Talk:Milton William Cooper/Archive 1

Tax Evasion
It would seem to me that Cooper was not an monied individual, so, I am curious as to why the IRS would go through all of this court trouble and then, after all of that, not even execute the warrant. Does anyone have any sources, or knowledge about the nature of the evasion charge? The contents of the warrant or, even better, the general financial overview of Cooper?

I'm no expert in tax laws... but I still find it interesting that the IRS would go to such lengths to collect so little.

Lear
The 'Lear' refered to was John Lear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom harrison (talk • contribs).

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.

"How do you know Cooper shot first? Were you there?" You where not there so take your own standard and dont comment on it!

My name is Marty Martin. I am the son (legally step-son) of the Deputy that was shot in the head. Cooper shot first. Cooper tried to run over another Deputy before getting out of his truck to run to the house. My dad came around the truck, weapon lowered, to tackle him. Cooper spun on him and fired at nearly point blank range. As my dad collapsed, the deputy closest to Cooper fired at him to prevent him from firing any more rounds into my dad. My dad had cause to shoot Cooper when he tried to run over the other Deputy. I wish he had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.154.72 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"Funny how people believe whatever they want to without any evidence." Just like you, he shopt a sheriff in the head, thats why he was shot, he has said on his radio show before hand he would shoot it out with police if they came for him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.91.4 (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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 www.infowars.com infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used or www.prisonplanet.com prisonplanet.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used 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). with the above recommendation, it should be known that william cooper felt alex jones was nothing more than a fear mongerer


 * 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).


 * 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).


 * 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).

This article has no sources other than william cooper.The links wich supposedly go to an article on his death actually go to Wiki articles on the dates shown.There is a link above to alex jones' sites.He is also a fan of people who will believe anythingDsglop (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)dsglop. coming info Blondeignore (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC) UFO ACTIVIST 2011 DERRUFO/ Youtube Video provider the following is given : it seems quite evident to cippac that a review of this material on date -- feb 2011-- was necessary. It was decided to try and post the conclusions drawn to the internet for those who still follow the past history of ufo research and the various storylines from that era about various people like cooper or lear etc. The importance of this research can not be overly stressed since it is implied that if moore was a disinformation agent no one should believe any thing that was written or provided by mr cooper or his associates and this includes the moore- cooper- lear fiascos concerning secret files and ufo conspiracy events or secrecy cover ups. The deliberate misinformation campaigns of Moore and comrades may have used a sly, very clever plot structure that is seen in some parts of the brilliantly conceived book -- A SCANNER DARKLY- (ASD)- written by Phillip K Dick. This is highly possible. It is obvious from this study P K Dick had no role in any disinformation campaigns of the CIA or FBI or NSA...But the concept models used in Dick's perplexing and amazing story are uniquely similar to what cooper was pulling off as he constantly contacted ufo research sites and gave people documents. cooper said they were real govt documents. It is this seemingly similar oddness of the progression of irrational and illogical behavior by those associated with cooper ( and not ufo researchers in the USA ) and how it compared to the story ASD that is important to note. Readers are asked to review all documents that can be obtained. Once again to repeat, some of the documents are from Mr Don Ecker who examined Mr Cooper's motives and also throughout an expose well-written by Mr Jim Speiser. So what is cippac proposing ?

In the book (ASD) P K Dick subjects the main character of the story to an exhaustive display of totally contradictory behavior by himself, the main character, as he enters 2 different locations of his brain at separate times due to an addiction to a future drug used heavily in modern future American society...thus the 2 different constructed personalities maintain a vigilant struggle with one another, one part of him tries to hide that he is a user of the illegal drug from the other personality of himself that is a paid narcotics officer undercover for the city police department who weekly is arresting people on the street using the very same drug.

After reviewing the above odd behavior and most importantly the wording of various comments by cooper, there is a similarity of such a purpose with the supreme intent ( assumed here ) of misleading ufo researchers and seriously undermining the integrity of ufo research information sites at the time period suggested ( late 1980s ). This was done to interfere with the unity of purpose of the American ufo research movement in the 1980s and 1990s. Purposeful sowing of confusion in the ranks by odd behavior of people like Mr Cooper or bizarre stories from people like Mr Lear.

It is presumed that the above "calling out " of cooper as some kind of a freakozoid nutjob or government paid agent for disinformation by spieser and others ( ecker ) was enough for cooper to go more and more into wacko status and off the ufo research/ ufo convention lecturing circuit after this release of statements that were suspicious of cooper and that cooper was not " helpful " to ufo research groups in the USA. -- end cippac notes. The above was approved for publication in any form at any website by ufo researcher contact pointman -- DERRUFO. ( google derr ufo phrase to learn about alien invasion of earth )Blondeignore (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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).


 * 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

I'm what many would consider a conspiracy theorist as well. With the category, it's a great way of advertising/showing people who truly are disgusted with government corruption, don't fall for the non sense republican/democrat paradigm, and are aware of the coming new world order/of the ages. I also notice George Noory of coast to coast isn't labeled a conspiracy theorist, which is awesome IMO. Cooper spoke out about how columbine massacre was orchestrated by the government, saying: "It is no accident that these killings were carried out just before Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, and several other States were scheduled to vote on Concealed Carry laws....", google: Cooper on columbine, to read the rest. As you can clearly see, he spoke out against the occult as well K3nluminati (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC).

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). Blondeignore (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

this above is one of the most wonderful comments I have ever read by someone dealing with this oddness called ufo research.God Bless You daughter of Mr. Cooper. It is hard to deal with these matters when there is the national ufo cover up against People knowing the truth on Aliens or UFOs etc... I am sure it was harder for you to deal with, those of you close to these 'mad hatters' as we in ufo research are often referred to ( or revered as ). I for one am glad for every piece of info on william cooper in this discussion area and I am glad to have a chance to read it all and not see it edited out...thank you wikipedia for allowing all this material to sit in here for people like myself-- a ufo researcher since 1991 to review...(google my info online by using phrase "DERRUFO" ...my videos on youtube as member Derr115 will give you all more information as to what Mr Cooper and all the 1000s of ufo researchers and fans of these conventioneers were on to and up about. cheerio mates !Blondeignore (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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).

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)

Should move the Clark quote to a criticism section. Along with the word 'notoriety.' What's the citation for Cooper being notorious among UFO enthusiats?71.205.136.119 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to second that, ip:71.205.136.119. The article in the current version starts with a characterization of Bill Cooper through Michael Potok of the "Southern Poverty Law Center", one of the most infamous neocon think-tank institutions known to the aware public. Well if this was our information channel the introduction to Bill Cooper would be given by Jordan Maxwell. Not that you should find an article on Mr. Maxwell himself on Wikipedia ever as it has been decided by the gatekeeping committees to ban any article on Jordan Maxwell. Supposedly Maxwell is not "noteworthy enough". However that may be I personally find Wikipedia is a very valuable tool. You will find that technical articles such as in the mathematics or computing sections are nowadays of reasonable to very good quality. Everything else is a fascinating showcase of censorship and disinformation. Think of Wikipedia as your laboratory experiment where the censors and gatekeepers are wired to probes and have no other option than to participate in the experiment or leave the room. What will they defend with the most vigor, what information are they the most determined to suppress? There often more to be learned from the fact that censorship is occurring and that an "orthodox fact" is so strongly defended, than from the article itself.

Again, quoting another ip from a few paragraphs earlier: "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."

Yes the article does not tell you a whole lot about Bill Cooper's work, but it what it does tell you is 'They' do not like Bill Cooper at all. What better reason for you to research Bill Cooper's work than their endorsement? 12.139.169.74 (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea that the SPLC is a "neocon think-tank" is so wacked-out that I don't know how to respond to the rest of this bizarre screed. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  00:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Must be the magnet effect. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for participating :-) So you're getting set to delete the article, fine off to the memory hole with it. it is an insult

to the man and his work. What will it be this time? Noteworthiness again? Every time you do this it's another shell for my mortar. I just love to point it out to people you will find something like Loituma Girl noteworthy but authors of highly controversial works read by millions around the globe are deemed as not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. This is an excerpt from the article I'm quoting which is about four frames of an obscure anime character spinning a leek that appeared for a few seconds in a single episode of an anime series. These four frames were subsequently lifted from the animation and put out on the internet as the basis of a derived work called the Loituma Girl. How noteworthy indeed, she is on one of my slides on wikipedia and the audience invariably has a good laugh at your expense when I compare her noteworthiness to that of a Jordan Maxwell. Loituma Girl (also known as "Leekspin") is a Flash animation set to a scat singing section of the traditional Finnish folk song "Ievan Polkka," sung by the Finnish quartet Loituma on their 1996 debut album Things of Beauty.[1] It appeared on the Internet in late April 2006 and quickly became popular.[2] The animation consists of four frames showing the Bleach anime character Orihime Inoue twirling a Welsh onion, set to a 27-second loop from the song. (...) The animation of Loituma Girl is taken from episode two of the Bleach anime series, between the twelfth and fourteenth minute (depending on the version).

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).

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)

What the ... with bon jovi???
The paragraph entitled "The Secret Government" starts with the words.... "Bon Jovi"... no other reference in the article, and no explanation is made... Can anyone tell me the link or should i just remove the singer's name? 82.224.143.139 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Other
I've read his book and can confirm the statement that Cooper had indeed seen a UFO rise from the water whilst serving in the Navy (pages 19-21 of Behold A Pale Horse). Ultimately in terms of the content (and the present world situation) it would seem that many of his claims could EASILY be true and I do not doubt that this man had totally honest interpretations of what HE, HIMSELF HAD SEEN and the documents he provides, due to his scrutinous level of research. Conspiracies or none, the tactics employed by politicians in this day and age can easily lead one astray and are built around denial. Similarly wording can also be extremely deceptive. For example, I reject the claim in Wikipedia that he was a 'local militia supporter' as far as I can ascertain, Cooper did indeed look into setting up militia of some form simply because he had by that point several attacks on his person one of which caused the loss of his leg (Page 27 of his book details) which in turn forced him to research alternative ways in which he could defend his person and family (as stated he sent his family away from the U.S. amidst fear they would be attacked by some agency trying to prevent him from disclosing the truth). If he had been purporting lies, there would have been absolutely no need for his death (and/or no controversy surrounding it), for his statements would have held no substance and he would have been 'debunked.' I positively believe that his death was no accident, since when, did local authorities pose as civilians to lure someone from their property in an attempt to arrest them HUH!? It is no coincidence that given to the fundamentally flawed explanations for 9-11 given by the general mass media, and the logical explanations and answers that Cooper draws up in his book TO THE SAME ENDS (there is no references to 9-11 in Behold A Pale Horse), that Cooper was head hunted at this time. I urge anyone who has read his book, or who knew him personally to come forward to reiterate and confirm what I have said to properly preserve the memory of this incredibly brave man to no lesser degree than he deserves. Cooper's example is but one small part of an immense 'information war' between the mass media and factual evidence provided by individuals such as himself. I believe people tend to over analyse, critique and scrutinize people who come forward claiming this sort of information, when has a politician actually sat down and PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT NONE OF THIS IS INDEED ... TRUE! Usually the politician 'turns the other cheek' so to speak. Remember, as Cooper states it is irrelevant whether aliens exist or not. As he can confirm as an eye-witness, the technology is there. Now, ONLY ONE CASE OF AN UN-IDENTIFIABLE FLYING OBJECT HAS TO BE TRUE to this degree (flying saucer and all appropriate technologies), whether extra terrestrial or otherwise for this statement to be valid.

As a final note, I would recommend anyone read his book and draw their own conclusions and to refrain from skepticism and throwaway remarks about his person and character, or at least to provide a contact detail so that this can be merrily debated...

