1528 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 19 November 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

.


Are we getting into semantics over all this.....

http://science.howst...ks.com/nasa.htm


while NASA is described as an 'Independent civilian space agency'.....it's creation by Congress...it's funding...and general direction

is lead by the US Government.....?


it would technically be the Government who is doing the 'covering up'......but as a civilian branch of government NASA would naturally be

under instructions from Government about what it could and couldn't make public. What would be classified and what wouldn't...


Mitchell doesn't go out of his way to point the finger at NASA (who would be the ones paying his retirement pension?).....but he doesn't have to.....

by saying that the government is...and has been covering up ET visitation...NASA is naturally and obviously implicated...as a 'civilian' branch of government.

In other words....Covering up stuff in the  'National Interest'....would not be something NASA could do independent of Government...

The government would lead in matters of 'security' and NASA would follow...? And by following would be part of the cover up.







.

And yet you ignore his quite clear statements that run contrary to your disparately connected dots.

How does one interpret it when Edgar Mitchel says "One more thing... it got messed up that this had to do with NASA.  It doesn't have anything to do with NASA."  ??

How much more clear does the man have to make it before people will stop attributing false meanings to his words?

[JimOberg]

1963, on 19 November 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

You see MacGuffin,..this is an example of why it is a complete waste of time engaging into this kind of activity with certain 'uncompromising-sceptics' around these parts.
The task that was set for you was to provide examples of Dr. Mitchell actually stating his belief that NASA is withholding knowledge of the subject in question, as though they deemed it an important point! ... And you duly provided the [easily-accessible  material that they could have found themselves...if they had really wanted to!]...Only for the same old sentiment to come back..

"Easily accessible" is a two-edged sword, since McG -- or YOU -- then should have been able to find the interview in which Mitchell explicitly said that the claim HE claimed NASA was involved in the coverup was distorted and untrue.

But you didn't.

Using existing search engines on the Internet is indeed an art rather than a science, and especially in controversial topics such as UFOs, the 'hits' are usually dominated by echo-chamber repitions of the sexiest spins, rather than a fair collection of pro and con argumentation.

It's why threads such as this one provide a worthwhile antidote, as adherents each search for the strongest material to support their arguments. Most definitely NOT a waste of time.

In the end of this particular dispute, after all the effort that McG has obviousl put into it, and all the false alarms about 'proof', he did find one quotation that mentioned how Mitchell believes that 'some' people involved in the moon landing "know" that UFOs are real.

But how does that translate into NASA, or even any NASA personnel or veterans, participating in a 'coverup', as McG has claimed Mitchell claimed?

Mitchell quite easily could have been referring to his Apollo-10 crewmate Gordo Cooper, and his statement would be factually true, since Cooper did have those beliefs. But Cooper also did not participate in any "coverup". That's a leap of faith, or blind belief, that still defies logic -- IMHO, of course.

[bee]

booNyzarC, on 19 November 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

And yet you ignore his quite clear statements that run contrary to your disparately connected dots.

How does one interpret it when Edgar Mitchel says "One more thing... it got messed up that this had to do with NASA.  It doesn't have anything to do with NASA."  ??

How much more clear does the man have to make it before people will stop attributing false meanings to his words?

I other words.....NASA didn't decide to cover it up....the Government did.

The decision to cover up didn't have anything to do with NASA. They aren't in a position to make decisions like that.

But they must follow government decisions.

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 19 November 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

I other words.....NASA didn't decide to cover it up....the Government did.

The decision to cover up didn't have anything to do with NASA. They aren't in a position to make decisions like that.

But they must follow government decisions.

You're completely inventing that bee.  Why can't you just give Mitchell credit for his actual words?  Why must you try to add more meaning into them than is there?

[JimOberg]

bee, on 19 November 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

I other words.....NASA didn't decide to cover it up....the Government did.

The decision to cover up didn't have anything to do with NASA. They aren't in a position to make decisions like that.

But they must follow government decisions.

Bee, it's amazing to me to watch how you argue that Mitchell's words did not mean what he said he meant, but instead mean what YOU want them to mean. Look up 'confirmation bias' on the internet, as a reasoning flaw that we ALL are vulnerable to, especially those of us who refuse to acknoweledge that possibility.

So you insist that Mitchell DID say that NASA took part in a coverup, only that it was ordered to do so?

Where did Mitchell say that? Not a single alleged 'admission' quotation over the past several days EVER said that. It's just, perhaps, that you WANT his comments to have said that, and you'll twist the words into any pretzel to justify your existing viewpoint.

[bee]

booNyzarC, on 19 November 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

You're completely inventing that bee.  Why can't you just give Mitchell credit for his actual words?  Why must you try to add more meaning into them than is there?

no I'm not...it's a line of logic...

whistleblowers have to choose their words carefully....

Perhaps lots of people at NASA would have loved to have gone public about UFOs etc...but couldn't because of government decisions to cover up...

.

[JimOberg]

bee, on 19 November 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

no I'm not...it's a line of logic...whistleblowers have to choose their words carefully....

Perhaps lots of people at NASA would have loved to have gone public about UFOs etc...but couldn't because of government decisions to cover up...  

Mitchell was by no rational stretch of the imagination a 'whistleblower'. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Better example: I was a whistle blower.

http://www.jamesober...ngr-testify.jpg
http://www.jamesober...ngr-testify.jpg

1997: Jim testifies before Congress about his concerns over flagging NASA flight safety standards, shortly before leaving his 22-year career at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.

Link to prepared statement:
http://www.jamesober..._mir_safety.pdf

Edited by JimOberg, 19 November 2012 - 04:12 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

That argument does make sense, though, I have to admit. If tehy're dependent on government fudning, they'd naturally have to go along with whatever pressure the Government put on them.
Not necessarily saying I agree with any or all of the stuff about Astronauts & UFOs, but that seems a reasonable assumption.

[bee]

JimOberg, on 19 November 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

Mitchell was by no rational stretch of the imagination a 'whistleblower'. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

more semantics...?

Mitchell certainly blew the whistle on the US government.....

IMO

.

[booNyzarC]

747400, on 19 November 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

That argument does make sense, though, I have to admit. If tehy're dependent on government fudning, they'd naturally have to go along with whatever pressure the Government put on them.
Not necessarily saying I agree with any or all of the stuff about Astronauts & UFOs, but that seems a reasonable assumption.

Many pieces of fiction can "make sense" but that doesn't make them factual.  Anyone can come up with a plausible story, but it is still just a story.  What is happening here is that people are making up stories and then believing them to be factual, which is unhealthy and dishonest.  Being imaginative is a positive thing, but when it leads to self delusion it can be destructive.

[quillius]

hang on a minute, Edgar in the

booNyzarC, on 19 November 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

And yet you ignore his quite clear statements that run contrary to your disparately connected dots.

How does one interpret it when Edgar Mitchel says "One more thing... it got messed up that this had to do with NASA.  It doesn't have anything to do with NASA."  ??

How much more clear does the man have to make it before people will stop attributing false meanings to his words?

Hey Boon, its actually very clear.....especially in full context, what Edgar is saying up here is that NASA were not involved with 'Roswell cover up' ...thats it

give me two minutes to go through my folder to find what I am talking about.

Edited by quillius, 19 November 2012 - 04:13 PM.

[JimOberg]

bee, on 19 November 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

more semantics...?

Mitchell certainly blew the whistle on the US government.....

IMO

You may use words any way that you like, of course. But it was my impression the standard definition of whistleblower is somebody who uses their OWN personal knowledge from inside an organization to expose misbehavior of that organization. Repeating gossip from others who claim to have had inside knowledge does not a whistleblower make.

however, in doing a definition search, such as
http://legal-diction.../Whistleblowing
I see that the insider status is 'usually' but not exclusively a criterion:

So your usage is evidently within the range.

My apologies for the lecture, and my thanks for making me double-check the definition.

Edited by JimOberg, 19 November 2012 - 04:18 PM.

[quillius]

JimOberg, on 19 November 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Bee, it's amazing to me to watch how you argue that Mitchell's words did not mean what he said he meant, but instead mean what YOU want them to mean. Look up 'confirmation bias' on the internet, as a reasoning flaw that we ALL are vulnerable to, especially those of us who refuse to acknoweledge that possibility.

So you insist that Mitchell DID say that NASA took part in a coverup, only that it was ordered to do so?

Where did Mitchell say that? Not a single alleged 'admission' quotation over the past several days EVER said that. It's just, perhaps, that you WANT his comments to have said that, and you'll twist the words into any pretzel to justify your existing viewpoint.

as I said to Boon, he is talking about Roswell, so it does mean what he said but not the interpretation put forth so far.

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 19 November 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

no I'm not...it's a line of logic...

whistleblowers have to choose their words carefully....

Perhaps lots of people at NASA would have loved to have gone public about UFOs etc...but couldn't because of government decisions to cover up...

.

Following the same line of "logic" we could come up with all kinds of "what if" scenarios, but without something to back them up in the real world they are nothing more than imaginative flights of fancy.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

quillius, on 19 November 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

hang on a minute, Edgar in the


Hey Boon, its actually very clear.....especially in full context, what Edgar is saying up here is that NASA were not involved with 'Roswell cover up' ...thats it

give me two minutes to go through my folder to find what I am talking about.

Well, to be pendantic, NASA probably wouldn't have had anything to do with R*swell, since NASA was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act on July 29, 1958, replacing its predecessor, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA).