Commentary On Mitchell Interview
Thanks to links provided by our loyal commenters, I listened to the Dr. Ed Mitchell interview. In response to new commenter “Sizz,” I wrote:
I don’t know if the “truth” is what people tend to think. Perhaps if the authorities state that there is some sort of non-human intelligence that interacts with us from time to time, the phenomenon will shut down or morph into something completely different.
That’s what I would do if I wasn’t prepared to deal with humans, because I don’t know if we’re ready to meet the phenomenon on it’s own terms, because those terms may be completely alien (pun intended) to us.
Perhaps it just exists for our benefit as an extension into our reality that appears as we expect it to (i.e. in terms that we can understand.) We might have defined those terms for ourselves long ago, and the phenomenon continues without reference to space, time, or what we currently think about it.
I take it for granted that readers know my opinion about UFOs-that there is a non-human intelligence that occasionally impinges on our reality. The “E.T.s are visiting us from other planets and the government knows about it” is such a tired mantra that we might do ourselves some good by speculating on other possibilities. Do the few who actually know what’s up with this non-human contact deal really understand what it is that they might be dealing with?
Of course, these “insiders” would have access to the best minds on the planet to consult on the phenomenon and come up with far more intelligent things than I can ever hope to express, but is the public actually being leaked what is known, or what it is that somebody wants us to know and think?
In the past, I have maintained that the UFO subject may emanate from a source that resides in a realm that we can only speculate about, and then only in rough terms. How do you explain that on the 10 o’clock news? Bill Hicks once said in a comedy routine (newscaster voice): “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Now here’s Tom with the weather.”
Much of the paranormal (of which UFOs are definitively a part) seems to shove our faces in the dim realization some of us have that we have only a partial view of the ways, whys and wherefores of so-called “reality.” If this is true, how is anyone going to explain that to a society with an average eighth grade education? Better to keep to the “aliens from other planets” story, as long as it is made clear that they have no desire to conquer us.
I don’t think “conquer” has an equivalent in the realm of UFOs, and the presumed intelligences behind them. They (if there indeed is a “they”) probably look on us as we look at wind and water if we are sailors, or air if we are pilots–something that is helpful when you know how to harness it. It’s always there, and it is just as significant as stars, planets, cosmic dust, etc. We may be like a wave on the sea or a gust in the wind. As certain spiritual traditions have it, we may be “knots” in the fabric of a non time- and space-binded existence, and other intelligences may be interested in how the knots are tied.
Of course, all of this may be ridiculous speculation, but the obvious is almost never the answer to a difficult conundrum. Even if it is, the mental games we engage in while looking for explanations are far more interesting, and may lead to some unexpected answers.
This entry was posted
on Friday, July 25th, 2008 at 12:51 am and is filed under Beliefs, Conspiracies, Occult/Esoteric, Psychic Phenomena, UFOlogy, UFOmystic Exclusive, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response or trackback from your site.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit BlinkList Google Ma.gnolia StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Help
- Related News Stories:
- UFO Various »
- UFOMystic in 2008 »
- That Edgar Mitchell UFO Show »
- Astronaut Experiences… »
- Contactees Tuning In To Themselves Tuning In To The “Other” »
- Good Post on Bad Astromony »
- Shuttle Astronaut Believes In Aliens »
- The Way of the Explorer »
- Kimball Comments On MJ12 »
- Interview Posted »
|
Jul 25 2008 
July 25th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Until we’re exposed to something genuinely alien, whether material or non-material, stories like this only manipulate believers and non-believers by reinforcing their opinions.
It could be that non-material contact has been going on for a long time and we’ll eventually slide into some sort of new awareness.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I wish Mitchell had stated instead that Newton was wrong about the law of gravity where phase of time is measured as planetary radii to the sun. I mean there’s some great questions posed to Richard Feynman about infinite velocity and gravity (on the C.D. of Feynman’s planetary orbit, “lost lecture”). The elliptical orbit can be explained in terms of light reflection and refraction but it’s now been proven that light gives supposed spurious superliminal signals as well. In terms of quantum physics these “signals” from the future are random and uncertain yet there can be stochastic resonance causing an amplification of noise into a signal — from the future or a different source of space.
