It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dr. Edgar Mitchell In New Florida Television Interview.

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by JimOberg
In the one calibrated case of Dr. Mitchell describing a paranormal event, we have the Apollo-14 ESP experiment where we can compare the raw data with the spin that Dr. Mitchell and his supporters have placed onto it. Does anyone even admit that sich an exercise -- if undertaken open-mindedly -- might provide guidance in how far to accept as credible other claims of a similar nature from the same source?

Or do we just speculate endlessly, helplessly, hopelessly, forever?

Poisoning the well again, Jim? Remarkable, I doubt your attempt at ad hominems go unnoticed.
edit on 26-2-2012 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)


Seriously, is it your intention that people do NOT look at the Mitchell space ESP paper, and only use the author's OWN abbreviated PR version?

Is that being open-minded?



As far as I know psi-negative results are the only evidence of ESP. Can this be explained by the fact that a bored ESP subject is not random? For example if I was bored I might whimsically pick cards in what I think is a random pattern when it actually is not random. Most people intuitively feel that a coin that just came up "heads" is more likely to come up "tails" next time when in fact it is still 50/50.

In other words, if the telepathic sender is going through a sequence generated by a random variable such as a dice, but the receiver subconsciously likes "wavy lines" more than "stars" then he will get a psi-negative result won't he?
edit on 26-2-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by JimOberg
In the one calibrated case of Dr. Mitchell describing a paranormal event, we have the Apollo-14 ESP experiment where we can compare the raw data with the spin that Dr. Mitchell and his supporters have placed onto it. Does anyone even admit that sich an exercise -- if undertaken open-mindedly -- might provide guidance in how far to accept as credible other claims of a similar nature from the same source?

Or do we just speculate endlessly, helplessly, hopelessly, forever?

Poisoning the well again, Jim? Remarkable, I doubt your attempt at ad hominems go unnoticed.
edit on 26-2-2012 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)


Seriously, is it your intention that people do NOT look at the Mitchell space ESP paper, and only use the author's OWN abbreviated PR version?

Is that being open-minded?

No, I'm saying it is utterly irrelevant when it comes to his position on UFOs, and you are very well aware you are committing a logical fallacy. It is in fact you who is not being open minded because you are attempting to argue that Mitchell's current thoughts - on a topic wholly unrelated to ESP - need to put into context with his thoughts on ESP which he put to paper in 1975, more than 35 years ago.

Now, perhaps the conclusions in Mitchell's paper are unjustified and perhaps the research is shoddy, I don't know and I don't really care either. But the one thing which stands out is that only James Oberg seems to be showing quite the interest in an obscure, decade old paper from Mitchell. Is there any evidence that Mitchell is delusional, or a liar or behaving unprofessionally as a scientist right here, right now? Nope, none whatsoever.

I might as well start digging in your papers from years ago, to find questionable statements and arguments and present these as "evidence" that James Oberg is obviously also professionally questionable in 2012. Or do you firmly believe everything you have ever written in the past is accurate and true and represents the best you can muster?

So yes, you are poisoning the well. You sincerely hope a paper which is decades old will hurt his reputation. I think it hurts your sincerity more.
edit on 26-2-2012 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
...
No, I'm saying it is utterly irrelevant when it comes to his position on UFOs, and you are very well aware you are committing a logical fallacy. It is in fact you who is not being open minded because you are attempting to argue that Mitchell's current thoughts - on a topic wholly unrelated to ESP - need to put into context with his thoughts on ESP which he put to paper in 1975, more than 35 years ago.
...


I think it is relevant that people know Mitchell is very open-minded. His investigation of ESP shows that.

So if a friend in government or a friend from Roswell whispers a rumor in Mitchell's ear, maybe Mitchell is more likely to believe it than some other astronaut might be. He doesn't need to be a liar to be wrong; he only needs to be insufficiently skeptical. Unless Mitchell can someday tell more about the rumors and the source of the rumors, his opinion on UFOs is weak evidence.
edit on 26-2-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday


There is also another possibility

Maybe people whisper stuff in his ear because he is not afraid to pass it on and since he already has a reputation of being 'out there' the stuff can trickle out to those who can hear it and follow their own leads rather than sit in forums arguing endlessly on a man's character.

I too get such 'whispers' from time to time... even here at ATS...

Here is a prime example of such a 'whisper' A guy logs on with the name 'There once was a man' He made a simple post "Hi I thought you might be interested in THIS "link here"

That post was in my Naval Space Command thread and here is the post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yup tagged with a violation. It was explained to me but never corrected... here is that link
moneymaker.com...

And no it is NOT a 'money making scheme' it is simply the most important post for that thread. Since it was never corrected after it was realized the supposed error, I have to question the seriousness of the ATS "Deny Ignorance" motto

I see a lot of naysayers making personal assessments... I see very few people actually take the time to TALK to the real people. At least I got my autographed photo from Edgar



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
My suggestion is that anybody's reliability and judgment on subjects that CANNOT be independently verified can only be calibrated by examining the person's reliability and judgment in commenting on those topics which CAN be independently verified.

In the case of Dr. Mitchell, the ESP experiment is the zenith of his paranormal research career, and I am open to any other nominations of such topics about which he has opined -- and where the opinions can be independently verified. It is not an obscure long-ago footnote -- well, if obscure, it's because Mitchell has kept it so by keeping the raw data essentially unavailable to interested parties. More recent testable assertions would be welcomed. Where are they?

