Talk:Milton William Cooper

The 'Lear' refered to was John Lear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom harrison (talk • contribs) 12:58, 22 May 2006.

Deputies

Where's the citation about the deputies being in plainclothes? I've only ever heard they were uniformed and that Cooper opened fire first, shooting one of them in the head. Amputee or not, the guy started shooting first. That very last paragraph of the article and the last (third) paragraph of the Behold a Pale Horse section that talks about him being on a "Briefing Team" also need to be looked at. Neither is referenced and that last bit comes out of leftfield...probably written by the same person, I would guess. I think the most interesting part of this article is how it accurately shows how his views changed from conspiracy to conspiracy-within-conspiracy...like some kind of one-ups-manship. Very similar to Dr. Steven Greer. Funny how none of them ever personally claim to have seen a UFO or alien, but they all have the answers...most of which become increasingly convoluted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.139.205 (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you know Cooper shot first? Were you there? If not, you don't know what you're talking about. Funny how people believe whatever they want to without any evidence.

Cooper claimed many times to have seen a UFO while in the Navy.

Yes, Cooper's views did evolve and change sustantively over time.71.205.136.119 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles need joining

Is it the same person as William Cooper (radio host)? - Stormwatch 05:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it. They'll need to be merged. Thanks for spotting it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

OK First of all his name is Milton William Cooper as stated in the credits of his book "Behold A Pale Horse". I think that needs to be changed first and foremost. Secondly I agree that William Cooper was a patriot, a tough bulldog of a man who never restrained himself and spoke his mind. He brought us a lot of truths about the world we live in and subsequently was assassinated for it. I recomend anyone who followed the works of Bill Cooper to check out Alex Jones at http://www.infowars.com or http://www.prisonplanet.com and check out his research, sindicated radio and TV talk show and video documentaries on the New World Order and the Global Elite. Facinating stuff. But about William Cooper I agree there should be a less biased point of view written about him and his works. The man had nothing to gain by revealing the things he revealed about our governments and world leaders, in fact he had everything to lose including his leg and his life, which were both taken in attempted assassination attempts and the successful assassination attempt. He was prematurely cut down for telling the truth. No more, no less. A true patriot! R.I.P. Milton William Cooper. ~H. N. Stone - August 13, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hollow Stone (talk • contribs) 03:28, 14 August 2006.

Post merge, the second part of the article duplicates material in the first. Fact-checking is also needed. As ever, more secondary sources would be good. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How could you guys call him a hoax!? when he has drop more relevent material than anyone to date. I think you guys a ignorant to the fact of whats really going on.. thus, keeping those who view your website ignorant.. open your mind and see the truth.. that the govt' is on some BS!! ~07/02/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.17.139.186 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 July 2006.

This article on Bill Cooper is Bad Bad Bad very negitive..He was a great man....I am to lazy to rewrite it myself but I hope some one will..Please some one trash this whole page on Bill and make a new one..Sep,9,06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fffforest (talk • contribs) 10:14, 10 September 2006.

i removed the following unsourced oppinion from the later life section "William Cooper was murdered by MJ-12 he never threatend anyone with armed physical violence and was murdered by members of mj-12 on orders of the Bush family and members of the bilderberg Group. He and long time friend Phillipp Schnieder were both murdered because of their outspokeness of the US goverments attempt to cover up the Dulce New Mexico incident and for their knowledge of S4( area 51)"

hoax?

I do not share the extremist beliefs of cooper nor do I share the bullheadedness of whom ever wrote this article. I may not believe everything Cooper believes but I certainly do not think that an encyclopedia of any prestige should express the degree of bias I read in this article. I am a frequent Wikipedia reader and when I read the article on William Cooper, I could feel the not so subtle undertone that this man was not to be respected, or believed. This article was ment to discredit and debunk William Cooper, not to educate any one about the man. His beliefs, achievements, and works are each smeared in this document and when I read it, I felt ashamed of Wikipedia. I hope that someone will correct this error with a less biased view of this man or at least a document that look like an Encyclopedia entry and not an Anti John Kerry add. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.50.233.86 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 8 August 2006.

