July 8, 2018 — Don Ecker with J. Randall Murphy

[Ian]

... but, nobody was forcing you to listen.

Yes Don, you're quite right. And this was one of the few shows I just couldn't ride out. Forty-five minutes was enough, despite the importance of the content...

 

[Randall]

I'm going to have to agree with those that this show was a real bummer however, to be truthful, Ian, I didn't make it to 30 minutes. @Don - you have had a great run, don't ruin it with your ever increasing anger about everything that you believe pertains to you. @Gene - way to hang in there.

Well I feel somewhat relieved because if I recall correctly, I don't think I had much to say for at least 30 mins and therefore can only be guilty of not interrupting Don more often than I did .

 

[pigfarmer]

Well all, sorry if you found this to be a bit rambling. The fact of the matter is .. this was UFO history and history that I lived. Not to be too much of a curmudgeon but, nobody was forcing you to listen. What most of you don't know, nor probably give a damn about, was the amount of damage Cooper did to the overall UFO field. Oh, he was certainly not the first nor will he be the last ... but when we were publishing UFO Magazine we cared about the field. Something else concerning most of you ... to you this is a hobby, something to wile away with your free time, something you do when you aren't doing something else. This is what I did, this was my job and I cared about it. I doubt if many of you will understand ... and if you don't ... too bad.
Decker

I can't tell you why this was on my mind this morning. Honestly I didn't make it through the whole thing either and had moved on but having read this post it's one of those case where a voice suddenly became a real person and it gave me cause to stop and think about stuff and things a bit more. A phrase I use all the time is "you either doing it or you're just talking about it" and yup, I'm sitting here in my jammies fiddling around. Similarly I don't necessarily agree with things Chris O'Brien has said or the way he's said it but respect the fact that he got his ass off his couch and did something about his interest. Perspective hit home.

An offhand comment you made about TV news being entertainment not news echoed what I have been saying for quite some time. People are sooooo stupid. When I look at 24/7 clown show which is the cable news cycle and then take another step back and look at 'this field' the parallels are clear. Strong opinion bordering on fanaticism, personal attacks, the inability to listen, the ability to sway the credulous and on and on and on. It's the way humans will interact when given the chance and we have all been getting used to immediacy of communication. When I was a kid standing on the bus stop I didn't have a pocket sized computer that would access a global information network. Now all of our inherent poor behavior is writ large instantly.

This is why, in my layman's opinion formed over a lifetime of casual interest, that there are two distinct parts to Ufology. First is whatever the hell it is in the first place that has us all riled up; green men, nuts & bolts, other dimensions who the hell knows. This is where my interest is. We use the same approach to argue over theories and labels that we do with everything else which is why discussions often devolve into wordy dogfights. This leads me to the second part, which is the other 99.999999999% of Ufology, it's US. More a topic for sociologists than physicists or aeronautical engineers. A new member GlitteringBadger made a similar observation. I do care about the field and if I didn't have any interest I wouldn't be here. Unfortunately I don't see much having changed over the years (until very recently).

 

[Nix]

Well, more and more people are getting voluntary RFID implants, so who knows? Maybe someday the defense that "Siri made me do it!" might actually be admissible in court.

According to an article (below) I saw this week, it’s only two years away!

Just a paper-thin mesh implant. Watch out next time you get a general anaesthetic

Telepathic communication just 'a matter of time' as twins reveal blueprint for brain interface - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[Randall]

... This leads me to the second part, which is the other 99.999999999% of Ufology, it's US. More a topic for sociologists than physicists or aeronautical engineers. A new member GlitteringBadger made a similar observation. I do care about the field and if I didn't have any interest I wouldn't be here. Unfortunately I don't see much having changed over the years (until very recently).

An excellent observation, which makes it even more important for those of us who consider themselves to be part of the field of ufology to build and preserve whatever credibility we can for it. That's why it really irks me when people who could make a very positive difference consciously make decisions that reinforce negative perceptions.

Within a sociological context, there is lots of room for differing opinions and theories. So it's not that any one of them must win out in order for the field to gain respect. It's how those in the field deal with the subject that effects credibility more than anything else. That's why I endorse an academic approach. This doesn't mean ufology should be reserved exclusively for educational institutions, but it does mean that we should be using a more objective approach to study the various facets of the field. In other words we don't have to believe in Pleiadian contactees like Eduard Meier, but we should be able to discuss the various facets of the story in an objective and cooperative manner, preferably in an effort to reveal as many facts about it as possible.

