Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Edgar Mitchell UFO interview on Kerrang Radio


Pestarzt

Recommended Posts

Ed is still a messenger no matter how you draw this picture, and has no personal knowledge.

Ed Mitchell is on the same page as those who were in a position to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 466
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • psyche101

    121

  • quillius

    85

  • booNyzarC

    54

  • skyeagle409

    49

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

You should know that as a citizen, yes I am in such a position because I have access to public learning resources and can think.

As an example of what I was talking about, what can you tell me about the so-called "Aurora?"

Have blue was based on the F117A, and used technical components from the 1960s in it's design.

"Have Blue" was similar, but not from the same airframe as the F-117. Apparently, the public was totally unaware of "Have Blue" and the F-117 before the Air Force revealed both aircraft, which underlines my point that the average person on the street in not in a position to proclaim that, for which that person is not in a position to know.

What I want to know if what each UFO really is.

First of all, you want to know whether the object is of natural origin or an artificial object under intelligent control. The latter can be easily ascertained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you cannot. You can put up some long lists of numbers that mean we have an anomaly if you present them in a coherent format. Saying "there is nothing in our closet like that" upon a visual inspection is backwards move back to worshiping gods who throw bolts of lightning. If you had definitive proof, and did not have to "build a case" for ET, you would have settled this by now, so lets put the games aside shall we at least for the moment? You have a belief, you have constructed some cases to allude to the conclusion you prefer, and we have a small percentage on unexplained anomalies that is about it. Calling on the Gods to explain unknowns is not productive to anyone, nor does it "prove" ET.

Actually, I already have. The numbers from the data have been verified and confirmed the object was under intelligent control. I even tied one set of data to the radar imagery from an F-16 that was revealed by the Belgian Air Force..

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was not taken out of thin air, Project MOGUL did indeed exist. To deny such is ludicrous.

No doubt Project Mogul existed, no argument from me there, but the Air Force pulled false tales about Project Mogul out of thin air. Project Mogul was never classfied because it was just a simple research project.

The fact that Mogul balloons were sometimes abandoned in open fields and left lyng next to a roadway, should have told people that the project was not classified at all, especially since ordinary people were recoverying them for rewards and that should have told people that the project wasn't classified.

In other words, you don't allowed the general public to come anywhere near a classified project whatsoever, but as it was, the general public was invited to add their own data input on questionnaires attached to Mogul balloons, which were in english and spanish.

What I found amazing is, how easy the Air Force was able to dupe the public on Project Mogul, but then again, the public didn't learn its lesson after the Air Force duped the public for 47 years on a weather balloon that never was, to a Mogul balloon train flight that never was Thaere is a pattern of deception on the part of the Air Force that is being seriously ignored.

The extra found RAWINS support Lost Shamans hypothesis, you should read it sometime.

The rawin devices were nowhere near Roswell, but east of Wright-Patterson AFB, and even in Arizona, and in California, which is a long way from Roswell AAF, and that excludes the 509th of Roswell AAF as responsible for those rawin devices.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I already have. The numbers from the data have been verified and confirmed the object was under intelligent control. I even tied one set of data to the radar imagery from an F-16 that was revealed by the Belgian Air Force..

You have?!? You do!?!? Oh my goodness! That is such a revelation!

Oh wait... you aren't talking about the same thing you've posted 83 times already are you?

Advanced search for:

00 200 150 7000

Poster:

skyeagle409

as Posts...

Returned 83 results for me as of right now... I don't know if this link will work, but here are your posts on this specific subject based on that search.

And you know what? It still doesn't prove that ET was involved in that particular sighting any more than it did the first time you mentioned it.

Did you read what Major General (then Colonel) Wilfried de Brouwer said about this data? Here, let me help you:

Nevertheless, the pilots could not establish visual contacts and the investigation revealed that specific weather conditions may have caused electromagnetic interferences and false radar returns. The technical evidence was insufficient to conclude that abnormal air activities took place during that evening.

I'd say that pretty much sums up how definitive your radar data is in terms of ET visitation. Wouldn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have?!? You do!?!? Oh my goodness! That is such a revelation!

Oh wait... you aren't talking about the same thing you've posted 83 times already are you?

Advanced search for:

00 200 150 7000

Poster:

skyeagle409

as Posts...

Returned 83 results for me as of right now... I don't know if this link will work, but here are your posts on this specific subject based on that search.

And you know what? It still doesn't prove that ET was involved in that particular sighting any more than it did the first time you mentioned it.

Did you read what Major General (then Colonel) Wilfried de Brouwer said about this data? Here, let me help you:

Nevertheless, the pilots could not establish visual contacts and the investigation revealed that specific weather conditions may have caused electromagnetic interferences and false radar returns. The technical evidence was insufficient to conclude that abnormal air activities took place during that evening.

