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

I don't know what qualifies someone that writes about entire-galaxy-destroying super novas or black-hole-creating "red matter" to challenge NASA astronauts.

reply to post by micpsi


I think what Oberg is saying is that Mitchell has publicly stated he has not seen anything with his own two eyes. Which is true.
Your article illustrates his position that the issue is legit, and he knows this as certain fact, but he himself has never seen anything.

ETA: If Mitchell had ever actually seen anything and could prove it, he would not be at liberty to discuss it. Same with this FOIA stuff for pictures. Won't happen. You won't ever get a conclusive picture of an alien space ship from any Government agency. It is far too risky to National Security. It simply won't happen.

So,

Let's just watch him then. What the hell with this guy then? Why is he spouting this crapolla?

Isn't that kinda just like the astronaut from the interview,

"They obviously have a different body configuration to than what we do, and the little, the little greys, that's the prevalent one...",

or,

"I don't know how many, or where, or how they're doing it, but, uh, they've been observing us and are here for quite some time".

-Edgar Mitchell

So let's start fresh, there aren't any Aliens. So why is Mitchell doing this?

The story is like a train, if no one feeds it coal, it doesn't go.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by JimOberg

 

I know, man. I'm just having a little fun. You not wanna clarify your remarks about other subsets of UFOlogy?

I assume you mean contactee and abductee phenomenon?
If so you are missing out on some of the most intriguing aspects of UFOlogy. At least in my eyes.

I really could be. But I think I've identified a significant subset that sorely needs reality checking, and that's all the time I really have.

None of the arguments AGAINST ET visitations hold any water for me -- it is technological feasible, behaviourally explainable, and strategically conceivable.

I just don't see the COMPELLING NEED for any extraordinary stimuli to account for the entire body of reports.

But I could well be wrong.

reply to post by Bybyots


It provides a convenient cover for secret military projects.
That's about all my limited grey matter can come up with as a motive for this double cover approach.

reply to post by JimOberg


Agreed on all points.
But it makes me wonder...what would you think the likelihood is that it IS happening, considering the points you made above?
I mean, if it is technologically feasible and behaviorally explainable, shouldn't it 0e almost considered a given at this point?
Lots and lots of evidence it is happening.


ETA: From my perspective the likelihood is very high. Even if I take away personal experiences and look at it as objectively as I possibly can, it seems to be an almost certainty. Also, each time I see a thread on here along the lines of, "scientists are close to developing warp drive", or "NASA discovers portals near Earth and how to locate them" the probability goes through the roof.

Would you agree?

reply to post by JimOberg

None of the arguments AGAINST ET visitations hold any water for me -- it is technological feasible, behaviourally explainable, and strategically conceivable.

I just don't see the COMPELLING NEED for any extraordinary stimuli to account for the entire body of reports.

Thanks, I know that wasn't for me. But I'll be chewing on that bone all day.

We heard it here first. Thanks, Jim. Awesome; I'm going to see if it makes any good questions burble up.

BRB.

P.S.

extraordinary stimuli

That's exactly (I think) the stuff my cohorts and I have been focused on, the stimuli. We are trying to figure it out. Have been studying form constants and psychological stress. Only difference is that we have been thinking that is is extraordinary stimuli, where you think that it is not. I will chew on that and be back.

Enjoyed working the Chile fireball swarm with you.

P.S.S. This made my whole day.

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.

Springer...

Originally posted by micpsi
reply to post by JimOberg

 

This Daily Telegraph article proves you wrong:
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Try backing up your assertions with FACTS, then perhaps you will acquire some credibility instead of being known as a UFO debunker who continually gets things wrong.

BTW, I am a former university physics lecturer who has collaborated with Nobel Prize winners. So your condescension is inappropriate.

Nice article, where does Mitchell actually say what you claim he says?

I recommend to you the wise words of Daniel Boorstin, "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge."

Originally posted by JayinAR
ETA: If Mitchell had ever actually seen anything and could prove it, he would not be at liberty to discuss it. Same with this FOIA stuff for pictures. Won't happen. ....

Come on.... That's the old solves-all get-out-of-reality-free card that can be played whenever you don't like somebody's direct testimony.

For the astronaut cases, it usually gets flashed onto the table when all other references to CHECKABLE evidence have failed. It's the ultimate admission of defeat.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim, we are talking about subject matter that, if proven true, would change the world overnight. I'm not playing the card. I am telling it like it is.

If confirmed true, you would have a complete cultural revolution in the blink of an eye. Some good things would come from such knowledge, but also some very bad things as well. This is sensitive info we are talking about here. Very, very sensitive.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim, we are talking about subject matter that, if proven true, would change the world overnight. I'm not playing the card. I am telling it like it is.

If confirmed true, you would have a complete cultural revolution in the blink of an eye. Some good things would come from such knowledge, but also some very bad things as well. This is sensitive info we are talking about here. Very, very sensitive.

Odd reversal here. I'm the guy saying I believe everything Mitchell says, and you're the guy saying he's partly lying, on purpose.

Kind of dizzying.

reply to post by JimOberg


You are misunderstanding me. I am not calling him a liar at all. I was giving my opinion on how Government would handle it if he, or any other astronaut had seen something and had proof, via pics, film, audio, etc. my opinion is it would be handled with a gag order.

I know this is going to sound really whiney, but yeah, it would be great to have the names. Trying to take a revisionist approach to dismantling the history of this stuff from Maury Island on becomes a morass of 'guessed-names' and suppositions.

