Astronaut recalls encounter with a UFO

[mystery fan]

It is not up to Jim Oberg or anyone else for that matter to disprove anything. The burden of proof lies squarely with the claimer.

Yes, just as it is not up to Jim Oberg or anyone else to ridicule those who are merely telling their stories and decide whether it is accurate or not. We didn't witness what Cooper did, so we cannot immediately dismiss his claims. I am not naïve enough to believe everything Gordon Cooper said as he claimed some pretty outrageous things. But I also do not believe Cooper had any reason to lie nor did he have anything to benefit off of telling the subsequent said lie. What we are left with is do you believe Cooper's assertions? You either do or you don't. But either way, people's opinions remain their opinions and to ridicule that shows how intolerant you are of opposing viewpoints.

[ChrLzs]

So if one case is wrong, then all of the sightings made by astronauts must be as well ? As for this particular case, the evidence is compelling that what he actually may have seen were boats, but what of Armstrong's accounts ? For me the question isn't if one case can be debunked or even 95% of them, it's the 5% I'm talking about.

Forever Cursed - still waiting on those 'accounts' from Neil Armstrong.. Surely you would want to deal precisely with those 5%... or would you rather just keep handwaving and offering false information to be eaten up by other people with similar biases and unwillingness to look for the truth?

[sinewave]

Yes, just as it is not up to Jim Oberg or anyone else to ridicule those who are merely telling their stories and decide whether it is accurate or not. We didn't witness what Cooper did, so we cannot immediately dismiss his claims. I am not naïve enough to believe everything Gordon Cooper said as he claimed some pretty outrageous things. But I also do not believe Cooper had any reason to lie nor did he have anything to benefit off of telling the subsequent said lie. What we are left with is do you believe Cooper's assertions? You either do or you don't. But either way, people's opinions remain their opinions and to ridicule that shows how intolerant you are of opposing viewpoints.

Again no, if someone presents a story like that as fact, there has to be some kind of evidence to back it up. Cooper did not qualify his remarks, he stated directly that there were alien craft sighted by him and others working with him. You have no idea what his motivations would be to lie. Having said that, I do suspect he was not in control of his faculties but I don't know for sure.

[mystery fan]

The main reason Cooper fell from grace within the space community was in the 1980s he used his fame -- and the knee-jerk trust that people like those posting here still exhibit -- to promote a series of bogus aviation industry scam investments that wound up costing people millions of dollars. Millions of dollars lost because of blind trust in one hero's say-so. He was foolish, not criminal -- he lost his own money, too. It's not his bad judgment that is worthy of criticism, since he paid a fair penalty. It's the knee-jerk credulity of people for he used his NASA-blessed hero status to mislead. This story has been reported in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere but most space folks are just too embarrassed for Cooper to make an issue of it now that he's gone.

Cooper also left the astronaut program under a cloud, when he was not automatically given command of a moon landing mission -- he had to audition like everyone else as a backup crew commander [Apollo-10], and he failed to adequately impress his fellow astronauts who would have had to pick him to fly, and trust their lives to him. They chose NOT to do so -- and he quit in a huff.

I love how you picked the easy target in Gordon Cooper but totally overlooked John Schuessler. Debunkers are guilty of dismissing the outrageous[in this case Cooper], but then ignoring the more credible[schuessler]. Could it be that Schuessler is a more difficult exception to explain away? He is much like yourself, worked with NASA but his claims are the other end of the spectrum from your own. He claims that NASA indeed knows about alien life[and has for some time] and that an on-going cover up is happening. Whether that is true or not, I do not know. But getting back to the original point of this topic, astronauts claim to see things all the time as do people in other areas whether it is NASA or the different government agencies. To dismiss that many different forms of credible witnesses just because of Cooper is indeed very ignorant or at the very least oblivious.

[seeder]

But getting back to the original point of this topic, astronauts claim to see things all the time

What? Astronauts are not constantly flying in space like airline pilots fly in the skies you know. Do some research, how many in total have been in space? When you know that, how many were in space with the privilege of windows? Then how many out of them - claim to have seen stuff?