I'd say that pretty much sums up how definitive your radar data is in terms of ET visitation. Wouldn't you?

Since the encounter lasted around an hour or so, there was a lot of data recorded, and I posted data of less than 30 seconds that the general was NOT referring to. That is why I posted that short segment of the data, which I tied to the radar screen and when I did so, that was a cue that the data was accurate.

That segment of data I released had already been verified, even by the Belgian Military Academy and F-16 pilots.

Heck, now we are getting off-topic again.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that with every single analogy I put up. Obviously we think quite differently.

Explain to me why it is a stretch, and why I could not do that to skirt the laws as you have described them please. I ask that you answer this one on your own.

I do think we agree once every hundred comments :) not bad taking into account distance.

Ok a cookbook with a page at the back with slanderous material directed at one person is different IMO, for the analogy to work then you would have to have said the cookbook contained recipes and directions on baking a cake. A chef (Madson) gave details on how to prepare the base of the cake etc etc...however the cookbook author changed parts of teh recipe or excluded a certain process of making the cake...then here we have the similarity and the analogy would have been closer. As it stands having a page at the back of a cookbook dedicated to defamation and slander directed at an individual is different to the desription I gave. Therein lies the difference and why I thought the analogy missed the mark.

May I ask why you finished with 'I ask you answer this one on your own' ? it has puzzled me, does this indicate that you think I seek help to post sometimes????

Don't you live in the states? You are getting me on the other side of the world to tell you your own laws? Should it not be the other way around?

So if that is right, Madson we retired when the report was written. It does not matter what date the report started on, when it was finished and released is the official date, and the4 R&D for the report had to be within 6 years, as the previous report was released then.

no I do not live in the states. I live in London. With regards to your points on retirement age, OK, I see where you are coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the information is accurate or not matters not to you, you only care that Ed believes what he is saying?

it does matter, but we are not discussing the validity of the information. And yes at this point before moving onto the information itself, I do believe what he is saying, surely this has to be the starting point.

Please show where he mentions people from another place, or where he alludes to people being in another place. Every time I read it, the only location mentioned is Roswell, if you want to extend that, the only way I can see you doing that with this stament is if you make that part up yourself. Look

His going to the moon gave them confidence so he says yes, now if he did not know them from were he grew up - Roswell - why was he chosen over any other Astronaut? Where does he say the Military and intelligence people were not Roswellians?

He says:

You are making that to be

some locals,

and

others military and intelligence people, then you extend this bit to "From somewhere not mentioned"

This is what I am talking about.

LINK

http://www.finerminds.com/metaphysical/samadhi-edgar-mitchell/

No I still dont see it Psyche, I think he does not in anyway say that the others military and intelligence people came from Roswell.

'some locals, and others military and intelligence people' so why does he put the words 'and others' if they are also locals.

Maybe it would be good to get someone else's interpretation here on what Edgar is saying. Personally I would be suprised if anyone else reaads it as the everyone he mentions is supposedly from Roswell. As it stands I do not think this is the case and you do, and I dont think either of us is going to budge unless there is sufficient weight of support for either view.

Maybe it would be best if soemone like Boon or LS interjected to support either view, at least you could be confident there would be no 'ET' bias in their interpretation.

If either of those two say I am wrong also and that Edgar clearly implies that all concerned are from Roswell I will concede the notion I am mistaken..

does that seem fair to you?

Edited by quillius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What! You certainly are picking up some ETH habits and cutting out research. If you are confused man, ask me, I am right here. Do not make assumptions on my balhalf, there is absolutely no need! That conversation with Cassandra was not regarding his actions since 1990, cassandra said

I obviously dont agree on the bad habits part. I am also not confused here. And lastly no assumptions were made by me. I simply read your sentence that said 'his faculties shutting down' and I stick with this is the assumption, that his faculties are shutting down, also assumpitous that these are affecting his ability to think clearly.

again below you say ''take advantage of one who used to be sharper' how do you know he is not as sharp now as he once was?

This is referring to recent times i.e. the camera, the heavy media exposure etc, as McGuffin pointed out, he has been taling Aliens since the early 90's yet over the last 2-3 years he is making headlines with the same tales. Is that not reason from me to quietly surmise a nefarious angle? I never said it was fact, I never said it was Ed losing his mind, Cassandra said he is intelligent, nicknamed "brains" and I said as things shut down, people might take d=advantage of one who used to be sharper. It might veen be a game to some twisted individual for all we know! Your eyesight starts to shut down at only 40! I am speaking natural aging, not a raving demented lunatic. You placed dementia in with other categories that are outright dishonest. They do not belong together, and this thing elevated from there. You are as guilty as anyone you are trying to chastise here.

all in all though I am happy to put this all down to misunderstanding, with a hope we can focus on fewer more relavent points to progress discussion.

Each to their own.

