A note on Mitchell

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Just in case you want to know where Mitchell got his information - he tells of his sources here, from 2:11 to 2:32

www.youtube.com...




posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


there you go


edit on 30/10/13 by SecretKnowledge because: (no reason given)
edit on 30/10/13 by SecretKnowledge because: (no reason given)
edit on 30/10/13 by SecretKnowledge because: (no reason given)
edit on 30/10/13 by SecretKnowledge because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
As an old-timer on the UFO scene--since day one if you start counting in 1947--I'm greatly shocked and saddened in how the original story is largely forgotten or certainly glossed-over in TV UFO presentations and even most UFO books over the decades since. Part of that is due to the topic being old history (Hillary's recent outburst over history comes to mind when I write that) and I suspect there is a strong effort by some key individuals today to downplay the key aspects of that history, to keep it more mythical that plain history.

(If you have or come across any of the great classic UFO books from the 1950-60s keep them safe. One, entitled The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt, one-time head of Project Blue Book, will be worth big bucks some day.)



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The work was discussed on ATS in The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by Captain Edward J. Ruppelt.reply to post by Aliensun
 



This is Edward J. Ruppelt's memoir of his role in the seminal US Air Force UFO study projects: Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book. According to this account, he coined the acronym 'UFO' and put many of the official procedures for reporting and studying UFOs in place. An enjoyable read, this book captures the feel of working for the mid-20th century US military. He describes the changing attitudes of the USAF about UFOs during the early 1950s: wobbling between denial, ridicule, paranoia, and genuine inquiry.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   

EnPassant
Just in case you want to know where Mitchell got his information - he tells of his sources here, from 2:11 to 2:32


Sadly, Mitchell WON'T say what [if any] 'UFO information' he got from Gordon Cooper when they were office mates on the same Apollo lunar crew in 1968-9. I sure would like to know if Cooper's stories looked like, or didn't look like, the ones he began telling after he was eased out of the astronaut corps in 1970. Mitchell refuses to tell.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   

JimOberg

EnPassant
Just in case you want to know where Mitchell got his information - he tells of his sources here, from 2:11 to 2:32


Sadly, Mitchell WON'T say what [if any] 'UFO information' he got from Gordon Cooper when they were office mates on the same Apollo lunar crew in 1968-9. I sure would like to know if Cooper's stories looked like, or didn't look like, the ones he began telling after he was eased out of the astronaut corps in 1970. Mitchell refuses to tell.


Here he is saying that ppl in the military and intel. Wanted to get it off their chest and what they said solidified his views. There is some subtext here-

1. Something prevented them from speaking out earlier and they had to carry the burden of secrecy. 2. What they said "solidifed" Mitchel's views. That is, what they said positively confirmed the reality of the phenomena.
edit on 31-10-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   

EnPassant

Here he is saying that ppl in the military and intel. Wanted to get it off their chest and what they said solidified his views. There is some subtext here-

1. Something prevented them from speaking out earlier and they had to carry the burden of secrecy. 2. What they said "solidifed" Mitchel's views. That is, what they said positively confirmed the reality of the phenomena.
edit on 31-10-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


No offense, but your personal interpretation of what you perceive to be "subtext" is of even less evidentiary value than second hand anecdotal accounts.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Sometimes I just kinda feel like being Captain Obvious for the day, too
While we are sharing obvious facts, I have one too that I feel is also vitally important to share with you: The dragon in your avatar is not orange, and. furthermore, your dragon avatar does not serve to provide evidence of real dragons as well as a second-hand account would. Yeah...take that! Oh...you mean, you were not trying to prove the existence of dragons? And it was kind of pointless and rude for me to speak as if you were? Oh...well maybe the person you replied to was not trying to assert that their speculations of subtext served as better evidence than a second hand account...

That's like if I see you in the pub and suddenly I get all swollen in the chest and get right in your face and say, with spittle flying out of my mouth and all, "What?!?!? Celery IS NOT as nutritional as broccolli!!!!!" And shove you back with both of my hands as hard as I can. I mean...doesn't make much sense does it? You never even said anything about broccolli so i look like a madman! The poster you replied to never said that their assertion of subtext was any better of a form of evidence than a second hand account... So, with that being said... Calm down there, madman... you don't want to take on the appearance of a raving lunatic now, do you?



So anyway, who is "Mitchell"? Are we talking Paul Mitchell? Mitchell Coombs? Mitchell Bade? Or is just a one name like Madonna?

I should just create a thread called "Unlocking The Secrets of Steve" and just confuse the heck out of people and make up an outlandish tale and act totally serious the whole time like its a true story...all the time never revealing the true identity of the fictional Steve...

Side note: anybody ever seen that movie, The Tao of Steve.? Not bad really...