 

[GlitteringBadger]

Don, your exposés not only on Cooper but on other neer-do-wells back in the day were outstanding; thanks for your work over the years.

when we were publishing UFO Magazine we cared about the field.

Which is a different thing, of course, than caring about solving the UFO mystery. Personally, I think "the field" is much more interesting than the phenomenon itself, but there is a distinction between the two. UFO Magazine had to pull double duty really, examining the phenomenon but keeping tabs on the personalities as well.

this was UFO history and history that I lived

And Cooper was a figure who viciously attacked you and Vicki (and many, many others; his broadcast of January 11, 1999 is particularly brutal and unhinged and hilarious in a can't-look-away-from-the-crazy-man way). Do you not agree that this could preclude you from discussing him dispassionately? Not that there's anything wrong with that--but it's only part of the story.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

One's personal experiences are obviously going to be subjective. So that's not the basis for an argument.

 

[pigfarmer]

Personally, I think "the field" is much more interesting than the phenomenon itself, but there is a distinction between the two

Agreed, except I am 180 degrees opposite. More interested in the weird stuff than the weirdos

 

[GlitteringBadger]

One's personal experiences are obviously going to be subjective. So that's not the basis for an argument.

I wasn't attempting to make an argument but rather an observation, I don't fault Ecker's objectivity and clearly explained that I value the contributions he's made.

And, of course, one can be dispassionate but still subjective. And objective while deeply passionate about the matter at hand.

 

[pigfarmer]

An excellent observation, which makes it even more important for those of us who consider themselves to be part of the field of ufology to build and preserve whatever credibility we can for it. That's why it really irks me when people who could make a very positive difference consciously make decisions that reinforce negative perceptions.

Within a sociological context, there is lots of room for differing opinions and theories. So it's not that any one of them must win out in order for the field to gain respect. It's how those in the field deal with the subject that effects credibility more than anything else. That's why I endorse an academic approach. This doesn't mean ufology should be reserved exclusively for educational institutions, but it does mean that we should be using a more objective approach to study the various facets of the field. In other words we don't have to believe in Pleiadian contactees like Eduard Meier, but we should be able to discuss the various facets of the story in an objective and cooperative manner, preferably in an effort to reveal as many facts about it as possible.

Nothing to argue about there and would prefer appeal to the better angels of our nature. Human nature being what it is makes that an uphill fight. It would probably take the discovery of something truly unequivocal to lend credibility to 'this field' and wouldn't be long before the head cases worked to undermine it.

 

[GlitteringBadger]

Agreed, except I am 180 degrees opposite. More interested in the weird stuff than the weirdos

A reasonable approach

So often there is compelling weird stuff but filtered through the perceptions of weirdos (or, very often, filtered through the perceptions of people who seemed "normal" at the time their encounter was documented who turn out to be weirdos down the road. This field (or the weirdness itself) has a way of turning people into weirdos sometimes)

edit: stupid unclosed parenthesis...

 

[pigfarmer]

A reasonable approach

So often there is compelling weird stuff but filtered through the perceptions of weirdos (or, very often, filtered through the perceptions of people who seemed "normal" at the time their encounter was documented who turn out to be weirdos down the road. This field (or the weirdness itself) has a way of turning people into weirdos sometimes

And very often some of the most compelling cases fail to hold up under scrutiny - but it may take some time. I am think of Coyne -Mansfield incident. Credit to Creepy Green Light for that one.

 

[guestron]

"Which is a different thing, of course, than caring about solving the UFO mystery. Personally, I think "the field" is much more interesting than the phenomenon itself, but there is a distinction between the two."

I actually find the researchers to be much more interesting than the actual phenomenon. Human behavior is way more interesting to me than the stimuli that prompt their, at times, bizarre reactions.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[Randall]

A reasonable approach

So often there is compelling weird stuff but filtered through the perceptions of weirdos (or, very often, filtered through the perceptions of people who seemed "normal" at the time their encounter was documented who turn out to be weirdos down the road. This field (or the weirdness itself) has a way of turning people into weirdos sometimes)

edit: stupid unclosed parenthesis...

​

 

[Randall]

... Trying to rehabilitate Bill Cooper is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. When its over all you have is a pig wearing lipstick ...

The above statement resurfaced in my brain the other day when I was watching a TV show called Daredevil about a fictional vigilante crime fighter, who despite the evils of guys far worse than Cooper, believes that criminals should be taken alive and face justice in a court of law. This was in sharp contrast to that of The Punisher, another fictional character who had no qualms about killing any bad guy in his path. In the series the two face off and the drama of the two opposing views plays out.