:innocent:

And I think you are wrong, and will continue to do so, a=unless you can tell me at least where these supposed sources come from. Only the location of Roswell is mentioned in every statement I have heard Ed make. And, Roswell has a base.

well yes Roswell will be mentioned as the information he has pertains to said location and event??! maybe my previous suggestion will help us move this point a little closer to an agreement rather than the south and north poles in which we currently reside.

A similar instance. Like where vision is impaired and led to incorrect judgement. It's hypothetical, so asking questions is pretty pointless, you just cannot see any analogy the way I do, and I think it is because you are stuck in Alien mode.

I understood your analogy and thought it was a good one. The problem with it comes when you say 'if' the vision had been called into question before, therefore carrying in this line through into Edgar Mitchell, where has this been called into question before?

'stuck in alien mode' :w00t::alien: are you being serious here Psyche? ( I hope you are just pulling my leg)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted Today, 01:39 AM

quillius, on 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

well to answer why is it bad, take the answer for why is it good and use the opposite of that answer to find the answer ot the intial question

OK, let play act again, I will pretend for the briefest second that a spaceship did crash here. Why is that good for me? Can you tell me how it would change my life, and that of every person?

I do not know why it is good for everyone to know if an ET crashed a spaceship here Can you tell me? Well, good is a bit weak isn't it? You said "For the good of humanity" which is pretty dramatic, so can you tell me how knowing some unfortunate crashing here helps humanity?

granted I cannot say why it is good and my wording 'good for humanity' was incorrect, I admit. And yes 'good' is weak in that respect...however I sure would like to know one way or another though, wouldnt you?

quillius, on 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

they are not defined but how much affect would killing of a family member after you are dead have?....zero, therefore what would the 'threatening party have to gain after you are dead' this threat is one that can be used whilst you are alive as the cost of any ill action will be felt by you ..the target. DOing this once someone is dead only carries liability.

Zero? No it would not. It would stop the story the original person has to get out with a loophole like this. It would make sure that no evidence "surfaces" it would make sure that generations would keep their mouths shut, which was the purpose of the threat, was it not? Like I Say, Frankie Rowe should be pushing up daisies in the desert if this is true should she not?

Did you never wonder why nobody official gives a rodents rectum about Hauts affidavit? Did you not realise his affidavit created more confusion about the incident than we had before it was released?

No, I am afraid I cannot go with your ideal up there. Death threats do not have a shelf life. As long as a threatened party is alive, as far as I know, the threat remains active. The family members were also threatened.

I still disagree to an extent Psyche, when you say 'as long as a threatened party is still alive' they are threatened only to stop the target in saying something, once he is dead then how can a threat to his family still have any affect? all I would say in countering my own point, the carried out threat would serve purpose in making a statement to others..but hey this all falls under speculation I suspect :)

quillius, on 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

2- his comments are not based solely on 'old timers' tales but Official people that would be in positions to know if there was something to know.

Disagree see above post it is still what his comments were based on, ok yes old timers but as long as these old timers are not being pereceived as Roswell 'locals'

I do see them as Roswell locals. Can you show where he states that some of his contacts are from outside of the Roswell area. more importantly show where he says they are from Roswell. He states clearly that 'some locals and others from millitary etc etc' the words and others have no purpose if he is talking about locals, so this wording initself says that they are not from Roswell.

I will await for you to show me someplace where Ed mentions the sources and a location outside of Roswell that he attributes those sources to. His words only say Roswell.

I will avoid going round the houses with this point for the time being, even though I think its a very important point and one we should focus on

quillius, on 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

3- the camera being taken (not stolen) has no bearing on the comments or his mental status.

Disagree, it shows he is doing some strange things that one cannot account for. It shows he is displaying markedly different behavior to the man that beat thousands in a race to the Apollo program. how is this behaviour different, again assumption he would not have done this then and also assumption what he has done is wrong

Not assumption that is is wrong. That is the official NASA position at this point in time. Not assumption that he would not have done this then, if he had, he would not have been selected and this debate would not be happening. this is conjecture, you cannot know why he did it and secondly you cannot know he would not have done this then. Therefore as per original point I made ...it has no bearing on his comments. unless you are arguing against it demonstarting a change in mental status or trustworthiness? I am sure you are not as you said a few posts back this was not your intention to suggest either.

He would not have been selected as an Astronaut if he walked in spouting out tales of ET. Surely you do not doubt this. we are not talking about what he is spouting we are talking about the camera, see the intial point

Now why did the Old Timers "select him"? Because he went to the moon. Mental state and trustworthiness are not an issue, he gained the trustworthiness of the Old Timers by going to the moon. If he had been speaking ET at recruitment, he would not have gone to the moon, call that speculation all you like, I stand by that statement, therefore the "Old Timers" would have selected another astronaut, and even if they did select Ed anyway, it would not be "Astronaut MItchell" relaying these stories. So the media would take less notice of him and the current situation would not exist as it does today. again we are talking about the camera not why he was selected

quillius, on 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

Let me ask you, had he been saying all this when applicants were being selected for the program, do you think he would still have gone into space? did he know then what he does now? again assumption he did, and it would be speculating to guess if he would have gone or not, remember he said its nothing to do with NASA

I was not offering him as being able to make that choice.

I never said he was the one making that choice

I take it we agree then that he would not have gone to the moon if he walked into his interview speaking about Aliens and cover ups.of course not, but again I ask what has this to do with the camera???

quillius, on 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

4- he shows no obvious signs of being 'confused' (also supported by point 5)

Disagree see point 3. I have no idea what to make of the recent behavior, but it is not what we saw when he went to the moon. logical fallacy, you do not know what he would have done then versus what he is doing now, in addition not knowing what to make of recent behavious does not imply confusion by default, hence the logical fallacy

Yesm I do nknow that if he was going to every media outlet that would listen talking Aliens, then he would not have gone to the moon. Call that assumption all you like, yes it is, and I stand by it as the only option. the point 4 was 'obvious signs of being confused', so you are saying that he is confused simply because of what /who he chooses to believe? whilst making the assumption his thoughts and actiosn would be different if he was told these things 30 years ago

No, I said that if he told his tales when he was selected to go the moon, then you and I would not be having this conversation. the original point was does he show any obvious signs of being confused! or are you saying by him talking to various media outlets about alines means he is showing signs of being 'confused'???

quillius, on 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

5- his story remains consistant

Hard to answer - for how long? Always? If so, then no, disagree. no ots not hard to answer it has remianed consistent. You add always, this implies future tense, the fact I stated is based on present and passed tense...otherwise I would have labelled it 'has and WILL remain consistent, but that would be pointless speculating and could never be quoted as fact

OK, let me re=phrase if you are ging to be paranoid!! "rofl" maybe time for a name change 'assumptionpsyche'

How far back? If always then I disagree, this ET stuff started surfacing in the early nineties. again the point says he has remained consistent, where do you see this as wrong, please show an inconsistancy, thanks

I think you are the pot calling the kettle black. Mate, next to me any ETHer is an assumption king. I have said when I am speculating, I have backed my statements with links. You disagree on the interpretation, and in one instance you have been right. Cash Landrum, and that was because a lawyer used incorrect terminology in his official stament. And that was discovered because of the supporting information I offered. I feel I am rather transparent, and that is my intention.

Show an inconsistency? Can you show me where Edgar makes statements like this before 1990? It is a hard question to answer because you gave no time frame, and Edgars stance has changed over the decades. You and I do not know if it has changed personally, but we both know very well it has changed publicly, by omission if nothing else, and that (omission) is speculation!

hold on, the point is his story has remained consistent, and I think it has. I cannot show you were Edgar makes statements like this before 1990, but the assumption you make is that he was in receipt of the knowledge then...is this the case? bottom line is that every time he has spoken about the information he has received the story has remained consistent...unless you can show otherwise

quillius, on 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

6- he is a person of trust

Disagree. Was. I do not know him from a bar of soap. All that I do know is that he achieved outstanding accomplishments in his heyday. contradiction, if you your basis is 'you do not know him froma bar of soap' then you csannot say 'was' as you did not know him from a bar of soap then either.

No, then I watched what he did on the telly. I believe what I see him doing in real time. I do not believe rumors that have jumped on board along the way.

so basically you dont think he is a person of trust....interesting

I do not know why you see this as interesting. Lets say Ed came over your place tonight and you had just met him for the first time. Even knowing his background, would you pop out for the night and leave him in charge of your wife and kids? I certainly would not.

no I would not, but you clearly said 'was' in your opening response indicating you did think he was a person of trust, therefore your answer to that question of 'look after kids' you would have let him if we are talking about his younger years when going to the moon, if the answer is still no then the analogy fails (ok maybe I dont agree with a majority of your analogies...I cant help it though :) )

quillius, on 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

7- is known to be of high intelligence.

Agreed. progress, was hard work though

Nothing to see here, moving along.

cant we savour the moment for a while :rolleyes:

quillius, on 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

8- he made contact with the pentagon with his concerns to which he had a response of 'its all true'

Disagree. From who? he says this clearly in the interview posted by Boon.

Quote

EM: Yes and my information comes from what I call “the old timers,” because I grew up in the Roswell area and when I went to the moon, some of the old timers from that period, some locals, and others military and intelligence people,

Only mentions "Rsowell" again I ask for a reference that says these military and intelligence officials were not Roswell retirees. no need as he never suggests they are from Roswell as previously stated.

