TheMacGuffin, on 19 November 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:
I do not see why you have such affection for NASA that you are making a big issue out of this, especially since NASA slapped Mitchell down for saying all these things.
Hi MacGuffin
Are you just playing with Boon? Affection for NASA has nothing to do with Ed Mitchell categorically denying any link to NASA all by himself. NASA said they do not support Ed's tales as a former employee of NASA. That seems pretty normal? It is not hard to see how much worse this would be if they said absolutely nothing, and other than that, what options have been left open to them? Ed is a former employee, and the media made the leap from Government to NASA, even Dr Mitchell says he does not know how it got blown out of proportion, but insists he has no personal knowledge, and does not implicate NASA at all. All his information comes from other sources. And he has more reason than most other ex-employees to have a disgruntled attitude with the camera business I would think.
But with your knowledge, you must know Dr Mitchell does not implicate NASA, which I why I suspect you might be playing a couple of fish on a hook here?
Edited by psyche101, 19 November 2012 - 06:48 AM.
Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research. There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs.