August 30th Episode with Karl Mamer

[Gojira2006]

You do know didn't witness that ufo right? It was all second hand info. I dont know why people consider it a good case for alien ufo's.

: Gordon Cooper did claim to have seen a strange craft earlier in his career (in the 50s), which he admitted could have been a prototype Soviet vehicle, but also suspected it could have been extraterrestrial in origin . . . :

 

[Decker]

You do know Gordon Cooper didn't witness that ufo right? It was all second hand info. I dont know why people consider it a good case for alien ufo's.

Along about the time Colonel Cooper's book was published, my wife Vicki and I arranged to meet Colonel Cooper at his Van Nuys, Calf. office. We ended up spending approx. 4 hours with him. We both interviewed Col. Cooper extensively.

It simply pissed me off about the amount of bull shit Colonel Cooper took from people like Dr. Jim Oberg and other ...skeptics ... about Colonel Coopers rendition of his UFO experiences. The implication was that he lied, well bull shit. How many of those guys took the "fricken'" time to call him and ask him directly about what he had to say?

Cooper told me directly he was scrambled in Germany, where he flew F-86's, to chase "unknowns" and later it was I believe 1957, possibly 58 with the Edwards AF Base case. I asked him and questioned him extensively about what happened. He told me that ....

1. No, he did not witness the UFO come in, land, and then take off. His men did ... but ... it was filmed by a motion picture camera.

2. His men notified him, he told them to bring the film in, they developed it and while they did that he pulled out the Regulations book, looked up what he was supposed to do, found a number back in Washington DC that he called. According to what he told me, face to face, he was ordered not to watch the film, that someone would be flown in to pick up the canister, when they arrived he would hand deliver it to the courier, and that would be it.

3. Per orders, when the developed it was brought to him and he did not put it on a projector and watch it. However Colonel Cooper told me ... he did unwind the film and look at a number of frames showing the disk on the film, and of course his men told him what they witnessed. The courier flew in, Cooper hand delivered the canister of film to the man dispatched to pick it up and the guy flew out with the film. End of story.

I asked Colonel Cooper if he ever heard anymore about this from anyone and he told me no. He also told me he had no idea where the film went. I asked him if anybody debriefed him and he affirmed he was NOT debriefed. He also told me that this was NOT reported in any of the Project Blue Book files.

Okay, remember who in hell we are talking about. Colonel Gordon Cooper, an original Mercury 7 Astronaut. And by the way, Cooper was the last single astronaut flown into space by himself, and went higher than any other single astronaut mission. The guy, in my book, is one of my few remaining HEROs, and I don't have that many left. Who in fuck is Mamer to suggest Gordon Cooper was a damned liar? How many fricken missions did he fly? You know what, after all these years those guys give me a pain in my ass and brother would I like to chat with him so I could tell him.

Decker
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[mrchef]

Gojira, actually I didn't think he even flirted with suggesting anyone was dishonest. He continually made very good points regarding the ability of the human brain to be fooled. Making a mistake is not lying.

It would have been nice to be able to leave "that story alone", but I seem to remember that he had to go back to it to avoid speaking about one of the hosts personal experiences. The Cooper story was the lesser of two evils.

Nor do I see Mamer questioning the capabilities of an astronaut to make observations. He made it clear (and this is a fact) that no one is MORE capable of making accurate observations than anyone else. Astronaut, Police Officer, or Chef. We are all held by the constraints of the human brain... a brain that likes to fill in visual gaps.

The whole idea of eyewitnesses as evidence is ludicrous anyway. They may be acceptable in a court of law (and even then they are historically unreliable), but in science they are meaningless unless they are supported with physical evidence and the ability to repeatedly observe the same phenomenom or event. Regardless of who the eyewitness it.
Dr. Martin Fleischmann was a very well respected Electrochemist, President of The International Sciety of Electrochemists, winner of the Electrochemistry and Thermodynamics award by the Royal Society....

