It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Star Trek movie heavies challenge NASA astronauts over space UFOs on live telecast

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 23 2013 @ 03:28 PM

Originally posted by JayinAR
YouTube search Mitchell Pentagon Briefing should pull it up as the first result.

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by Toxicsurf


posted on May, 23 2013 @ 03:38 PM
reply to post by Springer

Fascinating stuff!

It just makes a person want to know more, achingly so.

It's a shame the person/people who know whats going on dont come forward more often, In retirement even when their careers are behind them and they no longer have the fear of losing jobs. ah well we can hope.

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Springer
//// One that was told to me was astounding, it involved what could only be described as intelligently controlled craft of an unknown origin and design interacting with the Space Shuttle while those who were in the control room at the time watched it all on the big wall mounted monitor screens. Shortly after it started the screen went blank (causing much consternation for those responsible for the lives of the crew and equipment) and the some "managers" entered the room explaining that the feed would be back up in a few seconds after they got the "technical issues" resolved.

Nothing was said about what they all saw, no oaths of secrecy were sworn and no men in black showed up at anyone's house. I was told it was simply too risky to be the person who challenged the boss about what happened after the boss had said it was a technical glitch. Why risk a career over something you can't do anything about anyway?

I was further told it was from that moment forward that 100% of the data/video feed from 100% of NASA's spacecraft has gone through a remote location for screening before it is presented in the control rooms. That part has always intrigued more than anything else about the story. ////...

Thanks for sharing the story, too bad it's multi-hand and decades old, dang!

My first guess is it's a garbled version of the STS-48 zigzagger from 1991, based on the specific claim that the event caused a change in NASA shuttle video download reviews. That claim is exactly the one that Richard Hoagland has been making for twenty years.

You can pursue that with retired comm controllers from the INCO console, if you like. The ones I worked with in those years, with whom I've talked later about this story, tell me it's baloney, that changes in that period were related to switching to use of the newly-deployed tracking and data relay satellites that permitted near-continuous comm instead of episodic in/out of range of ground sites in the first ten years of shuttle flights.

If it is STS-48, then I can provide first-hand recollection, I was on console in a different shift, and naturally reviewed my console's logs from other shifts each time I came on duty. No such comm interruption was mentioned. The idea that somebody could order operators to NOT write down such an anomaly is patently absurd, it violates every principle of mission operations safety.

If you want, you can write to Gene Kranz, of Apollo-11 and Apollo-13 fame, later in charge of the entire Mission Operations Directorate, and ask him if the behavior portrayed sounds reasonable or realistic. He's in great health -- I ran into him at the checkout line of the local grocery store just today. He would be able to provide a reality check, fer shoor.

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 04:15 PM

Originally posted by micpsi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
So you find it uninteresting because you are, presumably, prepared to believe that Edgar Mitchell was lying when he said that people in NASA had told him about the evidence for ETs that they had seen in space?

The cited article from the London Telegraph in 2008 only says the following, allegedly based on the Kerang Radio interview:

The 77-year-old, who was a crew member of the Apollo 14 mission, said sources at the space agency had described aliens as resembling "little people who look strange to us".

I can't find this anywhere on the Kerang Radio interview, which was all that the author Ben Farmer was basing his story on.

If you can, please do so and point it out, and then you will have successfully made your point that Mitchell indeed WAS claiming he had learned 'UFO secrets' about the physiology of aliens from 'sources' in NASA.

But even if that claim was made by Mitchell himself -- rather than carelessly imagined by the misquoting Brit -- it still falls short of YOUR claim that the specific information came from astronauts who had learned it during space flights. Do you see those words anywhere in the 'Telegraph' article, because frankly, I don't.

Here's Mitchell's direct, checkable testimony:

Neither I, nor any crew I was on (I was on three Apollo crews), received any briefing before or after flights on UFO events, saw anything in space suggesting UFOs or structures on the moon, etc. We did it just like we said in official reports. My only claim to knowledge of these events is from the individuals, mostly of yesteryear, who were in government, intelligence, or military; were there, saw what they saw, and now believe it should be made public. But I claim no first hand knowledge, nor have any. --Edgar Mitchell

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 05:16 PM
reply to post by JimOberg

He told me it happened in the early 1980's very near the beginning of the shuttle program, it would have been long before 1991.

He never said anything about whether they logged it and I didn't ask him because it would absolutely have been logged, that's obvious.

That's the problem with stories like these, they fail scrutiny on multiple levels but, the fact remains that I have no reason to think he was lying to me. That certainly doesn't prove he wasn't.

Edit to add: Hoagland has been telling that story about the filtering of the feed? Gad zooks, that is BAD.

I wonder if he knew the guy I am writing about?


edit on 5-23-2013 by Springer because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Springer
That's the problem with stories like these, they fail scrutiny on multiple levels but, the fact remains that I have no reason to think he was lying to me. That certainly doesn't prove he wasn't.

