Dr. Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man to walk on the Moon and a 33 degree Scottish Rite Freemason, has admitted in an interview in England that UFO's (or ET's) are real, and furthermore NASA knows it.
Mitchell has always played up the reality of UFO's, while steadfastly denying our premise that the Moon is littered with artificial structures. We've always found it interesting that Mitchell encourages belief in something that will never be proven (flying saucers and aliens) but discourages belief in something that is eminently provable. It smacks to us of disinformation.
But, like all good disinformation, it must have a grain of truth in it to be credible. What we find most interesting politically is that he is throwing NASA under the bus, effectively admitting that NASA has covered up the evidence of ET’s all along.
I think there is a recent book out that has as its core premise the idea that NASA lies…
For more background information, check out the Hoagland-Mitchell debate transcript from the old Art Bell show here.
UPDATE: Dr. Mitchell has clarified his comments here.
Just for additional clarification: According to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, there are in fact three official panoramas of the Apollo 14 landing site. There are additional partial pans there, but it is unclear whether they were assembled by NASA. The ALSJ has also assembled numerous pans of their own making. Our initial investigation only dealt with the three official pans issued by NASA and retained by Ken Johnston from (presumably) first generation negatives.
All data in our possession was sent to Dr. Mitchell in 1996. To this day he has not commented.
Posts
56 comments:
I went back and re-read the old transcript and did a compare-and-contrast with what Mitchell is saying in his most recent interview. In the transcript, what comes across to me is that Mitchell knew more than he was saying, and that he would have probably liked to have said more to Richard and Art, but he had an agenda, which was to confuse the issue around the lunar ruins photographic evidence.
In the transcript, Mitchell kept trying to get off the subject of the actual data either by trying to re-frame the discussion/debate so as to move away from the data, or else he talked at cross-purposes to it, as he did when he talked about the molecular density of lunar ruins when Richard was talking about the gross physical density of the remaining material after meteoric bombardment, etc. He kept doing the 'switch' thing-- saying 'now, let's re-frame this', or 'let's narrow this down', and when this tactic is trotted out in a debate, it is because the side that is doing the derailing is trying to void the data.
Lawyers do this all the time in summing up arguments, and try to make the jury members focus on certain things and forget certain other things. This is why judges always remind juries that what the lawyers say throughout a trial IS NOT EVIDENCE in the case; it is only what the witnesses say that counts. To my mind, in the transcript, Mitchell acted just like a lawyer who was trying to get the jury/audience distracted from the 'witness testimony' of the photographic evidence that RCH was discussing.
Because I have followed Disclosure Project witness testimony for awhile, I also remember that Mitchell 'pulled back' from that as well. I remember him saying very general things like 'scientifically speaking, there has to be life out in the universe', but whereas Gordon Cooper filed a video transcript with the Disclosure Project (about his sighting at Edwards AFB and the film that was taken of the craft and later confiscated), Mitchell actually got upset at being quoted by the Disclosure Project, and did not want anyone to think he was a Disclosure witness. This struck me at the time as just plain weird, given his big Noetics/New Age consciousness bent after his 'cosmic consciousness moment' out in space.
This is why I am so interested in what he is saying now, because the hedging and hesitation seems to be gone. One thing of interest that he said to the interviewer is that he now feels safe in talking about the subject, and he now knows that no harm will come to him if he does. There are a number of Disclosure witnesses who said the same thing-- they wouldn't talk until they felt safe from reprisal, so Mitchell's concerns and his hemming-and-hawing might very well have been genuine.
The other thing that is of marked interest is that he is, as Mike put it, 'throwing NASA under the bus'. Either he now feels free to talk about NASA hiding stuff because of the safety factor mentioned above, or else NASA is being set up to 'take the fall' for the whole aura of obfuscation of everything to do with the ET/Mars/Moon stuff that is sure to come to light as more and more countries-- Japan, China, India, etc.-- start sending their own probes and missions up.
The other thing that kinda bugs me about Mitchell is that his description of being all logical/scientific to the point that he really had no emotional reaction to being on the Moon, etc., just does not wash. He of all people-- with his Consciousness research and all-- would certainly know that everyone, unless they are pathological, has strong emotional reactions to very big events in their lives. I think that a mission to the Moon qualifies as a Very Big Personal And Life-Changing Event.
While he and other astronauts may have been brainwashed rather than simply debriefed about their lunar adventures, it is just beyond belief that he has never recovered any of his feelings. Even in the case of the astronaut mentioned in Dark Mission who became violently ill when asked about the feelings he experienced, the emotional substrate is still present, which is why aversion programming works, and it's why that astronaut went out into the alley and threw up.