But no one in science took his word for it when he said he had witnessed cold fusion.

 

[mrchef]

Decker, who the *%#@* are you to say that Mr. Mamer suggested Cooper was a damned liar? Did you actually hear what was said, or did your mind just fill in what it wanted to hear?

As for your personal experience with Cooper and his personal experience...

Like Mr. Mamer, I would not suggest that someone is lying unless I had proof. I tend to think that people are mistaken, or confused.

Before you run off an ask me who the *&^$* I am to suggest that your HERO is confused.... Let me ask you a few questions.

Do you believe in the God of the Bible?

How about Jesus?

Allah?

Throughout history there have been credible witnesses to all three. Witnesses that were Heroes to someone.

How exactly does being your hero make him infallable?

 

[Cybernia]

Gojira, actually I didn't think he even flirted with suggesting anyone was dishonest. He continually made very good points regarding the ability of the human brain to be fooled. Making a mistake is not lying.

This whole brain makes mistakes argument is bogus. Sure it does, but why when someone sees something weird does the skeptic automatically include that in his repertoire of reasons why the person couldn't have seen what they thought they saw?

It's because they don't believe there is such a thing as a UFO. If I tell a skeptic that I saw an elephant last year, would he/she doubt that was the case and begin to show me reasons why I didn't see an elephant? Of course not because they believe elephants exist. Even though it is accepted that elephants exist, how does he know I actually saw one?
Hey, the mind makes mistakes. If they are going to use that argument that means that none of our observations can be trusted. I mean NONE, zero, zilch, nada.

We are all wandering around in a mind fog where nothing we experience can ever be trusted. EVER.

 

[Gojira2006]

1. No, he did not witness the UFO come in, land, and then take off. His men did ... but ... it was filmed by a motion picture camera.

2. His men notified him, he told them to bring the film in, they developed it and while they did that he pulled out the Regulations book, looked up what he was supposed to do, found a number back in Washington DC that he called. According to what he told me, face to face, he was ordered not to watch the film, that someone would be flown in to pick up the canister, when they arrived he would hand deliver it to the courier, and that would be it.

3. Per orders, when the developed it was brought to him and he did not put it on a projector and watch it. However Colonel Cooper told me ... he did unwind the film and look at a number of frames showing the disk on the film, and of course his men told him what they witnessed. The courier flew in, Cooper hand delivered the canister of film to the man dispatched to pick it up and the guy flew out with the film. End of story.

Decker
<!--Session data-->

Thanks for that information . . . From what you said, I can't see where Cooper could be mistaken, or in error of memory - that event would pretty much stick in my mind given its implications . . . & if the event didn't happen, & he was not mistaken, then the implication is that he was being untruthful, which I can't say that I believe that he was . . . I don't know what he saw on the frames of the film, or his people saw while they were filming the visitation, but the skeptics have to come up with something more weighty than he was "mistaken," or he was . . .

 

[Decker]

Decker, who the *%#@* are you to say that Mr. Mamer suggested Cooper was a damned liar? Did you actually hear what was said, or did your mind just fill in what it wanted to hear?

As for your personal experience with Cooper and his personal experience...

Like Mr. Mamer, I would not suggest that someone is lying unless I had proof. I tend to think that people are mistaken, or confused.

Before you run off an ask me who the *&^$* I am to suggest that your HERO is confused.... Let me ask you a few questions.

Do you believe in the God of the Bible?

How about Jesus?

Allah?

Throughout history there have been credible witnesses to all three. Witnesses that were Heroes to someone.

How exactly does being your hero make him infallable?

Well Friend, to answer your question .... Do I believe there is a God? Maybe.

Jesus.... yeah I think he may have been around, but his press reports got inflated.
Allah ... depends on what you mean. Allah is the Islamic name for God ... a rose is a rose and smells as sweet ... well you get the message... or should.

