Dr. Edgar Mitchell In New Florida Television Interview.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by JimOberg

 

So what's your take on Dr Mitchell Jimbo?

Have you been paying attention?

You're the resident NASA insider. I remember hearing Dr Mitchell say he obtained all his information regarding these statements from high ranking military and intelligence people and not from NASA.

And I remember him saying that there were no UFO secrets in the Apollo program -- and he was there. That there was no 'secrecy oath' about lying to the public. That NASA never prepared astronauts for meeting aliens. Sort of blows out of the water an entire generation of beloved 'space UFO myths', wouldn't you think?

Is he a wacko or what? Is he considered a wacko by NASA?

People who sit atop a million pounds of explosives are a special breed and when somebody volunteers, he's cut a lot of slack for his hobbies.

Do they not like him making these statements?

I have no earthly idea.

If he is not a wacko, why would he jeopardise his credibility this way?

That is a wacko argument. His credibility depends on other stuff he's claimed that can be checked, such as his views on Uri Geller, his interpretation of his Apollo-14 ESP experiments, and his confidence that he would be able to establish the reality of ESP. I'm glad that bright, free-thinking people like Mitchell are involved at and beyond the fringes of 'known science', because it gives me confidence that if there IS anything worth discovering there, HE is the kind of person who could do it.

So far, IMHO, he hasn't. But we remain friends with mutual personal and professional respect.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by thepainweaver

Originally posted by JimOberg
I've seen Mitchell's summary and best-spin interpretation of the results, but the actual raw data appears to be unavailable to the public -- I wonder why?

Have you checked in this source for his data?

Mitchell et al.
1974 Psychic exploration: a challenge for science

I'm looking for any online data. I have the hardcopy of the 1971 magazine article.

I'm just puzzled why, in the 40 years since then, the original article and online data have never been published on the Internet. Why not. if it's so important?

One theory: the raw data does not support the conclusions and summaries being promoted.

Other theories are possible.

If it makes you feel any better, I did come across a few anthropology and psychology papers from the 70s that cite his work. Some only briefly mention the article. One specifically states that Mitchell really had to stretch his data to fit with his interpretations and conclusions. And another source states that his data are inconclusive, at best. If you want the actual sources where I found those two nuggets of info, I'll have to re-look them up. It was late when I found them, and didn't think to write them down.

The main library at my school has the paper he publish on hard copy. It appears to be a "paper", anyway, but the publisher information is not on the index page. I'm guessing that it is the same article you have, which doesn't carry any data.

There is not one scrap of any peer reviewed paper published on the topic, utilizing an R-1 university's online journal article network. All of this, really kills his "credibility"- in my opinion. Nevertheless, I'm going to check out the "article" tomorrow when I'm there. I'll let you know what I find.

Originally posted by Xoanon
Why does he do this? And what are we to make of it? Is he just another performance artist? Or should we be listening to him for other than entertainment purposes?

Move along now... nothing to see here... listen to Jim Oberg He will tell you what is really going on

Originally posted by thepainweaver

If it makes you feel any better, I did come across a few anthropology and psychology papers from the 70s that cite his work. Some only briefly mention the article. One specifically states that Mitchell really had to stretch his data to fit with his interpretations and conclusions. And another source states that his data are inconclusive, at best.

Thanks -- interesting review comments. No need for citations.

I do have the raw data, in the original article in the journal of Parapsychology.

The point I was trying to get across was that the raw data is NOT available on the internet, and I suspect the reason is the same as the reviews you found cited, and as I discovered -- the data analysis is atrocious.

There was no going-in criterion for evaluation. The authors made it up afterwards, and even admitted they did it several different ways.

The main flaw -- shocking, but not surprising it was never admitted -- is that the times of the sendings and receivings were out of whack because of schedule changes on the flight, and because of carelessness of some of the participants.

So the authors had to arbitrarilly assign 'sendings' and 'receivings', which occurred hours -- even days -- apart, to each other, to see which matched best. They justified this on the basis that ESP research had established precognition as a real effect, and their data matchups required it to be assumed true, to even look useful.

