Another NASA employee comes forward - 8-9 Foot Alien Sighted, page 19

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 08:50 AM

link

Originally posted by porschedrifter

Originally posted by RiotComing

Everyone must know that these astronauts aren't nutters with far-fetched tales to tell.

[edit on 29-7-2008 by RiotComing]

Yeah, Minus that crazy nutter Astronaut lady that had the love triangle with her fellow Astronaut.

You know, you can't count that as being a 'nutter' or 'kook'. She was in love and, unfortunately, that is an emotion that spawns temporary spurts of emotion and even insanity. She regrets it and you can't pin this one act on all astronauts as being nutters or kooks. I know you aren't but I'm just trying to explain that just because one or two can get through the system of tests and such doesn't mean that the many other astronauts that have come forth or hinted at alien visitation should be categorized as such.

MacDonagh

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 08:59 AM

link

An interesting thread.

Though what has been said recently may be the truth, but why should it be true? Let people believe what they want to believe.

I think something big will be happening soon.

thrashee

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:05 AM

link

Originally posted by Astroplasma
I am new here, but it surprises me to find such dismissive attitudes on this website. Are you suggesting this is not even worth discussing? I respect your opinion, but until I have formed my own, I would like to hear more of what others think about Mr. McClelland.

Hi Astroplasma,

Welcome aboard, I'm pretty new here myself.

No need to "excuse" eagerness, we were probably drawn here for the same reasons. Yes, I'm obviously a skeptic on this guy, and I won't belabor the point any longer as to why (RiotComing made a good point, I am starting to repeat myself

).

I'll just say this: not every skeptic doesn't believe, or doesn't want to believe. That's largely why I am so dismissive on this topic. Similar to that sinking feeling you get when you see a cop car behind you, it seems like every story you read about someone with grand credentials and what could possibly be a ground-breaking story turns into.....well, you catch my drift.

It's sheer disappointment. And it makes me angry, because the bar for me personally is really not that high. So every one of these stories that disintegrates chips away at my willingness to believe. And I want to believe.

Anyhow, that's my 2 cents. I certainly didn't mean to discourage you from exploring this thread for yourself. Please do, I'm curious what your own conclusion will be.

thrashee

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:19 AM

link

Originally posted by PowerSlave
Why would anyone want to subject themselves to this abuse?
The second anyone comes forward, they are instantly called out...

Actually, they're simply asked to substantiate their claims. It's hardly an unreasonable request, although I agree that if you do have a story like this, and have no proof, the ridicule would be hard.

Skeptics want a pic? When they get a pic it's fake!
Then they want video? When they get it, It's instantly CGi.. fake!
They want credible and multiple witnesses? When they are provided... They are Kooks or have agenda's $$$

That's somewhat unfair. Don't forget, skeptics play a very important role in this whole issue. It is healthy to scrutinize these claims and want evidence, and it is crucial to analyze that evidence. How many pictures are proven to be fakes? How many videos are proven to be fakes? Take a browse through these forums for an example. So you see, we simply cannot take things at face value, much as some would like to.

They won't accept anything less then for every skeptic out there to be personally addressed/visited (in person) by Mr. Alien, handshake and all(if they have hands..). Even then, they will say it was a midget in a space suit.....

I'd settle for a credible witness with some sort of evidence that wasn't outright proven false. Is that really too much to ask for?

GeneralLee

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:32 AM

link

I'm not trying to beat a dead dog here but I'm still confused with the timeline of his career. If as someone said about a hundred pages ago that he was 56 in 1992 (In the photo) and he started his research into UFO's in 1947 then he was 11? I saw a UFO coming from the direction of the space coast when I was about 6...whatever.

So he's now 72 or thereabouts. Maybe he should get moving on this thing if he plans on enjoying any windfall he thinks he is going to obtain on this revelation!!!

Like I said before.....I'm just sayin.....

kshaund

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:46 AM

link

Originally posted by thrashee
reply to post by Demandred

Judging from his solicitations for money, and the incredibly crude postings he's made both here and on his website, I'm guessing he'll fail.

Not picking on you solely, just using your post to make a point for everyone else on this thread that keeps coming back and back again -

OPEN REQUEST TO ALL POSTERS HERE -

I'm looking for anyone willing to donate their time and life's work to me - for nothing of course, so I can do what I want with it. Seriously - all your photos, stories of personal contacts, etc. give them to me, please. Why? Because they're not worth anything to you because if they were, you'd be greedy, right?

