100% proof of U.F.O.S in space - You cannot debunk this one

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Originally posted by JimOberg
OK, if you can believe McClelland is a former astronaut, you can believe anything, and nobody needs to believe anything else you claim. Start by getting some facts correctly, then we can step out from there, please.

Can you tell me so I know from the horses mouth, did he indeed work for NASA? Also can you answer my question

As far as I can tell, Clark worked as a technician for a number of Cape Canaveral contractors for many years. He was where he said he was.

When he was hired for a job with the shuttle processing facility, there was a hang-up on his security clearance. He never assumed those duties and was soon discharged.

The picture of him in a shuttle cockpit is a typical 'visitor' picture. Workers there generally are wearing headsets and other badges.

The certificates he has posted are those that every employee in the branch automatically receive.

Since he left that job he has not worked in the space program, but has been handing out a business card claiming to be still employed as a shuttle processing team member.

The stories that he tells involve people already dead, so no independent corroboration is possible.

If I'm 'the horse's mouth', are you implying that McClelland is the opposite?

Do you believe in the possibility of there being life outside of our earth?

You're arguing backwards. Am I persuaded that some UFO reports MUST be the result of ET life? No. Is it possible that ET life is visiting Earth? Yes. Is it possible they do so completely out of our sight? Yes. Is it relevant to the 'UFO question'? No.

Originally posted by JimOberg
If I'm 'the horse's mouth', are you implying that McClelland is the opposite?

I am trying to get an overview as to what McClellands about. Obviously you are the man in the know because your an ex NASA employee. Therefore, it is logical to find out as much information based on fact before jumping to assumptions.

You're arguing backwards.

I disagree I am solely asking you a question with no trickery intended (yet)

Am I persuaded that some UFO reports MUST be the result of ET life? No.

Therefore, in a round about way from your words below what your saying is out of the ufo reports some are the result of ET life and others are not?

Therefore, a simple yes would have been far less complicated.

Is it possible that ET life is visiting Earth? Yes. Is it possible they do so completely out of our sight? Yes. Is it relevant to the 'UFO question'? No.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by franspeakfree]

Wow after watching the video again and again about 50 times I have seen an anomaly there is one white object that SLOWS DOWN and changes direction. (its the white dot that goes up the left hand side of the tether then slows down then changes direction like its influenced by the white dot that passes by its right side.

I can't believe I missed it.

Take a look at 1:53 - 2:04 and tell me if you see it, particles on the lens....I just can't accept that theory.

What say you?


[edit on 8-6-2009 by franspeakfree]

reply to post by franspeakfree


Fran,

If you write Mr McClelland you will probably get a response.

Try to start up a dialogue and see what becomes of it. He clearly wants to tell people his story; perhaps he will appreciate you taking an interest.

*While you are at it - Find out what he thinks about Oberg

reply to post by Exuberant1


Thats a good idea actually, that way we can get 2 sides of the story without the middle men. Any idea where to start?

reply to post by franspeakfree


That's a good point.

I'll send some addresses over the u2u network. Maybe you can get his opinion a few other things.

Originally posted by franspeakfree
There is no way that anyone can say that the objects in question are ice crystals, they are moving in different directions. How is that possible?

Last time I checked, an ice crystal was an object. So this proves that ice crystals are not objects?

And this also proves that something that is unidentified but exists is real? I thought that was a given, per our observation of it's existence.

Originally posted by TheUnCola

Last time I checked, an ice crystal was an object. So this proves that ice crystals are not objects?

Greetings,

Where does Fran say that ice crystals are not objects?

Please post the quote.

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by HolgerTheDane

 

I have just logged on and I can't stop laughing. Yourself and doomsdayrex have just made me smile by reading your posts and I mean that in a nice way, not snide or chide.

First of all your post made me laugh because I thought to myself that I could post any link with any cedible source and no matter how credible it is you would still say it isn't therefore, its a bit of a tricky one for me. Nevertheless you did cheer me up.

The disney comment cheered me up aswell but I can't remember if that was your post.

I'm so glad I cheared you up. Spreading smiles is always a good way to make this world a better place to be.

As I have said before, some posts on this site (yours in particular) make me chuckle and I think to myself - "Hey. Some people will believe anything".

Your problem when it comes to credability is that you trust the most incredible sources when you toss "evidence" and links around like a coal shoveler on a steam ocean liner.

You gladly believe sources that CLAIM that astronauts have seen aliens, but you dismiss other sources that CLAIM that those first claims were untrue.
It is of course so much better to believe the UFO internet sources rather than those few televised or radiobroadcast interviews where those astronauts say they have been misquoted or wrongly attributed certain claims.

While Cooper have gone on the air stating that he has seen craft (implied aliens) what he saw was UFOs as in Unidentified Flying Objects which he believed to be craft. Keywords here are "belived to be".