o_malandro@hotmail.co.uk

Milt, and why he did it.
I’m a big Milton Cooper fan, and have been for years. I enjoy his speeches and thoroughly enjoy his subject of interest. Unfortunately, he has passed, and did so many years ago. Let’s get one thing straight, though. Milt was talking, in his early years, about how our government knows about aliens and their evil auspices. In his later years, Milt gained further knowledge of the facts and publicly changed his tune from one of alien visitation to one of out of control government (US) technological advancement. One thing he held on to was secret society involvement in these events. His beliefs in Bilderbergers and Yale groups, Skull and Bones and Scroll and Key, involvement in the modern day UFO phenomenon never changed, even unto the day of his death by his own paranoid way of life (tax evasion and fear of government oppression). All be it, Milt spoke loudly of these ever so dangerous to our constitution secret groups, when no one else ever has or ever will. Fact is, Bilderbergers, Bonesmen, and even Masons, run this country and our way of life. Why alien visitation and end of the world philosophy? To justify what’s going to happen in 2012. It’s a new world order, and it has nothing to do with aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2blackop4$ (talk • contribs) 02:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So...for the record...what happened, exactly, in 2012? DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Internet movie Esoteric Agenda
This new documentary, similar in tone and scope with Zeitgeist: The Movie and America: Freedom to Fascism, has a segment centering on Cooper. I'm too unfamiliar with the subject to be able to tell if any new information is presented therein. __meco (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Merge Behold a Pale Horse into Milton William Cooper > June 2008
I would like to move the article Behold a Pale Horse into the section Milton William Cooper in this article. They are just about the same size (number of kbs) and parrot the same information. No need to feed the parrot.

Second choice is move to Behold a Pale Horse (book) which re-directs to this article and not to Behold a Pale Horse.

Then make Behold a Pale Horse a disambiguation page for both: Behold a Pale Horse (book) and Behold a Pale Horse (film)

Proposal to close 30 June 2008.

~ WikiDon (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Tax matters
I notice that another editor has placed a citation tag on the material about Cooper's supposed U.S. federal tax problems. Based on a quick search, I have found no reliable, previously published third party sources on this. I did check the online federal court PACER system, and I found no federal tax cases involving a "William Cooper" or a "William Milton Cooper" that I could verify related to this person (there are lots of "William Cooper" cases and lots of "William [middle initial other than "M"] Cooper" cases, though). A google search reveals nothing that I would consider to be very reliable. Anyone have anything on this? Famspear (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have located the case -- it was under "Milton William Cooper," not "William Milton Cooper." The case involved charges of tax evasion (no bank fraud charges). The case number, etc., has been added as a footnote in the article. I have added a citation tag on the reference to bank fraud. Famspear (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Cobra Commander"?
"According to Cobra Commander,[7] shortly after the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building," - I'm guessing this is vandalism, but what should it actually be? Шизомби (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: sometimes WMC instead of MWC
There are about an equal number of google hits for "William Milton Cooper" as "Milton William Cooper," and several sources use only the former, including the LA Times. However, http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ shows one hit for Milton W. Cooper which matches birth and death. Cool Hand Luke 20:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture
Can somone fix the picture? RicoRichmond (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Age
He was 59 when he died not 69. RicoRichmond (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Alcohol issues
Why no mention of his issues with alcohol? His friend Norio Hayakawa has stated that he was indeed an alcoholic. There are also various tapes on YouTube of Bill, drunk, taunting some agent or promoter. I see Jessica commented. I read that she left Bill's house with a police escort after he got drunk and yelled at her, or something to that effect. That was in her interview with Tim Beckley. Then, of course, there are the HOTT broadcasts before his death where he is clearly wasted, slurring his words, and challenging the deputies to come and get him. "You want me, come up here and get me!" I could edit it, but I'm sure it will be deleted quickly by a fan and classified as "vandalism" or a "smear." I respect Bill, but his alcoholism is well-documented. Hopefully it will be included sooner or later as it played a large role in his ultimate downfall.

99.140.198.153 (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Poor use of English throughout
Why is this article so badly written (poor use of English). Are Cooper's followers so ignorant, or is this article badly written to destroy credibility. Looking at the discussion, it would suggest that the poor quality is deliberate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.62.151 (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please if you find any errors feel free to correct them.  --79.168.6.93 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

