More NASA UFO's?

[TheMacGuffin]

John Schuessler is one of the genuine NASA whistleblowers, starting with the Gemini 4 UFO sightings.

He also said that Oberg mocked astronaut James McDivitt and basically tried to put words in his mouth, which was definitely not appreciated. McDivitt saw what he saw and NASA covered it up. What's new?

"McDivitt said he saw this red object that went across his viewscreen and he took pictures of it but the pictures he got were not of an oblong object like he saw but of something else. I think he felt he was deceived slightly, I can’t put words in his mouth …

RT: like Roswell, people who saw the debris said that isn’t what we saw …

And other people put words in your mouth. Jim Oberg’s been really good at putting words in McDivitt’s mouth and even called him “a bleary-eyed astronaut” like he couldn’t see anything which was a bunch of baloney. He would not have been flying if he couldn’t see.

RT: ridicule is uniformly effective.

It really is. That’s one thing the media likes is those kind of things. They don’t have to be factual. Nobody cares.

RT: other astronauts reported sightings – Deke Slayton.

That’s correct. Yes, he described it as a disc. It’s in his book. And Gordon Cooper is very outspoken, very much so. I take it more or less at face value. I have a natural skepticism from working in the space business and I don’t accept everything anybody says. I don’t discard anything out of hand either. I think one of the biggest mistakes people make in this field is discarding things out of hand because it doesn’t fit your paradigm or it’s not pleasing or could be embarrassing. That’s a real mistake. I think the debunkers have done a great service in this line – they’ve gotten UFOlogists trying to be debunkers first rather than investigators first. They want to beat them to the draw which is stupid."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thiemeworks.com%2Fan-interview-with-john-f-schuessler-executive-director-of-mufon-mutual-ufo-network%2F&ei=tHCqUO6DNpSy8AT63oGIBw&usg=AFQjCNHB0P290U5ZkprOGV2NBXsjo3Re_w&sig2=mZ0c1TuAFnsHGBok-hw3Bw

[TheMacGuffin]

For those who are interested in what was really going on with NASA and UFO's, I recommend this radio interview with John Schuessler rather than just accepting Oberg's views on these maters.

There is indeed a UFO cover up at NASA, always has been, and Oberg has always been part of it.

The actual interview starts at 30:00 minutes, when Schuessler starts the interview with the Gemini 4 story. McDivitt was angry with the way that NASA handled his sighting and did not even release the actual pictures he took.

[media=]

[/media] Edited November 19, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

Schuessler said quite clearly that NASA told he astronauts not to talk about their UFO sightings, so most of them didn't. And yes, I believe what he says far more than Oberg.

[JimOberg]

John Schuessler is one of the genuine NASA whistleblowers, starting with the Gemini 4 UFO sightings. He also said that Oberg mocked astronaut James McDivitt and basically tried to put words in his mouth, which was definitely not appreciated. McDivitt saw what he saw and NASA covered it up. What's new?

My original report was published more than 30 years ago, when memories were fresh and all witnesses still alive.

My home page link http://www.jamesoberg.com/ufo/gemini4.htm seems broken so here's the wayback link

http://web.archive.org/web/20060313190043/http://jamesoberg.com/ufo/gemini4.htm

[From quarterly magazine UFO REPORT (Fall 1981)]

excerpt

At a news conference on June 11th, McDivitt gave more details about the object: "Near Hawaii... I saw a white object and it looked like it was cylindrical and it looked to me like there was a white arm sticking out of it . . . It looked a lot like an upper stage of a booster."

Speaking to Houston Post space reporter Jim Maloney late in 1975, McDivitt had given new details: "I never made a big deal out of it. It was something I definitely couldn't identify. I reported it to the ground . . . Ed was asleep and we were rotating at a pretty high rate in drifting flight. The windows were dirty, I recall . . . All of a sudden there was this white object out there. It looked like a beer can with a pencil sticking out of it at an angle. It had a definite cylinder shape, about three times as long as its diameter."

end excerpt

Schuessler says Mcdivitt saw a 'red' object? Who's putting words into whose mouth?

Schuessler: "And other people put words in your mouth. Jim Oberg’s been really good at putting words in McDivitt’s mouth and even called him “a bleary-eyed astronaut” like he couldn’t see anything which was a bunch of baloney. He would not have been flying if he couldn’t see."

Putting made-up words into quotation marks and attributing them falsely to somebody else is tacky, but that's what Schuessler has done here.