And so it is with other claims as well. No alien - only objects.

And Zorgon trying to support you by posting this
"
- ASTRONAUTS NElL ARMSTRONG and BUZZ ALDRIN speaking from the Moon: “Those are giant things. No, no, no .... this is not an optical illusion. No one is going to believe this!”

- MISSION CONTROL (HOUSTON CENTER): “What...what...what? What the hell is happening? What’s wrong with you?”

- ASTRONAUTS: “They’re here under the surface.”

- MISSION CONTROL: “What’s there? Emission interrupted... interference control calling Apollo II.”
"

Absolutely priceless

Basically I am with you in your claim that some of the objects in OP is behaving in a weird way. What we should seek out is an explanation for THAT. I agree.

When you introduce "changing direction" and "intelligent control" into the equation we are in a different ballgame. Then we are talking aliens and that has to be substantiated with greater care.
And not by bringing up claims and sources that are dubious at best.

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
You gladly believe sources that CLAIM that astronauts have seen aliens, but you dismiss other sources that CLAIM that those first claims were untrue.
It is of course so much better to believe the UFO internet sources rather than those few televised or radiobroadcast interviews where those astronauts say they have been misquoted or wrongly attributed certain claims.

Hold fire Holger, I am not claiming anything its the assumptions of others that say so not me. There is no claiming or proclaiming here, just saying how it is.

I don't have a television therefore, I can't answer that one. However, what I will say is that its easy for others to throw out remarks about me, but some of them aren't simply true. I base my belief on evidence built around many many sources and my past experiences.

I have been a ufologist for over 30 years now I have seen with my own eyes a SILENT flying saucer craft, therefore, I know that they are 100% real and indeed exist.

I know that they are not built by human hand (otherwise TPTB would be mass producing them by now and they would be cashing in on the technolgy til the cows come home.

When someone posts a comment ridiculing OPS of having an over imagination or saying that UFOS don't exist or indeed are in space e.t.c I simply have to disagree based on the information I have collated over the years and on obviously on past experience.

The truth is the deeper you look the worst it gets. TPTB and UFOLOGY are linked hand in hand. But that link consists of many other sub links outside of the box.

The subject in question is indeed very vast and involves many things that modern day society doesn't want to talk about, and sometimes that can be extremely frustrating.

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Wow after watching the video again and again about 50 times I have seen an anomaly there is one white object that SLOWS DOWN and changes direction. (its the white dot that goes up the left hand side of the tether then slows down then changes direction like its influenced by the white dot that passes by its right side.

I can't believe I missed it.

Take a look at 1:53 - 2:04 and tell me if you see it, particles on the lens....I just can't accept that theory.

What say you?


[edit on 8-6-2009 by franspeakfree]

Around 2:22 it's shown that MOST of the moving objects will be space debree, or space dust of some sort, as the objects get closer to the camera, they look very similar to videoing your living room with dust floating around and getting close to the lens.

BUT saying that, there are the odd objects in the distance speeding around with trails behind them, shooting stars maybe?

Definitely UFO's in the technical sense.

Originally posted by Lister87
Around 2:22 it's shown that MOST of the moving objects will be space debree, or space dust of some sort, as the objects get closer to the camera, they look very similar to videoing your living room with dust floating around and getting close to the lens.

BUT saying that, there are the odd objects in the distance speeding around with trails behind them, shooting stars maybe?

Definitely UFO's in the technical sense.

Lister I hear what you are saying, however, how can an object in space SLOW down and change trajectory without an outside force effecting it?

Say that the objects in question are space debris, what would be the outside force effecting their trajectory path?

Originally posted by franspeakfree
***snip***
Hold fire Holger, I am not claiming anything its the assumptions of others that say so not me. There is no claiming or proclaiming here, just saying how it is.

I'll tone it down if you promise to stop linking or referring to those rubbish sites and their mix of small truths and big lies.
As long as they are put forward on a regular basis we cannot see the truly unexplaneable. When a site or a book (knowingly) keeps pushing forward proven lies as part of their "evidence" I cannot in good faith believe anything else they claim.

***snip***
I have been a ufologist for over 30 years now I have seen with my own eyes a SILENT flying saucer craft, therefore, I know that they are 100% real and indeed exist.

I have been around the UFO scene since mid seventies.

Please tell us about your own experience in more detail.

***snip***
When someone posts a comment ridiculing OPS of having an over imagination or saying that UFOS don't exist or indeed are in space e.t.c I simply have to disagree based on the information I have collated over the years and on obviously on past experience.

Isn't it funny. I feel the same way when people get overexited about overexposed minute object that they suddenly claim are alien craft. Also measured against past experience with photography and video (including CGI). I must admit that I haven't really considered that aliens might be of a size measured in Ångstrøm rather than meters.