O.K. I’ll try to eat less garlic since I’ve morphed into Man-Monkey again.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Which belief system is more harmful: one in which we completely deny the existence of other intelligences that interact with us in weird and—possibly— sometimes harmful ways, or another in which we think extraterrestrial beings visit our planet for whatever reason?
I dunno… at least in the latter we acknowledge that we are not alone, which IMO it’s a step forward. Maybe in time—say, 2,000 years or so— we’ll be ready for another step towards the truth.
Yes, ultimely all belief systems are manipulative control mechanisms. But then again, could we live without them? If you go to bed at night and close your eyes, you’re hoping that you’ll wake up in the next morning… eventhough there’s really no guarantee WHATSOEVER that this will happen
July 25th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Greg,
I think you might find this NEW INFORMATION about Mitchell’s “disclosure” to be very interesting:
http://www.mottimorphic.com/Mitchell_1.html
I’m eager to hear/read your thoughts.
-Mike
July 25th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
euphemystic,
People will always find something to bolster their belief systems.
As for your second statement, I of course agree completely, especially the “could be” part.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Drew,
Can you repeat that so the rest of the class can understand what you’re saying? I’m not sure I do.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
RPJ,
Belief systems about waking up in the morning or believing your next meal will come on time, etc. are something most of us take for granted, and live with.
What I think you’re getting at is that we need to believe in something, even if it’s partially, or maybe even completely, wrong. I guess I’m a “believer” in keeping as many open options as possible.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Wmmott,
Thanks for digging deeper and uncovering a more interesting story. I’m particularly surprised (or more likely not) by his about face on “Fox and Friends.”
Maybe he is scared for his safety, but it is more likely that he was told to tone down his personal beliefs in public, or to stop his undercover ad campaign for the new X-Files film, as you suggested. I’m not sure if he’s still in contact with his X-Files buddies, or they gave him some money, or as you guessed, that he was doing a favor for some old friends.
Of course, many UFO fans will say that he’s been “silenced.” Perhaps he has, but I tend to believe it’s from people (friends, colleagues, and NASA) who are more embarassed for him than afraid of letting out some “big secret.”
Great work!
July 25th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Mike wrote (in the article):
“If there’s any doubt about the dubious nature of Mr. Mitchell’s claims, it’s only in the minds of the credulous.”
What -exactly- do you find dubious?
Do you find him untruthful or simply guilty of possessing an addled brain? If so, where is the proof either, other than your opinion?
Greg-
A simple question if you don’t mind. Do you consider yourself one of the “new breed” of Ufologist that was the topic of a post here not long ago or do you consider yourself simply a commentator on the subject?
What UFO or Abduction cases, if any, have you personally investigated ‘in the field’?
Last question…you’ve written up more than a few “what if’s” and have described the interplanetary hypothesis as “a tired mantra”. What is it about what many consider the most logical hypothesis (certainly now with the discovery of the existence of extra-solar planets and water on Mars)”tired”? And do you accept the possibility that Mr. Mitchell is -not- ‘under the influence’ and is simply telling the truth as he knows it and as it truly may be (tired as it is)?
“You will not apply my precept,” he said, shaking his head. “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?”
“Elementary my dear Holmes” said Watson. “He came from another dimension”
(with apologies to A.C.D)
:roll eyes:
July 25th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Jonah,
I don’t know what I consider myself. An interested party perhaps, maybe a cheerleader for alternate points of view on UFOs which I don’t see getting much exposure. “Ufologist” is a term I don’t like very much. It’s vague and conveys a bogus imprimatur of officialdom on something that anyone can call themselves.
