1528 replies to this topic

[quillius]

TheMacGuffin, on 20 November 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

He said the same thing in another interview:


Editor: Of course, I’ve got to ask you something on the subject of UFOs. You were a teenager on a ranch in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947 when the crash supposedly occurred.

Dr. Mitchell: Well, in my father’s family, my father and my grandfather were cattle ranchers. They were bull traders. We personally knew all the ranchers. After my space flight, I had the privilege of being briefed by many of what I call the old timers who were not necessarily local but had been with military intelligence and wanted to pass on their stories related to Roswell before they passed away. They were under very, very strict security requirements, even under the threat of death, not to talk, but they wanted somebody to know before they passed on that it was a real fact. So I got it not only first-hand from the locals but military intelligence people too who had been a part of that event.

Editor: So you feel that there is more to it than the weather balloon explanation then?

Dr. Mitchell: The military had come up with.  I mean it’s not really the military. It’s a cabal of individuals. I’m sure you’ve heard about the so-called Majic 12 folklore which is a residue from an organization that Truman put together, which was a very high-level organization. A national security group formed in 1947, it was given more power than it should have had, and they have relied on that and multiplied that over the years to maintain secrecy.


http://www.google.co...5WFA4gzqFeYuzUA

hey McG, could it be that one of these members of the group went on to assist in setting up NASA?

also what do you make of Hoaglands discussion with Edgar on NASA being there for National security as a main

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 20 November 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

hey McG, could it be that one of these members of the group went on to assist in setting up NASA?

also what do you make of Hoaglands discussion with Edgar on NASA being there for National security as a main

How could it not be considered of paramount importance to national security to have assets in space?  Of course national security would have been a main, especially during the era during which NASA was spawned, right in the middle of the Cold War, and right after the Soviet's launched Sputnik I.  Clearly though this concern for security was because of the very real earthly fears associated with the nuclear capabilities of the Soviet Union and the implications of Sputnik were that they had the capacity to develop weapons which could reach anywhere in the world; including and perhaps specifically American soil.

This reason alone provides ample explanation for the provisions in question, to protect and safeguard information which could be collected from orbit and might endanger the defense of the United States if released to the 'the enemy' which would be a natural result of releasing it to the public in general.

[JimOberg]

TheMacGuffin, on 20 November 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

I don't now if they all are, but there are some that have no satisfactory explanation including Gemini 4, Gemini 11, Apollo 7, 8, 11, 14, and Skylab.  

Apollo=14? That's Mitchell's mission.

What earthly reason -- or unearhtly reason -- can you possibly have to claim there's some 'unexplained' UFO event on Mitchell.s flight when he's explicitly stated he has NO personal experience with UFOs.?

How defiantly counter-fact [or deliberately ignorant of available explanations] do you insist on being?

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 20 November 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

How could it not be considered of paramount importance to national security to have assets in space?  Of course national security would have been a main, especially during the era during which NASA was spawned, right in the middle of the Cold War, and right after the Soviet's launched Sputnik I.  Clearly though this concern for security was because of the very real earthly fears associated with the nuclear capabilities of the Soviet Union and the implications of Sputnik were that they had the capacity to develop weapons which could reach anywhere in the world; including and perhaps specifically American soil.

This reason alone provides ample explanation for the provisions in question, to protect and safeguard information which could be collected from orbit and might endanger the defense of the United States if released to the 'the enemy' which would be a natural result of releasing it to the public in general.

fair points Boon, although when it was set up wasnt it for space exploration....

RH: I am quoting from the law, the enabling legislation on page 11 in section I, it says, "The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." Now we have always operated on the assumption....When I was with PBS, I absolutely would have sworn on a stack of Bibles and Korans that NASA was a civilian agency for space exploration of the government of the United States. Literally, a few days ago, when I read this carefully, I was stunned to see in the language the actual act says that NASA shall be considered a defense agency of the United States. Now, what that implies...
EM: I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language.

