Another NASA employee comes forward - 8-9 Foot Alien Sighted

Thanks, GenLee -- I hadn't checked the zip code at all.

McClelland describes how he was fired from his job as Sc.O. trainee in 1992, and has not worked in the space industry since. But according to the person who posted the card, fifteen years later he is still handing out cards that identify him as a "Sc.O." at the Kennedy Space Center, while using his personal post office box address in Orlando.

No need to make a big deal out of it, because there's no reason to doubt he WAS at the Cape in the years he specified, 1958-1992, and he was training to become an Sc.O. for NASA when his security check failed, and he was laid off.

Seems to me, if he was undergoing a security check in 1992, it means he didn't have a security clearance before then, or had one that had lapsed or been suspended administratively. That's curious. Do we know his employers year by year -- and was 'NASA' ever one, or was he a contractor their, too (as I've been, in Houston -- but still a full-fledged member of the shuttle team, as McClelland would have been)?

I'm trying to establish his level of accuracy in his stories. So it makes sense to me to look at claims that can be verified, before judging whether to believe claims that cannot be verified.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
In the Orlando area you have many, many possibilities. Lockheed-Martin and multiple universities and government installations.

It's interesting to wonder if the post office box is a branch of the Kennedy Space Center, but the KSC phone book shows no such facility in Orlando. But isn't that beside the point? McClelland himself makes no claim to have been a KSC worker since 1992. Why then is he still handing out cards that indicate he IS? Perhaps it's just justifiable pride in a job he once did have -- one can cut a lot of slack for folks who did those jobs.

It's interesting to wonder if the post office box is a branch of the Kennedy Space Center, but the KSC phone book shows no such facility in Orlando. But isn't that beside the point? McClelland himself makes no claim to have been a KSC worker since 1992. Why then is he still handing out cards that indicate he IS? Perhaps it's just justifiable pride in a job he once did have -- one can cut a lot of slack for folks who did those jobs.

Jim, you yourself just stated that the business card is of little relevance to any claim Clark may be making. If you truly believe this, then it would seem that you are engaging in a smear campaign more than anything else.

If you want to dispute the facts, dispute the facts that are relevant to your case. If it is "beside the point" then why did you bring it up?

[edit on 12-8-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

reply to post by JimOberg


Forgive me for being a space nerd, guess I could look this up....but could you relate the abbreviation "Sc. O." for all of us?

Thanks.

So Scott McClelland may have 'fluffed' his credentials? Many people do, but it's a shame when you get caught doing it, and you are simultaneously saying some incredible things.

Of course, slightly off-topic, but this is very similar to the story of Bob Lazar...meaning, a guy comes forward, and suddenly his entire history is suspect...as in, 'changed'.

One other question...the one thing that I've seen Mr. McClelland use to 'support' his authority is a pic of him in the right seat of a Shuttle....or a Simulator. The caption describes it as the Columbia, from 1992.

I've flown for a major airline for over two decades, and I know it's easy to get one's photo taken, either in the cockpit seat of a real airplane, (on the ground) or (a little more difficult) in the Simulator.

I took a date into the Sim building late one night and flew the B727 Sim....no motion, just started the APU, then the engines....anyway, the B727 was being retired from the fleet, so no one was around, and the Sim was vacant. Completely unauthorized (hence I didn't use the motion...big no-no). But, it was fun....even on such an antiquated Sim.....

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Hey Tex,

Thanks for the google. I clicked on the zip code and the map is basically downtown orlando proper. One funny item is that the location of the little yellow pin point is the location of The City of orlando's City Hall!!!

Next time I'm down there I'll see if I can find the secret NASA office. Maybe it's in the basement or something. hehe

reply to post by GeneralLee


Or perhaps, since no street address was offered in addition to my search, it just returned the most obvious return for the city of orlando: The City Of Orlando.

Honestly, i would think that Disney would have a bigger chance than the city, given the ties to Von Braun and Disney.

How about the 8 ft alien story? Everybody's missed a clue.

www.stargate-chronicles.com...

McClelland: "The ET was standing upright in the Space Shuttle Payload Bay having a discussion with TWO tethered US NASA Astronauts! I also observed on my monitors, the spacecraft of the ET as it was in a stabilized, safe orbit to the rear of the Space Shuttle main engine pods. "

Artwork: www.stargate-chronicles.com...

Would it be a 'smear' to point out that the space shuttle doesn't HAVE "main engine pods"? No space shuttle engineer -- no REAL space shuttle engineer -- would ever use that nonsensical terminology.

It has three "main engines" behind the tail, and on either side of the tail it has an "OMS Pod" -- for Orbital Maneuvering System, one 'Left' and one 'Right' -- but if anybody thinks those pods are 'main engine pods', they can't know much about the space shuttle.

Look at the drawing McClelland had made that showed what he called 'main engine pods'. Then look at ANY NASA drawing of a shuttle and see what the pods are really called.

Can anybody find a SINGLE case on the WWW where anybody except McClelland calls them 'main engine pods'?

No? Then what does that indicate about his level of working knowledge about the space shuttle?

Jim, you may have the start of something. Lets see some more inconsistencies, though.

That one is not much. The use of "pod" in conjunction with the main engines is unique, for sure. However, the use of "pod" with the maneuvering engines is not universal. As a matter of fact, the first five pages of a Google image search didn't show the use of the word "pod" on any diagram in any sort of way. I had to search out technical information by searching specifically for the term "pod" along with "engine" and "shuttle".

Allow me to draw a parallel. I manage a call center, and our agents are measure on their average call time (for efficiency). My company calls this "AHT", for "average handle time". This is an industry standard. Our client uses "CRT" for "call resolution time". This is widely used, as well, but AHT is universal. If we use the term "AHT" with our client, their eyes glaze over.

One could question my professional credentials due to my propensity to use that as a measurement (among many others, paid utilization, how i calculate shrinkage, so on and so forth).

It seems a little nit picky. C'mon, if you are gonna call his integrity into question, give us something like a smoking gun. You said "More to come...." Where is it???

Originally posted by JimOberg

Do we know his employers year by year -- and was 'NASA' ever one, or was he a contractor their, too (as I've been, in Houston -- but still a full-fledged member of the shuttle team, as McClelland would have been)?

I'm trying to establish his level of accuracy in his stories. So it makes sense to me to look at claims that can be verified, before judging whether to believe claims that cannot be verified.

Before I registered I posted this:

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
A little research on Mr. McClelland's credentials:

His website mentions that his name appears on commemorative monuments to three space missions.

On the Mercury Monument he is listed as working for Kaiser Steel. On the Gemini Monument he is listed as working for Boeing. On the Apollo Monument he is listed as working for Martin. Three different employers during the 60's. No retirement benefits to be expected there.


An article link earlier in this thread says be began working in the shuttle program for NASA around 1990 and was dismissed around 1992. This doesn't really tell us when he was hired by NASA though. Somewhere else in this thread someone said his age in 1992 was 56. Under CSRS retirement at 56 should make him eligible for retirement benefits if he had been employed for 30 years but in 1962 he was apparently working for Kaiser Steel. Under FERS he may have been eligible for reduced benefits after 10 years (1982?) but in any case I couldn't find anything called "Space Program Retirement" he refers to being denied.

I'm not calling his integrity into question, sorry if that wasn't clear. In fact, I have no business offering any interpretation of what goes on inside his head. We should judge by externals here.

People use jargon unconsciously, and it is an unintentional clue to their past experience. That's the point I'm trying to make.

I don't buy your analogy. All the acronyms you mentioned were authentic in their own contexts, you were quibbling over which use is proper under what circumstance.

I'm asserting that the phrase 'main engine pods' is NOT, and never has been anywhere in the space business, a legitimate designation. It has never been proper to use, under any valid circumstance. It would only take a single counter-example to disprove this... let's give our colleagues a little more time.

reply to post by Phage



Phage, thanks, that was some original research that is helpful. I saw it, and hoped to get more of it. But even in 1990-2, McClelland didn't have to be a 'NASA' employee, he still could have been doing that work for a contractor, such as the 'United Space Alliance'. That's the way I did the vast majority of my years at the Johnson Space Center in Houston -- NOT as a 'civil servant' govt employee.