Here are more excerpts from my 1981 report, on the issue of 'seeing' in space.

The glare and contrasts of space can trick even an astronaut's eyesight, as illustrated by this sequence from the Gemini-4 voice tapes. Astronaut Edward White has just spotted an object out the window: "We've got an object out in front of us. It's not flashing like it's the booster. It appears that it's that type of an object unless it's picking up some glow from the sun. It appears a very bright, very bright object. (30-second pause) It was the booster. I can see the lights flashing on it now ... Just as it goes into darkness, the reflection of the sun on the booster causes a very bright image. That's the object I had seen earlier."

Was there anything which might have affected McDivitt's eyesight during this part of the flight? A space magazine reported two items of interest: "The 100 percent oxygen atmosphere created some red eyes during the first day or so of the flight..." Furthermore, "Operation of the waste collection systems was [sic] generally satisfactory, except for leakage of urine into the cabin . . . McDivitt at one point told the ground that 'I thought those fumes around 24 hours were bad. You ought to be up here now!' "

CAPCOM: Jim, the Flight Surgeon wonders if he can say anything about your eyes. Have you had any problems? Any drying or anything at all? McDivitt: Yes. Listen, I had a lot of trouble with my eyes at the end of the first day. I wasn't sure I was going to be able to hack it. But they have cleared up now.... CAPCOM: O.K. You don't have any problem at all now with them? McDivitt: No problem at all. Though I was really bad between about 18 hours and 36 hours. Readers note: As the transcripts show, the UFO was reported at 29 hours, 52 minutes.

So was Schuessler's fictional put-down rational, or deceptive? With the full comments, you be the judge.

[TheMacGuffin]

Oberg also said that McDivitt never used his movie camera to get pictures of the UFO, but this was false.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fportlandmagic.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F05%2Fjim-mcdivitts-gemini-4-ufo.html&ei=jnqqUPzxI43G9gSj0YCwBw&usg=AFQjCNGVU7nRKMB3PudvUc3FSX1llscw_A&sig2=vNpXqpwpWtIbkHIv0HPMGA

[JimOberg]

Oberg also said that McDivitt never used his movie camera to get pictures of the UFO, but this was false.

Indeed so, I quoted Dick Underwood, head of ground photo office, but didn't verify it. It was a mistake, which i'm happy to have had cleared up, and fixed.

[TheMacGuffin]

Indeed so, I quoted Dick Underwood, head of ground photo office, but didn't verify it. It was a mistake, which i'm happy to have had cleared up, and fixed.

Yes, about 30 years later. LOL

[TheMacGuffin]

My original report was published more than 30 years ago, when memories were fresh and all witnesses still alive.

Schuessler says Mcdivitt saw a 'red' object? Who's putting words into whose mouth?

Oberg failed to mention here that McDivitt reported another UFO sighting on the Gemini 4 mission, which was different from the famous "flying beer can" with the arms sticking out of it.

This other UFO was "a moving bright light at a higher level than the Gemini spacecraft", but was only seen very briefly. As far as I know, there were no pictures of it.

http://www.ufoeviden...ses/case977.htm

Edited November 19, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

Anyway, as has been pointed out many times, McDivitt stated that the "beer can" was not his own booster rocket and if it was a US or Russian satellite no one has ever identified it to this day. Ditto for the Skylab and Gemini 11 UFOs, as I already pointed out somewhere way back in this thread.

For what it's worth, I do not claim to know what these things were or where they came from, but I know what they were NOT.

Edited November 19, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[psyche101]

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".

But that is not his information, that is what he was promoting for Stephen Greer, and he has since denounced Greer and his claims. That information has been superseded.

(Edgar Mitchell) I, nor any crew I was on (I was on three Apollo crews), received any briefing before or after flights on UFO events, saw anything in space suggesting UFOs or structures on the moon, etc. We did it just like we said in official reports. My only claim to knowledge of these events is from the individuals, mostly of yesteryear, who were in government, intelligence, or military; were there, saw what they saw, and now believe it should be made public. But I claim no first hand knowledge, nor have any. Pass it on to the rest of the net, if you will. --Edgar Mitchel

No NASA there.

I do not understand why you keep saying that Ed Mitchell implicates NASA when he specifically excludes them. I am not watching the Youtubes, I do not have access to them. There is not point to establish. The main connection seems to simply be that NASA openly states it does not support Dr Mitchell's claims. That point appears to be blown out of proportion, and in the Kerrang interview, Ed Mitchell makes that quite clear.

