Edgar Mitchell follows up on recent interview

a reply to: Ove38

Ed Mitchell has been to the moon, no doubt about it.

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: skyblueworld
A couple of questions:

What have Edgar Mitchell and others like Gordon Cooper gained from sharing the information they have?

Why would they deliberately try to lose there credibility status is doing so? If they ever could considering these man our worldwide heroes...

It's tough to know why Cooper decided to tell his story. I mean, it was made up and he must have done that for a reason.

With Ed Mitchell, I think he sincerely believes what he believes and his credibility is only lost in the eyes of some critics. He's put his money where his mouth is with the Noetic Sciences group and drawn a lot of his conclusions from speaking to first hand witnesses of UFO sightings. In my view, he's got a lot more reason to believe what he believes than some folk who deny whatever just because they feel like it.

It looks like, based on your comments, that being a Mod on this forum doesn't grant you any special "powers" of logic. Regarding Cooper's claims, there doesn't seem to be any definite answer to whether he told the truth or made it up. Jim Oberg gives a good account for made up while there are a multitude of individuals who claim to have made deep research and came up with not made up. All guesses are without the proverbial irrefutable evidence although I trust Mr Oberg's POV above others.

Mitchell is a different case altogether. It's not difficult for those who employ logic, common sense and reason to see that as an astronaut Mitchell outshined himself. But once he was back on earth he became a sponge for every conspiracy nut, regardless of position - professional or not. His being super-religious can be used against him even though you would think that with his vast training he would err on the side of caution and demand evidence from his "genies".

From Wikipedia, another nail in Mitchell's nut coffin:
"Mitchell has publicly expressed his opinions that he is "90 percent sure that many of the thousands of unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, recorded since the 1940s, belong to visitors from other planets".[16] Dateline NBC conducted an interview with Mitchell on April 19, 1996, during which he discussed meeting with officials from three countries who claimed to have had personal encounters with extraterrestrials. He offered his opinion that the evidence for such "alien" contact was "very strong" and "classified" by governments, who were covering up visitations and the existence of alien beings' bodies in places such as Roswell, New Mexico. He further claimed that UFOs had provided "sonic engineering secrets" that were helpful to the U.S. government. Mitchell's book, The Way of the Explorer, discusses his journey into mysticism and space.[17]

In 2004 he told the St. Petersburg Times that a "cabal of insiders" in the U.S. government were studying recovered alien bodies, and that this group had stopped briefing U.S. Presidents after John F. Kennedy.[18] He said, "We all know that UFOs are real; now the question is where they come from."[19]

On July 23, 2008 Edgar Mitchell was interviewed on Kerrang Radio by Nick Margerrison. Mitchell claimed the Roswell crash was real and that aliens have contacted humans several times, but that governments have hidden the truth for 60 years, stating: "I happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we've been visited on this planet, and the UFO phenomenon is real." In reply, a spokesman for NASA stated: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe. Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinions on this issue."[20][21]

In an interview with Fox News on July 25, 2008, Mitchell clarified that his comments did not involve NASA, but quoted unnamed sources, since deceased, at Roswell who confided to him that the Roswell incident did involve an alien craft. Mitchell also claims to have subsequently received confirmation from an unnamed intelligence officer at the Pentagon.[22][23]

In an interview for AskMen published March 6, 2014, Mitchell said that he had never seen a UFO, that no one had ever threatened him over his claims regarding UFOs, and that any statements about the covering up of UFOs being a worldwide cabal was "just speculation on my part."

I have 5 or 6 sightings under my belt of superb sightings but I would never be so stupid as to speculate anything other than I saw something that did not fit in with human activity. No one who claims such without providing irrefutable evidence should be considered an authority, as Mitchell seems to be.

originally posted by: Uggielicious.....Regarding Cooper's claims, there doesn't seem to be any definite answer to whether he told the truth or made it up. Jim Oberg gives a good account for made up while there are a multitude of individuals who claim to have made deep research and came up with not made up. All guesses are without the proverbial irrefutable evidence although I trust Mr Oberg's POV above others.,,,

I appreciate the confidence, here's a correction to enhance it.