In short, I refuse to believe that Edgar Mitchell has no emotional memories of his lunar experiences, and is some kind of super-rational, completely left-brained specimen. Perhaps this new interview is his right-brain cutting loose.
Anyway, as I said elsewhere on the blog, I am going to pop some popcorn and sit back to watch what happens next, because whatever the reason, he has really dumped on NASA.
Peace,
T'Zairis
Like I posted earlier....the poor bugger most have had his memory restored then...given the credibility, as mentioned by MB and RH in Dark Mission, all the astronauts were "properly debriefed" and quarantined and manhandled for a physical check...or should we say brainhandled :-D
amazing how these tossers can be played and used..."No no Edgar....this time you're allowed to have a fieldday and spill all the beans we concocted"...."Or else...or else we spill your beans"
Most likely a stooge-staged event...all in all to "prepare" mankind for the next stage of events after the stooged "war on terror" . By the way...what's the latest on forthcoming indictment's against those warcriminals in the white house...when are they going to be fedexed to the International Court overhere in the Hague?
And since Eddy Mitchell is out of the closet :-) why not ask him about Werner Theisenberg and have a good laugh while your at it
Regarding Mitchell's comments: I don't know how the question of what it feels like being on the moon is "not germane" to the experience. It is, and that additional sensory information only humans have had is part of the value of sending them, not probes, to places like the moon. If I were there, I would anticipate this question would absolutely be asked by the American public, who paid billions of dollars to give me the not just the mission, but experience aeons of generations only have dreamed about.
The very quest to become an astronaut, however scientific the duties are, is in itself based in an idealism and passion for exploring the unknown. I find Mr. Mitchell's disconnect on that matter therefore to be absolutely amazing.
T'Zairis,
Richard noticed the same thing when he reviewed the transcripts later. Mitchell kept changing the subject and focusing on minutiae.
I like the trial court analagy, t'zairis. Being a lawyer, I viewed Mitchell as a witness. No way an opposing counsel in litigation would let him evade an issue on x-exam. Richard did well as he could to address that in the talk show context, without benefit of counsel, and more importantly a judge to force answering the relevant issues presented.
Again, you're right, walking contradiction with his embracement of new age, ufo's etc. I'll have to re-read it, but he apparently didn't deny there were objects there, but dodged the interpretation of them quickly.
Let's cut the crap. If it looks like a duck, walks like one, talks like one, it probably is a duck. And Richard has successfully spotted many geniune ducks (face, structures, etc).
I have a problem with his description of aliens as being little men with big eyes. I think aliens look just like us: 5 fingers, 5 toes. When I read the story thats the only thing that struck me that he couldn't be telling the truth about. I believe the little green alien phenomenon might have other metaphysical or psychological implications and explanations. If I can venture my own theory, the real aliens, who look like us, would probably be at odds with how our systems of governments are run and all the corruption that goes along with it. If that is so, out "rulers that be" wouldn't be inclined to invite them over for lunch. Thats why I think this image of aliens as threatening, small, large eyed, creepy cartoon characters is put forth. I am skeptical of this whole disclosure notion. I have no faith in the people who run the show.
Art Bell's comments: "I asked him very directly if there were any glass structures on the moon and his response was "green cheese and balogny", that did not invite a follow up question."
In other words, Mitchell did NOT deny it. He did not say "no" to a yes or no question, but evaded it with nonsense. I disagree with Bell. Follow up on getting a yes or no for the record, rather than accept a nonanswer like that. Still, he didn't deny it, so it is deemed admitted.
In listening to the comments on YouTube, he doesn't directly mention NASA, which is what I had been led to believe from the stories I had read about this. Instead he mentions "the government."
Just for clarification -- MB
expat strikes again:
Several points occur to me on re-reading that so-called "debate". I won't expound on all of them, just the most important.
1. Art Bell was a dismally poor moderator, permitting Hoagland to interrupt on numerous occasions and generally dominate the conversation.
Since it was Hoagland’s data that was the subject of the debate, his responses obviously were more extensive.
2. In segment 2, Mitchell made the good point that there were "dozens" of panoramas like the one Hoagland considers anomalous, and that to be at all rigorous all of them should be examined. Hoagland replies "We have two or three of those pans right now, but we don't have all of them, but we want all of them and want to do the same thing." OK -- 12 years later, I'd love to know what the result of that research has been, but I strongly doubt I'm going to find out.
The only pans that were in question were the first generation prints that Ken Johnston had. There were not “dozens” of pans on Apollo 14, and not all the missions landed in areas where there might be such ruins. What we do know is the same structures are evident on NASA’s newly published versions of these same pans, although in a degraded form, putting the lie to the idea that the ruins are a product of our enhancement processes.
3. In segment 4, Hoagland's mind-boggling dishonesty strikes me, as he partially quotes from the Space Act "The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." It drew a response from Mitchell that I'm sure Hoagland relished. "I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language." But of course, if Hoagland had been at all honest he would have completed the clause with "....for the purpose of Chapter 7, Title 35 of the US Code". As we have discussed on this blog previously, Title 35 is exclusively concerned with patent law, and Chapter 7 concerns patent applications by employees. This legal language emphatically does not mean that NASA is "a direct adjunct of DoD", and the book should be corrected. In particular, the very first sentence in the book should be struck. It's a lie.
It’s not a lie, you’re an idiot. As we’ve discussed before, this specific language gives NASA and the DOD carte blanche to classify any “discoveries” made by NASA. They do not have to be patentable. The book will not be corrected, because it is correct as it is now written. Your inability to comprehend the meaning of the US Code does make it a “lie” on our part.
And if Hoagland is so dishonest, why did he include the specific language you cite in the introduction to Dark Mission?
You remind me of one of my favorite U2 lyrics "It's no secret that a liar won't believe anyone else."
4. In segment 2, Hoagland makes the astonishing suggestion that some in NASA management were aware of the mile-high glass domes. He says "Well, maybe you didn't [know about them], but maybe the guys that sent you there and picked the landing sites did." Just think about that. He's saying that mission planners were aware of a mile-high physical hazard in the vicinity of the landing site AND SAID NOTHING TO THE CREW??? That's so utterly preposterous, revealing such utter ignorance of mission planning, that if I were Art Bell I'd have concluded the discussion right there and said "Go to bed, Richard. We'll call if we ever need your opinions again."
Again, all you prove here is what a fool you are and how desperate you are to try and “catch” us at something.
He’s not talking about the Mission planners. He’s talking about Farouk El-Baz. The Mission planners did not pick the landing sites. Dr. El-Baz did. Given that we had consulted on all this with Marvin Czarnik, a 35 year NASA veteran and mission planner, we were hardly “ignorant” of mission planning requirements.
But apparently you are.
Finely articulated, Mike.
I happen to have that U2 album and have found that lyric particularly relevant also...one other lyrical inspiration by U2 on that album that stands out is "don't let the bastards grind you down..."
One thing I've liked about Richard is he is not afraid to debate, and has plenty of credible evidence to back himself up.
The way AOL covered the Mitchell story (filed under "Science News" and "Weird News.")
The old "giggle factor" and of course the big de-Nile!
quoth:
NASA quickly downplayed Mitchell’s comments. "Dr. Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinions on this issue," a statement from the space agency read. "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe."
http://news.aol.com/article/astronaut-claims-alien-cover-up/101479
(NASA has a defunct bridge over the Mississippi in St. Paul, MN. it would love to sell you!)
Gort
Mabey this isn't appropriate for the board, feel free to delete if you wish Mike. Expat strikes me as someone who exsisted a few centuries ago screaming "heresy" at anyone who dared to present new science that went against the accepted theories of the time. Fear can do serious damage to a paradigm shift, even when the evidence is ostensible. ;)
Why should I object? Expat demonstrates on an almost daily basis that Brookings was correct.
It's not enough for him that we can simply agree to disagree about certain subjects. He is convinced that we're deceptive, so he has to play this juvenile game of "now I've got you, you sonofabitch."
Unfortunately, we have all the angles covered, so that leaves him with one alternative, which is to convince himself that we're deceptive.
He and NY Eddie have to tell themselves that. Because the data is too strong to dispute. And if they accept the premise that we're honest, then too much of what we say rings true, and that is deeply frightening to people like them.
It doesn't matter anyway. I've had enough of their constantly petty and inane accusations. They aren't contributing to the blog in a meaningful way, so I've axed them both.
This blog is for people who are at least marginally open minded and reasonably logical, and Expat is neither. I see no reason to pillory him or his ilk any further.
Correction in my response to expat: "Your inability to comprehend the meaning of the US Code does NOT make it a “lie” on our part."
It does make one wonder, maybe Brookings was and still is correct. Paradigms = entire cultures.
Speaking of Farouk El Baz, I just re-read 'The Stargate Conspiracy' by Picknett and Prince last week. I will say up front that I did not and do not subscribe to some of the conclusions they reached in their book, but it is certainly an interesting collection of well-footnoted info-nuggets, among which is this gem, concerning some of the players in the saga of the Gantenbrink robot exploration of the shafts in the Great Pyramid:
_______________
"After the publicity surrounding the story of the discovery, nothing happened about the shaft or chamber until 1996, when a new-- Egyptian-- team was established to take the investigation further. This was to be led by a close friend of Zahi Hawass, a specialist in remote sensing (the use of satellite or aircraft-borne technology to scan the Earth's surface, or beneath it), an Egyptian geophysicist who worked for NASA on the Apollo moon landings, named Dr. Farouk El Baz. A Canadian company called Amtex became involved and equipment worth $1 million was flown to Giza. The intention at the time was to open Gantenbrink's Door on live television, but nothing came of it. In January 1998 Hawass promised that Gantenbrink's Door would be opened by May of that year. Not only did this historic moment fail to materialize, but no explanation has ever been given for the non-event."
(The Stargate Conspiracy, p. 78)
_______________
So here we have El Baz working for NASA and also being extremely interested in the 'goodies at Giza'. My question would not be, how could a NASA scientist pick Egyptian-ritualist landing sites of moon missions, but rather (given El Baz's great interest in Giza), what else would one expect him to do?
Also of interest-- and backing up the idea that there IS an agenda at work-- are the educational pedigrees of both Zahi Hawass (Dr. El Baz's great friend) and Mark Lehner:
_______________
"Mark Lehner-- who built the mini-pyramid for 'Secrets of Lost Empires'-- is the most prominent American Egyptologist stationed in Egypt today. He is highly respected internationally. His 1997 book, 'The Complete Pyramids', was hailed as a masterly overview of an only too-often thorny subject, and was promoted by many major museums, including the British Museum. It is less well known that in 1974 he wrote a book for ARE entitled 'The Egyptian Heritage, Based on the Edgar Cayce Readings', which attempted to reconcile Cayce's pronouncements with the findings of modern Egyptology. According to Lehner in his early days, the Great Pyramid was built as a repository of knowledge and a 'Temple of Initiation for the Great White Brotherhood'.
In 1973 Edgar Cayce's son, Hugh Lynn Cayce, selected the promising young student Lehner to be ARE's 'insider' within the ranks of academic Egyptology, and it was ARE that paid for his training. They also funded his recent carbon-dating tests of material taken from the Great Pyramid (which seems to indicate that it is about 300 or 400 years older than was thought-- but not the 8,000 hoped for by ARE). Today, he no longer advocates Cayceism, and appears not to espouse any 'alternative' views, now being very much a mainstream Egyptologist. Perhaps it was a sly dig at his own past associations with ARE that he recently criticised what he calls 'New Age archaeology' inspired by revealed information.
But Mark Lehner is not the only person on the Giza Plateau to have reason to be grateful to ARE. Amazingly, that arch-enemy of all 'pyramidiots', Dr. Zahi Hawass-- who since 1987 has been in the powerful position of Director of the Giza Plateau and who was recently promoted to Undersecretary of State for the Giza Monuments-- was also put through his training as an Egyptologist by ARE. Through fellow ARE members, Hugh Lynn Cayce arranged a scholarship for Hawass at the University of Pennsylvania between 1980 and 1987, where he gained his Ph.D. in Egyptology. Hawass has maintained his association with ARE ever since, and is a regular lecturer at their conferences at their Virginia Beach headquarters."
(The Stargate Conspiracy, pp. 62-63)
_______________
One has to admit it's a rather nice little intellectually incestuous grouping: Hawass and Lehner linked by strong ties to ARE (despite all their current protestations against-- and attacks on-- 'revelatory Egyptology'), and El Baz is Hawass's bosom-buddy...
Peace,
T'Zairis
Hey Mike have you thought about the fact that Dr.Mitchell seems to have a taylor made respose that seems to have the direct agenda of taking peoples attention from the Moon and Mars structures and misdirecting them from the intresting stuff found on the Moon and Mars.If you draw and straight line back to the misinformation it could seem that Darkmission has struck such a sensitive nerve that is even worth droping the "alien bomb" to distract the media. To me that signals just how important to them and us the moon history really is. Look how far they will go to cover it up.
A little off topic - something that's puzzled me slightly is this: Say that the Apollo missions brought back ancient lunar relics, perhaps even something like Data's head. They take beautiful photographs of structures towering above the surface of the moon. Fantastic news for the scientists involved, right? But Why?
If Anti-gravity craft were in fact technologically able to make a visit to the moon - if not go further than the moon - long before Apollo, then surely any hidden discoveries made by the Apollo moon-walkers would be old news to the 'above top secret' folks?
But then...why take the risk of taking such good quality photos? It's almost like NASA knew all about what they were going to find (they had photo manipulators on staff, etc), wanted the pictures, but couldn't allow the unaltered shots to be leaked. That's a big risk! Why take these photos at all? They could have taken lower quality pictures.
However, perhaps those involved in the secret mission behind apollo did not have clearance to the discoveries made by the previous anti-gravity missions.
Perhaps Black-Ops said to NASA:
"We can't tell you what we found, but while you're up there, what ever YOU find is yours - just don't f#@k up and let the world know."
Maybe...
T’Zairis,
As I recall, that door was eventually opened by El-Baz’ team, and they found – another door.
Also, if I recall correctly, the Stargate conspiracy is the book that says Richard works for the CIA. I also remember a related web site saying I was his “CIA Handler.”
If so, the boys at Langley owe me some paychecks…
Shamus,
Yes, I do think Dr. Mitchell has an agenda to point people toward that which will never be proven, rather than that which can be proven.
M,
I don’t think the NASA guys even knew about the black ops space program until much later. I think they were separate entities.
This is what the next Dark Mission will be about.
Distraction and compartmentalization make it so easy. I thought Richard's observation of the insider "kook" alleging a staged landing was really interesting.
Looking forward to your next book, Mike (& Richard).
But, even though they were probably separate entities, Von Braun, for example, seems to have had his fingers in both pies...
Undoubtedly some at NASA knew something was there, and they knew that from somewhere - and I doubt all of it came from old records.
Separate entities, yes. Connections? Yes.
Black ops to NASA - "You know we won't tell you anything. If you want to know what's out there, you go out and look for it yourself."
As I mentioned at the Enterprise forum on this, I do not think...imho, that The Illuminati/Bildeberg/Masons TPTB actually HAD in their possesion a WORKING anti-g craft until after the mid 1940's when Flying Saucers crashed and back engineering began. I also do think we had ever built our OWN anti-g craft until sometime in the mid 1970's.
Otherwise how does one expain the glyphs at "abydos"?, or all the ancinet art and textfrom history ALL over the world from beiginning of time until today about men inside ships from outer space?
I know you and RCH don't like to "do" non-Earth ETI's inparticular but wonder why when there is such a great amount of scientific evidence to support it such as ground trace landings, implant removals, radar tapes, gun-sight radar tapes, Generals, Admirals, DOD DIA, FAA, FBI, CIA and a host of other folks from the Disclosure Project stating such things are true.
I agree Mitchel looked to be on an 'agenda' of his wn to discount or mislead people away from the DATA and EVIDENCE that you, Richard and others have shown through the years that there WAS a Solar System Wide Civilization...it was likely partly ours and partly in conjunction with "brothers and sisters" from the stars.
It is easy to beat up on NASA when it comes to such things because when it comes to such things it seems the agency has No Adult Spervision Available.
Still no minerological map of Cydona from Themis after all these years, nor from ESA, nor from CRISM which I KNOW took CRISM data of my Fall 2007 HiRise Request Challenge Request of the Cydonia Smoker. I have ALL the raw data strips of the CRISM for that acquisition,,,but analyising it beyond my capabilities for the moment. The PDS person says maybe September 2008 release I might see the "hour-glass" shape result of the CRISM processing through ISIS3. We'll see.
Also Section 1206.300 is the SPECIFIC section of NASA law that gives the DOD the RIGHT to destroy, alter, or simply take a mission 'black' if it has anything to do with "National Security". And we all are well aware of how far 'stretched' National Security issues have become recently as this administration states the Constitution is "just a piece of paper" in a news conference.
Bob...:D
http://commonsensecentral.net/
My last request in FOIA I sent to NASA while at CCC had this:
R6. I hereby request a complete list of any documents, images, memos or other items that NASA has received or sent, from or to, any source, internal or external, at any time that have ever been excluded from disclosure under Sec 1206.300 sub (b) para (1) or para (9) that deal with non-Earth data, of any type or source, and the dates and reasons such exclusions were made.
--
THAT section is the one 'speficially' giving DOD the power to do the things I mentioned in my last post.
