Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 4 votes

More NASA UFO's?

ufo nasa

  • Please log in to reply
1528 replies to this topic

Poll: Are these UFO's? (51 member(s) have cast votes)

Do these videos contain images of UFO's?

  1. Yes (22 votes [43.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 43.14%

  2. No (29 votes [56.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 56.86%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1261    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:06 AM

In this interview, Mitchell said that he first asked about Roswell in the 1980s and was told it was a true ET craft by various military and intelligence officers.




#1262    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:16 AM

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


#1263    bee

bee

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,932 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:58 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 18 November 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

Oberg didn't like the UFO Hunters episode on NASA, did he?  They had Edgar Mitchell on there, as well as Donna Hare, John Schuessler, Jack Kasher and Brian O'Leary, who were all telling a very different story than his.  LOL  All of them say there's a cover up at NASA about UFOs and ETs.




Hi MacGuffin....I missed this post the other day. Thanks for that....a decent programme, just watched it...

:tu:


#1264    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 15,311 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:08 AM

This is all really quite simple, Dr. Mitchell has never said he has hard evidence (ie, proof) that the Roswell incident was an alien UFO. What he has said is that through talking with various individuals his personal opinion is that the Roswell incident was that of a crashed alien UFO. Dr. Mitchell (like everyone) has a right to voice his personal opinion. Unless and until some type of hard evidence surfaces we're basically left with various personal opinions regarding the Roswell UFO. IMO no amount of discussion can 'solve' this...we need some hard evidence.

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

"All that live must die, passing through nature into eternity" ~Shakespeare~ Posted Image

#1265    bee

bee

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,932 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:40 AM

.


It is obviously also Mitchell's 'personel opinion'...that the military and intelligence people (some high ranking)

who were around at the time who spoke to him about it all, and  elected him to speak for them...

were on the level and telling the truth. He then did his own investigations on the subject.

IMO...Edgar Mitchell was not duped or fooled or used by these people...ie. the military and intelligence 'old timers'..

He's not stupid. And although it would have been nice to have been a fly on the wall when all these conversations

took place......we either believe Edgar or we don't.

And I believe him.

We will probably wait forever and a day for official 'hard evidence'.....so we have to make do with what we DO have.

:yes:


.

Edited by bee, 20 November 2012 - 11:41 AM.


#1266    bmk1245

bmk1245

    puny village idiot

  • Member
  • 3,938 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vilnius, Lithuania

Posted 20 November 2012 - 12:34 PM

View Postbee, on 20 November 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

[...]
He's not stupid. [...]
Neither Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was, but...

Posted Image

Arguing with fool is like playing chess with pigeon: he will scatter pieces, peck King's crown, crap on bishop, and fly away bragging how he won the game... (heard once, author unknown).
Zhoom! What was that? That was your life, Mate! Oh, that was quick. Do I get another? Sorry, Mate. That's your lot. Basil Fawlty (John Cleese).

#1267    bee

bee

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,932 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:11 PM

@bmk...

IF Edgar Mitchell had got his info from a couple of girls you might have a point..... :P


.


#1268    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,955 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:26 PM

http://www.enterpris...com/dtran4.html

This exchange is worth reading as it relates directly. This is from 1996 quite early in his 'research'.

Apologies for not replying directly to each of you to whom I owe a reply. At this point however I do think that Edgar does not point the finger at NASA directly at least from what I have found. There has been a lot taken out of context and things have been very twisted. In response to some of the 'quotes' from Edgar saying NASA were not involved (in regards to interviews since the St Petersburg one in 2004) were in the Roswell context and this is what he is saying it was a Government cover up...logic should tell us this anyway as 747 pointed out the dates.

The Hoagland debate above does put some interesting spins on things though IMO.


Having said all that, whether he implicates NASA or not, he clearly believes many people who have told him things, as shown below some of these cannot be misinterpretation, and remember he has more than one source corroborating the story of a Roswell cover up.

as per below example
We  have the interview on Kerrang radio from 23rd July 2008, with the relevant part below:


Margerrison:  ARE WE TALKING – WHAT DO THEY LOOK LIKE?
Mitchell:  You’ve seen some of the pictures. The pictures that I know of, some of them are these little people that look strange to us. As far as I know from my (professional) contacts that have had contact, that’s pretty accurate.
Margerrison:  DO YOU THINK OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED WITH THE MOON LANDINGS KNOW ABOUT THIS?
Mitchell:  Some of them do. But again, like other people, if you are interested enough to dig into it and want to know about it, you can know about it.
he states his contacts that have had contact...no room for them misinterpreting a light in the sky...its says contact.

sorry havent more time as there are loads more points I would like to discuss....maybe best to re-fire the old Edgar thread...


#1269    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,955 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:34 PM

View Postmcrom901, on 19 November 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

that he has been selected by the intelligence circles to perpetuate the myths which serve specific requirements?

ahh I see.....and what do you think these 'specific requirements' or 'end goals' are?
also do you use the word Myth to signify a 'lie' or an 'unknown'?


#1270    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,955 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:37 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 19 November 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Sorry mate but no. Mitchell says the only one he actually knows about is Roswell, and NASA had no hand in it. And he only knows about Roswell from a second hand point of view.

I agree to the point that it was the Roswell cover up he was referencing when saying NASA had no involvement.

and I have been pondeering for a while the wording used 'no personal awareness of'.....


#1271    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,955 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:45 PM

View PostJimOberg, on 19 November 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

It's an exciting thesis, emotionally rewarding, and consistent with 'forward-thinking' and optimism, and there IS a lot of testimony that seems to corroborate it. And the way he expresses it, it is deliberately non-refutable, which is the clue I detect that makes it worthy of more than a little skepticism.

you had me until the bolded part. I must ask for some examples of the expressions he used to sound non-refutable......


View PostJimOberg, on 19 November 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:


Could easily be true, but we'll never know for sure as we drown in 'noise' that masquerades any readable signal. There are identifiable stimuli very worthy of closer study, and there are intriguing stories that appear to be resistent to prosaic explanation. What they really prove, so far, is nothing -- but they have such a potential for advancing human knowledge that they deserve study, especially BETTER study than has so far been applied.

agree with the bolded :)  (oh and for the record the noise is forthcoming from both sides of the fence, is one with nefarious intent though?)


#1272    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,955 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 20 November 2012 - 01:54 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

All "whistleblowers" for want of a better word, proclaim they could not speak out because of non disclosure agreements. I have never seen Edgar Mitchell imply that he is restricted about speaking his mind by and NDA, nor does he seem to be stifled in any way. As close as one can imagine is NASA saying they do not support his views, which is pretty benign.
Has Ed Mitchell ever stated he is restricted by such an agreement? I have never seen such, I have only seen others assume this could be the case.

EM: Well, Richard, I am never loathe to investigate anomalous phenomenon. Sometimes I don't have enough time to investigate all the ones I want to look at, and if you have indeed really turned up a very strange and bizarre set of events that are not explainable, sure I'm intrigued. I'm always intrigued by that. What I am turned off by is jumping to conclusions that, when there's a more obvious way to go.
AB: All right. Gentlemen, I want to jump in and ask a question. Richard, in the facts that you sent to me earlier today, you said Dr. Mitchell, on his previous appearance emphatically claimed that he was not precluded by NASA from discussing anything, that he either saw or experienced during his Apollo 14 flight. You, in fact, did say that, Dr. Mitchell, correct? All right, Richard says the NASA Space Act itself, in light Brookings strong recommendation, says otherwise, that you were, in fact, barred from discussing many things that you would have seen and done. Is that correct, Richard?
RH: Well, let's not be unclear on this. I have in my hands a copy of Public Law 85-568 from the 85th Congress HR 12575 published July 29, 1958 called An Act, which is the enabling legislation which created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This is the document which basically brought into being the agency which employed Ed Mitchell to go to the moon back in 1971. And there are several interesting sections to this. This entire document is up on the Enterprise Mission Web Site, which can be reached through the Art Bell Web Site on the Net. On page 4, there is a section titled "Functions of the Administration," meaning NASA. And it says that section 203, "The administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this act, shall 1. plan, direct and conduct aeronautical and space activities, 2. arrange for participation by ? committee, etc., 3. provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the result thereof." Now, that's the part that we always quote because it's the part that the American people have as their guarantee that everything that NASA found, it got to see. All right? Unfortunately, as we look through the act, we have found that there are other interesting sections that are not as generally well-known. For instance, there is a section on page 8. Well, let me start with page 7. This is section 206, subsection A, "The administration (meaning NASA) shall submit to the President for transmittal to the Congress, semiannually and at other times as is deemed desirable, report to its activities and accomplishments." It then says, section D, "No information which has been classified for reason of national security shall be included in any report made under this section unless such information has been declassified by, or pursuant to authorization given, by the President." So there's a caveat there. Now..
EM: Let me jump in there, Richard, because we're spending a lot of time on details here. Let me just cut across that. There are some valid areas of technical development that I'm sure military and security people which they came out of the NASA program. By and large, those are very, very limited, but I can think of some. For example, the development of computer technologies was certainly not released to all nations of the world, and it was classified in some way. But, we're talking about discovery here. What is really the issue of going to the moon and the data that we recovered. Scientific data in this sense was not classified. We were not under any restriction on what we reported. Yes, there was a time delay between the live voice circuit and what went out on the air. I think most of that was designed to keep four letter words, because sometimes we spoke a lightly gruffly, four letter from getting out without censorship, but the content of what we were reporting, the content of what we were doing was not, in any way, classified. We were not briefed on anything concerning scientific research. It was not even discussed about extraterrestrials. Good Lord, we would have loved to have been able to discuss something about that, or to have had something to discuss. It simply wasn't there. Technical information having to do with national security, military operations, the sophistication of our equipment, yes, there might have been some classified stuff, but, by and large, at NASA there was very little.
RH: Let me make another couple of points here from the Act. Further down on this page 8 relating to security, section 304, and this again is on the web site for those who want to read it. "The administrators shall establish such security requirements, restrictions and safeguards, as he deems necessary (Notice the assumption that it's always going to be a "he," 1958, all right) in the interest of the national security." Ed, we have a study from Brookings that was commissioned in '59 and was delivered to the Congress in '61, which we call the Brookings Report, which is a several hundred page document with a section related to specifically to the implications of NASA's confirmation of extraterrestrial intelligence, either by means of radio or artifacts, and they claim that you might find them, NASA might find them someday, from the perspective of '59 on the moon, Mars or Venus. There, then, is another sections of Brookings related to the recommendation that consideration be given to withholding such a discovery from the American people for reason of fear of social dislocation or social disturbance. The Act itself...
EM: Well, that may be true, Richard. I don't have any problem with the fact that it's written in the record.
RH: What I'm saying is that the act itself provides in law the mechanism for the administrator, for whom you work, for whom you sign documents, to restrict dissemination of this information if it ever came to pass. Now, the problem that I'm having is that we're all lawful individuals. We all presume we operate under the law. If this, in fact, was a reality, then sitting on the radio this morning you could not, in conscience with what you have signed, admit to the presence of remarkable anomalies there in consonance with the administrator's classification, if that ever came to pass.
EM: Well, you're stretching it way out of context. Let's say that at the time that was done it was undoubtedly considered a prudent policy to write such a thing into effect. In practice, what has happened, however, is that I know of no administrators since that time who have really considered extraterrestrial intelligence, or anyone at NASA at that level of operation that gave it practical consideration of something that needed to be done. As far as operation as crews, people on the job doing it, it had utterly no effect on us whatsoever. And I have signed nothing suggests that I am aware of that, or that I am required to be circumspect in what I say. It simply doesn't exist. That is ..
RH: Ed, I am quoting..
EM: ?...theoretical structures, and that quote of yours has virtually no practical bearing on what we're talking about.
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.
RH: Isn't it? Now, what that implies is that, in consonance with Brookings, if, not you guys, let's take the astronauts out of the equations for a minute, because as I said at the top of the show, there are absolutely physical models in which you could have landed in the middle of this stuff and not seen it. I really firmly believe that. So let's take you out of the equation. If there were people in NASA who knew there were interesting things there, and they were specifically looking for further information, and the landing sites were chosen so they could get it, maybe, without your knowledge from the films, from the seismic data, whatever, the administrator with this language can classify all of that and Golden, to this day, does not have to tell us unless Bill Clinton says, "Dan, we want to finally now go public."
EM: In principle I think you may be right, if that language that you've just read ...
RH: It's on the record.
EM: ? ...however, in practice, that simply is not the way it happened. That isn't the way sites were selected. That isn't the way mission were chosen. That sort of knowledge that you're talking about might have existed, simply didn't exist. How would it have existed in the first place. Simply didn't exist. It didn't operate so what we're getting awfully close to in this discussion is some more of the great conspiracy theories which we hear a lot of floating around the country at this point, which simply don't hold water. They should be looked at. I don't want to dismiss them totally out of hand. Yes, there are people within government who might hold that point of view, but frankly in this particular area in going to the moon during the Apollo program, during the entire NASA program, that sort of conspiracy and that sort of cover-up simply did not happen. However, it is quite clear that many within the military and within the intelligence establishment would very much like to have operated under those rules. We didn't, however.
RH: All right.
AB: Gentlemen, I've got to break in. We've got one more hour if you can both give us one more hour?
RH: Oh, why not, Art.
EM: Ha, ha. We've ruined the night already...
RH: It is dawn here on the east coast for both of us.
EM: Might as well stick with it.
AB: Yes. All right. Very good. Gentlemen, stand by.


