G.Cooper encountered man-made flying saucers

[TheMacGuffin]

Why would they shoot down a dummy?

Why not disable a stockpile? Would that not be a clearer message?

Would an advanced species be so deliberately ambiguous? Why would they simply not say, send another one of those up, and it will it be the very last time you ever do it? It just seems rather strange for a species that is supposed to be intelligent acting in this schoolyard fashion playing hide and seek?

I don't know why, only that it really happened.

[TheMacGuffin]

That does seem to be the case, Whilst you have some genuine questions for Jim, so many seem to be happy to just bag him for the sake of it. Leslie Kean's rebuttal to his evaluation of her book is pitiful and does not touch fact, but appears to be outright slander. And most if it, from what I understand is just slander. I could not respect that.

From an outside view, it appears that Jim knows more than people want out, and this his inormation will break open the tales they have been telling. In this very instance, Bob Jacobs is intentionally witholding information, and selectively letting out partial transcripts. From downunder, it is very hard to see that as something other than a lie by way of omission I cannot for the life of me understand why Jacobs would not provide the full transcript when Jim is all over the net saying he has his permission to do so, and here Jim informs us that he even sent Jacobs this information personally.

Put like that, and I cannot see how it would be seen differently, it appears quite blatantly that Jim is not the one who is perverting the truth here. Jacobs is, and I honestly fail to see how it could be taken any other way without Jacobs explaining himself which he seem reluctant to do so?

Do you know of any reason why Jacobs will not release the entire transcript as Jim suggested to him?

I don't know anything about that, only that many people will not deal with Oberg at all. He's not trusted, any more than Phil Klass was.

That's just the way it is, and nothing he says will change that. He has a track record that many people find highly suspicious--he's not an honest actor.

[booNyzarC]

I really hope you aren't falling for this BS psyche. I'm confident that you aren't, but just the same I'd rather state it outright that I hope my suspicions are true and that you aren't falling for this absolute codswallop.

I can see that you are trying to keep on good relations with McG, and I'd like to as well, but patronizing this kind of BS isn't going to serve any grand purpose in my opinion. It needs to be confronted when it rears it's ugly head, and quite frankly I'm tired of seeing this kind of crap crop up every other day.

Apologies for my bluntness.

Many people in the American UFO community are VERY suspicious of Oberg and avoid dealing with him. That's just the way it is here. As I said, you folks in Australia just seem a lot more trusting than we are.

As for Jacobs, the missile that was shot down by the UFO was just a test and did not have a live warhead, at least not so far as I ever heard. I am 100% certain that an incident very much like that did happen, and I was told that it was during a test over the Pacific.

This was back in the early days when they were testing anti-ballistic missiles, anti-satellite weapons and so on, although people don't seem to grasp that all these also have a duel purpose and can be used against UFOs. My impression has always been that the UFOs were sending a definite message when they knocked that missile down.

How can you not be so sure that whatever story you heard about wasn't the very same one that Jacobs talks about? The fact is, you don't.

As for your claims about Oberg being suspicious, well everyone who is openly skeptical of UFOlogy is suspicious in the UFOlogy community. Hell, I'm a no-name in that department and you are skeptical of me. How many UFOlogy bigwigs are scratching their heads wondering about who this nefarious booNyzarC character is anyway? I'd bet more than a few considering how vocal I've been in stating how completely full of crap some of them are.

I don't know why, only that it really happened.

You don't know jack $#!7 about what really happened. I'm sorry, but you are completely pulling this out of your hind end.

I don't know anything about that, only that many people will not deal with Oberg at all. He's not trusted, any more than Phil Klass was.

That's just the way it is, and nothing he says will change that. He has a track record that many people find highly suspicious--he's not an honest actor.

Stop with the character assassination already McG. This is nothing less than a repulsive character attack. When you say "he's not an honest actor" and things like that, all you are doing is exposing your willingness to sling mud at someone who doesn't agree with your point of view. It's really pathetic and you should stop doing that if you truly want to be taken seriously.

Speaking of being taken seriously...

Please answer my previous question.

[psyche101]

I don't know anything about that, only that many people will not deal with Oberg at all. He's not trusted, any more than Phil Klass was.