Roswell is the only location he mentions, and Roswell has a base. Edgar never says any source comes from outside of Roswell. No other geographical locations are entered for consideration, or so much as speculation. Because of this, yes, there is a need. You are assuming his geographical location for informants exceeds the geographical area he states. Can you prove that some of his contacts come from outside of the Roswell region going with what he has said? He is clearing up the rumours in the link, so if that is the case, why s there no mention outside of Roswell?

maybe you need to listen the the interview posted by Boon where he says about contacing someone at the pentagon...that was the initial point, nothing to do with the 'old timers'

quillius, on 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

9- the fact he doesnt name sources is with good reason.

Disagree. What reason? Why use Ed to get their story out. What is up with these "old timers? I can't say it, but Ed, you go into public and tell the people what we know. Be our voice. the oviosu reasons we have discussed, oaths?!?!?

As shown above, oaths that nobody adheres to, so no, if nobody else has to honor an oath, they do not. I want real proof that the USAF issued these oaths, and that these men are bound to them, a good starting point is just who the heck are these men? so you dont think oaths are in force or issued?

If you go back through my posts you will see that I never believed the death threat stories. I would like to see people who make them tried in court, and charged with treason if they could not prove their claims. Seems fair to me.

ok cant argue much further with this point as 'good reason' wording can give us too much to debate but to little avail.

quillius, on 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

For all I know, the "Old Timers" are sitting in a shed with Moonshine chuckling their asses of at Edgar. more far fethced than ET that one Psyche, as I said earlier a 'skeptics conspiracy' that he was a victim of a plan to make him look a fool by so many people

More far fetched than ET? Come on mate. Now we really are going into fantasy realms! ET is more likely than moonshiners? How so?

I get a strong impression that you feel we should just go with what he says blindly. Is that right?

no it is not right. I feel we should not dismiss what he is saying,, big difference.

It is not what he is saying. It is what he is relaying from an anonymous source, so really, you are saying that we should not dismiss the anonymous source because Ed Mitchell bears the message, which is exactly what I said, you are giving him extra credit because of who he is, and allowing an appeal to authority to direct your judgement.

same difference, as I said earlier it cant be an appeal to authority to wish not to dismiss, If I however say that Edgar think ET is real therefore I too believe..thats the appeal to authority

Edgar thinks ET is real because people told him they are, people that he trusts/believes. What you believe is what Edger believes that others believe what they know is true. Honestly, that is not evidence in any form to me. It's like the farmers daughters lawyers aunties sisters dogs friends sons neighbor said......

never stated as evidence, curious though what did the sons neighbour say? :P

quillius, on 12 September 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

oh and you werent joking about keeping me on my toes

;) I am only warming up.

glad to hear it :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

EM: Yes and my information comes from what I call “the old timers,” because I grew up in the Roswell area and when I went to the moon, some of the old timers from that period, some locals, and others military and intelligence people, who were under rather severe oaths to not reveal any of this and kind of wanted to get their conscience clear and off their chests before they passed on, selected me

the point in debate is when reading the above do you think he meant that the locals along with the military and intelligence people he mentions are all from Roswell? (oh and for the record there is no debate on the locals part of the wording, they are ofcourse locals from Roswell, its the military and intelligence people that are in debate')

other members opinions here are welcome, preferably from skeptics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psyche, here is one more bit from the Kerrang interview:

Mitchell: There’s more nonsense out there about this than there is real knowledge, but it is a real phenomenon and there are a few of us (who know). It’s been covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so. But slowly it’s leaked out and some of us are privileged to have been briefed on some of it. I happen to have grown up in Roswell, New Mexico, where presumably the Roswell incident of 1947 took place and I’m quite knowledgeable about it there since I grew up there. But I’ve also been in military circles and intelligence circles that know below the surface of what has been public knowledge that, yes, we have been visited.

again he says he grew up at Roswell so he is knowledgeable about it there...as in place...not as in the incident. He then follows this using the wording 'but ive also been in....' again confirming to me he does not at any point talk about knowlwedge coming from peopel at Roswell apart from a brief mention of 'locals' the rest of his comments are based on his work and cirlces he was involved in.

Also what do you make of the wording 'briefed' as opposed to 'told', I personally think this points to something more official rather than a tale. Again this is my interpretation of the words used but this part I am not definitive about and is open to various potentials....although the initial point is not. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also what do you make of the wording 'briefed' as opposed to 'told', I personally think this points to something more official rather than a tale.

I agree......'briefed' implies something official and not JUST an informal exchange of information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree......'briefed' implies something official and not JUST an informal exchange of information.

hello Bee, hope you have been well....thanks for comments : :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hello Bee, hope you have been well....thanks for comments : :tu:

I have thanks...and you're welcome.

I don't think for a minute that Edgar Mitchell would say these things publically unless he was

VERY sure of his FACTS.

:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psyche, here is one more bit from the Kerrang interview:

Mitchell: There’s more nonsense out there about this than there is real knowledge, but it is a real phenomenon and there are a few of us (who know). It’s been covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so. But slowly it’s leaked out and some of us are privileged to have been briefed on some of it. I happen to have grown up in Roswell, New Mexico, where presumably the Roswell incident of 1947 took place and I’m quite knowledgeable about it there since I grew up there. But I’ve also been in military circles and intelligence circles that know below the surface of what has been public knowledge that, yes, we have been visited.

again he says he grew up at Roswell so he is knowledgeable about it there...as in place...not as in the incident. He then follows this using the wording 'but ive also been in....' again confirming to me he does not at any point talk about knowlwedge coming from peopel at Roswell apart from a brief mention of 'locals' the rest of his comments are based on his work and cirlces he was involved in.

Also what do you make of the wording 'briefed' as opposed to 'told', I personally think this points to something more official rather than a tale. Again this is my interpretation of the words used but this part I am not definitive about and is open to various potentials....although the initial point is not. :tu:

I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment and might come back to add more later, but I wanted to at least address the terminology aspect.

If we return to the Kerrang interview, he gives a little more context to the word "briefed" around the 3 minute mark.

Kerrang:

So you've been briefed on the fact that we've been visited?

Mitchell:

Well, "briefed" is one word for it.

This reduces the "official" interpretation for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment and might come back to add more later, but I wanted to at least address the terminology aspect.

If we return to the Kerrang interview, he gives a little more context to the word "briefed" around the 3 minute mark.

Kerrang:

So you've been briefed on the fact that we've been visited?

Mitchell:

Well, "briefed" is one word for it.

This reduces the "official" interpretation for me.

Valid point in that it 'can' take away some of the offical aspect.

Also would be interested in your take on terminology used as far as 'informants' being from Roswell, cheers.

whilst on that note, I think it also prudent to add a conversation Mitchell had in 1996 with dateline NBC, in which he said:

Mr. E. MITCHELL: I have no firsthand experience, but I have had the opportunity to meet with people from three countries who in the course of their official duties claim to have had personal firsthand encounter experiences.

MURPHY: With extraterrestrials.

Mr E. MITCHELL- with extraterrestrials.

MURPHY: Aliens from some other place?

Mr. E MITCHELL: That's what they claim.

again this indicates some of his sources at very least (at this point in time 1996) did not come from roswell...so not locals telling tall tales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment and might come back to add more later, but I wanted to at least address the terminology aspect.

If we return to the Kerrang interview, he gives a little more context to the word "briefed" around the 3 minute mark.

Kerrang:

So you've been briefed on the fact that we've been visited?

Mitchell:

Well, "briefed" is one word for it.

This reduces the "official" interpretation for me.

Mitchell said...

"Briefed is one word for it - I have been involved in much of this work - it's not my main work - it's not

my main interest - but I have been deeply involved in certain committees and certain research programmes with

very credible scientists and intelligence people that do know the real inside story"

If I may say so booN.....you are clutching at staws over that point. He said he was briefed.

He didn't retract that statement. He added to it, IMO, with the "that's one word for it"...

and then went on to expand on it, with what I have quoted above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valid point in that it 'can' take away some of the offical aspect.

Yes, that is the way that I take it. It says to me that it wasn't an official briefing by the powers that be. Instead, it was probably more like conversations that he's had with people. I definitely get that impression from the way he describes contacting an unnamed intelligence officer at the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From his description, Mitchell asked this person to "look into it (Roswell)," he wasn't "briefed" in an official sense when the guy called back and said "you're right" but also reported that he couldn't get any more detail about it. This is a conversation, not a briefing.

Also would be interested in your take on terminology used as far as 'informants' being from Roswell, cheers.

I don't think that the people he has discussed this with are exclusively from Roswell, if that is what you are asking. He's become quite a figure in UFOlogy and I have no doubt that he's conversed with a great many people from all over the place.

whilst on that note, I think it also prudent to add a conversation Mitchell had in 1996 with dateline NBC, in which he said:

Mr. E. MITCHELL: I have no firsthand experience, but I have had the opportunity to meet with people from three countries who in the course of their official duties claim to have had personal firsthand encounter experiences.

MURPHY: With extraterrestrials.

Mr E. MITCHELL- with extraterrestrials.

MURPHY: Aliens from some other place?

Mr. E MITCHELL: That's what they claim.

again this indicates some of his sources at very least (at this point in time 1996) did not come from roswell...so not locals telling tall tales.

I agree that Roswell residents aren't his only "sources." And he has branched out beyond just Roswell in some of his statements. In fact, he's talked about one of my favorite cases... Phoenix; which he appears to fully endorse as an ET visitation event despite the fact that he wasn't there and is probably relying only on UFOlogy sources for that determination.