9/11 Prediction
The only source is to a youtube video, that doesn't even show him saying it, and only makes the claim that he said it after his death. Does this qualify as a credible source now? Without another source, I'm inclined to remove this claim. Adamsmo (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable?/No sources
I've looked over the article. The vast majority of sources come from his self-published book. Looking at google news archives, he's mainly known for his death (shooting an officer and dying subsequently). If only a few people have written about this guy then he's not notable outside a small conspiray group, and this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apajj89 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, so the notablity tag was removed without any discussion. Therefore, I nominated it to get more opinions. Apajj89 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced material
The citation to Arthur Goldwag's book was removed, but (inexplicably) the material cited to it was left in the article - except for a reference to an anti-semetic book. Considering positive reviews by the Washington Post, Scientific American, and other high profile mainstream sources, I'd say Goldwag's book satisfies WP:RS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Questionable source [ Arthur Goldwag ]
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources. You're using a source less notable than William Cooper himself for this article. Sorry it's not a reliable source and questionable source at best. Unreliable sources may be removed from Wikipedia Vexorg (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's odd that you removed the citation and the bit about Protocols of Zion, but you left the other material about Forrestal and Illuminati that was sourced to Goldwag's book in the article. Is there something in particular about the reference to Protocols of Zion that you don't like? - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing odd about it. The unreliable source immediately followed the reference to the Protocols of Zion. Cooper is notable for his references to the Illuminati in his radio broadcasts entitled Hour of The Time - Mystery Babylon. In return I would ask why you chose to deliberately type "the antisemitic text, the Protocols of Zion". Were you deliberately trying to link Cooper with Anti-Semitism? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources says: "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." - Goldwag's book is questionable at best. Vexorg (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You said the source was "unreliable" -- yet you left most all of the material gleaned from it in the article. Just wondering why. Either it's unreliable or it's not. And to answer your question, I wasn't trying to link anybody with anything. I was merely reporting what was published in a reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've restored the material that was cited to Goldwag, and confirmed that it is accurate by citing it to Cooper's own book. You can click on the links and see that Cooper indeed refers to the Protocols of Zion. So I hope that clears that up for you. Unless you have a problem describing Protocols of Zion as an antisemetic text? If so, please see our Wikipedia article Protocols of Zion and take it up with the editors there. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's notable that you seem obsessed with this one aspect of Coopers writings. As Cooper asserts, the Protocols was nothing to do with Jews at all and to do with the Illuminati. You said previously "I wasn't trying to link anybody with anything" . As such you won't mind the emphasis on anti-Semitic being removed from this article then. Any reader wishing to follow Wikipedia further can easily click on the link and see that some people consider the Protocols anti-Semitic. William Cooper certainly didn't consider them Anti-Semitic as you've taken great pains to show with your sources.
 * What's really sad is that you, in some borg like manner took such a hatchet job to the article, you removed some very important aspects of william Cooper's output, i.e his radio broadcasts. I recommend you listen to them, they are all available on Youtube. They exist and that is verifyable. restoring. Vexorg (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Radio broadcasts are protected by copyright. We can't link to such broadcasts uploaded to YouTube. This is aggravated by the addition of video. The first one I looked at also violates the copyrights of the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. Wikipedia policy prohibits linking to copyright violations. Sorry, the links have to go. Yworo (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * you are of course assuming that copyright has been violated by these Youtube Videos. How do you know that permission hasn't been given by the copyright holders for this material to be posted to Youtube? Vexorg (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't, and neither do you. The burden of proving that the material is used with permission falls on the person wanting to include the links. Problem is, even if the YouTube pages said they were used with permission, we can't believe it, because YouTube is not a reliable source. Because of this, we can only use YouTube links when the uploading account clearly and unmistakably belongs to the copyright holder as evidenced by a statement or links from the site of the owner. It is highly unlikely that the uploader had permission to use the images in the videos as well. Again, the only source we could trust is a statement on the part of the copyright holder, not the copier. If there is any doubt whatsover, we cannot link to them: it puts Wikipedia at least risk for contributory infringement. Yworo (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh and LuckyLouie, I think you've exposed your more than unencyclopedic agenda with the following comment .... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Milton_William_Cooper&diff=prev&oldid=469730635 Vexorg (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