I find the above moral dilemma very relevant to real life. I don't doubt that Cooper had problems and made enemies, but completely dehumanizing him to the level of a pig in order to justify shooting him is way beyond my comfort level. Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist, but Cooper was a human being and I don't think it's too much to suggest that there should have been a better plan to capture him than the one they came up with. IMO police have traditionally been given too much benefit of the doubt when it comes to shooting citizens, and their self-regulating tribunals seem a bit too self-serving ( to me ).

Then again I've never been a policeman, so I don't know what sort of mitigating circumstances or reasoning besides dehumanizing their victims might apply. I just think there's something wrong with this picture: List of killings by law enforcement officers in Canada - Wikipedia

Which dare I assume it is in the USA ( worse or better ) ?

 

[pigfarmer]

The above statement resurfaced in my brain the other day when I was watching a TV show called Daredevil about a fictional vigilante crime fighter, who despite the evils of guys far worse than Cooper, believes that criminals should be taken alive and face justice in a court of law. This was in sharp contrast to that of The Punisher, another fictional character who had no qualms about killing any bad guy in his path. In the series the two face off and the drama of the two opposing views plays out.

I find the above moral dilemma very relevant to real life. I don't doubt that Cooper had problems and made enemies, but completely dehumanizing him to the level of a pig in order to justify shooting him is way beyond my comfort level. Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist, but Cooper was a human being and I don't think it's too much to suggest that there should have been a better plan to capture him than the one they came up with. IMO police have traditionally been given too much benefit of the doubt when it comes to shooting citizens, and their self-regulating tribunals seem a bit too self-serving ( to me ).

Then again I've never been a policeman, so I don't know what sort of mitigating circumstances or reasoning besides dehumanizing their victims might apply. I just think there's something wrong with this picture: List of killings by law enforcement officers in Canada - Wikipedia

Which dare I assume it is in the USA ( worse or better ) ?

Boy this one must have been simmering in there a while.
Lipstick on a pig. Just an old expression taken not to be taken that seriously. I am the pigfarmer, right?

There are no atheists in foxholes. At any point if I were forced to confront an armed lunatic either as a private citizen or as a law enforcement officer (which I am not) I’d have to deal with the problem first and then we can all have a group hug and talk about how the guy laying over there next to the rifle was misunderstood.

My niece is engaged to a very nice young man who served several tours overseas, worked his way through the corrections system, worked the highways as a deputy sheriff and is now a newly minted detective. A very mild unassuming man of which there is a lot to be proud of. He knows more abut the sh***y side of life than most of us combined.

Spectacular failures are what we see in the news, and rightly so. What we rarely if ever see are the millions of small successes that take place every day.

On an intellectual level dehumanizing an opponent is a point of discussion. On a practical level I’d suggest a few ride-alongs with guys like my soon to be nephew before making too many lofty determinations.

 

[Randall]

Boy this one must have been simmering in there a while.
Lipstick on a pig. Just an old expression taken not to be taken that seriously.

I think Don was deadly serious, and in the context of the post it was clearly dehumanizing so as to diminish the idea of rehabilitation as an alternative to shooting Cooper. To dismiss it as humor isn't appropriate ( IMO as part of the discussion. For discussion purposes, it's fine if you're of an opposing view )

There are no atheists in foxholes. At any point if I were forced to confront an armed lunatic either as a private citizen or as a law enforcement officer (which I am not) I’d have to deal with the problem first and then we can all have a group hug and talk about how the guy laying over there next to the rifle was misunderstood.

The old "I was just following orders" routine has always been a poor excuse. The plan was a bad one ( obviously ). I think it could have been done differently so nobody was injured or killed. NOTE: That still doesn't excuse Cooper. He should have turned himself in peacefully.

My niece is engaged to a very nice young man who served several tours overseas, worked his way through the corrections system, worked the highways as a deputy sheriff and is now a newly minted detective. A very mild unassuming man of which there is a lot to be proud of. He knows more abut the sh***y side of life than most of us combined.

I imagine so. But I'm missing the point.

Spectacular failures are what we see in the news, and rightly so. What we rarely if ever see are the millions of small successes that take place every day.

True. Maybe we should start a "Good News For a Change" thread. I'd be happy to contribute.

On an intellectual level dehumanizing an opponent is a point of discussion. On a practical level I’d suggest a few ride-alongs with guys like my soon to be nephew before making too many lofty determinations.