Mitchell said...

"Briefed is one word for it - I have been involved in much of this work - it's not my main work - it's not

my main interest - but I have been deeply involved in certain committees and certain research programmes with

very credible scientists and intelligence people that do know the real inside story"

If I may say so booN.....you are clutching at staws over that point. He said he was briefed.

He didn't retract that statement. He added to it, IMO, with the "that's one word for it"...

and then went on to expand on it, with what I have quoted above.

Bee dear, I think you're getting bent out of shape over nothing here. Don't get me wrong, I quite admire your flexibility... :blush: but I think that "clutching at straws" is going a bit far. I was talking specifically about his usage of the word "briefed" and nothing else. I was pressed for time so I didn't go into a lot of detail and didn't cover any other aspects of his statements.

What I take from this is that he wasn't brought in by the President or some high ranking General, sat down, and given an official briefing about this subject. In addition, we can see quite clearly from the response he got from his unnamed intelligence officer at the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he in fact wasn't officially briefed in that way.

Anyway, hope that clarifies at least a bit what I hastily (or dare I say... briefly...) posted about this morning. I was late for work as a result of that by the way. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see that the "skeptics" are achieving anything by continually denying the things that Edgar Mitchell has been saying over and over again for many years. For example, he told Art Bell in 1998:

"I've talked with people of stature - of military and government credentials and position - and heard their stories, and their desire to tell their stories openly to the public. And that got my attention very, very rapidly... the first hand experiences of these credible witnesses, now in advanced years and anxious to tell their story. We can't deny that, and the evidence points to the fact that Roswell was a real incident, and that indeed an alien craft did crash, and that material was recovered from that crash site."

Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut from a taped interview in 1998."

Mitchell has been 100% consistent in these statements and he's telling the truth. I have been investigating the same things for years, and I have reached the same conclusions. Unless the skeptics are prepared write off every single witness as a liar, fraud or lunatic, they simply have no case.

http://www.voy.com/105322/131.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that is the way that I take it. It says to me that it wasn't an official briefing by the powers that be. Instead, it was probably more like conversations that he's had with people. I definitely get that impression from the way he describes contacting an unnamed intelligence officer at the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From his description, Mitchell asked this person to "look into it (Roswell)," he wasn't "briefed" in an official sense when the guy called back and said "you're right" but also reported that he couldn't get any more detail about it. This is a conversation, not a briefing.

although I would add that I dont think they were just conversations, telling someone a secret that has been kept under oath, can be deemed a briefing in a sense, at least more than a conversation would. I dont think a briefing in whatever sense happened only from the joint chiefs of staff. The words used by Edgar when he relayed the story were 'its all true' as opposed to 'you're right'.

I don't think that the people he has discussed this with are exclusively from Roswell, if that is what you are asking. He's become quite a figure in UFOlogy and I have no doubt that he's conversed with a great many people from all over the place.

no I wasnt quite asking that Boon, when he says this for example :

EM: Yes and my information comes from what I call “the old timers,” because I grew up in the Roswell area and when I went to the moon, some of the old timers from that period, some locals, and others military and intelligence people, who were under rather severe oaths to not reveal any of this and kind of wanted to get their conscience clear and off their chests before they passed on, selected meor this:

Mitchell: There’s more nonsense out there about this than there is real knowledge, but it is a real phenomenon and there are a few of us (who know). It’s been covered up by all our governments for the last 60 years or so. But slowly it’s leaked out and some of us are privileged to have been briefed on some of it. I happen to have grown up in Roswell, New Mexico, where presumably the Roswell incident of 1947 took place and I’m quite knowledgeable about it there since I grew up there. But I’ve also been in military circles and intelligence circles that know below the surface of what has been public knowledge that, yes, we have been visited.

I am not talking about people he has conversed with within Ufology, but the intelligence and military people that gave him information.

I agree that Roswell residents aren't his only "sources." And he has branched out beyond just Roswell in some of his statements. In fact, he's talked about one of my favorite cases... Phoenix; which he appears to fully endorse as an ET visitation event despite the fact that he wasn't there and is probably relying only on UFOlogy sources for that determination.

I see you agree as long as using the words 'sources' doesnt mean local residents of Roswell and their 'tales'. With regards to Pheonix (yes I know its your favourite so I am on dangerous ground :mellow: ) but he does endorse large craft, in the 'early evening' along with the fact he doesnt talk about lights in the sky but specifically craft, lead me to assume he is talking about the 8pm sighting. Which means it may still stand seeing as there is no evidence that proves it was a formation of planes, mistaken from relatively 'perceived' close range by quite a few witnesses.

What I take from this is that he wasn't brought in by the President or some high ranking General, sat down, and given an official briefing about this subject. In addition, we can see quite clearly from the response he got from his unnamed intelligence officer at the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he in fact wasn't officially briefed in that way.