[sinewave]

I love how you picked the easy target in Gordon Cooper but totally overlooked John Schuessler. Debunkers are guilty of dismissing the outrageous[in this case Cooper], but then ignoring the more credible[schuessler]. Could it be that Schuessler is a more difficult exception to explain away? He is much like yourself, worked with NASA but his claims are the other end of the spectrum from your own. He claims that NASA indeed knows about alien life[and has for some time] and that an on-going cover up is happening. Whether that is true or not, I do not know. But getting back to the original point of this topic, astronauts claim to see things all the time as do people in other areas whether it is NASA or the different government agencies. To dismiss that many different forms of credible witnesses just because of Cooper is indeed very ignorant or at the very least oblivious.

First of all, they are all easy targets because none have provided evidence. Again, the idea here is not to disprove the stories but rather to show they are true. Can you contribute anything in that direction?

Edited March 7, 2014 by sinewave

[Merc14]

The main reason Cooper fell from grace within the space community was in the 1980s he used his fame -- and the knee-jerk trust that people like those posting here still exhibit -- to promote a series of bogus aviation industry scam investments that wound up costing people millions of dollars. Millions of dollars lost because of blind trust in one hero's say-so. He was foolish, not criminal -- he lost his own money, too. It's not his bad judgment that is worthy of criticism, since he paid a fair penalty. It's the knee-jerk credulity of people for he used his NASA-blessed hero status to mislead. This story has been reported in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere but most space folks are just too embarrassed for Cooper to make an issue of it now that he's gone.

Cooper also left the astronaut program under a cloud, when he was not automatically given command of a moon landing mission -- he had to audition like everyone else as a backup crew commander [Apollo-10], and he failed to adequately impress his fellow astronauts who would have had to pick him to fly, and trust their lives to him. They chose NOT to do so -- and he quit in a huff.

I think a lot of people forget that these guys were just Naval (USMC) and Air Force aviators, very good at their job, that were thrust into something that was bigger than anyone could ever imagine. Professionals yes, but normal guys with a skill-set that made them great aviators but possibly not great celebrities. I admire them all the more for handling the pressures, having done the job a few years ago.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Merc14

[dr no]

I have yet to see one thing that would indicate that either Dean or Corso were "thoroughly discredited". What I have seen is more of the usual ufology debunking which usually settles nothing. It is more name-calling and mud slinging than discrediting.

I don't agree. Kevin Randle went through Corso and Deans military records,they couldn't have seen what they claimed because they lied about their service history,don't forget Randle is a Roswell believer and had a long military history himself it would be in his own interest to prove their claims if the evidence was there,which it wasn't.

[JimOberg]

I love how you picked the easy target in Gordon Cooper but totally overlooked John Schuessler. Debunkers are guilty of dismissing the outrageous[in this case Cooper], but then ignoring the more credible[schuessler]. Could it be that Schuessler is a more difficult exception to explain away? He is much like yourself, worked with NASA but his claims are the other end of the spectrum from your own. He claims that NASA indeed knows about alien life[and has for some time] and that an on-going cover up is happening. Whether that is true or not, I do not know. But getting back to the original point of this topic, astronauts claim to see things all the time as do people in other areas whether it is NASA or the different government agencies. To dismiss that many different forms of credible witnesses just because of Cooper is indeed very ignorant or at the very least oblivious.

This isn't a rational conversation, this is a car chase with the pursued throwing out garbage onto the street to delay those chasing him trying to pin him down for proof of earlier claims. First Cooper is held up as a touchstone of veracity, and now he's an 'easy target' it's unfair to pick on? Then it's claims of "Armstrong's testimony" that proves to be a mirage. So it's on to somebody else, and somebody else when that balloon pops, and somebody else. Intellectual bankruptcy is not pretty to watch. And pointless.