I don't think on-the-job experience is applicable to the principles here. There are simply those who favor shooting first and asking questions later and those who don't, and "lipstick on a pig" type comments aren't a defense for the former. Don seems to think Cooper got exactly what he deserved. I think it's fair to look at the questions I raised, and ask if the system could have done better. And in the bigger picture I look at the list of people shot by police in the link above and can't help but feel there's something wrong with that.

That brings us to the comments you made about your soon to be nephew. In my view it's exactly these sorts of problems that makes every good officer all that much more valuable. There's no argument that there are dirty cops and ones that go too far with the power they've been given. We need the good ones. So may he make you proud <-- smiling cop with dark sunglasses .

 

[Decker]

So, now RJ Murphy knows just what was in my mind?

I think Don was deadly serious, and in the context of the post it was clearly dehumanizing so as to diminish the idea of rehabilitation as an alternative to shooting Cooper. To dismiss it as humor isn't appropriate ( IMO as part of the discussion. For discussion purposes, it's fine if you're of an opposing view )

You sound totally clueless RJ. I asked you some time back what was the color of the sky on your planet, you never answered. You simply don't get it, do you? Cooper was a time bomb, clock ticking, simply waiting to go off. He had a website in which he said he would meet anyone coming on his property with lethal force. In other words, he would use a firearm to shoot them. The police were there because Cooper threatened a man, a doctor, with a firearm for driving on his property. He had felony warrants filed on him by federal officers. He shot a police officer in the head. I laughed at the naive remark you made ... Don seems to think Cooper got exactly what he deserved. Yes, I guess I do. Shoot a a cop, reap the harvest. Sounds right to me.

So RJ, no matter how many times YOU put lipstick on that pig, in the end you only have a pig with lipstick. Try working the job (law enforcement) for a year or so ... then come back and talk to me. In the meantime ...

Decker

 

[Randall]

So, now RJ Murphy knows just what was in my mind?

I think Don was deadly serious, and in the context of the post it was clearly dehumanizing so as to diminish the idea of rehabilitation as an alternative to shooting Cooper. To dismiss it as humor isn't appropriate ( IMO as part of the discussion. For discussion purposes, it's fine if you're of an opposing view )

You sound totally clueless RJ. I asked you some time back what was the color of the sky on your planet, you never answered. You simply don't get it, do you? Cooper was a time bomb, clock ticking, simply waiting to go off. He had a website in which he said he would meet anyone coming on his property with lethal force. In other words, he would use a firearm to shoot them. The police were there because Cooper threatened a man, a doctor, with a firearm for driving on his property. He had felony warrants filed on him by federal officers. He shot a police officer in the head. I laughed at the naive remark you made ... Don seems to think Cooper got exactly what he deserved. Yes, I guess I do. Shoot a a cop, reap the harvest. Sounds right to me.

So RJ, no matter how many times YOU put lipstick on that pig, in the end you only have a pig with lipstick. Try working the job (law enforcement) for a year or so ... then come back and talk to me. In the meantime ...

Decker

Your counterpoint is weak, consisting of personal jibes, repetition and further dehumanizing a criminal to justify his death. A reasonable and intelligent response would be to admit that a better plan could very well have resulted in Cooper being taken into custody without an officer down and a man dead. Calling that viewpoint clueless while endorsing the attitude that Cooper was a pig and deserved what he got is shallow and irresponsible. It doesn't contribute anything positive or encourage thought about how to better handle such situations. Don please tell me you're better than that. If not, I at least hope most of our other law enforcement officers out there are better than that. If they're not, then there's a serious problem with the way we're being policed.

 

[guestron]

Everything I've read about Cooper, as well as Don's expose on the man, convinces me that he was most likely quite mentally ill. I am not qualified as a diagnostician, though I have worked in the mental health field for twenty years now, but I think it would be safe to say that Cooper was most likely incredibly paranoid as well as delusional. I think it is unfortunate that he was killed in the way he was, I am not faulting law enforcement, and as a mental health professional I in no way think that violence against police officers or other civil servants should be considered 'part of the job' so don't think I am making excuses for his actions. It just seems that if he could have gotten help sooner all of this could have been avoided. There were so many warning signs FOR YEARS leading up to the faithful event it seems crazy that there were no attempts at an intervention (unless there were and I just don't know of them) on the part of his friends, family or even those in the paranormal community. And, in closing, I feel that dehumanizing someone is nothing more than a cognitive distortion that does nothing more than rationalize a regretful action perpetrated on that person. No matter what actions a person commits they are still human, to strip them of that humanity through labels or artificial ideas of 'being deserving' does nothing but make the person engaging in that labeling behavior look intellectual dishonest.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk