Thursday, July 24, 2008

Greg Bishop poses a few sensible questions regarding Dr. Edgar Mitchell's recent statements:

It would also be nice to know where and from whom Mitchell heard these stories, but that might be naming names. Given that he's not afraid for his safety anymore, could he name places and times that could be checked out? What about deceased individuals who wouldn't have a problem if their names were mentioned? (Admittedly, this last factor might not help that much.) In any case, Mitchell is a respected American hero, and many people are inclined to take him seriously.

I don't think Mitchell is lying or delusional, but that doesn't mean his revelations are necessarily accurate (even if he believes them to be so). Of course, they could be entirely legitimate; if so, they're certainly among the most explicit UFO "insider" remarks we've yet to hear.

I freely admit that I'm skeptical of open disclosure, as I discuss in my latest piece at

The so-called UFO "community" is continually aroused by specious claims that the governments of the world are preparing for a monumental disclosure of UFO evidence. For once and for all, we're assured, the truth will be revealed -- and our identity as a species forever redefined by the knowledge that our planet is routinely visited by extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Although this theme (characterized by vague, if tantalizing, comments by insiders both real and imaginary) has been repeatedly enacted over the last sixty years, many UFO commentators remain oddly unfazed, content to await the next revelation in a disturbingly Kafkaesque pageant.

If Mitchell can demonstrate the veracity of his claims, he's poised to help end the charade. I'll be most interested in what -- if anything -- arises.


Anonymous said...

I agree with you Mac, that a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.

I have listened to Dr. Mitchell's statements from the other evening now a number of times. He uses the word "briefed", not informed or told. He clearly says "intelligence community". These words have pretty specific meanings to ex-military and government service people. In my estimation, his manner in addressing the subjects is presented by him as "matter of fact" and not just his considered opinion.

I would like to know why did he make these statements at all, and why now?

I agree that Greg Bishop has posed sensible questions. If Dr. Mitchell is prepared to go as far as he has demonstrated in this interview, then is he willing to call out everyone he knows shares the information he claims to be privy to and ask them to come forward. If not, why not? He said he doesn't think the fear factor is as high as it once was, so what then is the hold up. He doesn't have to call them out by name, just make an open and public appeal to end their silence and come forward.

I hope someone is able to get him on record with a follow up interview to address these and other issues his statements have touched on. I am interested but cautiously so.


wmmott said...


I think you might find this NEW INFORMATION about Mitchell’s “disclosure” to be very interesting:

I’m eager to hear/read your thoughts, and Greg's.


Greg Bishop said...


I answered you at Ufomystic, and I repeat, great sleuthing.

Now you've uncovered the fact that he basically backpedaled on his claims earlier today. Pretty frustrating as well as unfortunately expected.

Back to square one, apparently. Again.

wmmott said...


The problem is that when someone--especially someone of his stature--pulls a stunt like this, he discredits investigation of the whole field of anomalies research. "Guilt by association" enters the mind of the public at large.

Because he is who he is, the worldwide media jumped all over this story. It's good in one sense, that of exposure to the topic, but it's bad in that what he had to say is very questionable, and therefore the topic is discredited.