U.S. To Declassify Hundreds Of Millions Of Documents

[Hanslune]

Hello Analis

For the Gordon Cooper case that one is explained here:

http://www.cohenufo.org/Oberg/isogc_ufos%202.htm

However I noted you've already rejected any explanation other than UFOs.

The problem with these is it susposes a large, well funded, well managed, incredibly good at internal security, well contected organization that is able to operate in the open yet not be detected - so the question has to be - where is it?

"But decisions were probably taken at a very high level." Like who?

What we did find from the FOIA is that the government didn't know what saucers were and were worried about if they might be a threat. Of course its possible that in the 1940-50s the 'organization' knew that FOIA would come into existence and never developed any paperwork.

The problem remains, where is this organization? It is a question I suspect will never be answered.

 

[Analis]

Hello Hanslune. Sorry for the delay, but I had lost my internet connection.
I admit that I put more faith in Cooper's word than in the USAF.The object he saw on the films was a silver disk, nothing like a weather balloon, distorted by the desert heat or not. Blue Book's 'explanation', like in many other instances, is bogus.

We don't know exactly who was in charge. Maybe we'll never know. But to say that the 'organisation' should have known in advance of the FOIA is not convincing. I gave a number of examples of references to unknown studies, I could give more but it would quickly become boring. Saying that "they shouldn't have existed because it wouldn't have happened like that" doesn't change the fact that they exist. It means rather that this reasoning is flawed, and that our searches are not so efficient. There are plenty of means to ensure secrecy despite the FOIA. In August 1974, the Joint Chiefs of Staff destroyed the reports of their meetings from 1947! Other archives vanished similarly, destroyed or displaced. Others are still classifed. Putting the hand on a file does not mean that we'll have access to it; there are certainly good motives not to release some UFO files and to have the procedure dismissed. The FOIA was a nuisance at the begining, but services learned how to circumvent it. It is not so difficult to deny the existence of a document.

 

[Hanslune]

Hello Analis

That's okay however I have forgotten what we were taking about!

I noticed your assumption that the JCS and the "services" are all part of the conspiracy.

Basically "the conspiracy covered it up" is an effective way to cover up all and any holes in the theory that there is a conspiracy.

With such reasoning all questioning of whether the conspiracy exists ends, as the believer assumes the conspiracy is univerisal, all powerful and all knowing.

 

[wembley8]

The object he saw on the films was a silver disk, nothing like a weather balloon, distorted by the desert heat or not.

How is a silver disk not like a weather balloon? For Cooper's account, it sounds fairly probable. You seem to be stretching this conspiracy business a bit - not all UFO sightings have to be alien craft, surely some of them must be mundane objects...

 

[eburacum]

I saw a weather balloon come down once; it was many decades ago, but I seem to remember it came down as an oblate spheroid, flattened to look very like a classical saucer. Presumably it had already dropped its payload. Mistaking a weather balloon for a saucer is not only understandable, it is inevitable in certain circumstances, because they really are saucer shaped.

 

[Analis]

Hanslune:"With such reasoning all questioning of whether the conspiracy exists ends, as the believer assumes the conspiracy is universal, all powerful and all knowing."
Your description of the supposed conspiracy relates rather to the way you envision conspiracies as a whole: they "should" be universal, all powerful and all knowing, otherwise they're not conspiracies. Curious that so many people don't see that like everything else, they are flawed. And this one is, the simple fact that we are discussing about it is a good demonstration. Such statements are a good way to halt discussion.

Nothing in my post suggests that I share this view of conspiracies. For example, I didn't assume anything about the JCS and the "services", I only noticed that some of their moves were suspect (destroying decades of archives surely is something serious). This is clearly a demonstration of those facts: it is not so difficult to hide many files, and the use of FOIA is limited. But the efficiency of this conspiracy was certainly limited. It let evidence of its existence behind. And it failed: it couldn't prevent the spreading of the belief in UFOs (although it certainly slowed it). But this goal was probably impossible to reach.

wembley8: "How is a silver disk not like a silver balloon? For Cooper's account, it sounds fairly probable."
I don't know if you read his book, but his description is not like a weather balloon. Surely, under some circumstances, they can look sucer-shaped (I myself spotted some) He was certainly accustomed to those IFOs. And the behaviour o the object was not like a balloon (with a takeoff followed by a fast acceleration). I think we can trust him on this matter, more than an organisation which has a record of being economical with the truth.