My own work can be judged on exactly the same criteria -- the tenor and content of the body of my work as a whole, piece by piece. Outliers and misjudgments can and do occur in anyone's careers,yet cannot pollute the overwhelming majority of quality. But please -- where are such other scientific papers from Mitchell?

Where are they?

I think those who seek to marginalize or minimize the ESP paper's lack of sound scientific reasoning protest too much. Move along, folks, nothing to see here. Keep your eye on the screen, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Isn't that just using intelligence to establish ignorance as the preferred mental approach to these topics?

Why the fear of a wider proper public understanding of that paper?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by The Shrike
...
I did not read "The Way of the Explorer" as it is not aimed at me, an atheist. That book is the product of an irrational mind for only an irrational mind could use terms such as "spirituality" which belongs in the realm of the religious believer. I deal with common sense, reason, and logic and you are not going to find them in such a book. The problem with believers is that they do not deal with the real world but a world of fantasy.

It is one thing to have fantasies as we all have from time to time but it is another thing to think that the world of fantasy is real. It isn't, it exists only in the mind. Spirituality has nothing to do with reality.

I find it to be a shame that such and educated and accomplished person can still spout unbelievable crap and believe the crap from others and repeat them as if they had any validity beyond what he gives them.


Most people can compartmentalize science and spirituality in their minds, because science is about today's reality and spirituality is a fantasy to give certainty to the unknown. Even atheism is a fantasy, because it claims that we know more than we really do.

Mitchell had some odd experiences including a state of mind where he felt oneness with the universe. So he couldn't compartmentalize anymore. I don't know if that's rational or irrational, but it's understandable.


I disagree with you when you say "Even atheism is a fantasy, because it claims that we know more than we really do." I'll tell you what I know. I'm an atheist. I've lived for 73 years and what I know is that there are no gods. Never were, never will be. If it was different we would still have the Egyptians gods, the Roman gods, the Mayan gods, the American natives' gods, etc. Man creates gods, not the other way around.

Mental conditioning results in beliefs, ask any stage hypnotist. I'm a past intaker of psychoactives and I had similar but temporary mental experiences that were over when my "trips" ended. The problem with Mitchell is that is still having those "odd experiences" and he can't seem to realize it. "oneness with the universe" is a New Age term. We are no longer in the New Age. Mitchell is not rational.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg
Or do we just speculate endlessly, helplessly, hopelessly, forever?


Here we just speculate endlessly, helplessly, hopelessly, forever.



Don't tell that to the other members or they will become delusioned since all they are doing is waiting for that one breakthrough: disclosure!



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Xoanon
 


He lives in my town. I hear he's an awesome guy for those who met him.
I've probably bumped into him and didn't even realize it. I should pay more attention because this area isn't that big.
Thanks for sharing OP



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by The Shrike
I did not read "The Way of the Explorer" as it is not aimed at me, an atheist. That book is the product of an irrational mind for only an irrational mind could use terms such as "spirituality" which belongs in the realm of the religious believer. I deal with common sense, reason, and logic and you are not going to find them in such a book. The problem with believers is that they do not deal with the real world but a world of fantasy.

Oh puh-lease, your rhetoric is remarkably transparent. Being an atheist does not mean you are necessarily rational, and a beacon of common sense, and logic. Your statement that the book is obviously a product "of an irrational mind" is merely an abusive ad hominem in an attempt to smear the man. Pathetic.

Since I've seen little indication that you even grasp what it means to do science my guess is you have no academic credentials whatsoever. You're just a potty-mouthed atheist internet critic with no serious interest in metaphysics, what *you* think is science is nothing more than a caricature.
edit on 26-2-2012 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)


"serious interest in metaphysics"



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by jclmavg
...
No, I'm saying it is utterly irrelevant when it comes to his position on UFOs, and you are very well aware you are committing a logical fallacy. It is in fact you who is not being open minded because you are attempting to argue that Mitchell's current thoughts - on a topic wholly unrelated to ESP - need to put into context with his thoughts on ESP which he put to paper in 1975, more than 35 years ago.
...


I think it is relevant that people know Mitchell is very open-minded. His investigation of ESP shows that.

So if a friend in government or a friend from Roswell whispers a rumor in Mitchell's ear, maybe Mitchell is more likely to believe it than some other astronaut might be. He doesn't need to be a liar to be wrong; he only needs to be insufficiently skeptical. Unless Mitchell can someday tell more about the rumors and the source of the rumors, his opinion on UFOs is weak evidence.
edit on 26-2-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)


The problem with Mitchell is that for a person of his caliber, he is gullible to a fault. He doesn't seem to have a questioning bone in his body. It surprises me when someone who has developed his brain to the capacity that Mitchell has would be so open to be fooled into accepting questionable claims such as Roswell, aliens, etc. I'm not as highly educated as he is but I have developed a questionable mind and if you want me to accept a claim, simply back it up with evidence as hearsay has no wings.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
But please -- where are such other scientific papers from Mitchell?

Where are they?


Probably at Earthtech.org, Hal Puthoff's place
I hear he works for Robert Bigelow these days too

www.earthtech.org...

All KINDS of papers there... take a good conspiracy nut MONTHS to dig through that..

Yup looks like he even has a picture of Robert Bigelow's private space station on that site
Seems its service by a Russian spacecraft



edit on 26-2-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

edit on 27-2-2012 by cloudyday because: off-topic



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

edit on 27-2-2012 by cloudyday because: another silly post



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join