So if Mr. McClelland is expected to give away what he has, then please lead the way, and put your walk where the talk is - and start a new trend - and give me all your stuff! Now! I will disclose it -

WHAT? No takers?!? Aw come on! Surely you all who suggest all this information should be GIVEN to you, please GIVE yours to me first and prove what you say.... Send me a U2U and I will give you my mailing address!

*My prediction - Zero will not only not contribute all their information to me for free, but more than likely they won't even get the point of this post - *

kshaund

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:50 AM

link

Desperate plea to Moderators

Please consider if Mr. McClelland does make an appearance here, that the forum not be wide open for everybody and their agenda, that it be by request and/or invite only -

It is SO FUTILE to have a guest speaker amongst a few serious and dozens of random posters that it's all but impossible to get to first base, when we should be starting from third and going for a home run!

I found this on Clifford Stone's thread - sooo many people 'pipe in' who haven't even looked at his work and throw out comments - at least let's be informed about who we're talking too if for no other reason than to be courteous of everyone else's time who DID bother to do their homework before class.

Thank you -

SaviorComplex

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:55 AM

link

Originally posted by kshaund
Desperate plea to Moderators

Please consider if Mr. McClelland does make an appearance here, that the forum not be wide open for everybody and their agenda, that it be by request and/or invite only -

No way. It should be open to anyone and everyone, as long as they are on-topic and posting within the T&C. How would you choose who is and who is not allowed to ask questions or comments? Any standard employed would lead to accusations of discrimination from one group or another.

thrashee

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:56 AM

link

reply to post by kshaund

Hehe, I can't resist replying

Am I missing something regarding all of this "life work" he's done? He has a book he wants to write but hasn't yet written. He has one story regarding one experience.

Seriously...what am I missing?

kshaund

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:07 AM

link

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by PowerSlave

I'd settle for a credible witness with some sort of evidence that wasn't outright proven false. Is that really too much to ask for?

Apparently it is too much to ask for - What's YOUR criteria for "credible"? What's YOUR criteria for "evidence" - What's YOUR criteria for "proven false"? These are all subjective and if that's all you ask for, I for one would be very interested in who you've come up with so far and based on what as being credible, with evidence, that hasn't been proven outright false...

Why isn't Mr. McClelland's story credible? No "acceptable" photos? Well, yes, skeptics do play a role, but I also believe every GOOD researcher retains a healthy dose of skepticism anyway - or they're not a GOOD researcher, they're someone with their own agenda.

But you don't have to have people designated as "skeptics" playing a role because they're JUST as biased as believers of all BS, only in the opposite direction - being a skeptic for the sake of being a skeptic is hardly productive, it becomes its own agenda - prove everything false at all costs until there's "INDISPUTABLE"

evidence... I don't call that skeptic, I call that bashing -

*sigh*

For the very few percent of people out there that can get past all the crap flung around every story that comes forth, thank you for not giving up trying to get something out there to us, those that 'weren't there' .

PowerSlave

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:10 AM

link

reply to post by thrashee

It wasn't my intention to minimize the importance of skeptics, but to merely point out that in this thread and many others like it on ATS there is an increased tendency to immediately personally attack anyone who makes these claims. Sort of like considering a defendant guilty until he is proven innocent.

Or in this case, he is a liar until he is proven to be truthful.

Alot of what this guy says regarding the alleged trouble/incidents he has had with NASA since parting ways actually fits within the scope of government conspiracies to discredit, ruin reputations/people etc. should they come forward.

kshaund

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:13 AM

link

reply to post by thrashee

Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say "life experiences" - but for some people, it is their life's work too (trying to find out what's really going on).

Hope that clarifys it -

Skipper1975

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:14 AM

link

Galactic Freedom Day

www.galacticfreedomday.com...

yay!!

oh and other events..
Raw Spirit Fest 2008
www.rawspiritfest.com...

www.earthworksforhumanity.org...

thrashee

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:15 AM

link

Originally posted by kshaund

Apparently it is too much to ask for - What's YOUR criteria for "credible"? What's YOUR criteria for "evidence" - What's YOUR criteria for "proven false"? These are all subjective and if that's all you ask for, I for one would be very interested in who you've come up with so far and based on what as being credible, with evidence, that hasn't been proven outright false...