List of radio shows
Since the only source for this list is one editor's personal research consisting of listening to copies of the broadcast on YouTube and then interpreting their content, I've tagged the list as WP:OR original research. I'm happy to include a list of broadcasts in the article, but only if a reliable source for it can be found, such as a shortwave station program schedule or a book by a reliable source. In the present list, it's obvious someone has altered the original titles of the show (e.g. "June 28, 2001, Bill predicts 9/11 attack": I'm sure that wasn't the actual title of the show when broadcast) Noting that the YouTube videos are credited to an anonymous blogger named "Conspiracy Scope" (who could easily have edited Cooper's broadcasts so that they no longer are "true copies" of the broadcasts) I can not recommend the YouTube files as a trustworthy source for anything. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this position. The shows are clearly related to the subject's notability, but unlike books cannot simply be referenced by ISBN. The titles do look descriptive of the content rather than official show titles. It's possible that the individual segments didn't have subtitles, in which case we really have no information other than episode numbers and dates, which really starts to get unencyclopedic. We'd be reduced to saying that he did X number of shows between one date and another, since they don't appear to be regular in a daily or weekly or any other easily described fashion. Yworo (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A catalog like this is a prime example of undue emphasis anyway. I've reverted some of the odder recent edits and deleted the laundry list once again. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A comment on the statement made by LuckyLouie who says "I'm happy to include a list of broadcasts in the article, but only if a reliable source for it can be found, such as a shortwave station program schedule or a book by a reliable source." - this IMO is why using a pedantic mindset on Wikipedia guidlines as Lucky Louie is obsessively doing is damaging to the value of Wikipedia. Regardless of Youtube or claims the shows could have been edited, these shows do indeed exist and you can hear them on Youtube. if no actual recordings of these radio broadcasts existed then personally I'd also be happy to remove the list until a source was found, but they do exist and the inclusion of the list IMO is a good value to this article.  Frankly when people start waving WP:THIS and WP:THAT around instead of using common sense with the actual content the value of Wikipedia lessens.  The guidelines Of Wikipedia are not perfect and cannot cater for every situation. Vexorg (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And no it's not undue emphasis at all Orange Mike  A list of his radio broadcasts is no different to an extensive bibliography or extensive discography that can be found on thousands of other Wikipedia articles Vexorg (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A complete listing,as well as the audio of all of bills shows can be found o his website..hourofthtime.com. The people runing the website and continuing his broadcast are ones who worked with hom personally when he was alive. You will find a full listing there70.24.149.99 (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources for bio
Cooper's background, such as his claim to be a Naval Intelligence Officer, requires reliable secondary sourcing and cannot be cited to his own writings. There is some helpful detail as well as cogent analysis of Cooper's politics found in a book by Michael Barkun who, per WP:RS, is a named expert, recognized as such, writing in his sphere of expertise. When the article calms down a bit I'll try to summarize some material for the article using this resource. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

They are cited by his military service records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.195.197 (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Where are these supposed military service records of which you speak published? Unverifiable assertions have no place here. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

SPLC Issues with this article
As was pointed out, the article is poorly written. It's biased to the US Government and Southern Poverty Law Center's points of view on William Milton Cooper. The article starts out with calling Cooper a conspiracy theorist and fails to mention his other achievements in life. The article will be re-written to reflect his status as a teacher, lecturer and decorated Naval veteran. Right now, the article is very biased and appears to be lifted from an SPLC memo.

Also, Cooper recanted his UFO allusions well before he died. This change of attitude is not reflected in this article.

appscholar (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2011 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.239.62 (talk)
 * None of these assertions is sourced. If you try adding unsourced material to this article, expect to be reverted. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  15:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "None of these assertions is sourced." While the naval decoration claim indeed requires to be sourced, saying that Cooper being a "teacher and lecturer" needs to be sourced is amusing : that was his public life for decades and the reason he's on wikipedia. All in all, this and other pages serve as good meters of this encyclopedia's quality : bias and tricks to justify them. One I'm particularly noticing this time is bringing up so called "credible sources" who are just opinion-spouters who happen to be stamped by major institutions and letting them do the talking. They represent YOUR opinion (of course as you hardly know the topic first-hand at all) and you (all you thought-police officer-wannabes of wikipedia) think the article should be about these second-hand sources that are all you know about. This is the lowest of the low, don't you realize ? It's making of wikipedia a buttlicking underdog trying to please and poorly emulate its masters the big trendsetting media and academical authorities and institutions. I don't care how many "recognized experts" you quote and reference if you prove you hardly ever listened to/read the man you're smearing. The result is a piece of propaganda as defined by who was it again ? : Giving Moral Cowards An Excuse Not To Think. Cheers, I think I found the truthful slogan of wikipedia :) "Conspiracy theorist" is the first smear, the big heavy label designed to paint the target as dangerously non-credible. Beware, there be dragons ! Remain inside the fence at all times ! Thought is a dangerous thing, only think what is guaranteed safe by your thought experts ! 2A01:E35:8ABC:31C0:D15C:8B12:2916:3161 (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

