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

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=t3NMqCij7cI

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....:)

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

tucson_gem_1965234.jpg

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

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please check your link.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/archive/pages/article/id900/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.com/Flying-Saucers-Are-Hostile-Disappearances/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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

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.