Well, granted, credible is fairly subjective I suppose...as I stated, my standards aren't really that high. As for evidence and proven false, I either use logic, reason, or some sort of principle that can actually test the evidence. Is that really that ridiculous? Lest you think the bar is a moving one, I'll give you an example: if you present a photo of a UFO, run it through whatever standard tests there are to analyze it to see if it's been doctored. Is that unreasonable?

Why isn't Mr. McClelland's story credible? No "acceptable" photos? Well, yes, skeptics do play a role, but I also believe every GOOD researcher retains a healthy dose of skepticism anyway - or they're not a GOOD researcher, they're someone with their own agenda.

There are no photos at all. There is no evidence at all. That means the only thing we can rely upon is his own character. I won't elaborate on that here because I've done so before, and I'm trying to respect someone's request not to keep repeating myself.

But you don't have to have people designated as "skeptics" playing a role because they're JUST as biased as believers of all BS, only in the opposite direction - being a skeptic for the sake of being a skeptic is hardly productive, it becomes its own agenda - prove everything false at all costs until there's "INDISPUTABLE"
evidence... I don't call that skeptic, I call that bashing -

Well, I don't think you have to have these either.

For the very few percent of people out there that can get past all the crap flung around every story that comes forth, thank you for not giving up trying to get something out there to us, those that 'weren't there' .

It's a nice sentiment, but why do you think everything that's been thrown at this story is "crap"? Don't you think there have been very valid questions raised about this? This is where you need to be careful....as you said, you need to maintain a balance and not ignore reason simply because you want to believe.

NGC2736

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:17 AM

link

Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth[/]

AH! Another mind reader who KNOWS what I would do in a certain situation. I would think a moderator would know better than to make such a broad generalization. Some people really don't worry much about the material world. I could make 5x what I make now if I worked in my trained field but I make $7.50 an hour under the table because I am happy and content with what I have(very, very little).

That said, I'm willing to listen to this guy, maybe he saw something. His credentials do kind of indicate that he's not just some mental patient.

Vas

Unfortunately, you chose to take my use of the word y-o-u as being aimed at a particular person, your own self. By English conventions, "you" can be used as a generic term to mean "most of a group". In other words, most people do not act in such a manner. Now if the world was filled with philanthropistic types, my statement would be wrong. Sadly, I'm correct in the usage.

(And if you think this is an odd way for a language to work, consider the English use of the term "men" which can often correctly include women and children.)

Your usage of the anti-authoritarian sounding phrase "I would think a moderator..." shows me that you want to sling a little mud at me because I'm a mod, and not because what I said lacks sense. This indicates you're low on ammunition and willing to use rocks in a pinch.

The fact is, and most people well know this, humans are a greedy "get mine first and let the Devil take the hindermost" bunch, and there's no reason to think an ex-astronaut should be any different. Having the "Right Stuff" doesn't always include a lack of personal greed or need. Astronauts are just humans with an odd job title.

Yet, you and I are closer to seeing eye to eye on this than not. I simply wanted to make my reasoning clear, rather than basing it on junk logic. Without some evidence, there is nothing to "buy" in this story, IMO. I don't buy a car with nothing but a bill of sale, and I don't buy this story with nothing but words. It may be true, or it may not, but until some evidence is introduced, it's only another story.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by NGC2736]

emsed1

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link

Originally posted by Skipper1975
Galactic Freedom Day

www.galacticfreedomday.com...

yay!!

oh and other events..
Raw Spirit Fest 2008
www.rawspiritfest.com...

www.earthworksforhumanity.org...

I don't have much time to get my foil hat ready!

I am just praying this doesn't end up like that scene in 'Independence Day' where everyone is partying and waving at the nice spaceship, then ZAP.

SaviorComplex

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link

Originally posted by kshaund
Why isn't Mr. McClelland's story credible?

Because all he has is a story. A story that he has never told before, despite having a presence on the web for ten years. He doesn't give details. When asked for details, he refuses. He believes he does not have to give supporting or verifiable details, rather that his credentials give it enough weight. That whole idea is nonsense.

For example, in my day-to-day job, I am an editor (which I do realize by my grammar and mispellings it's hard to tell). If I told you Stephen King plagarizes all of his works, having trapped the ghost of HP Lovecraft and forcing him to come up with new stories, would you believe me just because I'm an editor? Would you accept it just because I say, as Mr. McClelland says, "No one can dispute this because of my credentials!"?

