Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Alisdair.MacDonald

More NASA UFO's?

Are these UFO's?   51 members have voted

  1. 1. Do these videos contain images of UFO's?


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,529 posts in this topic

That train has already left the station, 63,... :innocent: please try and keep up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in other words (on me "missing the point") you dont believe in Dr. Michells claims,... all you did was prove to Jim that Ed claimed there was a cove-up by NASA?

tut tut tut....Hazzard I never thought you would admit to Jim being proved wrong.....still I think McG should save this one :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That train has already left the station, 63,... :innocent: please try and keep up.

add the word 'Woo Woo' then what springs to mind......for me the word is 'sock puppet' and yet I do not know why :santa:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheMacGuffin, on 19 November 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Oberg recently took up an entire thread here dumping on Gordon Coopper, basically calling him a crook, a liar and a crazy.

That's just his standard operating procedure in every single case with those who disagree with him, and should not be considered any more meaningful than that.

JimOberg, on 19 November 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

I never called or even insinuated Cooper was a crook.

I never called or even insinuated Cooper was a liar.

I never called or even insinuated Cooper "crazy".

People who claim I do have no citations to support the vicious accusations, they just express confidence they 'know' what it was I REALLY was trying to say -- but actually didn't say.

Folks, in my opinion you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Please don't waste time accusing each other of knowingly or unknowingly posting falsehoods. That is not the purpose of this thread, which started off about discerning UFOs in film clips.

Everybody -- please drop personal issues, and present facts that are relevant.

Karlis -- mod team member

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, in my opinion you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Please don't waste time accusing each other of knowingly or unknowingly posting falsehoods. That is not the purpose of this thread, which started off about discerning UFOs in film clips.

Everybody -- please drop personal issues, and present facts that are relevant.

Karlis -- mod team member

ok to follow on with the request from Karlis can we agree:

Mitchell accuses the Government of the cover up and also says some individuals within NASA were involved....

again I ask, Deal?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That train has already left the station, 63,... :innocent: please try and keep up.

Can you be a little more speciffic, quillius?

http://en.wikipedia....a:Sock_puppetry

certainly, I point to the angelic emoticon used.....I trust we understand eachother.....and best we both follow Karlis' advice, so as not to derail

Hey, I just call it as I see it. :) Granted I havent been following their entire "debate" on this,...

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If NASA isn't involved in a cover up, then why does Mitchell keep saying things like this in interviews?

"FORMER NASA astronaut and moonwalker Dr Edgar Mitchell - a veteran of the Apollo 14 mission - has stunningly claimed aliens do exist.

And he says extra-terrestrials have visited Earth on several occasions - but the alien contact has been repeatedly covered up by governments for six decades.

Dr Mitchell, 77, said during a radio interview that sources at the space agency who had had contact with aliens described the beings as 'little people who look strange to us."

Which people at the "space agency" have had contacts with the aliens? LOL

http://www.dailytele...r-1111117003802

Those weren't Dr. Mitchell's words. What you've provided here is known as a misquote. He doesn't associate NASA or people who work for NASA as the ones who described "little people who look strange to us." He also mentions photographs when he is asked what they look like. He says "Well 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." If these are photographs that are in the public record, how are they covered up? Answer: they aren't covered up.

Were these photographs taken by NASA or people who work for NASA? Answer: no.

So again, find Dr. Mitchell stating in his own words that NASA was involved in some kind of cover up.

And here it is again: Edgar Mitchell Blows the Lid on NASA. What more is there to say?

The honest thing to say is that Edgar Mitchell says nothing of the sort in this interview. The closest he comes to saying something like that is when he is asked whether or not other people involved with the moon landings "know about this" and he responds saying "Some of the do."

How does that equate to a coverup? How do we know exactly who he is talking about?

No, I am not at all. I have continually posted videos about Mitchell saying that people at NASA have had contact with aliens and so forth.

I don't know if it's humanly possible to do any more than I have done to establish this point, but I'm getting tired of repeating myself about how an "X" is an "X".

