Wikileaks Podesta email leak Edgar Mitchell ETI claim

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: skyblueworld....

And then there is you Gortex, an anonymous nobody on a conspiracy forum.

When YOU looked over his Apollo-14 ESP report, what was YOUR impression of his scientific rigor?

That has nothing to do with this thread, how about staying in line with the site rules for once Jim?

Mods why do you allow this man to thread drift??

Oh cut me a break. The point is to gauge Mitchell's credibility.

But if you want to stay on topic. The email is worthless. There is no way to verify if it came from Mitchell and is probably a hoax. So it should be thrown in the hoax been.

So now can we discuss something that is actually real?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Take Podesta for example.



Time to open the books, time to tell the truth and time to share this free energy thingy. You probably wont get more than this, the real facts are locked up in some lonely drawers.

Dismissing the whole email due to the lack of proof would be a tad too ignorant for my taste. We ought to be more skeptical than that, amirite?

Alan Boyle has a well-researched treatment of this subject at www.geekwire.com...

He writes that Rosin assures him the emails ARE from Mitchell indirectly, and that she's about to release a book on the subject she co-wrote with Mitchell.

What could possibly go wrong?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

amirite

No.

Anybody could have made that email and sent it saying it was from Mitchell. Worse is that email address doesnt seem to be from him. Even worse is he is not available to comment. On top of all that, quotes have been misattributed to him in the past that he was able to comment on.

Idunno call me ignorant.

originally posted by: klassless
Edgar Mitchell was a perfect example of the mental weakness of being a believer. If I had met him I would have set him on a straight path. I cannot say that I could equal his mental prowess but he would have learned what it's like to be a questioning individual, a skeptic, and without a belief system. Don't tell me about the evidence, show it to me.

That's unfair. You're implying that Mitchell was in some way feeble-minded. In the case of his UFO beliefs, they started out as a simple declaration of his personal belief that intelligent extra-terrestrials must exist in the universe. This is a completely rational thing to believe (in fact, one could strongly argue that the opposite belief is the irrational one).

Mitchell had no deeper beliefs than that, which is little more than a hunch. He never claimed to have any evidence or even to have seen anything. This is completely normal.

He was then approached by various individuals who persuaded him that the MJ-12/Roswell/Area 51 legend was true. He never named those people, but presumably he didn't just pick them up hitch-hiking and had good reason to think they were genuine. After that, he began preaching the UFO gospel.

My strong suspicion is that Mitchell was targeted as a conduit for disinformation, and that this disinformation was believed by him precisely because it came from intelligence personnel.

In any event, witness testimony is important. Court cases can be decided on eyewitness accounts. If Mitchell thought his contacts were important and well-connected, then it would be natural to assume they were telling the truth, so it's no wonder he was persuaded.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Idunno call me ignorant.

Ok. But only for a very brief moment, in which I will insist on reading said (allegedly faked email) in context of Podestas comments regarding disclosure.
The absence of legitimate proof, that free energy isn't part of the secret UFO files, is reason enough for me to stay vigilant, whilst entertaining possibilities. I'm not saying it's true, but it could be.

Thanks for the reply, I completely agree with your sentiments. Which is why I'm looking forward to see how this topic unfolds from this point. I tend to kill threads with my weird take on things though, sorry for that in advance...

originally posted by: [post=21362006].... In any event, witness testimony is important. Court cases can be decided on eyewitness accounts. If Mitchell thought his contacts were important and well-connected, then it would be natural to assume they were telling the truth, so it's no wonder he was persuaded.

I'll grant you Mitchell's reasonableness in accepting stories from others, in general -- but all my life I've heard how 'eyewitness testimony is accepted in court' as proof -- when it's NOT. The testimony is weighed to determine the details of an event -- a crime -- for which there is solid, checkable evidence of its existence. Once the crime is proved to exist, the determination of who did it follows as a reasonable but secondary process.

Or are you saying that if five people saw person 'A' kill and dismember another human being in a city park, and swore to it in court -- Person 'A' would be arrested, sentenced, and executed? Even without 'corpus delecti'? No body, no suggested identity, no person known to be missing, no blood -- JUST the eyewitness testimony? Of course not, that's preposterous.

Argue for physical proof -- that's debatable evidence. Pure eyewitness claims alone? Not.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Ok. But only for a very brief moment, in which I will insist on reading said (allegedly faked email) in context of Podestas comments regarding disclosure.

That didn't keep it from reminding me of the emails from Bill Gates. SOB owes me a thousand bucks!

originally posted by: JimOberg
Argue for physical proof -- that's debatable evidence. Pure eyewitness claims alone? Not.