Only THREE people have ever dug seriously into Cooper's 1957 Edwards story -- me, James McDonald, and Brad Sparks. To the best of my knowledge, EVERY other account of it is based solely on Cooper's say-so.

The three of us independently reached the same conclusion:

1. The sighting by Bittick and Gettys was documented and filed per Blue Book procedure and has always been available in the archives. Cooper made up the disappearance story.

2. The object they reported and filmed drifted by without maneuvering or landing. Cooper made up the landing story.

3. Gordon Cooper had absolutely no connection with the event or report, he wasn't anybody's boss, nobody showed him any film, zilch. He made that up.

Three different people made three separate inquiries and got identical results. Everybody else uses Cooper's version.

It's as bad as that.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Uggielicious.....Regarding Cooper's claims, there doesn't seem to be any definite answer to whether he told the truth or made it up. Jim Oberg gives a good account for made up while there are a multitude of individuals who claim to have made deep research and came up with not made up. All guesses are without the proverbial irrefutable evidence although I trust Mr Oberg's POV above others.,,,

I appreciate the confidence, here's a correction to enhance it.

Only THREE people have ever dug seriously into Cooper's 1957 Edwards story -- me, James McDonald, and Brad Sparks. To the best of my knowledge, EVERY other account of it is based solely on Cooper's say-so.

The three of us independently reached the same conclusion:

1. The sighting by Bittick and Gettys was documented and filed per Blue Book procedure and has always been available in the archives. Cooper made up the disappearance story.

2. The object they reported and filmed drifted by without maneuvering or landing. Cooper made up the landing story.

3. Gordon Cooper had absolutely no connection with the event or report, he wasn't anybody's boss, nobody showed him any film, zilch. He made that up.

Three different people made three separate inquiries and got identical results. Everybody else uses Cooper's version.

It's as bad as that.

Ah, good ol' "Psychic Spy". Without going overboard in enhancing your enhancement, you make this forum fun and worth the effort.

I looked up Bittick and Gettys and landed at www.nicap.org... and read Case 41 by Dr. James E. McDonald. You say above, no. 2, that "The object they reported and filmed drifted by without maneuvering or landing. Cooper made up the landing story". Yet, Dr. McDonald says: "Bittick estimated that the object lay about a mile away when they got the first shot, though when first seen he put it at no more than 500 yards off." To me that sounds as if they saw a landed object. No mention of movement until Dr McDonald says: "the object moved off into the distance. Bittick estimated that the object lay about a mile away when they got the first shot, though when first seen he put it at no more than 500 yards off. ... It was moving away from them, ...". I've always accepted that the word "lay" sometimes refers to a position of rest - when you lay down on a bed. A web definition of "lay" is so: "to put or place in a horizontal position or position of rest; set down:"

So what do you think McDonald meant by his choice of word instead of saying something like: "They first saw it drifting overhead". Clearing that hurdle could add to the lone cameramen's true observation.

a reply to: Uggielicious

From Wikipedia, another nail in Mitchell's nut coffin:
"Mitchell has publicly expressed his opinions that he is "90 percent sure that many of the thousands of unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, recorded since the 1940s, belong to visitors from other planets".

I have to scratch my head, how is this a "nail in Mitchell's nut coffin"?
He's completely correct.
You've convinced yourself this hasn't been happening for seventy years, but astronaut Edwin Mitchell is the nut?

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Uggielicious

From Wikipedia, another nail in Mitchell's nut coffin:
"Mitchell has publicly expressed his opinions that he is "90 percent sure that many of the thousands of unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, recorded since the 1940s, belong to visitors from other planets".