That's just the way it is, and nothing he says will change that. He has a track record that many people find highly suspicious--he's not an honest actor.

That really sounds like some people will cut of their nose to spite their face? To me Data is data.

Edited October 31, 2012 by psyche101

[psyche101]

I really hope you aren't falling for this BS psyche. I'm confident that you aren't, but just the same I'd rather state it outright that I hope my suspicions are true and that you aren't falling for this absolute codswallop.

I can see that you are trying to keep on good relations with McG, and I'd like to as well, but patronizing this kind of BS isn't going to serve any grand purpose in my opinion. It needs to be confronted when it rears it's ugly head, and quite frankly I'm tired of seeing this kind of crap crop up every other day.

Apologies for my bluntness.

No apologies required Boon It is this that I appreciate from you. That adherence to data. Only empirical evidence will settle a debate once and for all.

I do genuinely like MacGuffin, and I would buy him a beer tomorrow, where I give MacGuffin credence is that I know his knowledge is not Googled. I reckon one can tell the difference. But I do appreciate his side of the tale. If there is information out there, my goal is to make myself aware of it so I can make a balanced evaluation. One cannot deny Bob Jacobs record, but one can question his recollection. I wish more to know if there is a reason that Jacobs is not presenting Jims letter in full, as I can only at this point see a nefarious angle in doing so. It is a lie by way of omission. But before I judge Bob Jacobs on his testimony, I want to know as much as I can. I feel there is two sides to every story, and I just do not want to cut myself short. I think as far as the other side of the fence goes, MacGuffin is a hard source of information to beat.

But having the horses mouth here (Jim) goes a long way too. I feel privileged to have both stories in the one place. And I am really having trouble understanding how Jacobs can take what he wants for Jims letter out of context, have that known, and yet still be considered genuine. I figure if that information is out there, that MacGuffin is the best man to ask.

You know us evil skeptics, never giving the benefit of the doubt. Zoser can tell you all about it.

Having said that, before I leave this life I will make sure I see you and Bade, and LS, and Big D, and MID, and S2F, and Sky and MacG and any other members out that way, for a beer and a hand shake. That is the one goal I really wish to accomplish some day. If nothing else, UFOlogy has brought me into the company of some fine people.

Edited October 31, 2012 by psyche101

[booNyzarC]

That's really &%$*($# well said my friend. Apologies for the language filter, but it looks better than asterisks and frankly some things need the oomph that only profanity can provide.

[TheMacGuffin]

That really sounds like some people will cut of their nose to spite their face? To me Data is data.

No, I have never believed that. That seems naive to an old intelligence officer like me, who is used to dealing with deceit.

[TheMacGuffin]

I really hope you aren't falling for this BS psyche. I'm confident that you aren't, but just the same I'd rather state it outright that I hope my suspicions are true and that you aren't falling for this absolute codswallop.

I can see that you are trying to keep on good relations with McG, and I'd like to as well,

Given our absolute differences in personality and worldviews, I cannot understand why you keep talking about "good relations". That is meaningless under the circumstances and utterly impossible. It's a complete mystery to me why you keep saying such obviously absurd things. I don't understand it at all. Never have.

[TheMacGuffin]

How do you see it then?

The aliens have been here a long time and some of them are even based here. We are dealing with a number of different groups--perhaps over 100--with many different agendas, and some of them are hostile. The reason some of them are being seen so often is because they are already here or very close by. In a nutshell, that's how i see it. I have good reason to believe this.

[psyche101]

No, I have never believed that. That seems naive to an old intelligence officer like me, who is used to dealing with deceit.

That seems very foreign to me. I live in a world of engineering where data is the last call every time. Reputations and personal views I tend to put aside where physical evidence is concerned. Sometimes I will just read a paper without looking who the author is, but the content often gives that away.

It strikes me as leaving oneself short to allow personal judgment to filter evidence?

[TheMacGuffin]

That does seem to be the case, Whilst you have some genuine questions for Jim, so many seem to be happy to just bag him for the sake of it. Leslie Kean's rebuttal to his evaluation of her book is pitiful and does not touch fact, but appears to be outright slander. And most if it, from what I understand is just slander. I could not respect that.