Also, some of the receivings by different subjects on Earth that occurred at the same clock time, were assigned to DIFFERENT sendings by Mitchell, to make the statistics look sexy.

So... the public image of an astronaut in space, concentrating on Zener cards in sequence, and back on Earth several different sensitives were ALL simultaneously writing down what they were 'seeing', and getting much more than chance allowed, correct -- that's not merely a myth, it's a hoax.

But you have to see the actual raw data to discover that. And the authors, forty friggin' years later, still refuse to allow easy access to that data.

Amazing.

reply to post by JimOberg


No problem. Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off of the floor.

Originally posted by miniatus
He's a smart man and so that lends him some credibility as far as hearing him out, but he's said himself he has no DIRECT knowledge of alien/ufo existance.. he has no insider information from his time at NASA .. what he knows, he gathered the same way you and I do it . research, reading and talking to other people.

I guess what I'm saying is he doesn't know anything we don't know..

The only difference is those he talked to to get his research

Originally posted by jaws1975
Either that or everything that he saw and experienced is classified info, so all he is able to do is talk about generalities!

And that... yes

IF there really is a government effort to cover up UFO's and visitors, this most definitely would be the case.

You can't have it both ways...

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
It's just a bit disingenuous when people lead with "a US astronaut says aliens are real!". It implies he's seen them or knows secretive NASA information that the rest of us don't have. Which is untrue.
I think aliens are quite plausible, BTW.

What I find hilarious is how many people on ATS are 100% sure that the Government is lying to us and covering it all up, that NASA is lying to us and air brushing images, but when someone like Edgar come out and states his opinion, people automatically assume its 'just his opinion, he can't really know'

Does no one else see the irony?

If NASA is indeed keeping secrets there is NO WAY any astronaut can come out and say so other than 'personal opinion' and repeatedly make disclaimers that NASA is innocent.

And Jimbo is always right there on queue whenever NASA is brought up... almost like a paging system

Carry on... I need more popcorn

Originally posted by Xoanon
This is the best link I can find so far...

UFOTV: Secret CIA Psychic Lab Experiments with Uri Geller at SRI: Stanford

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
It's from a book called 'The Soviet UFO Files'. I believe it because two cosmonauts reported seeing this UFO and apparently alien beings inside of the craft. I never claimed it was investigated.

Here is a real great film... has Jim Oberg in it... talking about 'little particles and space debris'

Seems the Russiand don't agree

Sightings Russian Cosmonaut UFO sightings



I really LOVE this film...

Astronaut Gordon Cooper Talks About UFOs




But hey I am sure they must all be crazy...

Originally posted by zorgon

Here is a real great film... has Jim Oberg in it... talking about 'little particles and space debris'

Seems the Russiand don't agree

Sightings Russian Cosmonaut UFO sightings

I really LOVE this film...

Better hold onto your brain Zorgon -- you opened your mind so much, it's slipping out and falling to the floor.

All this video shows is that the producers do a voice-over of a cosmonaut talking, but you have no clue what he's really saying. They could put any words they want to onto the script to freak out their target audience.

All the checkable 'facts' they claim about Afanasyev are phony, as I think you already know.

I've searched, and inquired, across the Russian internet and among Russian ufologists, and there's not a single report over there that I've found that corroborates what this program is claiming he said.

My take on it is that the program is fiction, and you have been fooled -- and are an accessory after the fact to your own defrauding.

Now you seem to want company.

Originally posted by zorgon
Astronaut Gordon Cooper Talks About UFOs

But hey I am sure they must all be crazy...

So you still believe that Cooper, as he claimed in his book, saved the shuttle program from a fatal design flaw by relaying to NASA a telepathic warning from space aliens?

Seriously, the guy [after being booted out of NASA] evolved into a notorious tall-tale-teller in his later years, to entertain the only audiences who would still invite him, UFO conventions.

Seems you have gullibly swallowed the NASA hype about square-jawed super-human hero-astronauts who can stretch no stories, can walk on water, and can put their pants on two legs at a time. Are you really so mesmerized by NASA propaganda? [grin]

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by zorgon

Here is a real great film... has Jim Oberg in it... talking about 'little particles and space debris'

Seems the Russiand don't agree

Sightings Russian Cosmonaut UFO sightings

I really LOVE this film...