I guess I'm advocating not running with the torch when someone puts forward claims of ill repute.
Show me pictures or video of crafts - not dust particles under "intelligent control".

The truth is the deeper you look the worst it gets. TPTB and UFOLOGY are linked hand in hand. But that link consists of many other sub links outside of the box.

The subject in question is indeed very vast and involves many things that modern day society doesn't want to talk about, and sometimes that can be extremely frustrating.

And for me one of the frustrating things is that UFOlogists have an inbuild reluctance to critizise sources that confirm their beliefs, even if some of those beliefs are got by trusting lies in books and on the web.

It has been established in several surveys that a typical student of any subject tend to choose the internet sites that support their own beliefs.

When I see a claim of a lab that says "astonishing" and "unknown origin" about an "alien implant" I want to see the whole report and see the context, whereas most believers simply conclude that "unknown origin" means extra terrestial.

And for the obligatory disclaimer:
OH yes I DO believe there are aliens somewhere in the universe. I just haven't seen anything that proves it to me.

I have seen object that I didn't understand even to the point of seeing a red glowing object below the treeline which should exclude it from the "planet explanation". But an alien craft? I think not.

I have seen silent Unidentified Flying Objects in the distance when I was a kid that mystified me until I moved close to a military airport and learned that they were helicopters.

I have seen lights in the air that I now recognize as landing lights on ordinary planes or helicopters. I am sad they aren't lightships, but hey, now I know what they are.

I have seen and read much in my time in the UFO circles but I have learned that stories get embellished over time and that books are often tailored to those who already believe because they are the less critical audience.

When I was a kid I truly believed "The Hollow Earth" book as it shoved clear satellite images and they even had the source (satellite, date, time etc.) mentioned.
It was when I requested the very same images from NASA that I learned that some people are willing to lie to push a point. In this case it clearly was the author.

I'm waffling - sorry about that.

...



[edit on 9.6.2009 by HolgerTheDane]

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Originally posted by Lister87
Around 2:22 it's shown that MOST of the moving objects will be space debree, or space dust of some sort, as the objects get closer to the camera, they look very similar to videoing your living room with dust floating around and getting close to the lens.

BUT saying that, there are the odd objects in the distance speeding around with trails behind them, shooting stars maybe?

Definitely UFO's in the technical sense.

Lister I hear what you are saying, however, how can an object in space SLOW down and change trajectory without an outside force effecting it?

Say that the objects in question are space debris, what would be the outside force effecting their trajectory path?

I am with you on that one. One of the objects do seem to slow down and change direction. It is clear to me that said object is minute (even if it isn't to you) and for me the mystery is exactly there. Why does this tiny particle change pace and direction?

Have you ever heard of Crooke's Radiometer?



[edit on 9.6.2009 by HolgerTheDane]

Why do you think NASA stopped airing live feeds to the networks?

Because they started freaking people out , and would have to bring on "experts" to explain these things as "ice particles" "trash dumps" etc.

Another good piece of footage, thanks for posting.

Originally posted by TyrellUtani
Why do you think NASA stopped airing live feeds to the networks?

Why do YOU think that NASA ever 'stopped' live feeds?

Seems to me, the feeds continued, and still do. Why do you think different?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Why do YOU think that NASA ever 'stopped' live feeds?
Seems to me, the feeds continued, and still do. Why do you think different?

They are not live... they have a time delay so they can stop them if need be. I am sure you are aware of this fact. Not sure how long it is but I could go look it up easily enough

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JimOberg
Why do YOU think that NASA ever 'stopped' live feeds?
Seems to me, the feeds continued, and still do. Why do you think different?

They are not live... they have a time delay so they can stop them if need be. I am sure you are aware of this fact. Not sure how long it is but I could go look it up easily enough

There has always been a processing and retransmission delay. The MCC also has an interrupt capability, as it always has had -- I don't know of any cases where it's ever been used.

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
Have you ever heard of Crooke's Radiometer?

Yes I have... so is it your contention that the rays of the sun are pushing these things around out there?

Hmmm Amusing theory, but you do realize that if that were true the force as tiny as it is, would be only in ONE direction?



Nice try though

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by HolgerTheDane
Have you ever heard of Crooke's Radiometer?

Yes I have... so is it your contention that the rays of the sun are pushing these things around out there?

Hmmm Amusing theory, but you do realize that if that were true the force as tiny as it is, would be only in ONE direction?

Nice try though

So the radiometer is only pushed in one direction, and so freezes up and stalls out?

You can't even think through the consequences of your made-up make-believe facts.

Imagine an ice flake, and imagine it rotating freely in space -- which way would the thrust vector push?