Bob...:D
Mike,
I completely agree with you that 'The Stargate Conspiracy' is a large helping of twaddle. The authors dug up some interesting factoids and then took off in some really odd directions with regard to what those facts actually meant. With RCH's stuff, they selected a few bits that could be made to fit their overarching conspiracy ideas and just forgot about everything else (namely the lion's portion of what's on TEM, etc.) I also know about them finally boring through Gantenbrink Door #1 and finding Door #2 (which fits Chris Dunn's Giza Power Plant model, but not the Initiation-Hall-of-the-Great-White-Bro'hood' model of the Cayce-ists).
What interested me about the stuff I quoted was the linkage between El Baz (Zahi's good friend) and Hawass, who is the official custodian-cum-high-priest of the Giza Plateau. Also of interest is where the financial support for Hawass's Egyptology Ph.D. came from: ARE-- run by Edgar Cayce's son. This linkage makes Hawass's virulent and rude characterization of those who pursue some sort of alternative Egyptology as 'pyramidiots' disingenuous at best. It smacks of the same treatment dished out to anyone who says they've seen a UFO by government types. The folks who had the sighting are dismissed as morons who could mistake the pinprick-light of Venus for a mile-wide UFO, while the officials doing this rubbishing are themselves collecting interesting radar data and airbrushing the skies of photos taken on the Moon. The fact that Hawass dismisses people like Dunn as pyramidiots while he himself skulks around Giza for his ARE benefactors is just deliciously ironic.
Add to this Mark Lehner's Ph.D. bankrolling by ARE, and I think we have a situation at Giza that fairly screams 'Hidden Agendas'.
My own take on the situation is that the occultists of various stripes involved in the whole ancient Egypt scene do not know as much as they like to give the impression of knowing. We've got a high probability that closet Cayceites Hawass and Lehner are looking for goodies that would support Cayce's prophetic agendas while they pretend to be just-the-facts serious academics. However, they've go to be rather nonplussed when the extra chambers (found by Japanese with side-scan radar) in the Great Pyramid turn out to be filled with unusually fine sand and not scrolls touting the inherent nazi-esque superiority of the 'Great White Boys' Frat-Club of Atlantean Freemasons'.
This is why I like TEM, Dark Mission, etc., where everyone is looking at data like photographs/thermal images and launch-and-land dates for various space missions. And when Dark Mission says that Farouk El Baz picked lunar landing sites with another agenda (Osirian) in mind besides just looking for a reasonably safe place to put men down on the Moon, I have to say that his friendship and research relationship with 'Mr. Giza' Hawass and his Big, Blocked Shaft makes the assertions made in Dark Mission even more likely. That's why I never dismiss books out-of-hand: even if they are mostly silly, they often contain a few nuggets that are of some use.
Getting back to Edgar Mitchell-- with his various ET statements and pull-backs from actually saying 'I am going to disclose everything I know', I think he has agendas, too. I agree with Seamus when he says that Mitchell's not-quite-flat-out statements are 'designer distraction'.
Peace,
T'Zairis
Mike: "Dr. Edgar Mitchell,... has admitted in an interview in England that UFO's (or ET's) are real, and furthermore NASA knows it."
Not in the quotations I've seen. He's admitted he believes what other people have told him about Roswell, and lots of people do... but he has no first-hand knowledge to 'admit'. And he's stated that at NASA he never came across any UFO evidence, which you seem to have not noticed.
Bara: "The only pans that were in question were the first generation prints that Ken Johnston had."
...and which, at last word, the university he donated to them had lost. Any updates to that search, Mike?
Hi T'Zairis et al,
Edgar Mitchell's "evade and redirect" way of
handling questions is not unique to him, at
least where The Mercury Seven are concerned.
I've been in a group conversation or two with
Buzz Aldrin, who has had occaision to do
exactly the same thing when confronted with,
for example, the ET question.
This was in the early 1990s at the ISDC
(run by the National Space Society).
It's like they were all trained to do this.
And I note that so far, no one has mentioned
that all of the Mercury Seven were elite
military personnel, sworn to obey orders.
Their selection for the Mercury Program
weighed in heavily on that point.
The next questions then become...
1 - What were these "orders,"
2 - who gave them, and
3 - why.
:-)
Hathor - Penetrating the secrecy
;-)
Ah, no. You seem to have not noticed my update where I link to the interview where Mitchell clarifies his comments and corrects the record regarding NASA.