From an outside view, it appears that Jim knows more than people want out, and this his inormation will break open the tales they have been telling. In this very instance, Bob Jacobs is intentionally witholding information, and selectively letting out partial transcripts. From downunder, it is very hard to see that as something other than a lie by way of omission I cannot for the life of me understand why Jacobs would not provide the full transcript when Jim is all over the net saying he has his permission to do so, and here Jim informs us that he even sent Jacobs this information personally.

Put like that, and I cannot see how it would be seen differently, it appears quite blatantly that Jim is not the one who is perverting the truth here. Jacobs is, and I honestly fail to see how it could be taken any other way without Jacobs explaining himself which he seem reluctant to do so?

Do you know of any reason why Jacobs will not release the entire transcript as Jim suggested to him?

I don't think that Jacobs has ever withheld any information, but has always been very forthright about his UFO experience. I think he is a very honest and courageous man for telling this story, as was his commanding officer for backing him up.

Frankly, I'm surprised that a story like that ever came out at all. I knew about it--or something very similar--before it was ever discussed in public, long before the era of the Internet and the Disclosure Project.

As for not sharing information with Oberg and keeping him at arm's length, I regard that as a very wise policy.

[TheMacGuffin]

That seems very foreign to me. I live in a world of engineering where data is the last call every time. Reputations and personal views I tend to put aside where physical evidence is concerned. Sometimes I will just read a paper without looking who the author is, but the content often gives that away.

It strikes me as leaving oneself short to allow personal judgment to filter evidence?

And I lived in a world of scumbags, crooks, fanatics, liars and sociopaths, one behind every tree in fact. People who would sell their grandmothers for a nickel and deal in just about anything. I've met a lot of people in this world in my lifetime in many different countries, and the majority of them I wish I hadn't.

I knew about Willard Milton Romney (his real name) in the 1980s when he was down in Central America looking for investors, and I can tell you that he'd deal with just about anybody, even the thugs who ran Panama, Guatemala and El Salvador. I could also tell you about his connections with the folks who ran the old Howard Hughes empire in Las Vegas after old Howard had gone really daffy.

God help us if he is ever elected because he'll be as dirty as Richard Nixon. Well, I've been in many countries that were basically run by mobsters and gangsters. It's the nature of the world, and I know too much about it to ever have a happy or optimistic disposition again.

Edited October 31, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

And I'll tell you another thing I learned: the further up the ladder they go, the worse they are.

Edited October 31, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

I really hope you aren't falling for this BS psyche. I'm confident that you aren't, but just the same I'd rather state it outright that I hope my suspicions are true and that

Stop with the character assassination already McG. This is nothing less than a repulsive character attack. When you say "he's not an honest actor" and things like that, all you are doing is exposing your willingness to sling mud at someone who doesn't agree with your point of view. It's really pathetic and you should stop doing that if you truly want to be taken seriously.

I'm only telling you the truth about what many people think of our friend Oberg and why they will not deal with him. He has often engaged in character assassination, by the way, although he's by no means the only one.

[bee]

Do you feel Mitchell's statements put Cooper's claims in a dim light, or have you ever heard Mitchell advocate Coopers claims?

you directed this at TMG....but as I saw this video where Mitchell mentions Cooper, Edwards AFB and the pictures that 'disappeared'...

at 4:14

in the section that begins at 3:33....Edgar also talks about many Military aviators who had encounters with UFOs were debriefed

by intelligence people and then told to shut up and don't say anything...

.

[JimOberg]

I posted a list of specific stories from Cooper that CAN be checked, and I argued that this process reveals a pattern of significant embellishment of the original events, as later retold by Cooper. I thought that this approach to witness calibration was a constructive and reasonable methodology. But apparently those who wish to kneejerk believe everything the man wrote or said don't really want to double check him, and to preserve his purity, they want to make believe he did NOT say some of the truly weird things he DID write in his book [or somebody ELSE wrote them without his permission, yeah, right] or said on late-night talk shows.

Who's avoiding evidence now? Look at the title of this thread. Who's derailing it to prevent productive discussion?