I have investigated no abduction cases on my own, although I have spoken at length and continue to do so with people who do as well as those who claim to have been taken. There are plenty of abductees who are not hard-core ETH’ers–Whitley Strieber, for example, as well as the late Karla Turner. I try to express my thoughts on things I find interesting, that’s all.
What do extra-solar planets and water on Mars have to do with the ETH? These discoveries are important for furthering knowledge and paving the way for our future in space, but prove nothing about extraterrestrial life, they merely suggest possibilities.
To me, the ETH is “tired” because that’s all we usually hear. There is no evidence for its veracity except our beliefs, at least until something is revealed that is unequivocal for all. It’s one of many “what ifs.” Of course, it could be the answer, or part of it. I have never denied that.
Dr. Mitchell could be telling the truth as he believes it. In fact, I think he is. That’s what these last two posts were about.
Your quote from AC Doyle, applied to the UFO question seems a bit off the mark. What have we eliminated from the UFO debate that is “impossible?”
Holmes’ conclusion is funny and quite applicable, though!
Thanks for your questions.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Thank -you- Greg, for answering my somewhat snarky comment. You are always the gentleman and I do appreciate the clarification. As an aside, I have heard your interview with ‘Thunder K’(KT). Have it on my iPod as a matter of fact. I found and listened to it shortly after I purchased my twenty acres of wilderness along the border of B.C, with plenty of fuel and access to fresh water year round. Go figure.
I wish you well.
~J
July 26th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
OK Greg — yesterday I was reading one of “science writer” James Trefil’s astronomy books. He says that dark matter is non-Keplerian — which means something about going against the predicted elliptical orbit of matter. And of course “dark matter” is most of the universe (according to mainstream science) and it’s quantum… therefore (see my earlier post for infinite self-regressive ad absurdum loop).
July 27th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Jonah,
Read the article again. My question as to the dubious nature of his claims is quite clear.
Dr. Mitchell is a great American. A hero. But this doesn’t mean that he doesn’t exhibit, to an extreme degree, the behavior of one who has a severe case of “wishful thinking.” Evidence is NOT considered in his claims. He seems hell-bent on proving the ETH at the expense of facts, witness and experiencer accounts, and perhaps even the (gsp!) truth.
His claims on the Kerrang! Radio show were directly contradicted by comments he made later in the week when he called into Fox & Friends. Either he has as sources “people on government panels” (as he said on the radio), or “ranchers and locals” in the Roswell area from the era of the event (as he said on Fox & Friends). And so on.
Unfortunately, those who are determined to believe the ETH will believe it, often in spite of facts or the lack thereof. I recommend that you go to my radio interview page at mottimorphic.com and listen to some of the audio–you will quickly see that the ETH is highly unlikely, at its best. Listen to my latest interview with Kevin Smith and you’ll see where I’m coming from.
As for Edgar Mitchell, well, I wish him the best. But I also think that every point examined in that particular article is legitimate.
-Michael Mott
July 27th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Well, as far as theories of origins go regarding the phenomenon I think the ETH holds as much water as any other theory. It’s just unfortunate that it becomes popularized by culture, and all other possibilities are thrown by the way side, but what can you really expect? To the open minded researcher such a theory is old hat, but to the common guy on the street that would be his first guess. “It came from outer-space …” echoes. Would the ETH be the Occam’s Razor of the mystery? I suppose for some seasoned researchers it would be, and if you take into account the infamous NASA STS video footage, it certainly seems plausible. I mean, there they are, right out in space. Right? They must have come from there. But what about the accounts, both military and civilian of differing countries around the World, of objects being tracked and sighted within the oceans? There they are, in the water, entering and exiting. Right? They must have come from there. But what of the not oft mentioned “Amalantrah Working” of Aleister Crowley and company? He spoke of opening spatial gateways, and later came into contact with our now popular little buddy known as LAM. Surely there must be an occult or esoteric explanation for the phenomena.