No, we still have all the orginal pans that Ken gave us. The pictures he donated have not been found by the university.
I wouldn't be surprised if none of the "secret societies" (as such) were in complete control of the 'man made' anti-gravity craft.
NASA and some of the others might be based on secret societies, however I wouldn't be surprised if anti-grav was completely military. As to what they stand for - who knows.
None of this, however, excludes the possibility (or even probability) of craft coming from 'elsewhere.'
Unfortunately, no matter how intriguing the reports are of UFO's (one of my favourite topics as a child) it is ultimately harder to prove them of an alien nature, so I understand Richard and Mike going for the provable.
The very fact that we, or our ancestors, or 'creators' may have had origins on Mars, and elsewhere, as well as the number of cultures with ancient astronauts in their stories, one cannot discount that some of those craft today MAY be from the same places (or new places...)
How many back-yard scientists have had their research destroyed because they got too close to discovering amazing new sciences? We've heard of T.T. Brown, we've got T.H Moray, and others...that we KNOW OF. What about the people we've never heard of? We are a smart species! We can invent marvellous and unbelievable things.
Someone doesn't want us to know what we are capable of, because they don't want us to KNOW what we have been capable of.
Just me say'n is all...
Mike: "You seem to have not noticed my update where I link to the interview where Mitchell clarifies his comments and corrects the record regarding NASA."
OK -- I figured you might want to unfalsify the thread's title, then.
It is odd that the two most 'far out' astronauts, Ed Mitchell and Cordon Cooper, were assigned together to the Apollo-10 backup crew in 1968-9, but then Cooper was passed over when the crew was rotated to prime status for a subsequent mission -- and Shepard was inserted in his place. Mitchell has never disclosed what he knows about the reasons for that remarkable snub, that enraged Cooper for the rest of his life.
I never alter the original post, because if I did, people like you would accuse me of covering something up. So I just post clarifications in the comments or in an update to the bosy of the post - which I did in this case.
Only a matter of time until some billionaire(s) or small corporation sends up a probe to the moon, like Viking and successors, takes some high-def photos of the structures, and publishes them free and clear of editing.
Hmmm ... what if the Dark Mission authors approached Richard Branson, billionaire and space enthusiast, about just an idea (lunar probe)? Pretty clear the guy likes space.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/07/28/space.tourism.ap/index.html
david 19 1/2 said...
Hmmm ... what if the Dark Mission authors approached Richard Branson, billionaire and space enthusiast, about just an idea (lunar probe)? Pretty clear the guy likes space.
Sword:
The moon?
A billionaire would be able to photo MUCH more than that - depending on WHOM he was connected with...
Sword
You're having some sort of weird in-joke, right? You wouldn't seriously suggest that knowledge of a HUGE HAZARD in the vicinity of the Apollo 14 landing site would be withheld from the crew... would you?
Sir Richard Branson already
has been approached with a
number of similar proposals,
and has snubbed all of them.
He's following the space tourism agenda for
the time being.
Where's the profit in proving that there are
structures on the Moon? In a picture book?
At Barnes & Noble?
He thinks a lot bigger than that, at least in
monetary terms.
And Philanthropy? I have observed over the
decades that these guys do things like that
only when there is some form of payback
in the offing. They make a buck on it either
directly or indirectly, in some fashion.
For every penny they put in, they're going to
get three back, one way or another.
:-)
Hathor - Running the Teller window...
...and keeping the tally...
;-)
lincoln said: "You're having some sort of weird in-joke, right? You wouldn't seriously suggest that knowledge of a HUGE HAZARD in the vicinity of the Apollo 14 landing site would be withheld from the crew... would you?"
Nice try expat...
I've never said any such thing.
Wouldn't blame Branson if there's no $ in it, but I dared to suggest.
Someone ought to ask Dr. Ed Mitchell these questions. On the Apollo 14 mission you conducted the classified NASA-DOD "Chapel Bell Experiment". What was the "Chapel Bell Experiment" & why are its results still classified?
Someone ought to ask Dr. Ed Mitchell the following questions. On the Apollo 14 mission you & the other astronauts conducted the classified NASA-DOD "Chapel Bell Experiment". What was the "Chapel Bell Experiment", & why are its results still classified? http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14mr12.htm
Dear Mr. Bara,
I enjoy your blog, however this is my first post. I think you (and Richard) are doing a fantastic job.