Would you think I am behaving in a credible manner?

Probably not.

So, why do you think Mr. McClelland's story has a single shred of credibility? Could it be because he is saying what you want to hear?

[edit on 31-7-2008 by SaviorComplex]

kshaund

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by kshaund
Desperate plea to Moderators

Please consider if Mr. McClelland does make an appearance here, that the forum not be wide open for everybody and their agenda, that it be by request and/or invite only -

No way. It should be open to anyone and everyone, as long as they are on-topic and posting within the T&C. How would you choose who is and who is not allowed to ask questions or comments? Any standard employed would lead to accusations of discrimination from one group or another.

That's why I said invited and/or request to attend - no reason anyone can't be there if the really want to be, but if they have to at least make one step to get there, will stop a bunch of the drop ins... just trying to think of a way to make it fair (and it is fair to restrict it by request and/or invitation - people can be invited or they can request to attend - simple).

I think it's also fair that everyone who is invited or requests to attend be required to research the topic - if its Mr. McClelland, they must look at what has been written, if its Mr. Stone, they must at least view his videos. That's not discrimination as in prejudice, it's setting a standard that anyone can meet if they want to!

Otherwise, EACH AND EVERY TIME the thread fills with (what I call) 'spits' from people - spit in a comment here off the top of their head, a diss there, a question asking what they're talking about in the first place, etc. etc. etc. ANYONE who's tried to actually get somewhere with someone with information on these types of forums already knows the frustration all from the predictable onslaught of spitters (and I say that kindly - well, mostly)
brings -

You simply can't get anywhere otherwise, or wasn't that the point? I don't see it as discriminating at all - it doesn't stop anyone, just sets a standard.

thrashee

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link

Originally posted by PowerSlave
Sort of like considering a defendant guilty until he is proven innocent.

Unfortunately, that's exactly how it works, but there's a logical reason for that:

We have no proof so far that aliens exist. This is a scientific unknown. Therefore, anyone claiming that they do, and that they have a story/evidence for such existence, has implicitly accepted a burden of proof. It's up to them to prove their case, not for anyone else to prove them wrong.

Alot of what this guy says regarding the alleged trouble/incidents he has had with NASA since parting ways actually fits within the scope of government conspiracies to discredit, ruin reputations/people etc. should they come forward.

The problem with this kind of reasoning is that it's circular and presents a bigger question of proof than the question it's trying to answer. Now we have to analyze both stories of alien life and a conspiracy that is mucking with such knowledge.

kshaund

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by kshaund
Why isn't Mr. McClelland's story credible?

Because all he has is a story. A story that he has never told before, despite having a presence on the web for ten years. He doesn't give details. When asked for details, he refuses. He believes he does not have to give supporting or verifiable details, rather that his credentials give it enough weight. That whole idea is nonsense.

For example, in my day-to-day job, I am an editor (which I do realize, by my grammar and mispelling it's hard to tell). If I told you Stephen King plagarizes all of his works, having trapped the ghost of HP Lovecraft and forcing him to come up with new stories, would you believe me just because I'm an editor. Would you accept it just because I say, as Mr. McClelland says, "No one can dispute this because of my credentials!"?

Would you think I am behaving in a credible manner?

Probably not.

So, why do you think Mr. McClelland's story has a single shred of credibility? Could it be because he is saying what you want to hear?

But my point is just because all he has is a story doesn't automatically 'negate' it either! Because he hasn't come out with all his details doesn't mean they're not there.

And in your example of being an editor (in real life) - if you told me that story from your experience of having 'actually' been in the presence of Stephen King and 'saw' the trapped ghost of Lovecraft yourself, should I throw it out just because you don't have polaroids? Is there nothing in your life you've had to ask people to just take your word on it because you have no "proof"?

I give the story credibility (as opposed to outright hoax) because he has a history - a traceable history - he has a story not unlike others from other times and places - he was there, I was not! That for me is enough to NOT close the book on him or anyone else simply because they don't meet an unrealistic expectation of proof -

And by giving it credibility does not mean I stand and declare it a hundred percent absolute truth - I have no idea - because I wasn't there - but like I said before, if all these little (as in one person on the planet, not little as in value) stories were actually put together, then the bigger picture would appear and the false stories eventually (over time) always fade away.