POV
Who CARES what the SPLC thought of Cooper? Why would that even be IN this article?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.187.97 (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Limbaugh, "secret" Clinton memo, "...the most dangerous radio host in America"
Saw this edit claiming that Rush Limbaugh supposedly quoted a supposedly secret White House memo that supposedly named William Cooper, "the most dangerous radio host in America"...so I decided to check it out. There's no record of a Limbaugh broadcast with this quote. There's no record of a secret Clinton memo with this quote, or any quote. The only place I have run across this particular bit of folklore is in UFO and conspiracy books. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Another myth currently circulating among Cooper devotees is that he predicted 9/11, and said bin Laden would be blamed, but it would later be shown to have been -- you guessed it -- a sinister government conspiracy. One more fairy tale to watch for, and to keep out of the article.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  17:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

He stated on his broadcast that a terroist attack against the US was imminent and would be blmed on Bin Laden. This is fact,not myth. The audio of all his shows is on hourofthetime.com70.24.149.99 (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Unlike Linda and Terry Jamison, Cooper's radio show comments regarding Bin Laden haven't received any coverage by reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And to the point that the prediction is "fact, not myth" -- not exactly. Here's what he actually said: "I'm telling you be prepared for a major attack in the next 2-3 weeks [this was June 2001], but it won't be Osama bin Laden, it will be those behind the New World Order...because they haven't succeeded in getting the guns out of the hand of the American people, nor have they succeeded in taking our freedoms away. And so I can tell you with a certainty they must do something terrible in order to stop this backlash and regain the sympathy of the mass herds of sheeple out there." That shows how dumb the New World Order is, since nobody even talked about "taking our guns away" after 9/11, if memory serves.  Not to mention the overwhelming evidence that bin Laden *was* behind 9/11, when it eventually happened.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  15:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. Cooper most likely heard this report by CNN on June 24 that says "Arabic satellite television channel MBC reported that followers of Afghan-based bin Laden were planning a major attack on U.S. and Israeli interests in the next two weeks", then put his own NWO spin on it during his June 28 broadcast. No "prediction" involved. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * bad point. Cooper never said he was making a prediction he stated that the talk of an up coming attack were "the powers that be" orchestrating events and media coverage to make Osama Bin Laden appear as the culprit when actually it would be a false flag attack. He even mentioned and went into detail on his show about a journalist who hiked up in the mountains and was able to talk to Osama and get him on video making the threat when clinton and the cia couldn't even find him as the reason he became suspicious. So when 911 happened and some people believed it was an inside job, to them he did predict it because he predicted a false flag attack blamed on OBL. But since you already made your mind up about the events and you find yourself on the other side of his belief about 911 you have become emotionally invested and biased in your assertion.
 * I can't help but think these entry's are being written by people who spent 10 minutes researching their info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.102.209 (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Right. You, of course, are displaying no bias or emotional investment at all.  You're free to believe whatever you wish to believe; but we have to go with reliable source material and maintain WP:NPOV, to the extent that that is possible.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  06:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So Cooper predicted a CIA attack that would be blamed on OBL. And he was wrong. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * yes I am displaying no bias. A large number of people here and abroad do believe 911 was a false flag attack. To that segment of the population it does appear he predicted that horrible act of terrorism. I never stated what I believe so your argument is invalid. You should have sourced more material and more reliable material because your facts are not 100% accurate and distort the actual story. You also forgot to mention when Bill said "2 or 3 weeks" he implied 'maybe' and added "but it will materilize soon". While guns weren't seized laws have changed and many freedoms have been taken away through the Homland Security Act and ndaa bill. Now, that is fact. One may differ on the reasoning, necessity, and justification but can't deny the legitemetacy of the statement.