[bmk1245]

I don't know anything about that, only that many people will not deal with Oberg at all. He's not trusted, any more than Phil Klass was.

That's just the way it is, and nothing he says will change that. He has a track record that many people find highly suspicious--he's not an honest actor.

No surprize, because JO deals with FACTS, concept most ETHers aren't familiar with.

[TheMacGuffin]

No surprize, because JO deals with FACTS, concept most ETHers aren't familiar with.

Yes, "facts" like the Russian "satellite" the Gemini 11 astronauts saw, except that it was nowhere near them at the time they reported their UFO.

Of the "satellite" the Skylab astronauts saw which still has no name and no identity after 40 YEARS.

Those kinds of "facts" for the gullible and naive, who can't be bothered to check up on his statements.

[bmk1245]

Yes, "facts" like the Russian "satellite" the Gemini 11 astronauts saw, except that it was nowhere near them at the time they reported their UFO.

Of the "satellite" the Skylab astronauts saw which still has no name and no identity after 40 YEARS.

Those kinds of "facts" for the gullible and naive, who can't be bothered to check up on his statements.

I'm sure you'll get answers, and I'm sure you'll cop out as if nothing happened.

[TheMacGuffin]

I'm sure you'll get answers, and I'm sure you'll cop out as if nothing happened.

Not for those events, because if no one has any "answers" after 40-50 years then there never will be any.

[bee]

No surprize, because JO deals with FACTS, concept most ETHers aren't familiar with.

have a heart bmk...JO has so many of you wedged up his backside already that he has to stand up to type....

.

[bmk1245]

have a heart bmk...JO has so many of you wedged up his backside already that he has to stand up to type....

I have half backed heart. Simple. Edited October 31, 2012 by bmk1245

[psyche101]

I don't think that Jacobs has ever withheld any information, but has always been very forthright about his UFO experience. I think he is a very honest and courageous man for telling this story, as was his commanding officer for backing him up.

Frankly, I'm surprised that a story like that ever came out at all. I knew about it--or something very similar--before it was ever discussed in public, long before the era of the Internet and the Disclosure Project.

As for not sharing information with Oberg and keeping him at arm's length, I regard that as a very wise policy.

It just seems that does not add up on Jacob's behalf because the information he claims to have uncovered is available on Jims website, and he has only released a partial transcript yet Jim has publicly offered his the entire letter, and given him full permission to post it any place he likes.

To ignore that, I have to say, is not a wise policy, and even if Jacobs is the salt of the earth, he is putting himself in a bad light under the above conditions. I am sure you can see how this would look very suspicious on Jacob's behalf to any new or indifferent party observing the process.

[S2F]

...Sometimes I will just read a paper without looking who the author is...

If only we could adopt such a stance in the ETH debate. It would get rid of all of the appeals to authority at the very least. As well as necessitate verifiable evidence. Just drop the names and look at the data...I like that.

[1963]

What I find weird is how when serious investigations are made of major 'VIP UFOs', the results are covered up by UFO promoters and people can act as if they don't exist.

Check out my G. Cooper section at www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

Hey Jim thanks for the link. I must say that 'Old-Gordy' and his old tales (or revelations as they may be?) really provokes a strong reaction from you doesn't he!...But then if any of his claims were to be left 'un-debunked' the ETH would no longer be just a hypothesis.. would it!...

Anyway Jim, I also noticed a small snippet in your...

Astronaut "UFO" Sightings...section

"May 16, 1963 -- Mercury 9: Gordon Cooper reported a greenish UFO with a red tail during his fifteenth orbit. He also reported other mysterious sightings over South America and Australia. The object he sighted over Perth, Australia, was caught on screens by ground tracking stations. Cooper has recently denounced all stories of UFOs on his space flights as fabrications. The multicolor UFO is based on a deliberate misquotation by an author of Cooper's postflight report on a sighting of the Aurora Australis. Verdict: Fraud."

And I would appreciate it if you would post a link as to where exactly Gordon made this confession to being 'A Liar', because for the life of me....I can't find it!

Cheers.

Edited November 1, 2012 by 1963