You could start by providing an exact quote from him which definitively states that he believes NASA has been involved in a coverup as you have claimed. So far you haven't done so.

In that interview, Mitchell was asked specifically whether people involved in the moon landings know about contacts with aliens, and he answered "some of them do".

Don't take my word for it, all you have to do is listen to what he says for himself.

Again, specifically who is he referring to? How do we know that he isn't talking about someone else who is likewise convinced about alien visitation by the same set of evidence that has convinced him? Knowing about something (which should read: believing something) and being involved in a coverup are not the same thing McG. You'll have to do better if you intend to substantiate your claim.

Maybe a fair compromise at this point would be to say Mitchell says ' people within NASA are part of cover up but NASA as an organistion are not.

deal?

at what point to individuals 'count enough' to represent the organisation they work for?

If you can find where Mitchell says even that, it would be a worthy compromise. However, I don't believe he has even said that.

I wouldn't say that EVERYONE at NASA was involved in the UFO cover up, but clearly Mitchell said that some of them were. As he pointed out, everything to do with ETs and UFOs is very highly compartmentalized and has been since 1950 at least.

Where has he said that anyone at NASA was involved in a coverup? So far you've not provided it.

great I think there is some good middle ground here to reach an agreement....

So we all agree NASA as an organisation has no 'agenda' that is known by all employees, however it is understood that 'individuals' that work within NASA are part/have been part of a cover up....

anyone disagree with this?

I disagree with it. If this is the case we should be able to find somewhere that Dr. Mitchell has indicated so. Are you aware of any place where he has?

As I said, it's a thankless task for me since I can post a dozen things proving that Mitchell really did talk about people at NASA covering up aliens and UFOs, only to be told that what he said doesn't matter anyway what.

And this is after I dutifully answer request after request after request demanding that I PROVE Edgar Mitchell said such things. He did say them, repeatedly, but now I'm just going to be told it doesn't matter any way.

Well, next time when Oberg and friends want to look something up they can do it themselves. Why can't they? Did they break their fingers? LOL

You haven't proven your claim McG. Nothing in what you've presented has Dr. Mitchell saying that NASA or people at NASA have been involved in any kind of coverup.

In addition, he has emphatically stated that NASA is definitively NOT involved with the coverup that he believes has taken place. Again, I quote:

At about 3:40 in

, Mitchell clarifies with "One more thing... it got messed up that this had to do with NASA. It doesn't have anything to do with NASA."

And as quoted by psyche:

LB - Lisa Bonnice

EM - Edgar Mitchell.

LB:
The interviews are quoted as saying that
you say sources at NASA who had contact with aliens

EM:
That is totally false
.

LB: Then let’s clear that up.

EM: Yes, please do. That is not correct. Because I have talked with government people about it, and military people about it,
that was a misquote
.

LB: Good. I’m glad to clear that one up. Have you seen the reports? The articles that are going around?

EM: I’ve seen some of them. They’ve been floating into my computer all day long.

LB: Is there anything else in these articles that you would like to use as an opportunity to say “OK, they misquoted me”?

EM: I would have to look at them individually, but that’s one that, to my knowledge, has nothing to do with NASA.

LB: One of these quotes said that whoever did describe these beings said they resembled “little people who look strange to us.”

EM: Well, we’ve all seen the pictures of the so-called aliens – “little grays.” I have no first-hand evidence that that’s true, but I do accept the fact that those seem to be the prevalent story.

LB: That does seem to be what the majority of people who say they’ve seen them agree upon. Now another one, this one I can see makes so much sense that our technology is not nearly as sophisticated and if they had been hostile we would have been gone by no
w.

EM: Well, if they proved to be hostile, and wanted to do so, they probably could. But there’s utterly no evidence that they really are hostile.

Do you understand the distinction here? Do you see the difference between an actual quote and a misquote?

We have Dr. Mitchell, in his own words, refuting what you've claimed McG.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great I think there is some good middle ground here to reach an agreement....