I have to scratch my head, how is this a "nail in Mitchell's nut coffin"?
He's completely correct.
You've convinced yourself this hasn't been happening for seventy years, but astronaut Edwin Mitchell is the nut?

100% is what counts. Anything less as in Mitchell's 90% is speculative and open to criticism. What's worse is that he has no evidence to back up his "claim". And where does that leave the etheric plane and alternative dimensions believers?

You and him lose. Next...

a reply to: Uggielicious

And where does that leave the etheric plane and alternative dimensions believers?

You and him lose. Next...

So you know somehow that there are no planets in other dimensions? No worlds in different planes of reality?
How did you come by this knowledge? Have you shared it with researchers?

Somebody's lost, alright...

a reply to: Uggielicious

It looks like, based on your comments, that being a Mod on this forum doesn't grant you any special "powers" of logic.

...it looks like, based on your comments, that manners are for other people. You also seem to have granted yourself great powers of insight to deduct so much off two sentences. Believe it or not, this isn't the first time Cooper's account has come up and I looked into it years ago.

I've read, watched and listened to much of what Cooper and Mitchell have said over the years.

With Mitchell, I wouldn't call him a 'nut' rather than someone who has arrived at his own conclusions and beliefs through experience. During the Apollo 14 mission, he had what he describes as a 'transcendental experience' and that was pivotal in the path he's taken in life. He also spent some time with the SRI guys and that sort of experience would alter anyone's view of the world - mischief aplenty! It's reasonable to question and doubt his beliefs and also reasonable to respect the man and accept that his beliefs are substantiated by subjective experience and associates.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Uggielicious

From Wikipedia, another nail in Mitchell's nut coffin:
"Mitchell has publicly expressed his opinions that he is "90 percent sure that many of the thousands of unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, recorded since the 1940s, belong to visitors from other planets".

I have to scratch my head, how is this a "nail in Mitchell's nut coffin"?
He's completely correct.
You've convinced yourself this hasn't been happening for seventy years, but astronaut Edwin Mitchell is the nut?

It's beggars belief.

originally posted by: BiffWellington


On a side note, I think it's interesting that so much is made of the words and alleged experiences of astronauts in comparison to people of other professions. It seems to stem from the fact that so many people associate UFOs with "outer space", and astronauts travel into outer space. Most UFOs, however, are not seen in space but rather in the atmosphere.

I disagree with this completely. For me, astronauts' statements are the most credible because they undergo intense physical and psychological screening. They are arguably the most psychologically sound people in the world. They would be putting their lives and their colleagues' lives in danger if they had even the slightest signs of mental distress. That is why they are the most credible in my opinion. Not because they hover around orbit.....which is barely in space.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

An interesting theory and entirely plausible; however, there's bound to be many more types of alien life out there and I'm sure a few are looking out for our best interests. Just like humans on this planet, some are good and some are bad. Perhaps one species is abducting and making hybrids but for all we know it is for the greater good. I don't really know but logic usually prevails where intelligence in concerned. Unfortunately, a species far more intelligent than us could treat us the same way we treat monkeys. On a brighter note, we have groups here on Earth that look out for and protest against using animals for experiments, so I'm sure it's true of alien life. Further, different species are bound to have different levels of ethics and I'm certain some will be protecting us to some extent.

I feel bad for those who are abducted and having forced miscarriages, but it's possible that they are helping us in the long run - perhaps by studying and improving our immune systems. Who knows eh!!

a reply to: JimOberg

The OP links to the Observer report, which also states that the Mirror's statement was spurious, affirming exactly what your link (Huffington Post), says. So no, you misread or misunderstood the OP link.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Here's the link to Mitchell denying the entire premise of this thread,
sorry if I missed it already being discussed.....

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Another person that didn't even bother to read the OP link. This is a quote directly from the OP link, also asking about the misquoted Mirror comment:

A story went viral two weeks ago citing you as saying, “My own experience talking to people has made it clear the ETs had been attempting to keep us from going to war and help create peace on Earth.” Can you elaborate?