Cooper was a combat pilot. I was a combat soldier. You learn to look real good and real hard in a short amount of time. Just like when I was a SWAT team sniper. And, your right ... who in hell are you to suggest Cooper was ... confused. Please inform me what your qualifications are to make that judgment. I never said Gordon Cooper was infallible, but as a criminal investigator, which I was, I learned to "read" people on the street. I have interviewed hundreds and hundreds of people over the years as a cop, and then that many more as Director of Research for UFO Magazine for 20 years. The man told me what he witnessed and what his people reported to him. I believed him.

And by the way, my real name is Don Ecker and if I might ask, who are you?

Decker

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[mrchef]

Decker,
<O
"Well Friend, to answer your question .... Do I believe there is a God? Maybe.
Jesus.... yeah I think he may have been around, but his press reports got inflated.
Allah ... depends on what you mean. Allah is the Islamic name for God ... a rose is a rose and smells as sweet ... well you get the message... or should."

<O</O
<O</O
Actually, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Perhaps you missed my point as well. You may or may not believe in the existence of a particular entity or phenomenon, but if you do not, other people's unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts are not very convincing.

<O</O
<O</O
You apparently have a military background, does it impress you that there are Muslims that say Allah personally told them that Westerners, Americans in particular, are evil and must be killed?
<O</O
<O</O

These are Muslim Imams... who better to judge whether they actually spoke to Allah or not? By your logic, they MUST be better judges or observers of this phenomenon than you.
<O</O
<O</O

Are you going to start killing Westerners? WHY NOT! Who are you to question their expertise?
<O</O
<O</O

Sorry. Unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts are useless. Even if they come from a combat soldier, ex sniper, or Imam. I understand you want to learn to "look real good and real hard in a short amount of time", but are you suggesting that no soldier ever made a mistake? Give me a break.
<O</O
<O</O

Your indignation over an imagined insult seems to be a result of your own experiences. You have a good reason to want to believe. That is called a Bias. It has no place in science. Or police work for that matter.
<O</O
<O</O

I could even call your powers of observation into question with an actual event... you began this by asking, and I quote, "Who in fuck is Mamer to suggest Gordon Cooper was a damned liar?"
<O</O
<O</O

I have to ask, where exactly did you observe this? Mr. Mamer clearly suggested that there were many possible reasons for Cooper to be in error, not one of which was that he was a "damned liar".
<O</O
<O</O

I suggest that if you want to have a meaningful, rational discussion, we stick to the facts. Not imagined insults, or unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts.
<O</O
<O</O

As for my name... Sorry. I am new here. I dont know you, or what other people, are like on these forums, so it does not seem prudent in my third post to identify myself. For now, my first name will have to suffice. I am David.<O</O

 

[mrchef]

Cybernia,
"This whole brain makes mistakes argument is bogus. Sure it does, but why when someone sees something weird does the skeptic automatically include that in his repertoire of reasons why the person couldn't have seen what they thought they saw?"
I can answer that. First of all they are not automatically discounted. They just aren't automatically accepted. There is a difference.


"It's because they don't believe there is such a thing as a UFO. If I tell a sceptic that I saw an elephant last year, would he/she doubt that was the case and begin to show me reasons why I didn't see an elephant? Of course not because they believe elephants exist."
You are only partially correct here. It is not because they believe elephants exist... it is because it have been proven that they exist.
Alien space craft are another matter. But even then, they are not discounted automatically. The problem is that before it can be accepted, all other proven to exist possibilities must be eliminated.

"Even though it is accepted that elephants exist, how does he know I actually saw one?"
He doesn't. It is just a reasonable conclusion that you could have. All you have to do is add something unreasonable to your sighting, and all of a sudden there will be questions. Such as; Last year I saw an elephant getting a piggy back ride from a ferret.
All of a sudden, it isn't reasonable.

"Hey, the mind makes mistakes. If they are going to use that argument that means that none of our observations can be trusted. I mean NONE, zero, zilch, nada."
And you are absolutely right. That is why science requires empirical evidence - repeatable results and observations. Welcome to the world of Science.