Edited November 19, 2012 by psyche101

[TheMacGuffin]

I do not understand why you keep saying that Ed Mitchell implicates NASA when he specifically excludes them. I am not watching the Youtubes, I do not have access to them. There is not point to establish. The main connection seems to simply be that NASA openly states it does not support Dr Mitchell's claims. That point appears to be blown out of proportion, and in the Kerrang interview, Ed Mitchell makes that quite clear.

I'm completely sick of talking about this and don't want to deal with it any more.

[psyche101]

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

But only the reporter is including the "Space Agency"

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.'

And he said no such thing in that interview, it is the one I already posted where Edgar Mitchell says NASA was not part of the cover up.

[psyche101]

I'm completely sick of talking about this and don't want to deal with it any more.

Fair enough, you posted this before I posted the above, so sorry about that, but I just cannot see Ed Mitchell implicating NASA. Government yes, but not NASA.

[psyche101]

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?

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.

EM: That’s not quite right. You use that in the plural. I was talking about the Roswell incident, the Roswell visitation primarily, but there have been many others that have been reported that I have no personal awareness of but that was the one that I was really talking about.

[psyche101]

might not be scientific evidence but I wouldnt put it in the 'worthless' section.......

After our intensive debate in Ed Mitchell, I am not so sure. As we know, his sources are very dubious.

[psyche101]

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.

So more people enter the mix, who should have access to what you insists exists, and we have no more evidence? And people who do not work for the Government, but an organisation that receives funding from the Government. Like apprentices, bus drivers, banks, road workers etc. We should be worried about everyone I take it? And without any evidence, just a paranoid delusion?

[booNyzarC]

I'm completely sick of talking about this and don't want to deal with it any more.

Translation: "I'll never admit that I was wrong even though everybody already knows it, and I'll get mad at anyone bringing it up from now on."

[psyche101]

and do you think this is the case with Edgar?

It is the case with Edgar Mitchell.

LINK

[psyche101]

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

Interesting choice of words.........

more semantics...?

Of that I have no doubt, however, I am sure I am seeing it differently to you.

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

And by crikey that sowed them didn't it! Shaking in their boots. And why wouldn't they be? Edgar Mitchell's sources include Bob Lazar, Stephen Greer and Glenn Dennis. All proven to be...................

Ohh, wait............

IMO

Now this I heartily agree with

[JimOberg]

With tens of thousands of hours of youtube videos, just what is it that we're supposed to believe NASA has tried, or has succeeded, to keep secret?

Clark McClelland's 9-foot-tall alien visitors?

Aliens on the Moon watching us land there?

Insider info from a mysterious "Maurice Chatelain, head of NASA communications"?

Secret moon alien photos from "Ken Johnston, head of the Apollo photo lab"?

A thirty meter long spaceship viewed by cosmonaut Viktor Afanasyev from the Salyut space station?

Who really will make an argument that such stories deserve anybody's trust?

[bee]

.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJkNaXteEL0[/media]

bless Edgar Mitchell for going public

He's done his bit for truth....and I'm sure I'm not alone in thanking him for it.

As I've said before I don't think he would have gone public with all this unless he was very sure of the things he talks about.

He is a man who deserves respect.

For his accomplishments and his bravery for speaking out....

And on that note...goodnight all.

x

.

[psyche101]

'he can't implicate nasa due to his nda.... but he's allowed to blow the whistle on the government'

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.

[booNyzarC]

although he does suggest 'having SEEN direct evidence' does he not? at very least he was shown photos, so lets not debate whether photos are evidence or not...

He suggests that he has seen something that he considers to be evidence, though he doesn't really go into any measure of detail about what exactly that was. He also talks about things that are in the public record, including photos. So what exactly is it that he is referring to when he mentions evidence? I don't know what it is, but I do know that when he was asked "what do they look like?" he responded with "Well, you've seen the pictures... etc..." Doesn't that suggest the possibility that the only "evidence" he is talking about is the very same "evidence" that the rest of UFOlogy touts around?

dont you find it strange Boon that someone of Dr Edgars intelligence and scientific methodology would be so easily fooled?

I really dislike the phrasing of this. I don't think I've ever said that Dr. Mitchell was "fooled" by anyone, and if I've given that impression it wasn't intentional. He has spent quite a bit of time with several other Disclosure Project and general UFO witnesses including the crew from Rendlesham, the pilot from the Tehran incident, Callahan from the JAL incident, Roswellites, General de Brouwer from Belgium, Phoenix Lights witnesses including Fyfe Symington, and several other people from several other cases. Many of these people have seen and experienced things which are perplexing to say the least. Believing their testimonies isn't that difficult for the most part, and I think the majority are being sincere when they describe the memories of their experiences.

It's the conclusions which have been reached from the memories of those experiences that I have issue with, and that I think Dr. Mitchell has chosen for whatever reason to adopt those conclusions without applying sufficient skepticism. That has nothing to do with his intelligence, and probably everything to do with his trust in the sincerity of these various people; which is a trust that I don't think is misplaced, but the assumptions drawn from the whole thing seem often misguided.

anyway I prob wont be back until tomorrow, I will have dug up some of my previous research into Edgar.....

Take care q, hope you have a great night.

looking forward to some of Psyche's input a little later......

I'm always looking forward to that myself, and from the looks of it you won't be dissatisfied!

[TheMacGuffin]

Translation: "I'll never admit that I was wrong even though everybody already knows it, and I'll get mad at anyone bringing it up from now on."

No, that's your translation, buster. In my translation, you and your friend Oberg simply did not want to concede even one of the points I made. That's how it looks to me.

In addition, Oberg doesn't like it when I point out that other whistle blowers at NASA contradict what he says all the time, and state categorically that there has been a big UFO cover up at the agency for decades.

Nor does Oberg like to respond when I point out flaws in his descriptions and explanations of various UFO cases, including Gemini 4, Gemini 11 and Skylab.

In truth, I am just tired of spending all my time looking up videos about Mitchell's statements only to be told that my efforts are of no value at all. So next time, Boon, if you want to talk about this subject any further then you can look them up.

I am sick of jumping through hoops only to get the finger for my trouble. That's what it feels like to me.

Edited November 20, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[booNyzarC]

No, that's your translation, buster. In my translation, you and your friend Oberg simply did not want to concede even one of the points I made. That's how it looks to me.

Oh, it's getting serious now. Bringing out the big guns and calling me buster. I wonder if bucko,or the endearing sit on it Potsie will be coming out soon too?

Well you're absolutely right about one thing MacG. It is indeed my translation. The reason I give that translation is very simple.

With all due respect, you claimed that Edgar Mitchell has stated that NASA was involved in a coverup. You produced quotes and videos which you claimed supported your original claim, but not even one of them delivered the goods. As if it couldn't get any worse, contradictory evidence directly from Dr. Mitchell himself fully contradicts and refutes your original claim. Add onto this the fact that today isn't the first time we've had this discussion, and you were just as wrong back then as you are now...

But you still refuse to acknowledge that you were conveying baseless and unsupported misinformation, and you get mad about it when people point this out.

Translation: "I'll never admit that I was wrong even though everybody already knows it, and I'll get mad at anyone bringing it up from now on."

In addition, Oberg doesn't like it when I point out that other whistle blowers at NASA contradict what he says all the time, and state categorically that there has been a big UFO cover up at the agency for decades.

Nor does Oberg like to respond when I point out flaws in his descriptions and explanations of various UFO cases, including Gemini 4, Gemini 11 and Skylab.

James isn't the one to shirk away from such things. From what I've seen, he confronts them head on. Of course that won't deter you from attempting to smear him with any opportunity you can get. Good luck with that MacG, I think you're outgunned.

In truth, I am just tired of spending all my time looking up videos about Mitchell's statements only to be told that my efforts are of no value at all. So next time, Boon, if you want to talk about this subject any further then you can look them up.

I don't think anyone said that your videos were without value, they just didn't support the argument that you claimed they support. Not a single one of them has Dr. Mitchell, in his own words, saying that he believed that NASA was part of a coverup. Why did you post them in an effort to support your original claim when they offer nothing to legitimize your claim? Might I add that when you were presenting them, it was with an extremely pompous tone. I suggest that the next time you want to be pompous, you may want to make sure that you're right about what you're saying and that the evidence you're presenting in an effort to support your position actually does support it.

I am sick of jumping through hoops only to get the finger for my trouble. That's what it feels like to me.

I'm sorry that you feel that way MacG, but nobody is giving you the finger for your trouble. You're being run over the coals for misrepresenting the statements of an astronaut and refusing to acknowledge that your original claim was erroneous in the face of non-existent supporting evidence and irrefutable contrary evidence, but you have only yourself to blame for that.

Cheers.