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

3n19m470
reply to post by draknoir2
 


Sometimes I just kinda feel like being Captain Obvious for the day, too
While we are sharing obvious facts, I have one too that I feel is also vitally important to share with you: The dragon in your avatar is not orange, and. furthermore, your dragon avatar does not serve to provide evidence of real dragons as well as a second-hand account would. Yeah...take that! Oh...you mean, you were not trying to prove the existence of dragons? And it was kind of pointless and rude for me to speak as if you were? Oh...well maybe the person you replied to was not trying to assert that their speculations of subtext served as better evidence than a second hand account...

That's like if I see you in the pub and suddenly I get all swollen in the chest and get right in your face and say, with spittle flying out of my mouth and all, "What?!?!? Celery IS NOT as nutritional as broccolli!!!!!" And shove you back with both of my hands as hard as I can. I mean...doesn't make much sense does it? You never even said anything about broccolli so i look like a madman! The poster you replied to never said that their assertion of subtext was any better of a form of evidence than a second hand account... So, with that being said... Calm down there, madman... you don't want to take on the appearance of a raving lunatic now, do you?



So anyway, who is "Mitchell"? Are we talking Paul Mitchell? Mitchell Coombs? Mitchell Bade? Or is just a one name like Madonna?

I should just create a thread called "Unlocking The Secrets of Steve" and just confuse the heck out of people and make up an outlandish tale and act totally serious the whole time like its a true story...all the time never revealing the true identity of the fictional Steve...

Side note: anybody ever seen that movie, The Tao of Steve.? Not bad really...


I apologize. I thought I was talking to enpassant. Must have accidentally replied to one of your posts instead, Steve.


And the dragon is orange... you are just a disinfo agent.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   

draknoir2

EnPassant

Here he is saying that ppl in the military and intel. Wanted to get it off their chest and what they said solidified his views. There is some subtext here-

1. Something prevented them from speaking out earlier and they had to carry the burden of secrecy. 2. What they said "solidifed" Mitchel's views. That is, what they said positively confirmed the reality of the phenomena.
edit on 31-10-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)


No offense, but your personal interpretation of what you perceive to be "subtext" is of even less evidentiary value than second hand anecdotal accounts.


In instances like this I always try to look at the Alternative Hypothesis:-

1. Mitchel is lying through his teeth - I have no reason to believe this.

2. He was talking to imaginary Army and Intelligence people. No, I have no reason to think that this astronaut, who would have passed all the nasa character and psychological tests, would be speaking to imaginary people.

Conclusion; he did speak to these people and he is reporting the conclusions he drew from those discussions. It is clear that these people knew something. Something they had to get off their chest. So, the alternative hypothesis is not convincing. In other words, there is a strong argument here that we are dealing not only with Mitchel's testimony but that his testimony is backed up by witnesses. That adds something to his argument.



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 





Here he is saying that ppl in the military and intel.


Given what we know about some people in the military and intel ...
Col. John B. Alexander & Bruce Maccabee

Should we naturally assume they were telling Mitchell the truth or would it be better to be cautious and consider that they were using him for their own ends .... just a thought .
Or perhaps he isn't being played as he himself is a player

I'm afraid "someone told me" doesn't mean much in this subject and knowing his sources are military and intel should set alarm bells ringing ....

“Sometimes, you wonder whether Uri’s entire public career has actually been a front for his shadow world activities.”
Geller's public career has been controversial, especially after magicians like James Randi have shown that his signature act of bending spoons psychically can easily be replicated, according to the Skeptics Dictionary.
While Geller has his detractors, he apparently has some impressive supporters. Former CIA officer Kit Green, Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, and retired US army colonel John Alexander, re all interviewed in the film, according to the Independent. Mitchell's work in various military paranormal studies was detailed in "The Men Who Stare At Goats."
www.huffingtonpost.com...



From Mike
Q: What about Edgar Mitchell - he has stated that numerous military witnesses to Roswell are afraid to 'go public' about what they know - has Alexander spoken with Mitchell ?

Alexander: Edgar and I are personal friends and have sat on boards together. There are some points that we agree to disagree on.
www.examiner.com...

You can tell a lot about people by the company they keep .


edit on 31-10-2013 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
That we are being set-up by all these intelligence cadre has long since passed into the realm of "fact" for me.

What they might be setting us up for is, of course, still a matter of speculation.

Edgar Mitchell is up to his chakras in all of this and has ALL of the right connections to this "set up"---from John B. Alexander to Robert Monroe to Esalen to his own institute and so much more. He seems to be a player…not one of the "played."

Certainly all of these "Spies" & "Spooks" don't have an allegiance to us, eh? Think about it.

C.B. Jones, Edgar Mitchell, John Alexander

Robert "OBE" Monroe & John Alexander

Col. John B. Alexander and British MOD Cheerleader Nick Pope

Most, though, appeared to have come to see Mr. Mitchell. As perhaps the highest-profile claimant of alien visitation, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology doctor in aeronautics and astronautics told the gathering the time will come when we have to get off this rock we call Earth.