You're applying a one-size-fits-all policy to a very nuanced situation.

Much depends on who the witness is and what they are claiming that they witnessed.

If we're talking about (for example) some alcoholic hick from Buttf#ck, Idaho, who is claiming to have seen a mermaid, then obviously you wouldn't place much faith in that story.

But if we're talking about (for example) a CIA employee claiming to know some state secret, then they have a degree of credibility that some no-mark on the internet does not have.

The question then becomes whether that CIA employee had adequate clearance to view the material s/he claims to have seen. If they had the right clearance, then they become that much more credible. If they had the right clearance at the right time, and if there are unanticipated supporting details, then frankly we're already past the point where you would be daft to disbelieve them.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: JimOberg
Argue for physical proof -- that's debatable evidence. Pure eyewitness claims alone? Not.

You're applying a one-size-fits-all policy to a very nuanced situation.

Much depends on who the witness is and what they are claiming that they witnessed.

If we're talking about (for example) some alcoholic hick from Buttf#ck, Idaho, who is claiming to have seen a mermaid, then obviously you wouldn't place much faith in that story.

But if we're talking about (for example) a CIA employee claiming to know some state secret, then they have a degree of credibility that some no-mark on the internet does not have.

The question then becomes whether that CIA employee had adequate clearance to view the material s/he claims to have seen. If they had the right clearance, then they become that much more credible. If they had the right clearance at the right time, and if there are unanticipated supporting details, then frankly we're already past the point where you would be daft to disbelieve them.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.


All reasonable points, worthy of further discussion on a thread devoted to the topic. See you there!

Back to Mitchell's email, sorry for the diversion.

originally posted by: audubon
The question then becomes whether that CIA employee had adequate clearance to view the material s/he claims to have seen. If they had the right clearance, then they become that much more credible. If they had the right clearance at the right time, and if there are unanticipated supporting details, then frankly we're already past the point where you would be daft to disbelieve them.

So would you be daft to disbleieve this insider with the clearance you suggest?

Leslie Kean interview with govt insider who says no UFO coverup

I'm skeptical of any extraordinary claim without more than a witness account, and while Chris Mellon might meet the criteria you specify, do you really believe him just because he meets your criteria?

Of course Mitchell's credibility isn't on the line for anything he witnessed personally, since he makes no claim for that. Maybe his critical thinking is suspect for a lack of appropriate skepticism of extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.

a reply to: JimOberg

All reasonable points, worthy of further discussion on a thread devoted to the topic. See you there!

One last thing: Is there such a thread already? I can't find it, and find this question of witness credibility very interesting. If you know of a thread along these lines, please tell me where to find it. Thanks in advance.

We can now return you to your normal program...

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: burntheships

you know, i'm with you on this, i don't know what the hell to make of that response.

should have seen it coming!

That level of batsh*t crazy is hard to anticipate.

I'm still laughing at the Obedient Alien jargon, and
Gods will stuff, while she does business only with billionaires.

I guess those Obedient Aliens need lots of money lol.
Just cant make stuff like that up.

leave it to a murky situation to muddy itself up some more by nature.

EDIT:

unfortunately, it seems to me like this is a fork in the road.

either they're all crazy, or we have some new lingo to catch up on.

I'd say their all crazy, unfortunately this seems to be the norm when
it comes to most if not all of this "UFO world", and I have done my
homework. Don't bog your mind down over it, go with your first
instinct and trust your gut.

originally posted by: JimOberg
I'll grant you Mitchell's reasonableness in accepting stories from others, in general -- but all my life I've heard how 'eyewitness testimony is accepted in court' as proof -- when it's NOT.

I find it hard to evaluate Mitchell's reasonableness in doing so since his sources remained unnamed, did they not? What Tom Delonge is now claiming are revelations from similar sources look like either garbage or disinfo but again with the sources unnamed it's difficult to evaluate or to determine how much the claims are distorted in a "telephone" game especially if the source is a friend of a friend type thing.

a reply to: JimOberg

All reasonable points, worthy of further discussion on a thread devoted to the topic. See you there!

originally posted by: audubon
One last thing: Is there such a thread already? I can't find it, and find this question of witness credibility very interesting. If you know of a thread along these lines, please tell me where to find it. Thanks in advance.

We can now return you to your normal program...

I think this report would make the basis for a good thread on eyewitness testimony but I dont' know if Jim ever made one on it, did you Jim? And if not would you consider it? I know you posted this link in other threads in response to the eyewitness perception/misperception issue:

www.jamesoberg.com/1963_kiev-fireball-swarm-rev-B.pdf
All these are supposed to be the same UFO but look at how much witness perceptions vary from each other, though this is just a sample, there is even more variation in the article.


The most similar existing thread I think would be this one but it's from 2012 so rather dated by now, but still very relevant to that topic:

"Top Ten" UFO Case - Yukon, Canada, 1996 - BUSTED!?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

So would you be daft to disbleieve this insider with the clearance you suggest?

Yep I would....especially after reading of Mr. Mellon being affiliated with the notorious Rockefeller family, having served as the Minority Staff Director of the Senate Intelligence Committee for Senator John D. Rockefeller, IV.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So would you be daft to disbleieve this insider with the clearance you suggest?

Leslie Kean interview with govt insider who says no UFO coverup

I'm skeptical of any extraordinary claim without more than a witness account, and while Chris Mellon might meet the criteria you specify, do you really believe him just because he meets your criteria?

You can be as sceptical as you want, there's no law against it. But my position is that you are seeking to place a scientific burden upon what is actually a legal matter. You're talking non-overlapping magisteria. Or at least, non-perfectly-overlapping magisteria.

You cite a story that purports to give a statement from someone with high-level clearance, claiming that there is (quote) "no UFO cover-up."

What the story actually says is quite different. Here's the relevant bit:

Q: Do you think that if Clinton is elected we can expect to learn new information about UFOs?

A: I highly doubt DoD or any other government agency is concealing UFO information. I participated in a comprehensive review of DoD’s black programs and spent over a decade conducting oversight of the national foreign intelligence program, an almost totally separate world of secrets. I visited Area 51 and other military, intelligence and research facilities. During all those years, I never detected the faintest hint of government interest or involvement in UFOs.

He's stating his opinion, not a fact, and that opinion is based on the fact that he has (or claims he has) seen nothing to support the cover-up theory. That is, he is relying on the exact opposite of evidence.

Even if we naturally presume he is telling the truth (the whole truth, etc), this isn't a conclusive determination or anything like one. I find it surprising that a sceptically-minded reader has not spotted this disagreement between the headline and the body of the article itself.

(For the record, I suspect that there is a slight (!) element of doublespeak in his last sentence in the above excerpt, but that's not really material so I won't explore it here).

originally posted by: Paddyofurniture
Interesting but must be taken with a grain of salt.

Official Wikileaks site does have this and one other e-mail to confirm that their not fakes but...

Both are from Mitchell to Podesta. Their is no response or acknowledgement by Podesta as to what Mitchell is talking about.

Mitchell's history of ufology theories is shaky at best. Straight crazy at worst.

Find me a response by Podesta confirming any of this , then we have something.

Well, leak #7 got us something...

Check emailid/9593 where Podesta's meeting someone to "discuss UFO disclosure"

Ok on Roger.

Tell Caroline this is totally social no business lunch but I wanted to introduce Brian

On Feb 18, 2015 1:38 PM, "Eryn Sepp" wrote:

> Mid-Day Roundup:
>
>
>
> No legit missed calls on my end, nor call requests via my gmail, but
> Tony’s office did get this call:
>
>
>
> Arnold House
>
> 562-213-7485
>
> Wants to discuss UFO disclosure.
>

It just shows what we already know, that John Podesta is interested in UFO disclosure.

It's good enough for me, since he's a trustable source and a very busy man.

Wierd.
On the one hand, Ed has always been regarded as being truthful, but i'm concerned at the mention of Carol Rosin.

And then the somewhat casual mention of ZPE, never heard him say anything like this before. Either it's bunk, or he knows about certain overunity tech. That may well be likely since i believe they used that tech in all the missions.
Computers etc in those days consumed humungous amounts of power, and theres a lot of speculation that the batteries simply couldn't handle a mission of any length, it's one of the "we never went" arguments.

But consider, if we do have OU machines, it explains the success of the missions, and it would be kept highly secret even now.
Either that or the prez has to stand there one day & say "All our oil, coal & nuclear stations are in fact completely unnecessary"

Oh sure, the oil barons will LOVE that!
They can talk aliens all they want, but you will never hear about this tech, and certainly not from anyone in gubmint.

Lots of good info coming in, well done guys

I get the feeling poor Ed is being handled, seen it before. A lot of respected figures who speak out or ask too many questions end up being handled, probably with the help of psychotropic drugs, and get sold the Alien God or some other looney tune theme..

SNOPES just covered the story [sorry if duplicate].... www.snopes.com...