All true, these stories -- and there are others like them -- seem to be fascinating examples of gestational folklore based on real events, with very reality-based markers, but also elaborated with dreamlike events and narrative drift.

The most intriguing is an elaborate story from a guy who really WAS a security guard during Apollo, who has an elaborate narrative of accidentally being in the VIP observational room when, during a moonwalk, a UFO appeared and the entire control room was evacuated, and VIPS came into the viewing room and ordered the guard out.

There's no way the control room could have been evacuated during a moonwalk getting worldwide live attention, and other claimed features of explicit camera views were impossible for the actual hardware on the Moon, so the whole story looks to be an elaborate dream sequence -- but the narrative is really vivid.

But the more such stories we collect, the more reality-hooks might be detected and identified, so thanks for sharing your own story.

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by micpsi

If you really read that article closely you'll see that every single thing Mitchell claims has been told to him by other people. I have never, ever heard him say he saw anything with his own eyes. It's always been that he was "briefed" by someone else.

Nobody is calling him a liar, I think it's accepted that he has been told lots of stories by people, I also agree that it would be immensely more interesting if he would tell us who these mysterious people are so we could do the research into their stories.

Thanks Springer. That accusation of calling Mitchell a lier[sic] was directed at me, and you're right that nobody is calling him a liar, including me. In fact Mitchell is probably telling the truth and his sources may be telling the truth too.

You are also correct that Mitchell's stories would be more interesting if we could research them. As Jim Oberg's research has shown, sometimes UFO observers are honestly mistaken about what they saw and they aren't lying at all as in this example:

The newspaper quoted the pilot: "This thing was not of this world," declared Capt. Mike D'Alton. "In all my 23 years of flying I've never seen a craft anything like this."
I'm not calling Capt. Mike D'Alton a liar either. I believe that when he said that, he really thought it was a true statement. But if you read the rest of that source, you'll see why research can be helpful since even though he's telling what he believes to be the truth, a conclusion different from the one he has made seems more likely.

It could be even more interesting if no conventional explanation for the sighting can be found, but without a source and the ability to conduct research, it's not as interesting, as I said earlier.
edit on 23-5-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by JimOberg

All true, these stories -- and there are others like them -- seem to be fascinating examples of gestational folklore based on real events, with very reality-based markers, but also elaborated with dreamlike events and narrative drift.

Unreal post,

I thought that you said you couldn't help me.

I'll be cleaning my mind off the wall.

Meanwhile, have you seen this...

Thanks, Jim.
edit on 23-5-2013 by Bybyots because: oh man

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 05:58 PM
Mr. Oberg,

You are awesome.

You were right, that video of Alice Eve is really precious. I am so glad that I took the time to go and look at it. I would post the video but it is embedded so here is the link.

I watched it several times. If I were a person that were looking for such things, I would say that Kimmel was driving the process there. I suppose that is as it should be since he is the interviewer, but the Kimmel Show seems to have given the reporting of a UFO conspiracy precedence over plugging a big studio film (Star Trek). That's rather unheard of.

Reminds me of this. Again.

edit on 23-5-2013 by Bybyots because:

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by JimOberg

You're right. That IS a very intriguing story. And once again, names would be nice. Names of these supposed VIPs. One thing I am interested in is a seeming ability for whomever is behind this stuff to alter our timeline as it is occuring. I have read dozens of cases of time actually stopping during contact events. Like guy wakes up and notices his wife laying in bed stiff as a board and he cannot wake her, no matter how hard he tries.

If true, it could explain things such as your story above.

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by Bybyots

I don't know how much he was driving that really. I mean, she brought up the aliens and he rolled with it awhile. And lets face it, I and most other males, would pretty much roll with whatever she has to say too.

I mean, she could tell me that Santa claus is real and I would probably just nod my head and continue giving her creeper eyes.
edit on 24-5-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:00 PM

Originally posted by JayinAR
I mean, she could tell me that Santa claus is real and I would probably just nod my head and continue giving her creeper eyes.
She did say something about birds being aliens. Kimmel seemed to test her to see if she was joking and when it seemed like she wasn't, that broke him out of his trance enough to ask her what school she went to.

So you don't need to be an astronaut to see aliens, if she's right.

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:29 PM
Would it be unreasonable for us to now expect a larger than usual influx of 'anomalous' NASA videos?

Or is my logic screwed up?

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:53 PM
reply to post by JimOberg

I've been thinking about it a lot (because it's more interesting than the combined gas law) and I have decided to agree until a better idea comes along.

No. It must not require any extraordinary stimuli at all. It is all based on applications of language, so it would be very subtle; as subtle as any other cellular activity, I would guess, only with language and speech functioning as some sort of enzyme (catalyst, lowering the threshold of activation energy for the meme.

I do, however, think that in order to get larger groups to dissociate together, the stimuli would have to be greater. There would have to be some binding quality that would create a group gestalt.

So, extraordinary stimuli is off the table.

P.S. Wait, no, there has to be some influence from at least heightened stimuli, we have to take in to account how psychological stress can cause hallucinations.

So, it's all just food for thought, I suppose.

edit on 24-5-2013 by Bybyots because: we'll get there

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by Bybyots

Well, if their goal is to hide this stuff, they would release pics that can be debunked, right? But then, if everything NASA releases is explainable, why can't we take it at face value?

Bottom line, I trust NASA over random people when it comes to things like our space program. But UFOs? I'm not sure who to trust about that. It's something with large ramifications.

I immediately think if military ramifications. I don't buy that if these're alien and it became public knowledge that all of society would collapse. Rather, I think there's something to be gained by not telling people. Maybe UFOs aren't alien, for example. Maybe they're human-controlled.

We know that humans are flawed observers. We know they tell small lies constantly and consistently. Given this, it's easy to believe more than 95% of sightings are mistaken. But even if there's a small sliver of unexplained sightings, that doesn't mean they're alien.

On the one hand, ufology is like a kid having a tantrum or a person speaking in tongues. Most of ufology is bunk. But on the other hand, one wonders if a small bit of it is genuine. However, one should no go down that road without good reason; evidence.

I wonder if there's a connection between UFO skepticism and high IQ?

It always seem that it's the smart and highly educated people that're skeptical. And research has shown that people with higher IQ's are more likely to get higher levels of education.

And there's this (may or may not be related): - Visual Motion Intelligence Test To Measure IQ...

I've always felt that confidence in country and in its genuineness is directly tied to whether or not you will consider the idea of a government or military that lies about UFOs. It has just made sense to me that confidence in your country affects your own judgments about it.

www.psychologicalscience.o rg -
Why Do People Defend Unjust, Inept, and Corrupt Systems?...

That one says you're more likely to defend a system (government/military/etc) if:
1) system threat (it's attacked or accused)
2) system dependency (you rely on it)
3) system inescapability (you can't escape it; not easily)
4) low personal control (you're not given much authority when entered into the system)

I think a lot of us would fit those conditions. So we'd tend to not distrust our country.
edit on 24-5-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by jonnywhite
On the one hand, ufology is like a kid having a tantrum or a person speaking in tongues. Most of ufology is bunk. But on the other hand, one wonders if a small bit of it is genuine. However, one should no go down that road without good reason; evidence

Be sure you're sitting down, because I'm going to agree with you.

I've found plenty of phenomena of legitimate interest, masquerading [accidentally or on purpose] as 'UFO reports', and I've found plenty of credible events and motivations for military and intelligence agencies to play with the subject, either as camouflage for their own activities or as a sensory net for activities of military forces in other nations. Security organizations could easily use 'UFO stories' as tracers to detect the rate that REAL secrets get gossipped about at military facilities; operational units retrieving hardware they want to keep secret could [and i've heard of specific cases, have] intentionally tell cooperative teams that the region they are guarding or combing was involved with a crashed flying saucer; military hardware vendors could be delighted that failures of their systems can be attributed to supernatural external causes and not to their own designs or maintenance or training; intelligence agencies would be very interested in 'UFO reports' from inside and near the USSR and China because they often have been indicators of enemy missile and space activity.

And none of this precludes any even more extraordinary causes for some reports, for which I can find no 'a priori' reason to exclude from the possible.

It's just that to focus in on that real residue requires a lot more insight into human perception, and a lot more cold-blooded hard-headed assessment of reports, than most people seem to be able to muster. And the 'true believers' are one of the strongest barriers to improved understanding, since - -apparently out of secret unvoiced suspicions that it really IS all nonsense -- they resist giving up ANY favorite story. Or they stick to the mantra, "Seeing is believing", while elsewhere admitting that greater than 95% of people who 'believe' because of things they 'see', are mistaken. Sincerity and certainty trump analysis and exposition, but as a result, ALL the data base is suspect, when it doesn't HAVE to be.

It's the cadre of people who believe it is NOT all nonsense who have the courage to 'let chips fall where they may' and slash and burn their way through distractions, misrepresentations, a few hoaxes and pranks, but mostly just normal human perception and memory processes. Because they expect NOT to have empty hands when they reach the end of that sweaty, bloody trail.

There really MIGHT be unexplainable phenomena in there. To date, the performance of 'ufology' has not adequately proven to me that there HAS to be, in order for unexplained cases to exist -- since even top experts keep getting caught at swallowing case after case that really do turn out to have explanations they never found, or rejected.

How well has that approach really been working for two thirds of a century?

It's worth a genuine effort, not merely playing around and making believe. At least I think so.

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

That actually isn't the first I've heard of that. Remember the case of the guy from South America somewhere who was a "contactee" and was taken into a cave where he could walk into these little pods and SEE through the eyes of animals? Weird stuff.

He had some really sweet UFO pics too.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in