"We are all wandering around in a mind fog where nothing we experience can ever be trusted. EVER."
No one said you couldn't trust your own senses. You just can't expect them to be accepted as evidence of everything.

 

[Decker]

Decker,
<o></o>You apparently have a military background, does it impress you that there are Muslims that say Allah personally told them that Westerners, Americans in particular, are evil and must be killed?
<o></o>
<o></o>

These are Muslim Imams... who better to judge whether they actually spoke to Allah or not? By your logic, they MUST be better judges or observers of this phenomenon than you.
<o></o><o></o>Are you going to start killing Westerners? WHY NOT! Who are you to question their expertise?
<o></o><o></o>Sorry. Unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts are useless. Even if they come from a combat soldier, ex sniper, or Imam. I understand you want to learn to "look real good and real hard in a short amount of time", but are you suggesting that no soldier ever made a mistake? Give me a break.
<o></o><o></o>Your indignation over an imagined insult seems to be a result of your own experiences. You have a good reason to want to believe. That is called a Bias. It has no place in science. Or police work for that matter.
<o></o><o></o>I could even call your powers of observation into question with an actual event... you began this by asking, and I quote, "Who in fuck is Mamer to suggest Gordon Cooper was a damned liar?"
<o></o>
I have to ask, where exactly did you observe this? Mr. Mamer clearly suggested that there were many possible reasons for Cooper to be in error, not one of which was that he was a "damned liar".
<o></o>
<o></o>I suggest that if you want to have a meaningful, rational discussion, we stick to the facts. Not imagined insults, or unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts.
<o></o><o></o>As for my name... Sorry. I am new here. I dont know you, or what other people, are like on these forums, so it does not seem prudent in my third post to identify myself. For now, my first name will have to suffice. I am David.<o></o>

Well, at the risk of sounding snarky, I am already getting somewhat bored at the direction of this communication ... event.

Muslims? Soldiers making errors? Eyewittness reports are always unreliable? What line of work are you in? And once again what is your qualifications to suggest Cooper was confused or in error. I know all about how someone can be in error in what they witnessed, but part of the equation is the quality of the witness. And Friend, I had the opportunity to know Cooper. Did you or Mamer? Did you speak to him prior to his death? Just what do you know about the man? Did you ever conduct an investigation or perhaps you are like 99% of most people on the net, you like to blather? Just curious. Lets get back to the beginning, just what are your qualifications? If you don't want to share, then lets just end it here.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[mrchef]

Gojira,

I honestly can't see what from Decker's post would lead you to believe he could not be mistaken or in error. Are there any verifiable facts? No.

But that is besides the point. The real question is, what is Mr. Cooper actually saying? He didn't actually see anything. He saw a few frames of a film that gives no indication of the quality. He was told ahead of time what he would see, and that may have influenced his opinion.

Finally, and I think this is the most interesting thing... there is no record of the event, even in Blue Book. That does seem to suggest that what was actually witnessed may have been a secret aircraft.

It also may have been a UFO.

But what in the story suggests that it absolutely was a UFO? Nothing.

 

[David Biedny]

Decker, who the *%#@* are you to say that Mr. Mamer suggested Cooper was a damned liar?

I'll tell you who Don Ecker is - a highly valued member of these forums, and a close friend of the show. You're new here, so kindly chill out when addressing folks like Don, comprende?

dB

 

[marduk]

Wow.

I am new here. I just listened to the August 30th podcast... then came here to read the posts.

Honestly, I can't believe the criticism of the episode or of the guest. He was not authoritative. He did not call people liars. He seemed to go out of his way to be polite, and even suggested that the hosts did not need to be nice to him.... What is everyone's problem here?

OK here's the deal.