 

[eburacum]

This quote is from James Oberg, who has looked into all of Cooper's 'UFO's and found most of them to be insubstantial;

in June 1957, Major Robert F. Spence of the Edwards AFB Office of Information Services wrote as follows: "The alleged UFO was conclusively identified as a balloon from a weather unit a few miles west of the observer's location. This was corrborated by an independent report which discloses that this balloon was being tracked at that time with precision recording devices. The data show that the balloon passed the observer's location at almost the precise time, bearings, elevations and speed reported by them....
Objects in the photographs, even after magnification, were found to be small white specks, alternately changing from elliptical to round in shape. These are typical of a number of similar reports received by the Air Force, which upon investigation were found to be balloons, the odd appearances being caused by specular reflection of sunlight and other atmospheric conditions peculiar to desert regions. It is the opinion of the Air Force that any attempt to attribute anything unusual or mysterious to the incident is unwarranted and not supported by the facts."

Note that Cooper himself did not see the object concerned so he was only expressing a opinion on a piece of film, an opinion which may well have been incorrect.

 

[Analis]

But photo or not, he is accustomed to those objects (like his cameramen), he was adamant that it was no weather balloon. There is no reason to suspect that he or his men were mistaken. Their depiction of the UFO's behaviour is very remote from a balloon, or from Blue Book's report. The best way to settle this discussion would be to ask Cooper directly; but he would probably repeat the same thing.

 

[eburacum]

Well, we can't do that, because he died in 2004.

There is little reason to assume that Cooper's analysis of the film was any better than the Air Force's; quite the opposite, in fact, as he seems to have seen the film only briefly. If he had been aware of the fact that a balloon had been in the vicinity at that precise time perhaps he might have changed his mind; but there is no evidence that he was ever aware of that fact.

 

[Analis]

eburacum: "Well, we can't do that, because he died in 2004."
I didn't know it. Thanks for learning me it.

True COOPER saw only a film. But even on a film, I woudn't do such a mistake, why would someone more experienced do it (and he was certainly experienced with those balloons)? Unless we suppose that he lied, or that he hugely distorted his account and his cameramen's account, or that his cameramen were groteskly mistaken; a disk with a retractable landing gear does not look like a balloon. All those people were qualified and experienced, it is highly unlikely that they each made such errors. What motive does one have to suspect they made a misidentification? The evidence is in favour of the USAF duplicity, after all we know some examples of it. And I reread Cooper's report, no their description does not fit at all with what the cameramen described (position, path, speed etc...). And he was aware of the presence of a balloon later (he mentioned it in his book), he knew Blue Book explanation, but he didn't change his mind.

 

[wembley8]

I woudn't do such a mistake, why would someone more experienced do it (and he was certainly experienced with those balloons)?

People make mistakes, even experienced people who ought to know better. Crucially, if people interpret what they see int eh light of an idea (eg 'it was a flying saucer') it can change their memory of what they did see.

 

[Analis]

Yes, experienced people can make mistakes. But in any case, it is unlikely. It happens only under unusual circumstances.One can't say that it happened out of nowhere, with no reason. To say that, it has to be sustained.

 

[wembley8]

Yes, experienced people can make mistakes. But in any case, it is unlikely. It happens only under unusual circumstances.One can't say that it happened out of nowhere, with no reason.

That's what happened recently with the US Colonel in this one -

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... sc&start=0

Mysterious lights in the sky witnessed and photographed by an Air Force colonel who described them as "not of this world" apparently have an explanation of this Earth after all, WND can reveal.

If they correctly identify an object, there's no story. But in the rare cases where they fail to identify something, whether it's a balloon, a flare or a new aircraft - instant UFO folklore.

 

[Jerry_B]

Experience does not necessarily immunise anyone from making mistakes, or claiming to have seen something which outwardly seems quite unusual. For example, pilots are often given as a pretty watertight source WRT the veracity of UFO sightings, but they aren't any less prone to making mistakes or describing quite fanciful things. For example, read the reports made by pilots from 'Blue Book Unknowns'. As I'm also by day someone who's involved with aviation history, I know that there were occasions during WWII where aircrew described enemy aircraft with all sorts of fanciful colour schemes - none of which ever actually existed. One should also bear in mind that the enemy aircraft were seen at quite close range, but that did not stop the reports of the odd colour schemes. Put simply, people make mistakes - and those who work with things that fly are no less likely to identify correctly something they see in the sky.

 

[eburacum]

That sounds interesting, Jerry_B; any more details about those unusual reported colour shemes? Any plaid or paisley planes, for instance?

 

[Jerry_B]

Polka-dots was one example, all-red or all-yellow being another.

To return slightly to my previous post, it seems to me that once someone fails to identify what they're seeing in a framework that they can evaluate fully, their imagination tends to kick in and add a somewhat exotic sheen to whatever it thinks it's being shown. This applies to aircrew as much as anyone else, it seems.

