story to hold up]. This is known as 'special pleading' -- it is a logical fallacy.

Re the story he saved the shuttle program from a lethal deasign flaw by relaying a telepathic warning from space aliens -- silence. Cooper's defenders just pretend he never made the claim.

Re his story about seeing auto license plates on a handheld camera image he made on Gemini-5, his defenders strategy -- again silence, pretend we never heard of that claim.

Re his story on his Gemini-5 being holed by meteoroid impacts, despite NASA experts later finding no damage -- silence, again.

Re the story, that Cooper denies, about a UFO encounter on Mercury-9 -- NOT silence, but testimony that the story must have occurred because Clark McClelland says it did.

These discussions might lead in a definitive direction -- which seems why Cooper's defenders do everything they can to deflect interest in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of tactics, you attack my character then present me with a no-win situation of accusing me further, asking me specific questions, and then claiming that if I respond to those statements I'm somehow "derailing" the thread and/or "making it about me."

Just stop with the character attacks already McG. I'm growing extremely tired of your games and unsubstantiated denigrating remarks.

Well, do you have anything substantial to say about the things we are actually discussing today? Here's your chance, soldier, sound off.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listed about half a dozen stories from Cooper that I suggested could be validated by comparison with other sources, which would be a useful research technique.

Re the story he saved the shuttle program from a lethal deasign flaw by relaying a telepathic warning from space aliens -- silence. Cooper's defenders just pretend he never made the claim.

I looked this one up, and he said that he received this warning from UFO "contactee" Valerie Ransone, not directly from the aliens. Someone said that she could even "see" UFOs landing when no one else could. I don't take these stories very seriously myself.

http://www.google.co..._cc44axHbrpjsHA

Ransone was a New Age type who talked about Atlantis, contact with Ashtar Command, communion with our "space brothers" and so forth. Brice Maccabee tested her "channeling" abilities at one time and she came up short.

http://www.google.co...senb8yGWkB-MzXA

I always do tend to cringe when anyone tries to make some kind of religion out of ETs and UFOs.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In relation to Cooper's account of Ransone telling him about the flaw in the space shuttle design, I would refer Mr. Oberg to this post on UFO updates:

"From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>

Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:07:45 +0000

Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:10:35 -0500

Subject: Re: Re: Gordon Cooper & The 'Space Aliens' - Hall

>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>

>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>

>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:25:06 -0600

>Subject: Gordon Cooper & The 'Space Aliens'

>One seriously misleading characterization of Gordon Cooper that

>Oberg has repeatedly made is that Cooper relayed telepathic

>messages from "space aliens" to NASA. Cooper never used the term

>"space aliens", which is simply the tabloid terminology Oberg

>uses to demean Cooper. It might also be construed from Oberg's

>description that Cooper was personally channeling "space aliens"

>and reporting what they told him to NASA. That is not the case.

>What Cooper actually writes is that he became acquainted with a

>woman named Valerie Ransone in 1978. She claimed to be in

>telepathic contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence. He

>became interested in a diagram she had drawn illustrating a flaw

>in the space shuttle thermal system that her "contacts"

>described to her. Cooper writes that he flew to Houston to tell

>a NASA supervisor of Flight Operations about it. Cooper said the

>supervisor, named Bennett James, discussed the matter with NASA

>engineers who identified a real problem with the cooling

>system's design. Maybe the NASA engineers were just humoring a

>famous astronaut, but that would have no bearing on Cooper's

>truthfulness.

>Cooper spends two chapters discussing his relationship with

>Ransone and a business venture that evolved from it aimed at the

>development of unconventional technologies.