I'm an experiencer. To hear some schmuck spout out that people like me are either misremembering or misperceiving a more prosaic phenomena... bullshit. How can guys like me not take this personally? My first sighting was when I was 8 or 9 and I saw a cigar shaped object in the air flying over a school -- and it was longer than the school. No sound. My best friend at the time was with me. So I obviously made the whole thing up and convinced myself it was real or I misinterpreted a cloud or something? Screw that. It changed the course of my freakin' life.

I didn't ask for these experiences. I don't know what they mean or represent. But I sure as hell don't need some armchair theorist telling me that I somehow have a clear and good memory for everything except these experiences.

Scientists fit theories to the facts in my opinion, not the other way around. And the fact is that there are a hell of a lot of guys like me that know these blow-off explanations from guys like this are simply intolerable.

I would be interested in hearing if anyone here can point out one single comment he made that was false?

1. The flashbulb memory debate is in no way answered:

A study conducted by Kock and colleagues also provides support to the notion that flashbulb memories are encoded differently, leading to enhanced recall, as originally hypothesized by Brown and Kulik. In the study, a web-based snake screen was used to surprise participants (treatment condition) while they were studying learning modules online (each module was a web page with text). The study found that the participants who were surprised performed on average 28% better in a test on the learning modules than those in the control condition (no snake screen). This effect was significant only for the learning modules immediately before and after the snake screen. The participants did not have enough time to rehearse the memories associated with the surprise event, because the test was administered immediately after the participants' study of the modules.

2. We should not accept experiential anomalous evidence that doesn't fit theory. Do I even need to explain this one?

3. I don't think he understands Occam's razor as well as he think he does. Also known as the theory of parsimony, it simply states that everything else being equal the simplest answer is probably the right one. I agree that a strange light in the sky does not equal aliens from Zeta Reticuli. I do agree that 80-90% of sightings probably have a prosaic explanation. Given that there have probably been more than 100K sightings in north america is it reasonable to assume that 5-10K people are just flat out lying? All the photographic evidence are hoaxes? 'cmon... that's denying the human experience for the sake of saying that nothing anomalous is going on. For crying out loud, crap happens around us all the time we can't explain! We can't explain gravity -- does that mean that it doesn't exist?

 

[pixelsmith]

mrchef is mamer.

 

[mrchef]

Decker,

"Well, at the risk of sounding snarky, I am already getting somewhat bored at the direction of this communication ... event."

Why is that? An honest discussion of an event is boring? I see.

"Muslims? Soldiers making errors? Eyewittness reports are always unreliable? What line of work are you in?"

What does that matter? Again, I could call into question your ability to observe. I never once said that eyewitness reports are ALWAYS unreliable.

"And once again what is your qualifications to suggest Cooper was confused or in error."

One doesn't need to be qualified in anything to notice the fact that there is absolutely no evidence.

" I know all about how someone can be in error in what they witnessed, but part of the equation is the quality of the witness."

That certainly is part of the equation, in a Court of Law. Science is not a Court of Law.

" And Friend, I had the opportunity to know Cooper. Did you or Mamer? Did you speak to him prior to his death? Just what do you know about the man? Did you ever conduct an investigation or perhaps you are like 99% of most people on the net, you like to blather?

Knowing Mr. Cooper is part of your bias. You were not there when the event took place. So your testimonial is meaningless. Again, in a Court, it would certainly be given some weight. But again, Science is not a Court. You either can prove what you say, or you cant.


"Just curious. Lets get back to the beginning, just what are your qualifications? If you don't want to share, then lets just end it here."

Would it matter to you if I was a War Veteran? Or how about a retired Physicist? What if I was still teaching part time in my retirement?

I hope they dont make a difference since NEITHER of us were there to witness the event.

If all you can do question me... Insist that I have "credentials" (whatever those may be), then you SHOULD end this. Because unless you have some evidence to go along with your opinion, it isn't very compelling except to other believers. Hope that wasn't snarky.

And let's not forget that "the beginning" of our discussion was based NOT on what Mr. Cooper did or did not experience, but your willingness to mischaracterize Mr. Mamer. Who you haven't met.