"The sun will burn out in due course, and we have to be off this planet if our species is to survive," he said. "At this point in human history on this planet, we're now starting, and should be, to reach out beyond our planet and then beyond our solar system to find out what is really going on out there."

After the press conference, Mr. Mitchell said he got involved because people with UFO encounters "figured I was reliable enough to carry their stories and not compromise them."

"All of a sudden, when I began to realize the UFO phenomenon and alien visitation was real, I thought, 'OK, we're not alone in the universe.' That's pretty big news for we humans."

www.colinandrews.net...


Victoria Alexander, Uri Geller, John Alexander

BTW: Anyone know where I can get a gander at "The Secret Life Of Uri Geller –- Psychic Spy?"
Gotta be good just to read between the lines and see more of just what we are being sold.

OH and:
Bruce Macabee & the CIA

edit on 31-10-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 

Edgar Mitchell's "old timers" is mostly referencing Roswell. Remember that he's only giving his personal opinion and belief on the subject. He's never seen nor been directly involved with anything alien.

Believers may give more weight to UFOs/aliens because of his statements... but without physical evidence of alien life or visitation, it's still only a belief. It doesn't make alien visitation any more of a fact or true statement.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

The GUT
That we are being set-up by all these intelligence cadre has long since passed into the realm of "fact" for me.

What they might be setting us up for is, of course, still a matter of speculation.


Just two points - from almost the beginning the CIA seem to have been implacable in their resistance to all things ufological. Personally, I think this is because the aliens don't fit in with the CIA's agenda (control). So I'm wondering why they would put a 'ufos-are-real-man' up front? Also, the CIA is probably hierarchical in the sense that not all CIA are in the loop - and there may be many loops, like government.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 

In the alphabet intelligence vs military intelligence world, it's admittedly apparent that the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing and they often have differing agendas and techniques.

But the CIA--and other entities of the intelligence apparatus--have LONG used the UFO phenomenon for their own varied purposes to include spreading false stories.

The late Philip Coppens did some great work in highlighting and documenting this. I highly recommend the following articles for anyone interested in ufology.

We'll never have a chance of embracing the truly anomalous encounters until we're able to see-through the intelligence scams:

Extra-terrestrial intelligence or terrestrial intelligence agencies?

The Pied Pipers of the CIA

The alien overlords

MJ-12: Majestic, or Incredulous?

And a classic case of the intel boys creating myth and mayhem:

Driving Mr. Bennewitz Insane

edit on 1-11-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
The government in general and all branches of the military in particular are riddled with unsubstantiated rumors and scuttlebutt that some people believe is the God's honest truth. And it goes from the lowliest enlisted slugs to the guys with stars on their shoulders.

Anyone can come to believe whatever they want, and choose to believe whoever they want. But at some point you have to recognize that there's a line between believing something somebody swears to with crossed heart on their grandma's grave, and knowing something to be true based on available objective and verifiable hard evidence.



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


Thanks for the very interesting links. Of late I have been coming to the conclusion that ufology is in disarray. One has to be the equivalent of detective, prosecutor judge and jury to unravel the goings on. I have also recently been asking myself the deceptively simple question; What IS ufology? What is it about?

Basically it is the study of the strange happenings that are going on in the atmosphere. But why is this stuff going on? Why are ufos cavorting in the skies getting people's attention? I doubt that they are practicing their flying skills. And I don't think they are often on their way somewhere else. They just hover or flit about conspicuously. There are many stories of people who just 'happen' to encounter a landed ufo. The ufonauts are just going about their business - fixing the ufo - and they are 'surprised' by someone who was walking by. Yeah, right. They weren't surprised. The encounter was meant to happen. Sightings are contrived. The ufonauts are seen because they want to be seen. Why?

Because they are creating ufology and are creating the ufo myth. By creating this myth they are entering into mankind's consciousness. By entering the skies and entering the media they are becoming part of mankind's awareness. Why?

If you look at how this phenomena unfolds you can see that it operates in the same way that religion does. Religion is replete with myths and stories. With visions and with 'contacts'. With communications of a spiritual nature. With a high level language that is not literal. This does not mean that religion is just ufology in another guise, as some people think - it simply means that ufology is taking on the highly sophisticated and symbolic language of religion; Myth and Symbolism. And religion is about belief and about communion.

Ufonauts are creating a religion and they have succeeded in this to a startling degree. It is not the cia or the government that controls ufology. It is the ufonauts themselves. They calibrate, exactly, the level of belief among people.

They want religious fervor and belief because they want loyal servants to interface between them and humanity. They want to possess their servants on a spiritual level.
edit on 1-11-2013 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join