#1273    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,961 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:16 PM

He is dead now, but I knew a man who was a navigator on B-24s in WWII.  Howard maintained friendships with several of his former airmen, one in particular, who stayed in the military as a career.

That man died before Howard did, and on his deathbed was released from his oath of silence. Howard was present for his deathbed confession, and that confession was that it was his ship that took the remains from the Roswell event from there to Wright Patterson in Ohio.

That man did get a look at his cargo on that flight, and they were alien beings.

I don't understand why so many people act as though the government tells the truth, and nothing but the truth, and the whole truth.  And take that position claiming some fidelity to the scientific method. :cry:


#1274    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:18 PM

View PostHazzard, on 20 November 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

I actually thought that Dr. Mitchell claimed that NASA was part of a cover-up.  I stand corrected.

That's probably because of the lies and misinformation that some people choose to propagate even though they've been shown that it is blatantly false.


View PostHazzard, on 20 November 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

Thanks for posting, psyche and boon.

No problem Hazz.  Happy to share the information.  :tu:


#1275    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 4,955 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:26 PM

why did NASA decide to comment on the back of the Kerrang interview......

could this be why


Kerrang! Radio reported at its website:
“Producer Alex contacted NASA to confirm Dr. Mitchell's story, this was their reply:

‘Dear Alex,
NASA does not track UFOs.
NASA is not involved in any sort of cover-up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.
Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinion on this issue.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.’

http://www.thewhiten...82&forum_id=196



although I have seen this phrase banded about also:


A rep for NASA told CNN: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover-up about alien life on this planet or anywhere else - period."


is it the same NASA message by spokeperson Michael Cabbage? or is this another?

Edited by quillius, 20 November 2012 - 02:52 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users