Astronaut Edgar Mitchell - Witness Testimony

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Edgar Mitchell says UFO coverup is real.






posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I'm sorry the issues raised here have been dropped.

It's especially sad that nobody seems willing to offer an explanation for the to-me-at-least irreconcilable differences between the James McDonald near-real-time investigation of the Edwards AFB 'UFO non-landing" and Gordon Cooper's later claims he was in charge of the photographers and personally saw the photographs of the landed disk, which were then locked away forever.

If we can establish that Cooper had become an entertaining tall-tale-teller, but not a reliable witness, we may go a long way towards understanding why respected men may tell stories that themselves do not deserve respect.

Or -- we can keep pretending otherwise. How well has THAT been working over the decades?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Here is the link to McDonald's account:
www.ufoevidence.org...

Look on page 44 for "Case 41. Edwards AFB, May 3, 1957"



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Basically, Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell has confirmed that he not only spoke to the original witnesses in the Roswell area of knew that it is was a spaceship, but he spoke to the actual Pentagon and it was confirmed. I don't think this story has ever been argued against. It just adds to the credible sources, and we can see the other sources lack in honestly.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by greyer
Basically, Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell has confirmed that he not only spoke to the original witnesses in the Roswell area of knew that it is was a spaceship, but he spoke to the actual Pentagon and it was confirmed. I don't think this story has ever been argued against. It just adds to the credible sources, and we can see the other sources lack in honestly.


Basically, it looks to me as if you are imagining things that you WISH Mitchell said, but that he really didn't.

Did you make up the adjective 'original' in the people Mitchell heard from around Roswell? Did he actually SAY that? If so, where on the video?

Did he say the 'Pentagon' confirmed the Roswell story, or merely that some other military veterans he knew believed the story was authentic? I think you do not know the true definition of the word 'confirm'.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
May 2, 1957
Brad Sparks says:

“6:55-7:20 a.m. (PDT). James D. Bittick and John R. Gettys, Jr., civilian phototheodolite operators, were driving by truck to Askania Site #4 when they sighted an object above them about 500 yards away. They radioed a report to their supervisor Frank Baker who told them to set up the camera and try to film the object, which they did after about 10 mins.

They photographed what they described as a golden luminous domed-saucer shaped object with holes or ports around the dome about 100 ft in diameter about 1 mile in the distance to the N headed E (photos show multiple? objects). Available phototheodolite frames 614, 620 and 651 (609 too blurred, cutoff) show azimuth 10°28' elevation 2°24' shifting E to azimuth 40°30' elevation 1°0'. Disappeared at about 5 miles. Possible jet fighter interception. [Possible weather balloon with slow leak, explanation denied by Edwards AFB Colonel Klein (sp?) analyzing actual tracking of balloon and wind direction.]”

Fran Ridge says:

“In 1957, when Cooper was 30 and a captain, he was assigned to Fighter Section of the Experimental Flight Test Engineering Division at Edwards Air Force Base in California. He acted as a test pilot and project manager.

On May 2 of that year, he had a crew setting up an Askania cinetheodolite precision landing system on a dry lake bed. This cinetheodolite system would take pictures at one frame per second as an aircraft landed. The crew consisted of James Bittick and Jack Gettys who began work at the site just before 0800, using both still and motion picture cameras. According to his accounts, later that morning they returned to report to Cooper that they saw a "strange-looking saucer" like aircraft that did not make a sound either on landing or take off.

According to his accounts, Cooper realized that these men, who on a regular basis have seen experimental aircraft flying and landing around them as part of their job of filming those aircraft, were clearly worked up and unnerved. They explained how the saucer hovered over them, landed 50 yards away from them using three extended landing gears and then took off as they approached for a closer look. Being photographers with cameras in hand, they of course shot images with 35mm and 4-by-5 still cameras as well as motion film.

There was a special Pentagon number to call to report incidents like this. He called and it immediately went up the chain of command until he was instructed by a general to have the film developed (but to make no prints of it) and send it right away in a locked courier pouch. As he had not been instructed to not look at the negatives before sending them, he did. He said the quality of the photography was excellent as would be expected from the experienced photographers who took them. What he saw was exactly what they had described to him. He did not see the movie film before everything was sent away. He expected that there would be a follow up investigation since an aircraft of unknown origin had landed in a highly classified military installation, but nothing was ever said of the incident again.”

May 3, 1957
James McDonald says:

Occasionally, one could argue, UFOs ought to come into areas where there were persons engaged in photographic
work, who were trained to react a bit faster, and who would secure some photos. One such instance evidently
occurred at Edwards AFB on the morning of 5/3/57. I have managed to locate and interview three persons who saw
the resultant photos. The two who observed the UFO and obtained a number of photos of it were James D. Bittick
and John R. Gettys, Jr., both of whom I have interviewed. They were at the time Askania cameramen on the test
range, and spotted the domed-disc UFO just as they reached Askania #4 site at Edwards, a bit before 8:00 a.m. that
day. They immediately got into communication with the range director, Frank E. Baker, whom I have also
interviewed, and they asked if anyone else was manning an Askania that could be used to get triangulation shots.
Since no other camera operators were on duty at other sites, Baker told them to fire manually, and they got a number
of shots before 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. He and Gettys both said it had a golden color, looked somewhat like an inverted plate with a dome on top, and had square holes or panels around the dome. Gettys thought that the holes were circular not square. It was moving away from them, seemed to glow with its own luminosity, and had a hazy, indistinct halo around its rim, both mentioned. The number of shots taken is uncertain; Gettys thought perhaps 30. The object was lost from sight by the time it moved out to about five miles or so, and they did not see it again. They drove into the base and processed the film immediately.

All three of the men I interviewed emphasized that the shots taken at the closer range were very sharp, except for the hazy rim. They said the dome and the markings or openings showed in the photos. The photos were shortly taken by Base military authorities and were never seen again by the men. In a session later that day, Bittick and Carson were informed that they had seen a weather balloon distorted by the desert atmospheric effects, an interpretation that neither of them accepted since, as-they stated to me, they saw weather balloons being released frequently there and knew what balloons looked like.”

“I have not seen the photos alleged to have been taken in this incident, I have only interviewed the two who say they
took them and a third person who states that he inspected the prints in company with the two Askania operators and
darkroom personnel.”


*********************************************************************************************
Many questions here.

Maybe the third person who saw the photos was Cooper? This was submitted in 1968. Maybe someone wanted to keep Cooper’s name out of it since Cooper was a space hero at the time.

Why are 2 different days mentioned? Are they actually 2 different sightings?

Why would these men be confused by a weather balloon? Why would the photos not be made public if they were only a weather balloon?

Why would Gordon Cooper write the United Nations a letter about UFO’s as alien craft if he was lying about them?



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Many questions here.

1. Maybe the third person who saw the photos was Cooper? This was submitted in 1968. Maybe someone wanted to keep Cooper’s name out of it since Cooper was a space hero at the time.

Why are 2 different days mentioned? Are they actually 2 different sightings?

2. Why would these men be confused by a weather balloon?

3. Why would the photos not be made public if they were only a weather balloon?

4. Why would Gordon Cooper write the United Nations a letter about UFO’s as alien craft if he was lying about them?


Good start, thanks.

1. Why would McCampbell have kept such a trump card hidden? Who could possibly have overridden his desire to impress the US Congress with the evidence? I suggest this possibility is 'the wish is the father to the belief'.

2. This is a reasonable question. The nature of the original stimulus wasn't the focus of my own investigation, just the claimed Cooper angle. I really don't care what they saw -- it just wasn't what COOPER later claimed he saw.

3. Why do you make up a non-fact and slip it in as a bogus question? There's no evidence the photos aren't available to the public. I got my own copies from the archives many years ago. Have you tried and failed, or simply not bothered to try?

4. Why do you deliberately falsify the skeptical views on Cooper's stories by alleging we believe he 'lied' about such experiences? Can you find a single quotation from me over the past twenty years in which I have ever made that allegation? Calling somebody a liar is a nasty business, I resent being falsely accused of it.

I have no reason to question Cooper's sincerity in his opinions and his memory. Instead, I have documented irreconcilable differences between his stories and the testimony of every other reachable witness in this case -- Gettys, Cooper's boss, Cooper HIMSELF in 1978, Cooper's family, and Hubert Davis, the young AF officer who had the Blue Book desk the morning of the incident, and the AF reg that actually defined what to do in such a circumstance -- a reg that Cooper's story makes clear he violated from start to finish. They all remember a mutually consistent narrative. Cooper's version alone is the outlier.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by greyer
 


This may be what you are talking about. That an Admiral at the Pentagon confirmed the alien cover-up.

"I did take my story to the Pentagon -- not NASA, but the Pentagon -- and asked for a meeting with the Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and got it. And told them my story and what I know and eventually had that confirmed by the admiral that I spoke with, that indeed what I was saying was true."

~ Edgar Mitchell, on the Roswell



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


1. That was a 2 part question. Part 2 - Maybe SOMEONE wanted to keep Cooper’s name out of it since Cooper was a space hero at the time. That SOMEONE would not have been McDonald.

2. One must wonder why you would not care about what they saw if they did not think it was a weather balloon. Maybe you already knew it was an alien saucer. And If you did not care about what they saw, how would you know it was different than what Cooper saw.

3. How does this fit with what you already answered above? Perhaps you can post a link to the film that Cooper saw of a strange looking craft putting out landing gear before landing on the lake bed. Of course skeptics would not believe the film, because as you know, they say film can be faked. And of course having the military supply us film on UFOs is like having OJ try on his own gloves.

4. So you think that skeptics think Cooper is telling the truth? That he really did see flying saucers?

If skeptics do not think that Cooper saw flying saucers with his own eyes over Europe, and on film over Edwards ~ like he says he did ~ then they must think he is lying. The only other option is that they think he was confused and saw something else. Maybe they feel he had never seen a weather balloon before and on the film all he saw was a weather balloon coming down lowering landing gear before it landed? Even though he is also on video saying he had flown next to a weather balloon before.

So was he only confused when it came to weather balloons? Or was he confused when he flew the space capsule? Was he confused when he trained to fly the space capsule too? Was he confused every time he flew fighter aircraft? Was he confused during his time as a test pilot? Was he confused when he shook hands with Kennedy? Was he confused when he went to the grocery store, or to buy gas?

Or are skeptics saying he was only confused when he thought he saw flying saucers?

Cooper Europe: “There were a number of extraterrestrial vehicles out there… they didn’t have wings, they were saucer shaped… metallic looking, saucer shaped”

Cooper Edwards: “It was typical saucer shape, double lenticular shape, metallic”

Oberg: “I have no reason to question Cooper's sincerity in his opinions and his memory.”

So you are saying Cooper is telling the truth when he says he saw flying saucers?

And the irony is not lost on us here, that you are supporting what pro ET McDonald says over one of your own NASA guys. Interesting light it puts you in when one of your NASA guys goes rouge.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 




Your Number 4 was a general question, one not directed at you personally, but one which you seemed to take personal. Probably because you have been accused before on the internet of calling Cooper a liar.


“I normally refrain from labeling people "liars" unless they have a long track record of the sort of behavior that Jim Oberg routinely exhibits. One can't routinely make the sort of "mistakes" that Oberg makes unless one is totally incompetent or deliberately lying.

Oberg has repeatedly insinuated that Cooper was a liar, fool, and/or mentally incompetent. Have you read his stuff? How can you possibly think Oberg hasn't been attacking Cooper's honor in order to discredit Cooper's UFO stories? That is what Obeg does for a living or some perverse hobby.”
~ David Rudiak

Or how about this one:

“In a surprising development in the ongoing debate about Gordon Cooper's
recent statements on the subject of UFOs, NASA spokesperson James Oberg
has publically declared the famous astronaut a liar.

James Oberg, using unnamed sources, claims to have proof that Cooper is
lying about his UFO experiences. Clearly these unnamed sources should
come forward and help fuel the public debate on this controversial topic.
Strangely, while Oberg dangles his unnamed sources and backdoor rumours
as proof positive of Cooper's heinous efforts to manipulate the belief
systems of the American public by perpetuating the UFO myth, at the same
time he *embraces* any portions of Cooper's testimony which support his
own beliefs.

How can this be? How can Oberg decry Cooper as a damnable liar deluding
the American public, yet embrace his testimony on every other topic?


Where are Oberg's unnamed sources? Where is the public debate? How has
Cooper responded to these charges?
Inquiring minds want to know......”
~ John Ratcliff





But let’s be clear here, in case you forgot. You do remember that I think you are a paid shill, paid by NASA and others to lie to us to support the UFO cover up. I have no reason to trust anything you say concerning UFO related topics. So as far as I am concerned, ANY so called details or “proof” you dig up could be fabricated.

Even if you did talk to all those people you claim you did, we have no idea what you wrote is really what they said. And why would they want to put their jobs, pensions, etc on the chopping block by promoting that ~ yes, they did see a saucer shaped craft ~ after they were told to not talk about it.

Once again, the irony is not lost on us here, that you are supporting what pro ET McDonald says over one of your own NASA guys. Interesting light it puts you in when one of your NASA guys goes rouge.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
reply to post by greyer
 


This may be what you are talking about. That an Admiral at the Pentagon confirmed the alien cover-up.

"I did take my story to the Pentagon -- not NASA, but the Pentagon -- and asked for a meeting with the Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and got it. And told them my story and what I know and eventually had that confirmed by the admiral that I spoke with, that indeed what I was saying was true."

~ Edgar Mitchell, on the Roswell



Thank you, well done -- that's a clear and unambiguous assertion. Now, why won't Mitchell give the guy's name? It's not as if there were a dozen admirals on the intelligence committee. Who's privacy is he pretending to protect?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
Interesting light it puts you in when one of your NASA guys goes rouge.


I do not think that word means what you think it means.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
reply to post by greyer
 


This may be what you are talking about. That an Admiral at the Pentagon confirmed the alien cover-up.

"I did take my story to the Pentagon -- not NASA, but the Pentagon -- and asked for a meeting with the Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and got it. And told them my story and what I know and eventually had that confirmed by the admiral that I spoke with, that indeed what I was saying was true."

~ Edgar Mitchell, on the Roswell



Thank you, well done -- that's a clear and unambiguous assertion. Now, why won't Mitchell give the guy's name? It's not as if there were a dozen admirals on the intelligence committee. Who's privacy is he pretending to protect?


So it was true? The story that he told of what he knew. It was eventually confirmed by the admiral to be true.

Did you know that thing I did the other day, that it was very important which was confirmed to be true?

I don't know if your laughing or crying sometimes but I am starting to get concerned because I have 2 kids that are growing up and getting their education from the Internet.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Basically, it looks to me as if you are imagining things that you WISH Mitchell said


Thanks spiritualarchitect for mentioning my post was accurate. Why people would want to judge me and say I wishing things? I don't want to know.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
The only way it is all going to come out, is by public pressure. It is going to take big guns, willing to risk it all to one day join one of these disclosure get-togethers, un-announced beforehand, and just stare into the cameras and demand it.

The likes of Kaku and Hauking would certainly do it. Could it happen? Maybe.

Hauking has already said that "alien life forms probably exist and we are likely someday to encounter them.”
Kaku has basically already tipped his hand by saying that aliens are most likely real in many interviews.

Imagine what they really know?

And imagine how powerful a presentation it would make to team up and help vindicate all the other high-level people in the world's military and civilian ranks that have already spilled a lot of beans at the expense of their careers. It would become a feast, and perhaps it would be the final blow that will end this controversy once and for all, and make it a legitimate scientific discussion. Then, behold what will come out of the woodwork.....





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join