 

[Analis]

wembley8: "But in the rare cases where they fail to identify something, whether it's a balloon, a flare or a new aircraft - instant UFO folklore."
Yes, but in this instance, we are yet far from having any reason to suspect such a misidentification (unless one believes that UFOs can't exist at all, but that's another story). The US Colonel reported quite correctly, permiting further identification. A situattion rather different from Cooper's.

Jerry_B: "This applies to aircrew as much as anyone else, it seems."
There were previous dissertations relating to misperception. What psychology of perception learns us, is that it needs a catalyst. The more qualified the percepient is, the more powerful the needed catalyst is (because yes, experienced people are less prone to mistakes). It must be quite persuasive, and will vary according to people. An example: let's take a video showing a man who is obviously not Terrorist X. But if a higher authority (acting as a catalyst) tells people he is Terrorist X, well many people will "see" that the man on the video is Terrorist X, despite the absolute lack of resemblance. But, they won't see a martian. Their misperception will remain limited. The example of misperception of airplanes during the Second World War is interesting too. Pilots during their sigthings were under intense stress, this was a war situation with their life at risk. Plus, seeing a secret ennemy weapon was certainly gratifying. But it is useful in that it shows too the limitations of misperception. The pilots saw planes where there were planes; distorted, but still planes. They did not see flying spheres, Buck Rogers' rocket, pterosaurs, dragons, Zeus or faerie chariots.

 

[Jerry_B]

Nevertheless Analis, pilots and aircrew are indeed prone to making mistakes, be the situation stressful or not. The implication often seems to be that their UFO sightings are somehow of more worth thn the layman's, but IMHO this should not be taken as wrote. Pilots as individual human beings and as part of human society have their own belief systems and imagination structures as much as anyone else, and there's no reason to suppose that such factors don't impose themselves on their evaluations of any given event.

 

[wembley8]

Yes, but in this instance, we are yet far from having any reason to suspect such a misidentification... .The US Colonel reported quite correctly, permiting further identification. A situattion rather different from Cooper's.

I'd say it was exactly the same - Cooper's description, though coloured by his expectation or his intepretation, still allows us to recognise a 'weather' balloon (which may or may not have been anything to do with meteorology, there were a few dodgy balloon programs sheltering under that classification).

 

[Analis]

wembley8:
Nothing in your post contradicts the necessity to establish misperception more firmly when it comes to experienced people. Do you have any clues that his expectations played a role? Otherwise that remains an unwarranted supposition. What resemblance is there to a balloon (the supposed likeness in shape alone is too remote to take this hypothesis seriously), and we yet have no motive to believe there was one at that location? Apart from a secret super-balloon with a landing gear and high speed and maneuvrability, but it would be another story entirely (but why haven't we heard of it since, as all secret weapons and experiments are supposed to be known?). But strictly speaking, an unknown to us, experimential ballonn would be a UFO.

 

[eburacum]

Do you have any clues that his expectations played a role?

Well there is a small clue; Cooper seems to have been one for a 'tall tale'. Oberg discusses his story about using a high powered telescopic camera to take pictures of Area 51 from space; if Cooper's description is correct, that camera operated on still-unknown principles of optics. But Cooper may simply have recalled the incident inaccurately.

There is no reason why some astronauts might not be prone to embellishment or faulty recall; it seems entirely possible that Cooper's entire outlook was influenced by his sighting in the very early 50's, and this may even have influenced his desire to get into space. Once there he certainly reported his perceptions objectively (possibly excepting the camera story), and certainly never reported any UFOs while in orbit.

 

[wembley8]

Cooper had already had one UFO experience and so was quite likely primed to interpret events in that light.

Nothing in the description I've read contradicts the idea that it could be a balloon - why do you think it wasn't one?

http://www.zip.com.au/~psmith/cooper.html

In a letter to a UFO newsletter in June 1957, Major Robert F. Spence of the Edwards AFB Office of Information Services wrote as follows: "The alleged UFO was conclusively identified as a balloon from a weather unit a few miles west of the observer's location. This was corroborated by an independent report which discloses that this balloon was being tracked at that time with precision recording devices. The data show that the balloon passed the observer's location at almost the precise time, bearings, elevations and speed reported by them.... Objects in the photographs, even after magnification, were found to be small white specks, alternately changing from elliptical to round in shape. These are typical of a number of similar reports received by the Air Force, which upon investigation were found to be balloons, the odd appearances being caused by specular reflection of sunlight and other atmospheric conditions peculiar to desert regions. It is the opinion of the Air Force that any attempt to attribute anything unusual or mysterious to the incident is unwarranted and not supported by the facts."