So we all agree NASA as an organisation has no 'agenda' that is known by all employees, however it is understood that 'individuals' that work within NASA are part/have been part of a cover up....anyone disagree with this?

Mitchell did NOT say that. He claimed [at 08:30 in the video] that 'some' people KNEW about alien visits [without saying who they were or what they did or didn't do with the knowledge]. That could easily be someone like John Schuessler, who was an energetic UFO investigator, or Al Pennington, a friend of mine, who worked Apollo missions in Mission Control, became a space shuttle Flight Director, and believed that UFOs were real [even while realizing that the stories about space sightings were baseless].

Just because a person 'knows' that UFOs are real does NOT make them a 'participant in a coverup. McG "knows", but does that make HIS employer a participant in a coverup? Silly notion.

Still, it's an intriguing interview, of unknown date/time/location.

I found it eye-opening to see that Mitchell believes that to enforce the UFO coverup, the dark forces used to kill people.

at 7:40 I don't think they're knocking people off any more”

I also note that the original poster of the audio, Andy Bell Ashburton, is a fan of [drumroll...] Clark McClelland and his by-now-thoroughly-discredited ravinbgs.

http://hgn53k.blogsp...11_archive.html

An e-mail received today 31/07/2008 To important to leave out!

A past Space Shuttle ScO, admits ET's are Real. And this ScO has seen them, himself with another witness!

29 July 2008 Clark C. McClelland, former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet, Kennedy Space Center, Florida, 1958 to 1992.



http://hgn53k.blogsp...11_archive.html

An e-mail received today 31/07/2008 To important to leave out!

A past Space Shuttle ScO, admits ET's are Real. And this ScO has seen them, himself with another witness!

29 July 2008 Clark C. McClelland, former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet, Kennedy Space Center, Florida, 1958 to 1992.



http://hgn53k.blogsp...11_archive.html

An e-mail received today 31/07/2008 To important to leave out!

A past Space Shuttle ScO, admits ET's are Real. And this ScO has seen them, himself with another witness!

29 July 2008 Clark C. McClelland, former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet, Kennedy Space Center, Florida, 1958 to 1992.

=======

Jim back: When Mitchell says 'some of them knew', he could even be referring to Clark McClelland. Wouldn't that be a hoot!

.

Edited by JimOberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

"He (like you) can believe and claim all sorts of things, but without substantial evidence its worthless,... all we have here is a person saying something. Its up the the listener to believe him, or not.

Worthless."

Oh and as for the ..."Mitchell also says that a teenage remote healer who lives in Vancouver helped him heal kidney cancer from a distance. Do you believe that?"...jibe Hazzard,...what on earth has that got to do with NASA's alleged knowledge of UFO's...??...Nothing at all has it!...merely another one of your attempts to paint a proponent of the ETH as nothing more than a superstitious simpleton isn't it!...When once again you are just showing your ignorance of a very real scientifically proven and well documented aspect of human recovery, 'The Placebo Effect' !...you can look that one up yourself, because unlike MacGuffin...I have more important things to do than play to your unreasonable games.!

Cheers.

Hiya 1963.

As you can hopefully see in my previous post, nobody has proven that Dr. Mitchell is of the opinion that NASA is withholding knowledge of the subject. On the contrary, it appears to be proven that he does NOT hold this belief at all.

When you say, "easily-accessible material that they could have found themselves...if they had really wanted to!" it makes me wonder if you think we weren't already aware of Dr. Mitchell's statements on the matter. If that was the impression you were under, I'd like to set the record straight; I'm more than aware of his statements, and it is clear that his statements do not support the claim that NASA or people working with NASA have been involved in any kind of coverup.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

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.

:wacko:

.

Edited by bee
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

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.

:wacko:

.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.jamesoberg.com/97sepxxhousecomittee_mir_safety.pdf

Edited by JimOberg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hang on a minute, Edgar in the

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

:innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.