Better hold onto your brain Zorgon -- you opened your mind so much, it's slipping out and falling to the floor.

All this video shows is that the producers do a voice-over of a cosmonaut talking, but you have no clue what he's really saying. They could put any words they want to onto the script to freak out their target audience.

All the checkable 'facts' they claim about Afanasyev are phony, as I think you already know.

I've searched, and inquired, across the Russian internet and among Russian ufologists, and there's not a single report over there that I've found that corroborates what this program is claiming he said.

My take on it is that the program is fiction, and you have been fooled -- and are an accessory after the fact to your own defrauding.

Now you seem to want company.

Here is what I found in connection to the Afanasiev sighting... He was directly asked the question if he had seen a UFO while in space and he gave the following answer (I know some Russian, but will not make an attempt at translating this for you. I will leave that to someone whose native language is Russian):

РГ: Виктор Михайлович, правда, что вы видели НЛО?

Афанасьев: Это, конечно, выдумки. Но один раз посторонний предмет длиной примерно 40 сантиметров за бортом мы действительно наблюдали. Даже засняли. В тот день от станции отстыковался грузовик "Прогресс", так что, думаю, просто что-то отлетело. Может быть, кому-то за это и попало. Не знаю.

Here is the source:

www.rg.ru...


There is another source I found that gives information very similar to that of the above shown video:

Контакт

Летчик-космонавт Виктор Афанасьев (он в 1994 году возглавлял экипаж на космической станции «Мир»), узнав о публичном заявлении Митчелла о контактах с инопланетным разумом, поддержал коллегу, рассказав о своей встрече с НЛО.

– Некоторое время в полете нас сопровождал странный объект, размер которого примерно 40 сантиметров. Объект прямоугольной формы, с небольшими защелками, словно крылышками, с отверстием по центру плавно следовал за нашим кораблем, не проявляя никакой агрессии. Попадая на свет, излучаемый нашим космическим судном, он нам был виден особенно хорошо. Нам удалось его запечатлеть и на фото, и на видеокамеру. Тут же видеосообщение было направлено нами в Центр управления полетами. К сожалению, теперь я эти кадры не могу найти. Саму пленку отдали в РКК «Энергия». Теперь, когда я делаю запрос на кадры, мне говорят: «Никакой пленки нет». Возмущаюсь: как нет! Видели втроем, все фиксировали этот факт. Но в то время нам запретили вообще об этом случае говорить…

Here is the source:

la-femme.net...

reply to post by ilian51378


Terrific links, Ilian -- more insights into this story than I've ever been able to gather. Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you.

Your first link is to a LONG and HIGHLY interesting interview [published Nov 11, 2005] with Afanasyev.

Towards the end, the question is posed:

"Is it true that you saw a UFO?"

Afanasyev answers bluntly: "This, of course, is fabrications."

Zorgon, are you reading this?

Then Afanasyev adds an even more informative story:

"But one time we actually observed a foreign object with a length approximately of 40 centimeters outside. We even photographed it. On that day the freighter ‘Progress’ was undocked from the station, so that, I think, simply something flew away. It can be, it found its way to someone. I do not know."

So a 40-cm [16 inch] object was seen out a window at the time an unmanned supply drone was firing thrusters to depart from the station.

This is the main reason why 'space UFO' myth-makers refuse to provide contextual information on famous stories and videos, such as date/time of the event -- they want people to NOT know what else was going on in space, such as activities that commonly kick up dust and break stuff loose, such as -- UNDOCKING.

The second citation is a story from the Russian website la-femme.net..., undated but probably in 2007-8 [based on Mitchell's specified age] and you don't need to speak Russian to tell -- when you visit it -- it's a slavic 'National Enquirer'. The website cites as ITS source another website, zhizn.ru... but the search engine there did not find any articles about Mitchell or Afanasyev. A yandex.ru search for their names and the source website URL only directed me back to the la-femme.net article.