 

[mrchef]

"I'll tell you who Don Ecker is - a highly valued member of these forums, and a close friend of the show. You're new here, so kindly chill out when addressing folks like Don, comprende?"

David,

So, I cant disagree with Mr. Ecker? It is perfectly acceptable for him to misrepresent a guest on the podcast, and not get called on it?

I would think Mr. Ecker would not be to bothered by my observations. But if a "close friend of the show" is not to be questioned.... my bad.

As for chilling out... I made a point of mimicking his post but could not bring myself to actually use the profanity that he did. But again, I guess a "close friend of the show" can make profanity riddled, unsubstantiated comments.... but I need to chill out. Again, my bad.

I will not remove myself from the list, but if you feel the need to moderate me or remove me, then fine.

 

[mrchef]

Pixelsmith,

I was wondering when it would happen. Certainly no free thinking individual would agree with Mr. Mamer! Therefore, mrchef must be Mr. Mamer!

QED. It's scientific proof!

Wow.

My name is David. Not Karl. I am presently a Chef. Not a... what was he? A technical writer?

But you believe what you want to believe.

 

[Unky]

I will not remove myself from the list, but if you feel the need to moderate me or remove me, then fine.

David,

If you're going to continue this discussion please have the consideration to use the quoting system properly and please lay off the hard returns. It makes your posts difficult to follow.

 

[mrchef]

Marduk,

First, your experiences are your experiences. I see no need, or feel no need to question them. You can interpret them as you see fit... let's face it, you saw it. Not me.

Flashbulb Memory. You bring up a couple of interesting points here. First, science does know that the immediate recall of a flashbulb memory is quite good. Better even than a "regular" memory. The problem with Flashbulb Memories is their long term recall. Unfortuantely science also knows that over time, those flashbulb memories change. And if they change, they aren't as accurate as regular memories.

And that was Mr. Mamer's point. I seem to remember him asking the hosts, when Mr. Cooper came forward with his story. If enough time had passed... then there is a chance that the memory changed.

I should also note here that Mr. Mamer only seemed to be offering it as a possibility in the Cooper case, not a certainty.

The other interesting point, is this is an area where I did not really agree with Mr. Mamer. I personally think that his citing of wikipedia is a little weak. By no means would I accept anything there as fact without some independant corroboration.

"2. We should not accept experiential anomalous evidence that doesn't fit theory. Do I even need to explain this one?"

I'm not sure he said that, but I will take your word for it. And yes you do need to explain this one.

"3. I don't think he understands Occam's razor as well as he think he does. Also known as the theory of parsimony, it simply states that everything else being equal the simplest answer is probably the right one."

I'm sorry, but that is only true as far as the "simple" part. It is an oversimplification of Occams Razor (the same way that it is often said that the First Law of Thermodynamics is that Matter and Energy can not be created or destroyed.). Both oversimplifications lead to errors.

Occam's Razor, and the theory or parsimony for that matter, it actually that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.

Assuming that a UFO is alien in nature includes far more assumptions than a terrestrial assumption.

"is it reasonable to assume that 5-10K people are just flat out lying? All the photographic evidence are hoaxes?"

I wouldn't suggest such a thing, and neither did Mr. Mamer.

"We can't explain gravity -- does that mean that it doesn't exist?"

I think that is a great example. We do not know nearly enough about gravity. But, what we do claim to know, is demonstrable and experiencable (is that a word?) by ALL. What we know is repeatable.

You dont have to take my word for it. Gravity is real, you can test it yourself, and repeat any experience I claim to have had with gravity.

That is why it is Science.

 

[mrchef]

Unky,

I must apologize. As I said, I am new to not only this site, but this kind of discussion.

To be honest, I dont even know what a "hard return" is, or what the proper quoting methods are.

It's getting late here. In the morning, I will go through the forum looking for some kind of etiquette guidelines. Sorry for the inconveniece, it does not help my argument if my style is confusing.

Thank you for the heads up.