[SolarPlexus]

You can argue about Cooper , but there are too many other statements (not necessarily "testimonies") by space personnel and not just astronauts. Were all those accounts based on space junk ? Some might have been but it's hardly possible that they all are. Secondly, there is Hynek's account and Vallée's. The two greatest experts on the subject of UFOs have come to the same conclusions. You have to take Hynek's last interview into account. And what about the Apollo 11 press conference ? They looked like they've seen a ghost and Armstrong can barely even construct a sentence without stuttering. How do we explain the Teether incident? Also, Martin Stubbs put a ton of video material from space on youtube (before he disappeared in thin air anyway). There is just too many material to go through, so Jim, while taking your long career in mind, im intrigued how can you be so indifferent as well as exclusive to certain information. You strike me as a guy who doesn't want to know the truth (at the least) and I do not wish to think you're using your credibility to "debunk" various UFO material. Years ago I made a topic about astronauts and UFOs http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=191838&hl= and Im very curious if you can "debunk" it all. I dont think so. The way I see it, the space is brimming with life. Dont know about some higher intelligence but even the lowest layers of space above out atmosphere seem to show an abundance of atmospheric organisms similar to those found in the sea. If any one has problems understanding the secrecy there is a very good study - Philosophical implications of Extraterrestrial life by Paul Davies.

Edited March 8, 2014 by SolarPlexus

[sinewave]

You can argue about Cooper , but there are too many other statements (not necessarily "testimonies") by space personnel and not just astronauts. Were all those accounts based on space junk ? Some might have been but it's hardly possible that they all are. Secondly, there is Hynek's account and Vallée's. The two greatest experts on the subject of UFOs have come to the same conclusions. You have to take Hynek's last interview into account. And what about the Apollo 11 press conference ? They looked like they've seen a ghost and Armstrong can barely even construct a sentence without stuttering. How do we explain the Teether incident? Also, Martin Stubbs put a ton of video material from space on youtube (before he disappeared in thin air anyway). There is just too many material to go through, so Jim, while taking your long career in mind, im intrigued how can you be so indifferent as well as exclusive to certain information. You strike me as a guy who doesn't want to know the truth (at the least) and I do not wish to think you're using your credibility to "debunk" various UFO material. Years ago I made a topic about astronauts and UFOs http://www.unexplain...opic=191838&hl= and Im very curious if you can "debunk" it all. I dont think so. The way I see it, the space is brimming with life. Dont know about some higher intelligence but even the lowest layers of space above out atmosphere seem to show an abundance of atmospheric organisms similar to those found in the sea. If any one has problems understanding the secrecy there is a very good study - Philosophical implications of Extraterrestrial life by Paul Davies.

Why couldn't it all be space junk? There is a lot of it up there. Also consider that many of the stories have been embellished a little by UFO enthusiasts or taken out of context.

[JimOberg]

It's easy to understand how people can be baffled by space videos, because visually it's so unearthly. Using normal earthside recognition reflexes is guaranteed to produce incorrect interpretations, as I explain in detail in my '99 FAQs' -- which I urge you to read before proclaiming what I have or have not proved. Nobody starts out mentally equipped to properly interpret these unearthly perceptions in an entirely new arena of human activity. If you think you are, that's a prima facie case that you're fooling yourself. And that's not even counting the all-too-normal uforic culture of breathless baseless 'juicy rumors' of the 'friend-of-a-friend-told-me' variety. If there are specific astronaut cases you are interested in that I haven't posted reports about on my website, ask me -- along with some assurances that you are open to accepting prosaic explanations involving technology and environments that really DO seem 'alien' to earthlings.

You can argue about Cooper , but there are too many other statements (not necessarily "testimonies") by space personnel and not just astronauts. Were all those accounts based on space junk ? Some might have been but it's hardly possible that they all are. Secondly, there is Hynek's account and Vallée's. The two greatest experts on the subject of UFOs have come to the same conclusions. You have to take Hynek's last interview into account. And what about the Apollo 11 press conference ? They looked like they've seen a ghost and Armstrong can barely even construct a sentence without stuttering. How do we explain the Teether incident? Also, Martin Stubbs put a ton of video material from space on youtube (before he disappeared in thin air anyway). There is just too many material to go through, so Jim, while taking your long career in mind, im intrigued how can you be so indifferent as well as exclusive to certain information. You strike me as a guy who doesn't want to know the truth (at the least) and I do not wish to think you're using your credibility to "debunk" various UFO material. Years ago I made a topic about astronauts and UFOs http://www.unexplain...opic=191838&hl= and Im very curious if you can "debunk" it all. I dont think so. The way I see it, the space is brimming with life. Dont know about some higher intelligence but even the lowest layers of space above out atmosphere seem to show an abundance of atmospheric organisms similar to those found in the sea. If any one has problems understanding the secrecy there is a very good study - Philosophical implications of Extraterrestrial life by Paul Davies.

[Myster D]

the lights could have been coming from anywhere in space and they just happened to be projected along his eye line

[JimOberg]

the lights could have been coming from anywhere in space and they just happened to be projected along his eye line

You've lost me. Which lights, Chiao's?

[mystery fan]

This isn't a rational conversation, this is a car chase with the pursued throwing out garbage onto the street to delay those chasing him trying to pin him down for proof of earlier claims. First Cooper is held up as a touchstone of veracity, and now he's an 'easy target' it's unfair to pick on? Then it's claims of "Armstrong's testimony" that proves to be a mirage. So it's on to somebody else, and somebody else when that balloon pops, and somebody else. Intellectual bankruptcy is not pretty to watch. And pointless.

Once again, the great Oberg dictatorship has spoken! I never claimed Cooper was a "touchstone of veracity", matter of fact I have outright stated that some of his claims are downright outrageous[more specifically the telepathic messages from aliens story]. If you read my replies throughout, I have remained consistent in that Cooper had a great story, although I do believe he witnessed UFOs, I don't believe everything he said. I find it funny that debunkers find the more unreliable targets like your Gordon Cooper types and tend to overlook the more credible ones like John Schuessler. The thing I find humorous is that you never responded to anything about Schuessler and my point being was that people pick the lesser of the types of witnesses. Sure, you may dismiss Cooper for various reasons: he was old, he was mistaken, whatever the reason may be. What about John Schuessler? How do you dismiss him? He tells a very credible story and has worked inside NASA. Intellectual bankruptcy? Sounds more like deflection to me. As for the Armstrong claim, wrong user! I never said anything about Armstrong as I am not familiar with what he actually claimed. I only can speak to the cases and witnesses I have heard of and am familiar with.

Edited March 10, 2014 by mystery fan

[sinewave]

Once again, the great Oberg dictatorship has spoken! I never claimed Cooper was a "touchstone of veracity", matter of fact I have outright stated that some of his claims are downright outrageous[more specifically the telepathic messages from aliens story]. If you read my replies throughout, I have remained consistent in that Cooper had a great story, although I do believe he witnessed UFOs, I don't believe everything he said. I find it funny that debunkers find the more unreliable targets like your Gordon Cooper types and tend to overlook the more credible ones like John Schuessler. The thing I find humorous is that you never responded to anything about Schuessler and my point being was that people pick the lesser of the types of witnesses. Sure, you may dismiss Cooper for various reasons: he was old, he was mistaken, whatever the reason may be. What about John Schuessler? How do you dismiss him? He tells a very credible story and has worked inside NASA. Intellectual bankruptcy? Sounds more like deflection to me. As for the Armstrong claim, wrong user! I never said anything about Armstrong as I am not familiar with what he actually claimed. I only can speak to the cases and witnesses I have heard of and am familiar with.

What's with all the drama dude? Do you have any evidence to offer? Just repeating stories does not really build the case you are trying to make. Also, taking personal shots at other members just makes you look foolish.