 * I never said the CIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.102.209 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggestions for improving the article are always welcome. However you may want to look up a forum in which to propose your theories and engage in debate. This Talk page isn't it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And we still are under no obligation to give equal time to fringe theories and people with a bad case of The Truth™, even in articles about those advocating them. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  21:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And not to pile on, but your bias is obvious, even if not stated in so many words. The fact that "a large number of people" believe in the "false flag attack" theory does not make it true.  I think that we've already sourced the neutral material from reliable sources; but if you have any of that "more reliable material" at hand, please feel free to share it.     DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I never said it was true or that I believed it my point was that many people do believe it was a prediction of a false flag attack and it should be expressed as such. That groups like the "truthers" and some of the militia and "patriot" movements do have this belief. As time reveals more concrete evidence about 911 if Bill was wrong his theory will end up debunked like his JFK conspiracy and tape.. Or his recant of aliens and UFOs. But he did make a prediction. Some things about 911 are still unclear, and sub groups in the population feel it was a conspiracy he predicted. For a man whose claim to fame was his book, radio show, and this "prediction" to leave it out completely seems bias and honestly laughable. Especially when in the bio it's mentioned he's a known HIV dineilst and then 2.1 is a whole entry dedicated to it. when in fact he just believed aids was created to kill the population. Further his statements saying Aids was created to kill homosexuals and blacks clearly indicates he knew it was spread by sexual contact and more prevalent in the homosexual and black communities. Bill has done enough on his own to tarnish his record no need for the distortions and their magnifacations while leaving out what was said in it's enitrerty. I'm done with this bias article. It needs to be rewritten by someone who can clearly lay out the facts, good and bad, about this man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.102.209 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing "conspiracy theorist" from first sentence
It creates a bias right from the start. My reasoning for it was: "conspiricy theorist" is not a professional title, removed from first sentence. "Conspiracy theorist" is a loaded term.

Rebuttal from user Orange Mike was: "this is what Cooper is best known for; not everybody is known for what they do for a living"

That is subjective, "this is what he's best known for", professional roles he's most known for are his radio broadcasting career, The Hour of the Time, and as and author through Behold a Pale Horse. This much is obvious. Honestly, I think there's a large amount of bias throughout the whole article, but I'm willing to stop at the first sentence for now. How are we going to get any further from there? --Zzyxzaa26 (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read the material contained in the sources cited? I think the article does a great job of describing this man's admittedly fringe beliefs neutrally and without ridicule. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Both his radio broadcasting and his writing were specifically used to spread his conspiracy theories; it is unclear from the sources whether either was his career, or merely side jobs, and it's not relevant. He is not known as a disk jockey or a writer of software manuals: he is known as a guy whose radio show and books pushed... conspiracy theories. Thus: conspiracy theorist. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did you revert it without my reply? I thought wikipedia was supposed to be more democratic than this, so excuse me.


 * Conspiracy theory is a subjective name for the ideas you say he "pushed". Ok, with some sources that can maybe go in the later sections (though I don't see reason for it), but not in the first sentence. Look at the Rush Limbaugh article, for instance, he's clearly a conservative talk radio show host, but that's not referenced in the first paragraph because it's not professional. Plus, "conservative" is a subjective title. "Conspiracy theorist", is a subjective title as well, a highly stigmatized one. Anyone can be called a theorist. You could put "theorist" in the first sentence of anyone's article, if you wanted to. But that's for the most part not there.


 * You haven't given me a suitable reasoning for why that stigmatized label should be a professional title for Milton William Cooper, reverting it. Again, I have other major problems with this article, and if we can't come to a head here, I just don't know. Reverting it again. --Zzyxzaa26 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See Rush Limbaugh. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason for your continued reversions. A lead paragraph is intended to be a summary of an article body per WP:LEAD. If you have "other major problems" with the article, you may want to describe them on the Talk page before reverting the lead again. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please source
I've had to revert several edits in accordance with the BLP policy. While they may very well be good edits, my reviews aren't uncovering any source, and I can't depend on the source that follows, as it isn't open-access. Please do your due diligence when adding information, especially that which purports to present "facts" or may be controversial. --05:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson Peebles (talk • contribs)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)