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 SETI.com:
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.