I will post you a link tomorrow on this with the name of Joint Cheif of staffs name. (dont have it now). :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see that the "skeptics" are achieving anything by continually denying the things that Edgar Mitchell has been saying over and over again for many years. For example, he told Art Bell in 1998:

"I've talked with people of stature - of military and government credentials and position - and heard their stories, and their desire to tell their stories openly to the public. And that got my attention very, very rapidly... the first hand experiences of these credible witnesses, now in advanced years and anxious to tell their story. We can't deny that, and the evidence points to the fact that Roswell was a real incident, and that indeed an alien craft did crash, and that material was recovered from that crash site."

Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut from a taped interview in 1998."

Mitchell has been 100% consistent in these statements and he's telling the truth. I have been investigating the same things for years, and I have reached the same conclusions. Unless the skeptics are prepared write off every single witness as a liar, fraud or lunatic, they simply have no case.

http://www.voy.com/105322/131.html

Can you show me where anyone has been "continually denying the things that Edgar Mitchell has been saying over and over again for many years?"

Your comments about "skeptics" are getting tedious and the accusations you are flinging toward people with a skeptical bent are inaccurate. Perhaps if you ever tried to engage in civil conversation regarding the subject matter instead of throwing up a wall of "I'm right, you're wrong, and skeptics are the spawn of Satan" all the time it would help. Take quillius as a shining example of someone willing to discuss things openly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if Dr. Mitchell sleeps as well as all the Forum members do ?

Afterall ! Hes actually counted sheep on the moon jumping over the Earth ! "has envey"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, you "skeptics" will always say no factual evidence exists no matter what we post.

That is because what you post is not factual evidence and I have yet to see any such.

You post nothing at all of your own

Probably because I (and others) haven't found anything that could be categorized as factual evidence, only anecdotes and poor imagery that could be virtually anything.

only constant denials that we have any evidence

No, not denials - discussions. Which again and again are shown to be rather necessary as numerous cased have now been peeled apart and demonstrated to be something rather mundane. Discussions that should be taken, but no, you and others would rather cry ET IS HERE!!! and then complain about the evil skeptics when your fanciful tales are dissected and shown for what they really are. Why don't you look inwards, ask all the hard questions first and then only post something when you find it really mysterious and unexplained?

And you should actually appreciate the people here willing to put in a lot of time and effort for free to help you weed all the mundane that can be found out of the equation.

and that we are all basically part of some kind of religious cult

No, not all, but some indeed fall into that category.

not witnesses, not documents, not pictures or films, not statements from government officials, not admissions from people who collected crashed saucers and alien remains.

Because none could ever be proven, so far it is only camp fire tales, sightings of the unexplained due to lack of data and so on. And there is a tendency to post vast amounts of sightings and reports from 50 or 60 years ago, despite the fact that now we know vastly more and science has progressed immensely to the extent where we now know natural phenomena that exhibit the same characteristics as some of the earlier sightings reported, sightings that according to believers only could have one explanation: ET.

I even had people tell me that none of that ever counts as facts or evidence.

Old reports, anecdotes, films or pictures can never stand alone. It simply needs to be corroborated by tangible, physical evidence. Evidence which does not exist to the best of our knowledge.

If the history of any other subject was written with such bizarre limits then there would be nothing but blank pages.

If we should go with your definition of how to define things as factual, we'd now know that gnomes, faeries and other mythical creatures existed amongst us. Many credible witnesses existed and 100 years ago there was even photographic evidence of faeries, which people truly believed in and argued for until it was shown to be fake.

Suit yourself, but I prefer to set my bar a bit higher and actually know instead of pursuing unverifiable stories and judging them as real just because I want to believe. Thanks, but no thanks.

Frankly, it makes me feel like I'm back in the days of Bill Clinton arguing about what the definition of "is" is.

Frankly, I don't even want to say where it makes me feel being looking at some of your arguments, by all means of respect.

That's why I usually just post the evidence I've found and let people make up their own minds, without bothering about the "skeptical" filter of constant denial that any of it exists.

There is no denial, only discussion. ANd if you can't see that, maybe a discussion forum isn't the best place for you to be. And if your ideas and hypothesis can't stand up to the scrutiny of an educated discussion, maybe it isn't worth anything in the first place. Which should be good to find out, right?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not "period" at all.

Yes, period. Witness reports can never stand alone, and certainly not second hand tales. Edgar Mitchell never saw ET, a craft, artifacts or the like. He just heard the stories from others. So, yes, Period. You need, physical, tangible evidence.

If you disregard the most credible witnesses which you cannot deny existence of, and lump them into the hearsay catagory you are failing yourself as much as the person trying to enlighten you. It is your loss.

No, if you chose to believe without physical evidence, it is your loss. And what exactly makes Mitchell anymore credible than others?

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.