It's hard to see what more they could do to clear this up - presumably if they showed you the exact balloon you'd still question it...

 

[Analis]

This discussion is about to go on circles eternally.
Yes, he had seen UFOs previously. But he was seen as reliable, he was appointed as a cosmonaut years later, after all... If he had been a potentially delusional man, it wouldn't have happened.
I am perfectly aware of this depiction. But as I said earlier, it doesn't describe at all what COOPER and his cameramen reported. For example, where did the USAF see that a weather balloon had a landing gear? Recent investigation couldn't find any trace of the films - why weren't they used to sustain the Blue Book statement? So, unless you suppose that Cooper, or his cameramen, lied (and we have no reason to believe that), we have no reason to give credence to major Robert SPENCE. Maybe you're trusting anything the USAF says, I'm not (given their pedigree, I think it is more parcimonious to suppose they're the liars). I don't know what the cameramen saw and filmed: secret prototype, e.t. ship, or something else entirely; but it was something unknown to them.

 

[wembley8]

This discussion is about to go on circles eternally.
Yes, he had seen UFOs previously. But he was seen as reliable, he was appointed as a cosmonaut years later, after all... If he had been a potentially delusional man, it wouldn't have happened.

Recent events suggest otherwise

For example, where did the USAF see that a weather balloon had a landing gear?

Who says it had landing gear?

Recent investigation couldn't find any trace of the films - why weren't they used to sustain the Blue Book statement?

You just answered you own question.

So, unless you suppose that Cooper, or his cameramen, lied (and we have no reason to believe that)

We have every reason to believe that they were understandably mistaken.
What evidence would you like to have?

I don't know what the cameramen saw and filmed:

(it was probably a balloon)

secret prototype, e.t. ship,

..or a balloon?

something else entirely; but it was something unknown to them.

Again, what evidence would it take to convince you that they were mistaken?

 

[Analis]

wembley8: "Recent events suggest otherwise."
What do you mean? Because he believed in UFOs?

"Who says it had landing gear."
So it appears you don't even know the peculiars of the case. If you did, or if you had read my previous posts (who gave a number of those specifics), it would have spared you much time.

"You just answered your own question."
I beg your pardon????!!!! Big methodological problems in view, it seems...

"We have every reason to believe that they were understanbly mistaken."
Sorry, you're still not giving an hint of evidence of that. And of your other assertions Not very surprising, as you don't even know the case... Until you add new evidence, no need to answer. I'll consider this discussion as closed.

 

[wembley8]

wembley8: "Recent events suggest otherwise."
What do you mean? Because he believed in UFOs?

No - recent events - http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... =astroslut

Contrary to popular opinion, astronauts are not much saner than the rest of us.

"Who says it had landing gear."
So it appears you don't even know the peculiars of the case.

That was a rhetorical question aimed at pointing out that the case rests on unsupported witness acounts.

"We have every reason to believe that they were understanbly mistaken."
Sorry, you're still not giving an hint of evidence of that.

It's hard to see what more you want. You didn't answer when I asked before. But I guess even if they wheeled out the actual balloon and the actual film footage, you'd say it was faked if it didn't match your interpretation of the witness statements.

I'll consider this discussion as closed.

Fine by me.

 

[Analis]

Just two (last) things: to my knowledge, you are the first to suggest that COOPER was insane, no sceptic made this assertion before (no relation with your link). And no answer on why they didn't show the film if it suited their comment.

"Fine by me".
Fine by me too!

 

[wembley8]

you are the first to suggest that COOPER was insane

I'm not going to let you sign off on a line like that! I never suggested that "COOPER" was insane, just mistaken. Easily happens, people see balloons as UFOs all the time. Even trained observers really do occasionally make mistakes - and we get occasional UFO reports. In fact, unless observers were all inhumanly perfect (or fibbing), you would expect to see such reports.

 

[eburacum]

James Oberg once again;

A thought about the origin of the `triangle landing gear' detail from Cooper's narrative later in the 1990's. There is one passage in McDonald's description that, if read quickly or only partially remembered (and Cooper did read it, as part of my own draft report I sent him in 1984), as follows: "They immediately got into communication with the range director and asked if anyone else was manning an Askania that could be used to get TRIANGULATION SHOTS." Perhaps in some later dramatization of the story for an appreciative audience, this phrase metamorphed into a triangular landing gear.

 

[eburacum]

Here are four photos taken of an object on May 2 1957, at the Askania tracking range, Edwards Airforce base;
http://ww.nicap.org/edwards570502photos.htm

The Cooper incident is supposed to have occurred on May 3rd. Are these photos of the same incident? Dates are often mistaken in such reports, as a study of Roswell and Rendlesham will show.