The story, about Edgar Mitchell's public statements, then adds that Afanasyev "confirmed [Mitchell's views, evidently] to a colleague, talking about his encounter with a UFO."

Afanasyev is NOT quoted directly and the alleged 'colleague' who relayed the story is not named. Shocker.

This is the story

For a while in flight a strange object accompanied us, the size of which was approximately 40 centimeters. The object was of rectangular form, with not-large защелка, as if wings, with an opening along the center it smoothly followed our ship, showing no aggression. Falling into the light radiated by our space vessel, it was visible to us especially well. We succeeded in recording it both on the photo and the video camera. Here the video recordings were forwarded by us to the Mission Control Center. Unfortunately, now I cannot find these shots. The film itself they returned to “RKK-Energia”. Now, when I make demand for the shots, they tell me, ‘There is no film’. I am agitated: how so not? We saw three together, we fixated this fact. But at that time they forbade us generally to speak about this case …

The '40 cm meme' clearly derives from the original Afanasyev newspaper interview, in which he said he presumed it was a piece of something knocked loose by the thrusting of the departing spacecraft. The rest of the story sounds like elaboration and imaginative expansion typical of such websites, without any need for actual explicit quotes from the alleged source, the cosmonaut.

Ilian, again beaucoup thanks and bolshoye spasibo, for helping cast some light onto this myth's background.

Zorgon, you there? Zorgon?

Here is what the video cited by Zorgon CLAIMS that Afansyev was saying:

"It followed us during half of our orbit. We observed it on the light side, and when we entered the shadow side, it disappeared completely. It was an engineered structure, made from some type of metal, approximately 40 meters long with inner hulls. The object was narrow here and wider here, and inside there were openings. Some places had projections like small wings. The object stayed very close to us. We photographed it, and our photos showed it to be 23 to 28 meters away".

Cosmonaut Victor Afanasyev commenting on a UFO sighting that occurred while en route to the Solyut 6 space station in April of 1979.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But his actual biography shows all of that alleged career info is bogus:

www.spacefacts.de...

Born 1948, selected as cosmonaut 1985, made three visits to Mir (Soyuz TM-11, Feb 1990; Soyuz TM-18, Aug 1994; Soyuz TM-29, Feb 1999) and one to the ISS (Soyuz TM-33, Oct 2001).

SOMEbody is faking here. Why submit so gullibly to it, and defend your deceivers so defiantly, Zorgon?

Edgar Mitchell hasn't wowed me yet but hey, as long as George Zimmer's on board with Edgar Mitchell then that's all the proof I need!

After all is said and done and all the data put forward in this thread by both sides what should be remembered here is that Mitchell has came out and said things of this nature in public and is expressing his belief.Now what i have found out over the years is that when people of his stature come out publicly and ruffle the feathers of the status quo with their beliefs ect it is quickly dismissed and played down and made to look of as of no real importance by those who want the status quo to remain intact for what ever political or professionally personal agenda or belief system.The fact that Mitchell has given his beliefs a public airing is no small feat and is of great importance no matter how often people of his statue are played down the real significance of the nature of his beliefs or opinions.Anything that gives the UFO subject credibility is quite often attacked by those who fear or do not like sources like Mitchell coming out with such profound statements in public.

Originally posted by JimOberg
reply to post by ilian51378

 

Terrific links, Ilian -- more insights into this story than I've ever been able to gather. Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you.

Your first link is to a LONG and HIGHLY interesting interview [published Nov 11, 2005] with Afanasyev.

Towards the end, the question is posed:

"Is it true that you saw a UFO?"

Afanasyev answers bluntly: "This, of course, is fabrications."

Zorgon, are you reading this?

Then Afanasyev adds an even more informative story:

"But one time we actually observed a foreign object with a length approximately of 40 centimeters outside. We even photographed it. On that day the freighter ‘Progress’ was undocked from the station, so that, I think, simply something flew away. It can be, it found its way to someone. I do not know."

So a 40-cm [16 inch] object was seen out a window at the time an unmanned supply drone was firing thrusters to depart from the station.