I guess this is what Hoagland thought it was for at least....and maybe Edgar too judging by his response....

[booNyzarC]

quillius, on 20 November 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

fair points Boon, although when it was set up wasnt it for space exploration....

RH: I am quoting from the law, the enabling legislation on page 11 in section I, it says, "The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." Now we have always operated on the assumption....When I was with PBS, I absolutely would have sworn on a stack of Bibles and Korans that NASA was a civilian agency for space exploration of the government of the United States. Literally, a few days ago, when I read this carefully, I was stunned to see in the language the actual act says that NASA shall be considered a defense agency of the United States. Now, what that implies...
EM: I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language.

I guess this is what Hoagland thought it was for at least....and maybe Edgar too judging by his response....

Yes it was.  At the same time, wouldn't it be negligent of the government to ignore the potential defense interests that could and would be available as a direct result of such explorations and the technologies that make them possible?  Of course the military and government would have a keen interest in this kind of thing, and rightfully so if they were doing their jobs and fulfilling their responsibilities during the Cold War.  Even up through today's world these things are important to consider and undoubtedly maintained for the security of the US and its allies.

[JimOberg]

quillius, on 20 November 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

RH: I am quoting from the law, the enabling legislation on page 11 in section I, it says, "The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States."

My impression was that, as usual, Hoaxland was scamming -- he cut off the conditional phrase at the beginning of the reg, that referred to 'For purposes of...'.

But I may have misremembered. Somebody should check.

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 20 November 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Yes it was.  At the same time, wouldn't it be negligent of the government to ignore the potential defense interests that could and would be available as a direct result of such explorations and the technologies that make them possible?  Of course the military and government would have a keen interest in this kind of thing, and rightfully so if they were doing their jobs and fulfilling their responsibilities during the Cold War.  Even up through today's world these things are important to consider and undoubtedly maintained for the security of the US and its allies.

I agree, I think the wording maybe be pertinent in as far as stating its primary function was defence as opposed to exploration......where as I think you are saying defense would be a natural by product and this should be acknowledged and and provisions made accordingly....to which I agree.

I suppose the key would be who is really pulling the strings and what was their true agenda

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

booNyzarC, on 20 November 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Yes it was.  At the same time, wouldn't it be negligent of the government to ignore the potential defense interests that could and would be available as a direct result of such explorations and the technologies that make them possible?  Of course the military and government would have a keen interest in this kind of thing, and rightfully so if they were doing their jobs and fulfilling their responsibilities during the Cold War.  Even up through today's world these things are important to consider and undoubtedly maintained for the security of the US and its allies.

That's the resposnisbility of US Air Force Space Command now, isn't it, (a name I love, doesn't sound at all ambitious does it.)

[JimOberg]

I was right, Hoagland [surprise!] was lying, and anybody who trusted him is a fool.

"The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States."

That's a deceptive misquote from the law, and the link is below. The deleted conditional phrase refers to it applying for the purposes of patent law application. Only.



http://dorkmission.b...&max-results=20

July 24, 2008

EXPAT: 3. In segment 4, Hoagland's mind-boggling dishonesty strikes me, as he partially quotes from the Space Act "The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." It drew a response from Mitchell that I'm sure Hoagland relished. "I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language." But of course, if Hoagland had been at all honest he would have completed the clause with "....for the purpose of Chapter 7, Title 35 of the US Code". As we have discussed on this blog previously, Title 35 is exclusively concerned with patent law, and Chapter 7 concerns patent applications by employees. This legal language emphatically does not mean that NASA is "a direct adjunct of DoD", and the book ("Dark Mission") should be corrected. In particular, the very first sentence in the book should be struck. It's a lie.

BARA: It’s not a lie, you’re an idiot. As we’ve discussed before, this specific language gives NASA and the DOD carte blanche to classify any “discoveries” made by NASA. They do not have to be patentable.

EXPAT: Of course they do, if they're covered by this clause. How many times do I have to type these words? TITLE 35 IS EXCLUSIVELY CONCERNED WITH PATENTS. Chapter 17 (sorry, 17 not 7) can be read here:
http://www.access.gp...hapter17_.html. I direct your attention to Sect. 181 in particular. All readers of this blog will, I think, understand the point.

[mcrom901]

quillius, on 20 November 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

ahh I see.....and what do you think these 'specific requirements' or 'end goals' are?

the very same reasons for which the record wasn't set straight in the first place? counter-intelligence, etc.?

quillius, on 20 November 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

also do you use the word Myth to signify a 'lie' or an 'unknown'?

i suppose the modern day legend is no where close to the 'unknown factor'

in any case... i'm not pushing some pet theory here... just highlighting a probable what-if scenario... he's obviously not a fruitcake, but when he says things like an alien delta flew over phoenix, well...

[quillius]

mcrom901, on 20 November 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

the very same reasons for which the record wasn't set straight in the first place? counter-intelligence, etc.?



i suppose the modern day legend is no where close to the 'unknown factor'

in any case... i'm not pushing some pet theory here... just highlighting a probable what-if scenario... he's obviously not a fruitcake, but when he says things like an alien delta flew over phoenix, well...

cheers mcrom, the reason I asked for further detail is that I had previously read a hypothesis on Edgar mitchell being involved in a psyop but with a slightly different slant. The article hypothesised that he was there to put the truth out just so it could then be debunked but the lingering 'idea' (ET) is implanted and accepted over time......

and basically trying to clarify if this was your line of thinking when mentioning psyops....

[mcrom901]

747400, on 20 November 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

That's the resposnisbility of US Air Force Space Command now, isn't it, (a name I love, doesn't sound at all ambitious does it.)

that reminded me of this thread on the navy...

[quillius]

JimOberg, on 20 November 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

I was right, Hoagland [surprise!] was lying, and anybody who trusted him is a fool.

"The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States."

That's a deceptive misquote from the law, and the link is below. The deleted conditional phrase refers to it applying for the purposes of patent law application. Only.



http://dorkmission.b...&max-results=20

July 24, 2008

EXPAT: 3. In segment 4, Hoagland's mind-boggling dishonesty strikes me, as he partially quotes from the Space Act "The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." It drew a response from Mitchell that I'm sure Hoagland relished. "I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language." But of course, if Hoagland had been at all honest he would have completed the clause with "....for the purpose of Chapter 7, Title 35 of the US Code". As we have discussed on this blog previously, Title 35 is exclusively concerned with patent law, and Chapter 7 concerns patent applications by employees. This legal language emphatically does not mean that NASA is "a direct adjunct of DoD", and the book ("Dark Mission") should be corrected. In particular, the very first sentence in the book should be struck. It's a lie.

BARA: It’s not a lie, you’re an idiot. As we’ve discussed before, this specific language gives NASA and the DOD carte blanche to classify any “discoveries” made by NASA. They do not have to be patentable.

EXPAT: Of course they do, if they're covered by this clause. How many times do I have to type these words? TITLE 35 IS EXCLUSIVELY CONCERNED WITH PATENTS. Chapter 17 (sorry, 17 not 7) can be read here:
http://www.access.gp...hapter17_.html. I direct your attention to Sect. 181 in particular. All readers of this blog will, I think, understand the point.

thanks I will have a look.

I do think its interesting how Edgar is always very wary with Hoagland and careful in what he says himself, which as I mentioend earlier seems a common trait in the man, I personally put this down to him being a man of science and an intelligent man at that. Hence my eagerness to follow some of what he says.

[quillius]

has anyone been able to access the web link ... www.access.gp etc etc as posted in Jims post #1284???

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

mcrom901, on 20 November 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

that reminded me of this thread on the navy...

Deep Space Battle Cruisers and Space Elevators, how I wish all that was really true.