Neutral Point of View

Well, I've tagged the article since you feel it contains bias. Some suggestions on how to improve the article would be appreciated. Keep in mind this article still needs to be cleaned up. It looks like it was merged from two articles and many differnt people have contributed to it. Some people would label William Cooper as a "conspiracy theorist" so his page is bound to be controversial.Pixelface 14:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention the "conspiracy theorist" label on Milton William Cooper. After the attacks of September 11th, 2001 the government of the United States, mainly the director of the FBI, admitted in national news media from newspapers to television that there is no way to know who the hijackers were since they were using stolen passports and did not have tickets (indeed the hijackers were not listed in the autopsy reports nor on the flight manifests). So there is no way to know who actually was on those planes. Follow that line of thought, no tickets, no autopsy report with their names, 7 of the supposed hijackers turned up alive and came forward in Britain and the middle east stating that they were not only not dead but also not pilots or hijackers, yet the offical 9/11 Commission Report still states that they were the ones who hijacked the planes. Point I'm making is, when the government says the 19 middle easterners were the hijackers, THAT in itself IS a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy deriving from an act planned and carried out by more than 2 individuals, and theory meaning not proven, just speculation. So because of that, the "Official Story" of what happened on 9/11/01 IS a conspiracy theory. So might as well lub George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and everyone else involved in the 9/11 Omission uhhh.... I mean Commission in with the "conspiracy theorists". ~H. N. Stone - August, 13, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hollow Stone (talk • contribs) 03:38, 14 August 2006.

Some people call Milton William Cooper a conspiracy theorist. Have I called him that? No. Yes, some people claim that the "official theory" of 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory. But that topic has nothing to do with William Cooper and would probably fit better on the page for Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks. If you can think of a way to improve the article for Milton William Cooper, your suggestions would be appreciated.Pixelface 18:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about the denotative and the connotative. "Conspiracy" is actually an interesting word here in Wikipedia. Denotatively, a "conspiracy theorist" is someone who believes in or promotes conspiracy theories. Pretty basic. According to the material I have located and added to the article, Mr. Cooper may have been a conspiracy theorist to at least some degree (if the quoted material is accurate and is his own writing), as he himself (apparently) alleged conspiracy -- and even (apparently) used the word itself.

If so, why would someone object to calling him a conspiracy theorist?

The reason that some people don't like the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" is -- let's be blunt here -- the terms have negative connotations in the minds of many people. This is always going to be a problem for people who claim that a particular conspiracy exists: how do you claim there is a conspiracy and yet not be labeled a conspiracy theorist?

Denotatively, the use of the term to describe Mr. Cooper would appear to be correct (unless the article simply is wrong, and Mr. Cooper did not really promote the conspiracy theory(ies) he is alleged to have promoted.

I have run into one or two people who have had the same kind of problem with the use of the term "tax protester" (also spelled "tax protestor"). Like the term "conspiracy theorist," the term "tax protester" may have had no negative connotations -- or even a positive one. In the United States, however, beginning around the early or mid-1970s, the U.S. courts began to see more and more people claiming wild, ridiculous, even hilarious theories about the validity of the Federal income tax. The number of different theories is astonishing, and there is not a shred of legal validity to any of them. After hundreds and hundreds of decisions over a thirty year period, not one Federal court has ever upheld a tax protester argument.

The term "tax protester" is a technical legal term used to describe persons who push these legally frivolous arguments -- the courts actually use that designation in a very uniform way. As a result, the term "tax protester" has come to have a connotation very similar to that of "conspiracy theorist" (maybe worse, I don't know). I've seen a couple of people object to the use of the term for that very reason -- even though it's the technically correct legal term.

The bottom line is: You can't have it both ways. If you promote a tax protester argument, you are properly labeled a tax protester. If you promulgate a conspiracy theory, you are properly labeled a conspiracy theorist, and you have no valid cause for complaint. The Wikipedia use of the term here in this article (assuming the substance of the article is correct) is appropriate, in my opinion. Yours, Famspear 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The official view on the 9/11 attacks is also a "conspiracy theory" in that those responsible for the attacks conspired ("to plot secretly together, especially for an unlawful purpose." according to chambers online reference dictionary) for the terrorist attacks to take place. Yet you don't see that reverse propaganda and labelling happen on anyone claiming a terrorist organization was responsible for the attacks. Instead you only find this pejorative term in conspiracies that are not favoured by whatever orthodoxy is in power to chose what passes off as conspiracy propre, or does not and is branded as the loony, bizzare and unmeriting of serious consideration other conspiracies. So your shallow, simplistic argument despite it's length and the fervour by which it is being put forth just doen't hold ground. Conspiracy theorists, is for me one of the foremost weasel words in wikipedia, taking a term with a clearly pejorative sense in the public mind, and branding whatever historians, writers etc. that do not subscribe to the editor's viewpoints as such. Moreover, author's such as Cooper are not actually suggesting "theories" but are trying to prove or indicate conspiracy actualities.213.170.207.135 08:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the allegations that Cooper is a "militia supporter and conspiracy theorist" in the lede because there is no source for these libelous allegations. It is particularly important that this article be clean, since his daughter is reading the article and begged editors to fairly characterize the memory of her father. Mpublius 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

When you search "William Cooper" he still shows up as a militia supporter and conspiracy theorist which he clearly isnt this is what shows up when searching his name "# Milton William Cooper (1943-2001), American writer, shortwave broadcaster, militia supporter and conspiracy theorist" i am unsure how to remove it or i would have done it myself, could someone please remove these comments

He was also a father...

My name is Jessica Dovie Cooper, and Milton William Cooper was my father. I think it's only fair that I add a side to this story that has yet to be told, and that is arguably his most human side. My father was married four times, to four women, and fathered children with all of them. With his first wife he had my older brother, Anthony. With his second, my older sister, Jennifer. Then he married my mother and they had me, followed by his fourth wife with whom he had little Dorothy and Allison, the girls pictured in his book and on his website. The men who run his site now completely omit my sister, brother and I from discussion or view, I don't know why. I found my father when I was nineteen years old, having been taken from him at the age of three and a half by my mother. I knew and loved him for two years, and he loved me. Then he was shot and killed. My father wanted only one thing: To ensure that this country was run the way the Constitution of the United States says it should be. He wanted truth, and justice for those who sought to cover it up and those who thought to expose it. He was killed for fighting for these things. But he wanted these things for his children, all of us. No one mentions that, or thinks to portray him as a man, with feelings and family, but these were at the core of everything he stood for, everything he fought for, and everything he believed. I love him for it, and so should you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Youluvmebunches (talk • contribs) .

keep this junk out of wikipedia, type your tirade on your geocities page and post a link to it at the end

This is trash, how difficult can it be to keep the weasel words and contemptuous tone to the very end and simply placing them in a section labeled "controversy" and "criticism", ditto for the quotes:

Jerome Clark writes that "Cooper told his lurid and outlandish claim as if it were so self-evidently true that sources or supporting data were irrelevant." (Clark, 1998, 162) In many ways, his accounts were similar to earlier UFO conspiracy theories: UFOs had crashed, the ships and their alien pilots had been recovered, and the government made agreements with aliens. There were further details as well, in Cooper's self-published 1989 screed "The Secret Government: The Origin, Identity and Purpose of MJ-12".

What is that? 'Self-published screed'? This section doesn't teach me anything about his theories on "the secret government", whatever he said that was. A bunch of out of context citations, critical quotations, and completely superfluous weasel words do not a good article make. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.171.59.186 (talk • contribs) 16:18 15 September 2006.

I agree with the above user. This article is trash of the worst type, and it stinks to high heaven. The contemptuous tone it's written in does a huge diservice to both the William Cooper, and wikipedia. Something should be done about it. 213.170.207.135 08:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ways To Improve the Article?

I do not know much about contributing to Wikipedia, although I did some editing of the article on Travis Walton. I would like to know how those dissenters who have posted here would like to see the article improved, and perhaps I can add a thing or two that would shed some light on the man. I am the founder of the ParaNet BBS Network on which MWC first painted on the radar screen. I can vouch for the fact that the man was a first-class liar and poseur, as I caught him in several lies on that system, subsequently booting him off (along with John Lear). Do the dissenters here wish me to provide documentation of that fact for inclusion in the article? Would that provide more "fairness" and "balance"? You see, sometimes hatchet jobs are deserved. There's nothing I can do about the fact that the man lied, and there's nothing I can do about the fact that once a liar lies, nothing he says can be taken on any kind of faith, least of all undocumentable conspiracy theories. What "balance" can possibly be provided? Help me out here, I'd like to see all sides agree on the efficacy of MWC's entry in the Wikipedia. Whatever I can do, name it. ---==JJS== Edited: added signature 06:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Originally posted 27 October 2006

every single human on earth lies at least one time in their life get over it. so because you were a sysop on an outdated piracy system we should take your word for granted :S i take it you were the original editor of this article as your clear bias and hatread for the man shines through in your above comments, again :S , also if you have never told a lie in your life maybe you should contact the guinness world records

What is the point of this neutrality argument?

Is it bias to simply state some of Cooper's theories, whether they are founded or not? I don't think the problem is so much in the writing of the article ,but the interpretation. It basically states his views and theories in a manner that any other article would. This subject matter can just be somewhat inflammatory as many people are offended by the possibility that some of it could be true. If we need to cut this article down to a bland, politically correct statement then there are thousands of other articles on wiki that need to be edited as well. Information on this website is entirely subjective. That is the adventure of being a reader and an intellectual. You are a slave to laziness if you take everything you read as a concrete factual statement. Believe it or not, people are able to search for themselves beyond wiki articles. If you don't like what you read, research your objection, and add a criticism section to the article. Furthermore, I have read Mr. Cooper's work, and at no time does he say that his theories should be taken to heart. He frequently reminds readers that the things he says are only theories that he has come to based on info he has been exposed to. He asks that readers investigate his claims for themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdecker65 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 December 2006.