I also would like to know what your take on this article is:
http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/release_mitchell.html
First paragraph:
I, Clark C. McClelland, former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet, personally observed an 8 to 9 foot tall ET on his 27 inch video monitors while on duty in the Kennedy Space Center, Launch Control Center (LCC). The ET was standing upright in the Space Shuttle Payload Bay having a discussion with TWO tethered US NASA Astronauts! I also observed on my monitors, the spacecraft of the ET as it was in a stabilized, safe orbit to the rear of the Space Shuttle main engine pods. I observed this incident for about one minute and seven seconds.
Mike, you should talk on Oklahoma City's am radio, Jack and Ron on 98.9. They are mainstream and like to have guests on the air that discuss books in your genre.
Sounds like an idea.
Rick,
Maybe JimO knows why its still classified...
I have seen no evidence that 'Chapel Bell' is "still classified", I suspect this is a "made-up-to-make-me-feel-important" factoid. There's a lot of these around here, and elsewhere to be sure.
Since the experiment was listed as 'launch phase', and based on the themes of other projects with similar designators, my presumption is it was a calibration of DoD worldwide acoustic sensors for monitoring a distant rocket launch. Don't forget, in this time frame (1971-1972) the DIA had realized its satellite and ELINT monitoring of Baykonur had entirely missed the first N-1 super-rocket launch in 1969 -- and could easily miss others, without a new monitoring approach. This is consistent with my discussions with flight crewmembers.
That sort of activity would, after this much time, leave little if any paper trail.
Regarding McClelland's newest space UFO story, it is another data point on a consistent trend he's been showing year by year.
Jim,
Where did you find the "launch phase" reference?
I do know that a guy made a FOIA request to NASA about Chapel Bell, and they responded that they had no documents. This seems inplausible, given that it was on one of their missions.
I'm vaguely recalling it was in the press kit, but can check.
As to there being 'no documents', the only way somebody can say that is by not finding it listed in catalogues of Apollo-era boxes and boxes of documents, mostly now stored at Rice University. You have more experience than I do in sifting through dusty stacks, and seeing how much (or little) the listed contents related to what you actually come across. My own pessimistic impression is that documentation of that type would have no expectation of survival at all, except by accident, over four decades.
You can read about the sensor and intelligence collection shortfalls regarding the USSR's big man-to-the-moon booster of that era over at astronautix.com, and elsewhere.
JimO, makin' a positive contribution to the blog!
According to Apollo By The Numbers-A Statistical Reference(NASA SP-4029),the Chapel Bell Experiment conducted on Apollo 14 was still classified as of Sept 27,2005. Sept 27,2005 is the date on the most recent online version of this important NASA document. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_14b_Objectives.htm
A friend sent me a link to this recent Apollo program history overview:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_14b_Objectives.htm
For Apollo-17, it listed objectives (inter alia):
Operational Tests For Manned Spacecraft Center/Department of Defense.
1.Chapel Bell (classified Department of Defense test).
2. Radar skin tracking.
3. Ionospheric disturbance from missiles.
4. Acoustic measurement of missile exhaust noise.
5. Army acoustic test.
6. Long‑focal‑length optical system.
7. Sonic boom measurement.
8. Skylab Medical Mobile Laboratory.
Dunno what further insights these might provide.... or what 'classified' (in 1972) means relative status to 2008...
For "Chapel Bell", perhaps
substitute "NAZI Bell," and
research the latter. Fancy
the NASA boys playing with
THAT particular toy in space.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's it....
Of course, it's only a wild guess....
And if I'm right...I wonder how it was
powered?
:-)
Hathor - Mistress of Speculation
;-)
P.S.: Don't forget, Wernher Von Braun was
a Colonel in the S.S.
:-)
A Major, actually.
Hmph. Sure enough.
I stand corrected.
:-)
Hathor - Shaking her finger at me....
;-)
I don't buy it at all.
Follow the recent money (nuff said)...
Mitchell is on the "dark side" on this one.
He is completely misrepresenting what he saw - deliberately.
AND
He's getting a handsome amount to do so. Gotta love the grandchildren.
Other Apollo's are enraged.
I have no proof of my statements to deliver to you - at this time.
SWORD
Dr. Ed Mitchell closed his UK interview with the comment that some of the people involved in the Moon Landings also know about the ETI on the Earth. It's true that not all of the Moon landing program personnel worked for NASA(You have to include contractor & some military personnel). However, when you speak of people working for the Apollo Program, you usually include NASA personnel.
Hey Mike!
I just found this on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ0WZrmm8XE
Edgar Mitchell and Richard's comments on Coast to Coast AM
Post a Comment