500 is NOTHING, if it was about that he would have made the amount much more.

I think the bottom line is that people in general even here on the forum are scared, basing their opinions in fear.

Change is going to come, it is here walking among us even now.

Alien do exist. Alien technology is being utilized by our shadow governments.

Disclosure has already happened people just need to allow the truth to happen.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by antar]

Originally posted by JimOberg

snip

Your faith that Clark, or anyone, 'does not tell lies', is touching, but can hardly be considered 'evidence', especially since you then seem to suggest that we shouldn't really pay much attention to individual claims, or attempt to validate or confirm them at all. You can't be meaning to say that, are you?

You don't want to talk about his 'business card', I guess.

You see here another example of my claims that you selectively massege and cherry-pick your information for whatever damage control agenda you are on.

I said Clark does not tell lies. I did not say 'or anyone'. There is quite a difference isn't there? So why massage my comments to make me sound more gullible than I already am?

As for his 'business card' - who cares! Clark is who he says he is, and he does not tell lies. That is all I need to know for my concerns regarding my interactions with him.

I must say that I like your new 'nice guy' approach - you stand out like the proverbial dog's *&%$* on ATS at the moment.

peace

Duncan

reply to post by JimOberg


As a pilot, I can use jargon too.

Sometimes I have to change the 'jargon' in case laymen don't understand.

THEN, I get accused of not knowing what I'm talking about!

If I write too technical, then I bore the audience.....what is the middle point???

(still wondering what is SCo? In NASA parlance)

Thanks.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

(still wondering what is SCo? In NASA parlance)

Thanks.

Spacecraft Operator. I think Mr. Oberg would refer to it affectionately as Switch Monkey.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Good try, except that McClelland didn't fly....he was Ground Support, or traning to be, according to JimO. Before being discharged in 1992.

I flew real airplanes....I think I've established that....but I'd like to know more about NASA OPS....

reply to post by weedwhacker


spaceflight.nasa.gov... is a fun link. See if you can find what you're looking for.

I neither said McClellan flew nor completed training as ScO. He calls himself ScO. You asked what the designation means.

As a matter of fact, I don't think Spacecraft Operators do fly. As near as I can tell their primary job is in pre-flighting Shuttle systems. Switch monkey: flip the switch...yup the light comes on alright, next switch...

BTW, I've driven a couple of airplanes myself. Probably not to the extent you have however. Ever hear how many pilots it takes to change a light bulb?



[edit on 13-8-2008 by Phage]

McClelland's picture in the Orbiter cockpit might be no more than an 'orientation visit souvenir', which are made for hundreds of people who visit the facilities at KSC and JSC.

A 'working picture' really ought to look more like this one:

www.jamesoberg.com...

which shows the operator wearing a headset to talk with the control station, and using documentation to go througfh a hardware or procedures verification, or training.


Sitting headset-less in a clean cockpit is a pretty pose, not signs of an employee at work, in my experience.

reply to post by RiotComing


See www.stargate-chronicles.com... where McClelland poses with his friend "Judy Resnick".

If he were such a friend, shouldn't he have spelled her name right?

R-E-S-N-I-K.

No "C"...

Any excuses?

Originally posted by JimOberg
reply to post by RiotComing

 

See www.stargate-chronicles.com... where McClelland poses with his friend "Judy Resnick".

If he were such a friend, shouldn't he have spelled her name right?

R-E-S-N-I-K.

No "C"...

Any excuses?

Yes,

Originally posted by JimOberg
On another discussion board we were directed to Scott McCleland's photograph and business card as displayed at rense.com... [here rense.com...]
as a demonstration that he was a fully credible source on UFO information.

Don’t split hairs JimOberg, look carefully to the photo you provide, what is his real name there?
Right, Clark C. McClelland.
No offence, but everybody makes a writing error sometimes, even you.

Sorry, bigfatfurrytexan I was just rewrite it when you reply me.

[edit on 13/8/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 13/8/08 by spacevisitor]