Edited March 10, 2014 by sinewave

[Merc14]

Once again, the great Oberg dictatorship has spoken! I never claimed Cooper was a "touchstone of veracity", matter of fact I have outright stated that some of his claims are downright outrageous[more specifically the telepathic messages from aliens story]. If you read my replies throughout, I have remained consistent in that Cooper had a great story, although I do believe he witnessed UFOs, I don't believe everything he said. I find it funny that debunkers find the more unreliable targets like your Gordon Cooper types and tend to overlook the more credible ones like John Schuessler. The thing I find humorous is that you never responded to anything about Schuessler and my point being was that people pick the lesser of the types of witnesses. Sure, you may dismiss Cooper for various reasons: he was old, he was mistaken, whatever the reason may be. What about John Schuessler? How do you dismiss him? He tells a very credible story and has worked inside NASA. Intellectual bankruptcy? Sounds more like deflection to me. As for the Armstrong claim, wrong user! I never said anything about Armstrong as I am not familiar with what he actually claimed. I only can speak to the cases and witnesses I have heard of and am familiar with.

You believe in some fantastical stories which you thought were backed up by credible witnesses but Jim Oberg proved that those stories weren't quite true, in a most polite fashion I may add, and you call him a dictator? A dictator is a person who asks you to believe the impossible, with no real proof to back it up and then punishes you for not buying their crap. You have no proof and demand we believe you or we are idiots and worse and Oberg has nothing but proof and asks you to just consider it. Who is the tyrant here?

Edited March 10, 2014 by Merc14

[JimOberg]

Yes, just as it is not up to Jim Oberg or anyone else to ridicule those who are merely telling their stories and decide whether it is accurate or not. ... to ridicule that shows how intolerant you are of opposing viewpoints.

It was never my intent to 'ridicule' Cooper or his stories, just to explain my reasons for having the opinion they were unworthy of belief. Is that would you misunderstood as 'ridicule', or do you think the word means something else?

[JimOberg]

... What about John Schuessler? How do you dismiss him? He tells a very credible story and has worked inside NASA. ....

What is it precisely that Schuessler claims to have learned 'inside NASA' that you find so significant? He disagrees with my assessment of the Gemini-4 'beer can', I know that. What else? Anything he saw or read or heard?

[DONTEATUS]

Listen to Jim Oberg. please people ! We are waisting his time with stupid commits !

[Merc14]

Listen to Jim Oberg. please people ! We are waisting his time with stupid commits !

Don't listen to him, just prove him wrong. I think that is all that is required and oh yeah, show a bit of proof for your radical claims.

[wayne a vanpatten]

ive seen red triangles and orange plus star like ufos and a white orb that was close and when i looked it took off so fast if i would of blinked i would of missed it

[sinewave]

ive seen red triangles and orange plus star like ufos and a white orb that was close and when i looked it took off so fast if i would of blinked i would of missed it

I've seen pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, and green clovers but I was eating Lucky Charms so it is probably not all that amazing.

[Sweetpumper]

ive seen red triangles and orange plus star like ufos and a white orb that was close and when i looked it took off so fast if i would of blinked i would of missed it

All at once?

[mystery fan]

What's with all the drama dude? Do you have any evidence to offer? Just repeating stories does not really build the case you are trying to make. Also, taking personal shots at other members just makes you look foolish.

Drama? Hardly. The case I have been making from the beginning is that these are just indeed stories. Since we have no way to verify what is being told, it is impossible for it to be proven. I have said it over & over that what it really boils down to is whether you believe these witnesses or not. How can one PROVE opinion? By all means, if you can explain that one you'll deserve a Nobel prize for debate and definitely be able to give us answers where none previously existed. I never took a personal shot at anyone. Just made observations based on replies. The ironic part is that if you are referring to Oberg, then you call me out for "taking personal shots" when he has been ridiculing Gordon Cooper, Armstrong, or any other witness who told their stories. Simply because he doesn't agree with their accounts and has an opposing viewpoint and mindset on the issue. Which is why the field of ufology is rarely taken seriously, because you have people who are telling their stories and not forcing anyone to believe it & then you have skeptics who will stop at nothing to ridicule those who are simply getting their accounts on record. Whether one chooses to believe the story or not is entirely their decision. I am simply stating my views on the matter no more and no less.