>Whether or not Ransone was actually in contact with ETs is

>irrelevant to whether Cooper was being essentially truthful. I

>see no reason to believe he was not. He mentions the failure of

>this new technology venture and various other weird stuff, like

>the failed attempt to get a ride on a ET ship that Ransone's

>"contacts" had offered to Cooper before (allegedly) changing

>their minds. I suppose that if this incident can't be used to

>prove that Cooper was insane or a liar, it might be used to

>insinuate that he was extremely gullible. Maybe he was taken in

>by Ransone to some extent, but Cooper gives no indication that

>there was any money scam involved. My impression is that Cooper

>was simply interested in exploring subjects like ESP, heedless

>of the fatwahs Oberg's CSICOP colleagues have declared against

>them. Cooper's closing remarks on this part of his life are:

>"Today, I am unwilling to bet my life that the source of the

>astute technological assistance and advice Valerie Ransone

>provided from time to time originated from an extraterrestrial

>source. The test pilot skeptic in me could never be 100 percent

>convinced about her astral connections until I saw her climb

>aboard an alien sacuer and take off. But until that happens, and

>based on what I saw with my own eyes and was able to check out,

>I am at least 80 percent certain that she is, as she claims,

>able to tap into a source of higher intellligence not of this

>planet."

>Obivously, this is far from the 100% disbelief that would have

>been necessary for Cooper to be awarded an honorary fellowship

>from CSICOP, but in my opinion it's far from the gullible

>crackpottery that Oberg apparently wants to tar him with."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CGQQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fufoupdateslist.com%2F2004%2Fnov%2Fm01-020.shtml&ei=79uWUKWiO5D88QSttIFI&usg=AFQjCNGbDE_1ZwsCDACRsb63gxcuglv8iw&sig2=qeKDSP1qBVs41MnbJgKXQQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listed about half a dozen stories from Cooper that I suggested could be validated by comparison with other sources, which would be a useful research technique.

Re the Edwards case, the stark differences betwen Cooper's version and McDonald's led some defenders to suggest there were TWO different UFO fly-bys in May 1957 [with the same two cameram,en, it seems], one without a landing and one WITH [for Cooper's story to hold up]. This is known as 'special pleading' -- it is a logical fallacy.

Go back and read the links to the Blue Book records I posted, which also suggest that there was more than one crew out there filming at Edwards that day in 1957.

I do not believe the publicly-available records on this case are by any means complete, only what Washington made available to Blue Book.

You know what Hynek said about that, how they were always getting the short end of the stick. It's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back and read the links to the Blue Book records I posted, which also suggest that there was more than one crew out there filming at Edwards that day in 1957.

I do not believe the publicly-available records on this case are by any means complete, only what Washington made available to Blue Book.

You know what Hynek said about that, how they were always getting the short end of the stick. It's true.

This unfalsifiable argument from ignorance could be used in just about any case, but it is still just a logical fallacy and proves nothing.

The fact of the matter is that every piece of information we do have corroborates the balloon conclusion, including the descriptions and photographs provided by the witnesses who were there despite the fact that they doubted the conclusion themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listed about half a dozen stories from Cooper that I suggested could be validated by comparison with other sources, which would be a useful research technique.

Re his story on his Gemini-5 being holed by meteoroid impacts, despite NASA experts later finding no damage -- silence, again.

I have never understood why Oberg is always peddling this particular story all over the Internet, including here and ATS, or why it would be an impossible event. All he said was that meteorites made some dents in the hull, which is hardly an unusual event in space. Didn't they really see a meteor shower up there? Didn't they really take some pictures that were classified as well?

"Cooper and Conrad were also the first to observe a meteorite shower from space. Astronomers had alerted them to watch for a shower that happens every August. Thousands of meteorites whizzed past their spacecraft, putting on an impressive show for them. They knew it was possible that one of these falling rocks could hit their spacecraft and were prepared to patch up any small punctures. Suddenly, Gemini 5 was whacked by a meteorite that was no bigger than a pebble but sounded like someone had thrown a fastball at their spacecraft. The bang made them both jump. If the particle had been any bigger, it could have gone right through the hull, ending the mission and quite possibly their lives. They were hit a few more times during the next few days and an analysis of the spacecraft revealed quarter-inch dents in the titanium hull."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.squidoo.com%2Fleroy-gordon-cooper-jr-&ei=ROCWUOKGDo_29gTgp4CQAw&usg=AFQjCNG2UDpRMwsRzzQqyFzOmzH6UDJaiw&sig2=lEsLVU4QvVzvNUZ5ATVL2Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even this old website states that the Gemini 5 was hit by meteorites, so I really don't know what the big deal is. Maybe Oberg should just retract this meteorite story, because it seems to me that it really did happen.