Commentary by CarbonEnshroudment

CarbonEnshroudment 01:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Cooper's military career is suspicious. However- the one thing I always mention when discussing him is that he claims in Behold A Pale Horse that the Illuminati placed plutonium on Galileo to ignite Jupiter into a new star called Lucifer. Well, that was the way Arthur C Clark's 2010 ended (in the book 2010 it was Saturn, not Jupiter, as in the movie). Not only is this among the most funny of Cooper's claims, but also the reputation he has- he threatened me in the mid-1990s for placing two chapters from his book on my website back then. I asked him why he did that if he thought this "information" was so important to get to the American public. I was in contact with Glenn Campbell at this point and he basically told me what I already knew- that the Cooper is full of hot air and to not worry about it. Humorously, I make the analogy of what Eddie Murphy said about Bill Cosby in his movie Raw and talking to Richard Pryor, where Richard told Eddie "Well you can tell Bill I said HE can have a Coke and smile" (Glenn's website was at ufomind.com but it forwards to a new site of his that has broken links to the bio's of people- check it out with waybackmachine or something)

Anyway- Cooper is a joke, his military record and story is a fraud, (any truth is mixed in with hype and fiction to make it ridiculous). If the truth is so important, nobody should embellish it with rantings or threats (or as he did, call people that disagree with him as working for the conspiracy or illuminati (etc)

you never heard of art imitating life ? it is common for holywood to portray things currently protected by secracy laws and twisting the story so it doesent match verbatim

A change in narrative

Dear fellow editors: Toward the end of the article, until a few hours ago, the following verbiage was found:

In July and September 2001, Cooper used a handgun to threaten passersby near his home in Eagar, Arizona. On 5 November 2001, officers of the Apache County Sheriff's Office lured him from his house by posing as civilians. After the deputies identified themselves and tried to serve an arrest warrant, Cooper fled toward his house and began shooting, wounding one deputy. Another returned fire, killing Cooper.

The sourcing for this is listed as: Sieveking, Paul. "How a conspiracy theorist lost the plot", Sunday Telegraph(London), The Telegraph Group Limited, 2001-12-02, p. 41.

An anonymous user has changed the material to read as follows:

The circumstances surrounding Cooper's death are controversial. On November 5 2001, officers of the Apache County Sheriff's Office decided to serve Cooper a warrant based on the above-mentioned charges. For reasons not explained, the Sheriff's Office sent deputies to Cooper's home at approximately 11:00PM, and instead of knocking on his door and announcing themselves, the deputies attempted to lure Cooper from his house by posing as civilians playing loud music on or near his property. Cooper, who was an above the knee amputee, went down to investigate the scene in his truck. It is disputed as to whether the deputies identified themselves or tried to serve an arrest warrant at that time. Nevertheless, Cooper announced he was returning to his house to contact the Eager [sic; Eagar] Police Department, either to verify the warrant or to contact the local authorities in order to report what he may have still believed was a real disturbance. Before he could do so however, the sheriff's deputies tried to apprehend him, at which point shooting began. Cooper was armed and one deputy was wounded. Another deputy returned fire, killing Cooper.

The sourcing for this verbiage, however, is also shown as being Sieveking, Paul. "How a conspiracy theorist lost the plot", Sunday Telegraph(London), The Telegraph Group Limited, 2001-12-02, p. 41.

These two accounts appear materially different in both tone and detail. The first version seems to be somewhat sympathetic to law enforcement. The latter seems to be sympathetic to Cooper. Does anyone have ready access to the Sunday Telegraph story? Are both versions of the narrative actually printed in the same Sunday Telegraph story? Can we account for the apparent discrepancy? Yours, Famspear 03:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Trylogic 19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)comment by trylogicTrylogic 19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article on William Cooper is a prime example of what an encyclopedia entry should NOT be. Certainly, it is the worst conceived that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Ideally, the entries will give essential, referenced facts as best they can be ascertained without comment, opinion and personal evaluation. It can be difficult to achieve that and falling short of that will probably always be a problem in Wikipedia as it works now, but at least a real effort should be made. It is almost impossible to believe that such an effort was made or even intended in this case. There are plenty of other forums available for grinding axes, settling scores, grandstanding and going off on personal tangents. My suggestion is to start by going through the entry and removing EVERY comment, opinion and value judgement. It would be far preferable to have a shorter, basic factual entry than a long, opinionated, leading entry. People could then pursue a further investigation out of curiosity rather than Wikipedia having directly contributed to their value judgements. The question of whether William Cooper was actually correct on any one thing or another or whether or not the writer liked or believed him should not be part of the entry.

This article is biased, very biased and infurated me. I don't believe everything William Cooper said, I do my own research after he's given me some clues as to where to work. This article sounds like a smear to paint him as some kind of nut. The man was gunned down and silenced, show some respect. Scorpaen (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)