I don’t remember speaking to them personally. I don’t know where they got that information. I didn’t make those statements. Somebody has added to my words. Those weren’t my exact words but I don’t necessarily disagree with those statements. Read more at observer.com... Follow us: @observer on Twitter | Observer on Facebook Read more at: tr.im...

Why do people criticize posts without even reading them?

originally posted by: Sharted
a reply to: JimOberg



The OP links to the Observer report, which also states that the Mirror's statement was spurious, affirming exactly what your link (Huffington Post), says. So no, you misread or misunderstood the OP link.

I stand corrected, gratefully. Glad we are closer to consensus, no thanks to my own half-cocked response.

originally posted by: Uggielicious
....


So what do you think McDonald meant by his choice of word instead of saying something like: "They first saw it drifting overhead". Clearing that hurdle could add to the lone cameramen's true observation.

Interesting ambiguity in wording. Good catch.

The drifting by version is what I gleaned from my own exchange of letters with Gettys in 1981-2, and with my interviews with Hubert Davis, the AF officer on 'Blue Book duty' that day at Edwards, and from the Blue Book report itself.

Wouldn't we also presume that if the object had been seen to touch the ground, people would have run over to look for landing traces?

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Uggielicious

It looks like, based on your comments, that being a Mod on this forum doesn't grant you any special "powers" of logic.

...it looks like, based on your comments, that manners are for other people. You also seem to have granted yourself great powers of insight to deduct so much off two sentences. Believe it or not, this isn't the first time Cooper's account has come up and I looked into it years ago.

I've read, watched and listened to much of what Cooper and Mitchell have said over the years.

With Mitchell, I wouldn't call him a 'nut' rather than someone who has arrived at his own conclusions and beliefs through experience. During the Apollo 14 mission, he had what he describes as a 'transcendental experience' and that was pivotal in the path he's taken in life. He also spent some time with the SRI guys and that sort of experience would alter anyone's view of the world - mischief aplenty! It's reasonable to question and doubt his beliefs and also reasonable to respect the man and accept that his beliefs are substantiated by subjective experience and associates.

Humbug! Manners have nothing to do with my reply. I called you on the carpet because you support Mitchell and his ramblings. Mitchell is special only for what he achieved leading up to and including his astronaut days. After that he went off the deep end and started sounding as if someone(s) got ahold of his conscioussness and tailored it so that he would become a spokesperson for the fringe.

Keep this in mind: in order to have beliefs you gotta have a belief system. When you have a belief system you have given up using logic, common sense and reason. One definition of belief: "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:"

He hasn't seen UFOs. He wasn't at Roswell in 1947. He has no evidence for the reality of extraterrestrials. ESP is still in the lab. Etc. So, contrary to what you say above, Mitchell hasn't "arrived at his own conclusions and beliefs through experience."

But these and other questionable topics is what he promotes. And your boy was sued by NASA: "Apollo Astronaut Surrenders Moon Camera in Lawsuit Settlement
by Robert Z. Pearlman, collectSPACE.com Editor | October 28, 2011"
www.space.com...

Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell has decided to give up the camera he kept as a memento of his 1971 moon mission rather than face a federal lawsuit over its ownership.

In a settlement he reached with the U.S. government filed with the District Court in southern Florida on Thursday (Oct. 27), the sixth man to walk on the moon agreed to "relinquish all claims of ownership, legal title, or dominion" over the data acquisition camera that flew with him aboard NASA's Apollo 14 mission.

Mitchell agreed to allow Bonhams, the New York auction house where he had consigned the camera for sale last June, to release the artifact to the government. Bonhams had estimated the camera's value at $60,000 to $80,000."

Noetic my butt! Pick a winning horse!

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Uggielicious
....


So what do you think McDonald meant by his choice of word instead of saying something like: "They first saw it drifting overhead". Clearing that hurdle could add to the lone cameramen's true observation.