This is the main reason why 'space UFO' myth-makers refuse to provide contextual information on famous stories and videos, such as date/time of the event -- they want people to NOT know what else was going on in space, such as activities that commonly kick up dust and break stuff loose, such as -- UNDOCKING.

The second citation is a story from the Russian website la-femme.net..., undated but probably in 2007-8 [based on Mitchell's specified age] and you don't need to speak Russian to tell -- when you visit it -- it's a slavic 'National Enquirer'. The website cites as ITS source another website, zhizn.ru... but the search engine there did not find any articles about Mitchell or Afanasyev. A yandex.ru search for their names and the source website URL only directed me back to the la-femme.net article.

The story, about Edgar Mitchell's public statements, then adds that Afanasyev "confirmed [Mitchell's views, evidently] to a colleague, talking about his encounter with a UFO."

Afanasyev is NOT quoted directly and the alleged 'colleague' who relayed the story is not named. Shocker.

This is the story

For a while in flight a strange object accompanied us, the size of which was approximately 40 centimeters. The object was of rectangular form, with not-large защелка, as if wings, with an opening along the center it smoothly followed our ship, showing no aggression. Falling into the light radiated by our space vessel, it was visible to us especially well. We succeeded in recording it both on the photo and the video camera. Here the video recordings were forwarded by us to the Mission Control Center. Unfortunately, now I cannot find these shots. The film itself they returned to “RKK-Energia”. Now, when I make demand for the shots, they tell me, ‘There is no film’. I am agitated: how so not? We saw three together, we fixated this fact. But at that time they forbade us generally to speak about this case …

The '40 cm meme' clearly derives from the original Afanasyev newspaper interview, in which he said he presumed it was a piece of something knocked loose by the thrusting of the departing spacecraft. The rest of the story sounds like elaboration and imaginative expansion typical of such websites, without any need for actual explicit quotes from the alleged source, the cosmonaut.

Ilian, again beaucoup thanks and bolshoye spasibo, for helping cast some light onto this myth's background.

Zorgon, you there? Zorgon?

Jim,

You are more than welcome! If you are interested in finding more stuff online about Russian or other Slavic language information, you can go to www.2cyr.com and input your info in the provided field and upon the click of a button, it will transform it into Cyrilic. Of course, this is not a translator, so it will not translate the text, but it will just turn the Latin letters into Slavic ones. When you search for someone's name, you can write his name in the field and then add relevant words afterwards, such as, UFO or whatever else. You need to know these words in the specific language though... After you have turned the text into Slavic, input it into the Google search field and many websites that normally do not show up when you search for it in English will come up.

By the way, I do not advocate either side of the argument, I just try to find the truth and be objective.

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
After all is said and done and all the data put forward in this thread by both sides what should be remembered here is that Mitchell has came out and said things of this nature in public and is expressing his belief.Now what i have found out over the years is that when people of his stature come out publicly and ruffle the feathers of the status quo with their beliefs ect it is quickly dismissed and played down and made to look of as of no real importance by those who want the status quo to remain intact for what ever political or professionally personal agenda or belief system.The fact that Mitchell has given his beliefs a public airing is no small feat and is of great importance no matter how often people of his statue are played down the real significance of the nature of his beliefs or opinions.Anything that gives the UFO subject credibility is quite often attacked by those who fear or do not like sources like Mitchell coming out with such profound statements in public.

edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)

We did get off topic with the Afanasyev detour, and I apologize -- but I hope the absolutely NEW material uncovered and shared permits general forgiveness. You don't often get to see much NEW evidence uncovered and discussed, it was exciting. It shows the power of the ATS 'group mind'.

The main theme is the significance of Mitchell's hearsay on UFOs and whether his judgment is reliable. That's why an assessment of his flagship research, the Apollo-14 ESP experiment, and his interpretations of it, can be so important.

For those who do NOT like real evidence and real logic, of course, any serious discussion can seem to be an 'attack' on holy scriptures and prophets. Sad.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
reply to post by JimOberg

 

So far, IMHO, he hasn't. But we remain friends with mutual personal and professional respect.

I do not believe your personally aquainted with Edgar Mitchell, pics or it didnt happen!!
(sorry Jim, couldnt resist!)