"Towards the end of the flight the Gemini spacecraft was struck by a number of meteorite's during the annual meteorite shower in late August. After the flight a number of indentations were found in the spacecraft's hull, luckily the impacts were made by objects no bigger than a grain of sand otherwise the mission could have come to a very abrupt end."

In fact, this was a mission plagued with a number of technical difficulties as well.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&ved=0CDMQFjAEOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oocities.org%2Frocket_man_2020%2FGemini5.html&ei=zOOWUPyiC4q08ASqpYHQCA&usg=AFQjCNGw0YOyE5RMluhRo5jluXWnRxDe8w&sig2=nCpyndDHkKYWoSsqg4Hj_Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In relation to Cooper's account of Ransone telling him about the flaw in the space shuttle design, I would refer Mr. Oberg to this post on UFO updates:

"From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>

Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:07:45 +0000

Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:10:35 -0500

Subject: Re: Re: Gordon Cooper & The 'Space Aliens' - Hall

>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>

>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>

>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:25:06 -0600

>Subject: Gordon Cooper & The 'Space Aliens'

....>Obivously, this is far from the 100% disbelief that would have

>been necessary for Cooper to be awarded an honorary fellowship

>from CSICOP, but in my opinion it's far from the gullible

>crackpottery that Oberg apparently wants to tar him with."

http://www.google.co...qBVs41MnbJgKXQQ

Here's the problem. Cooper SAYS he went to NASA and told them of this warning, and that they FOUND the flaw and fixed it.

I checked. There was no such flaw. There was nothing to fix in the 'cabin oxygen system'.

You can't blame that on Ransome. It was COOPER'S story that the flaw was real and NASA had to fix it before launch.

ADD: It sure would have been nice if Cooper's book had included a copy of that drawing Ransome gave him based on messages from the non-terrestrial intelligences. Or even a drawing to the best of Cooper's recollection. But no....

Edited by JimOberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never understood why Oberg is always peddling this particular story all over the Internet, including here and ATS, or why it would be an impossible event. All he said was that meteorites made some dents in the hull, which is hardly an unusual event in space. Didn't they really see a meteor shower up there? Didn't they really take some pictures that were classified as well?

"Cooper and Conrad were also the first to observe a meteorite shower from space. Astronomers had alerted them to watch for a shower that happens every August. Thousands of meteorites whizzed past their spacecraft, putting on an impressive show for them. They knew it was possible that one of these falling rocks could hit their spacecraft and were prepared to patch up any small punctures. Suddenly, Gemini 5 was whacked by a meteorite that was no bigger than a pebble but sounded like someone had thrown a fastball at their spacecraft. The bang made them both jump. If the particle had been any bigger, it could have gone right through the hull, ending the mission and quite possibly their lives. They were hit a few more times during the next few days and an analysis of the spacecraft revealed quarter-inch dents in the titanium hull."

http://www.google.co...QvVzvNUZ5ATVL2Q

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.

Yes, he did take pictures with a 35-mm camera for the DoD. I've seen them. What Cooper claimed was that they were SO good he could AND DID see auto license plates in them. That is preposterous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even this old website states that the Gemini 5 was hit by meteorites, so I really don't know what the big deal is. Maybe Oberg should just retract this meteorite story, because it seems to me that it really did happen.

"Towards the end of the flight the Gemini spacecraft was struck by a number of meteorite's during the annual meteorite shower in late August. After the flight a number of indentations were found in the spacecraft's hull, luckily the impacts were made by objects no bigger than a grain of sand otherwise the mission could have come to a very abrupt end."

In fact, this was a mission plagued with a number of technical difficulties as well.

http://www.google.co...kKYWoSsqg4Hj_Q

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Yes, he did take pictures with a 35-mm camera for the DoD. I've seen them. What Cooper claimed was that they were SO good he could AND DID see auto license plates in them. That is preposterous.

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.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmeteorshowersonline.com%2Fshowers%2Fkappa_cygnids.html&ei=5uyWUKuyK4_K9gT1x4HwCw&usg=AFQjCNEORwFTCfskwzbrWihxJPCbMGPsTQ&sig2=KTN3lt_x945Wju6NzBNFBg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.