I was trying to do up what I had hoped tho be a scathing revisionist analysis of Maury to Roswell which was to be represented as an annotated timeline in a thread. I fell in a hole so deep that at the end of the project I was right at the beginning again, and may as well have started over. It was the very definition of being trapped in a strange loop.

It becomes difficult because in a case like the one with Mitchell, we are just stuck with this ex-astronaut sitting on his lazy-boy with his pooch talking about how sure he is that we are being observed by aliens. I grew up watching the moon shots. I served in the military and I tend naturally towards respecting my elders and superior officers. But Mitchell, in the end, just seems like any other person I have ever met or heard speak about how they are sure there is an alien presence screwing with us. Also, it takes one to know one; having been through all that and out the other side, I have a tendency to recognize my own.

The more I think about it, the more I think that it should just be taken at face value: Mitchell was a highly trained soldier who was focused on accomplishing a certain task, and he did. His experience, however it was for him, afforded him the ability to believe those that later told him that there are aliens in spaceships observing us. Like any of us, Edgar is just making his way and reflecting back the world as he understands it. Or he is paid to do what he does. I doubt that so I'm going with the former.



Wow,

reply to post by JimOberg

I'm the guy saying I believe everything Mitchell says, and you're the guy saying he's partly lying, on purpose.

The more I think about this the more I get a sort of Lovecraftian sense of rising eldritch terror.

Jim, do you mean to say that you believe everything Mitchell says because he believes it and you understand how he could have gotten there?

Or are you saying that you believe that aliens in spaceships are observing us and that Mitchell's brief description of the 'greys' is accurate?

Thanks.

reply to post by JayinAR

It provides a convenient cover for secret military projects.

Well, I have experimentally removed that from the table entirely to try to make room for something else.

If you really think about it, most of the 'secret' stuff that has been in development has been revealed over the past several years to have been concerned with different applications of computation to things like Natural Language Processing and different applications in sociology and computer networks. Then they (DARPA) started outsourcing the development of the stuff through public contests.

Having taken the hardware aspect off the table I have been focusing, I suppose, on the 'software' aspect of the whole thing. I have been researching things like dissociation, and how sometimes, under certain circumstances, large groups of people may achieve certain levels of dissociation together. Stuff like that.

Personally, I think that Mitchell is dissociated in that video, and it probably simply has to do with the pressure of the venue, the topic and his age. He comes across as though he is in a mild reverie.

P.S.

"...he could be a retire insurance salesman."

-reporter from video above referring to Edgar Mitchell

I know, I'm knit picking, but you see how no one can even touch this stuff without getting it all over them?!

It's hilarious to me, like it's a game of 'pass the turd', or something. It's just horribly funny.

reply to post by Springer

Nobody is calling him a liar, I think it's accepted that he has been told lots of stories by people,

I think it goes a little farther than that. What he has stated, more than once, is that he has been officially briefed on the subject. This goes toward my earlier remarks to Jim as well. He doesn't name names because he isn't allowed to do so.

Having lived in Taylor Lake Village while my wife was a flight controller at Johnson for the ISS, I had the wonderful opportunity of meeting several Astronauts and actually getting to know a few NASA Flight Controllers who had been around for many years.

I too was told a few stories by people I respect highly and had absolutely no reason to doubt. That said, they are still just stories of what those people witnessed while doing the very unique job of controlling spacecraft flights. the experience left me with a burning desire to get at the truth behind the phenom.

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.

Now that's one heck of a story that I haven't shared with many people because that's all it is, something I was told by someone else. The fact the person who told me had been a flight controller for 15+ years at that point and spent pretty much all of their working hours in the control room whenever the bird was up certainly added to the credibility but, at the end of the day all I have is hearsay and that's all Edgar Mitchell has too.

Matter of fact, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if Edgar Mitchell hadn't been told the same story by the same person.

That doesn't diminish what Mitchell is saying in my mind, it just doesn't give us anything to work with. Like Mitchell, I presume, I'm not willing to divulge who told me this story because I gave my word I wouldn't (and I won't).

Obviously I am not a celebrity astronaut so nobody really cares about the stories I've heard over the years I recognize that difference, but that's the only difference between Mitchell's experience and mine. Matter of fact, I'm willing to bet I've heard or read a whole lot more stories than Mitchell because of ATS. We get lots of private emails from people all over the world via the "Contact us" button on this site each week.

So what? We can't do anything with them but keep them in mind for comparing against the next data set. That helps with picking out the hoaxes and the utter horse hockey but that's about it.

Until such time as the general population stops snickering at this stuff because it's just too far out and the charlatans stop trying to capitalize on it with ridiculous claims and wild notions about space brotherhoods, et-al, I believe this subject will remain shrouded in the mists of methane emanating from a male bovine's back side.

Springer...

Straight out of the can. By saying they did not see them in near earth space - 240 miles - the implication is that if they exist they are not here. Translation: We don't want you thinking ETs are here. If they exist they are waaaay out there, not here.

reply to post by Springer


Yeah, I double checked. Mitchell's claim is that he was involved in Pentagon Level briefings on the subject. Alien space ships to be precise.
So it goes a little farther than someone telling him a story. It was told to him in an official capacity. I am having a hard time embedding the video from my mobile, but YouTube search Mitchell Pentagon Briefing should pull it up as the first result.

That's awesome you were able to gain that much trust from your source. I would have so many questions if someone told me a story like that.