Interesting ambiguity in wording. Good catch.

The drifting by version is what I gleaned from my own exchange of letters with Gettys in 1981-2, and with my interviews with Hubert Davis, the AF officer on 'Blue Book duty' that day at Edwards, and from the Blue Book report itself.

Wouldn't we also presume that if the object had been seen to touch the ground, people would have run over to look for landing traces?

I would also be interested in reading Bittick's and Gettys' initial words spoken to the range director, Frank E. Baker, for that would have been the first "unexpurgated" testimony instead of later second thoughts.

Shades of Lonnie Zamora! Seeing landing traces would not necessarily have proven beneficial unless someone whipped out a geiger counter to check for radiation as some "serious" researchers are wont to do. The film/photos is what mattered. What surprises me, though, is that Bittick and Gettys had to ask permission to start filming as opposed to the natural reaction to shoot first and ask questions later. What a lost opportunity because of protocol. Would the overhead footage be as good as Billy Meier's?

a reply to: Uggielicious

I called you on the carpet because you support Mitchell and his ramblings.

Put your glasses back on and read what I wrote; you were too busy blustering to actually listen. I disagree with plenty of Mitchell's published views and also refuse to label him a nut. I'm currently disagreeing with you and in no way consider you a nut.

He hasn't seen UFOs. He wasn't at Roswell in 1947. He has no evidence for the reality of extraterrestrials. ESP is still in the lab. Etc. So, contrary to what you say above, Mitchell hasn't "arrived at his own conclusions and beliefs through experience."

You're repeating what I already know and have written on this site before. He's still arrived at his own conclusions, right? Can you understand that he draws his own conclusions? As for beliefs? We all have them. 'Through experience?' If some guys he trusts tell him they've seen aliens and spaceships, I call that 'experience.' His time with the mischief-makers of SRI* was an experience too. His views on consciousness were long-held and amplified by his Apollo 14 experience. So contrary to your beliefs, Mitchell has indeed drawn from experience.

* professional BSers

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Uggielicious

I called you on the carpet because you support Mitchell and his ramblings.

Put your glasses back on and read what I wrote; you were too busy blustering to actually listen. I disagree with plenty of Mitchell's published views and also refuse to label him a nut. I'm currently disagreeing with you and in no way consider you a nut.

Uggielicious: "This is what you said and I include it here so that those enjoying this thread don't have to search for why I criticised you: 'With Ed Mitchell, I think he sincerely believes what he believes and his credibility is only lost in the eyes of some critics. He's put his money where his mouth is with the Noetic Sciences group and drawn a lot of his conclusions from speaking to first hand witnesses of UFO sightings. In my view, he's got a lot more reason to believe what he believes than some folk who deny whatever just because they feel like it.' Those critics of which I am one are criticising his credibility because he promotes stuff he has no personal experiences with - he is simply repeating unproven claims and he believes what he has been told to which their ridiculousness doesn't seem to affect him. Maybe he's done some good to a few with his Noetic stuff but it isn't a worldshaker and I bet that anyone you stop on the street and ask them if they're familiar with the Institute may give you a blank stare. I'm a multiple-UFO sighting person with superb sightings, what conclusions could Mitchell draw from my descriptions? How would they be beneficial for someone with Mitchell's status? So what conclusions has he come to from tales told to him? In your view he has reason to believe what he believes? How did you arrive at that? And what's wrong with folks denying whatever because they feel like it? ATS: DENY IGNORANCE. Ignorance is rampant! I'll continue with the rest of your reply tomorrow, it's past 3am in NYC and I gotta hit the sack. Ciao".

a reply to: Uggielicious

Ignorance is rampant! I'll continue with the rest of your reply tomorrow, it's past 3am in NYC and I gotta hit the sack. Ciao".

Aw heck. Now I have to wait till tomorrow to get my recommended daily allowance of Wrong?