I think the major bone I have with modern UFOlogy is that there’s an over abundance of theory cults. There’s nothing wrong with putting forth an interpretation, but when it impedes objective research and hinders a fresh (A clean slate) approach, we go no where. The bottom line is unfortunately most people have already made up their minds about what they believe it is, whether or not they admit it even to themselves. They sit on a belief, and analyze the criteria to cater to and nourish that idea. What you end up with is a tunnel vision of selective analysis and premature conclusions. Project Stalk, the Pentacle letter, the Cold War. Is it really all that alien?
July 27th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
111uminate,
You must have mind-melded with me without my knowledge or permission.
Either that, or we have essentially the same thoughts on this subject. Coincidentally.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Wmmott wrote:
His claims on the Kerrang! Radio show were directly contradicted by comments he made later in the week when he called into Fox & Friends. Either he has as sources “people on government panels” (as he said on the radio), or “ranchers and locals” in the Roswell area from the era of the event (as he said on Fox & Friends).
If what he said on F&F matched what he said the next day in a “Ed Mitchell sets the record straight” interview by Lisa Bonnice of BlogTalkRadio (courtesy of C2C):
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0708/record-straight-print.html
In it, Mitchell only disavows receiving information from NASA, but not from other governmental sources, such as from persons in the Pentagon. As for his Roswell sources, they were not just “ranchers and locals”–i.e., mere local residents–but:
“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 …”
Further, on the Parachat forum, at http://forum.theparacast.com/f8/wernher-von-braun-another-mitchells-source-for-reality-t2265/, poster UfoRadio writes:
“On September 12, 2007, for the “Coast to Coast” radio show, Mitchell stated that he knew Wernher quite well and they become very close. Mitchell stated that Wernher dropped a few hints (on UFOs). He didn’t discuss with Mitchell in great depth but also he didn’t hold it back. The “Paperclip scientists” (other scientists transferred from Germany to USA as Wernher too) were at Fort Bliss “at the time all this happened” (Roswell). Mitchell adds that Wernher was apparently there and was asked to investigate at that first instant-incident (Roswell)….”
July 28th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Great, now someone at a sci-fi blog has pegged me as a UFO believer nut by taking one of my questions from the last post out of context:
the blogger’s own speculation made my eyes roll so far back in my head that I sprained one:
What if this is just a huge cover for a push by U.S. authorities to play the “we are talking to the aliens” card (with a poker face aiding the bluff) due to sagging influence around the world?
That’s totally the way to get people to respect you: Claim that you’re in regular contact with aliens.
I’ll just comfort myself with the probability that not too many people read that blog.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Just to clarify: That comment of yours was made in a previous thread, “That Edgar Mitchell Interview.”
What was wrong about the sci-fi-er’s critique of it is that it misrepresents how our government would be “playing its cards.” It would emphatically not be “claiming” to be “talking to the aliens.” Explicitly, it would be doing the opposite: denying any such interpretation. Meanwhile, it would be doing so in such a clumsy manner as to entice enemies who reflexively dismiss our government’s claims to come to the contrary conclusion.
This sort of deceptive maneuver–pretending to have secret weapons or a secret alliance with another power–is not unknown in the game of international intrigue, to intimidate potential threats.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:41 am
PS: IOW, what you meant to imply is that our government would, through seemingly inadvertent disclosures or implausible denials, mislead potential enemies into inferring that we had access to advanced technology or powerful allies.
Here’s an instance that occurs to me: In 1939, at an air show in Germany, a top French air force official was given a ride in one of Germany’s latest planes. While cruising along, one of Germany’s two experimental Heinkel jets (which were never put into production) “accidentally” flashed past his plane at an incredible speed–but nothing was said about it to the air official. He falsely concluded that Germany had a powerful weapon up its sleeve, and this led him to adopt a defeatist, placatory attitude, as was intended.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
new human weapon…
Has anyone heard of Eksrima?…