Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 32
138
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Every single time i type the word "Cloaking", i have to backspace because i try to spell it "Cloacking", due to the fact that i am typing about 80 WPM and my fingers have the habit of hitting a "c" before i type a "k".

C'mon, Jim...isn't there a "smoking gun" out there? Really, Zorgon has provided better evidence that NASA is covering up MAJOR finds, and it is laughed off. You are hinging your argument on "main engine pod" and "Reznick"? If us tinhatters had such "evidence", we would DESERVE to be the laughing stock that some seem to think we already are.

Next thing you know, you will be bringing in body language experts.


[edit on 13-8-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]




posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Got me -- brain fart strikes email and thread posting.

And even on my website. Won't say where.

So I gotta try better, and cut a little slack...



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I had raised two more serious issues with the secret object approaching Earth at 25% C, that only NASA seems to know about, and the question of the Mercury-9 UFO story that even the astronaut, Gordon Cooper, denies, but McClelland claims to have personally overheard.

And there are more....



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
One very instructive example involves McClelland’s account of a personal conversation about UFOs that he had with Wernher von Braun (216.145.94.108...).

Here is what McClelland CLAIMS von Braun told him directly: "He looked at me with a bit of surprise, and said, ‚Young man, yes we had such an encounter with a power that appears advanced beyond ours here. Stronger than we have assumed and unknown to us where their base is located.’

More: “I cannot say much more other than we are entering into a closer contact with these unknown powers and perhaps within a short time, a few months or so of time, we will be capable of saying more."

McClelland continued: “I must have had my lower jaw hit the ground when I heard these statements. I shook his hand and returned to my assignments. Later, I would learn that he made a similar statement while visiting his homeland of Germany. I personally withheld this astounding disclosure for many years due to my utmost respect for this pioneer of space travel."

Now, these comments attributed to von Braun look very similar to words from Tim Good's book, ’Above Top Secret’: "We find ourselves faced by powers which are far stronger than we had hitherto assumed, and whose base is at present unknown to us. More I cannot say at present. We are now engaged in entering into closer contact with those powers, and in six or nine months time it may be possible to speak with some precision on the matter."

There are several hypotheses to account for the striking simularities in these two passages. First, of course, it’s possible that von Braun independently relayed both accounts, one to the East German newspaper cited in Good’s book and the other face-to-face to McClelland. Second, McClelland could have read Good’s book and then later recounted the phrase to others as if he had been the direct recipient in an imagined conversation with von Braun. Third, both statements could be imaginary and their similarities are coincidental, or are based on some no-longer-available common source.

When asked, McClelland (personal email) is adament that he received this information directly from the mouth of von Braun. Since von Braun died in 1972 and there are no other known witnesses to the conversation, the only evidence for this claim is McClelland himself.

The original footnote from 1959 can be investigated, but with great difficulty. The book’s author, Tom Good (personal communication), explains that he did not see the source, but used an English-language source (not specified) that cited the original German source. This is a careless use of footnotes.

In any case, I asked several German associates of mine in space history research to see what they could find out. Mr. Tasillo Roemisch of ‚SPACE SERVICE INTL.’ in Mittweida spent “a whole day“ to track it down in the Deutsche Buecherei at Leipzig City, and reported the results.

The magazine NEUES EUROPA stopped publishing in the late 1960s. Its descriptive blurb reads: “Das führende Weltblatt fuer alle Fragen der kommenden Entwicklung“ or “The leading World Magazine for all questions of the coming development“. It was published by Verlag August Kraemer GmbH, Stuttgart, and all issues each had only 8 pages.

Roemisch checked all 48 issues of the years 1959 and 1960 and found out that they were supporting a Karl Michalek who lived in Santiago de Chile that time and who claimed to be the “President of the Coming World Republik Earth“. He was sure that the Venusian ET’s were going to land in Berlin soon. Other favorable articles appeared about Adamski and Kazantsev.

Wernher von Braun was only mentioned once, in issue no. 3 (Febr. 01, 1959), when they wrote that “Prof. Oberth, the collegue of the German- American Wernher von Braun... believes in the existence of extraterrestials living in the star constallation Tau- Zeit - the Uranides“.

(more)



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
(continued)

The article explicitly cited (issue no. 1, January 01, 1959, page 2) doesn’t mention von Braun. Its headline is: „Sensationelle Zeichen aus dem Weltraum (sensational signs from outer space)“, and the opening blurb is „Interplanetarische Kräfte, welche die irdischen Mond- Raketen aus ihrer Bahn lenken“ (interplanetary forces which direct terrestial moon rockets out of track), and then „Russische und amerikanische Fern- Raketen, die ihre Ziele nicht erreichen - Demonstration der Venus- Kräfte?“ (Russian and American rockets which don’t reach their goals - demonstration of the Venusian forces?).

The article itself is short, and is datelined Saturday Dec 06, 1958. „Fourth attempt of the USA moonrocket failed. Juno 2 was hindered at an altitude of 100,000 km to fly higher and came back.“ The text states: „Amerikanische Sachverständige betonen, dass es im Weltall Kräfte gibt, welche die irdischen Raketen aus ihren vorberechneten Bahnen ablenken, ihre Fluggeschwindigkeit reduzieren und sie wieder in die Lufthülle der Erde zurückdirigieren.“
(American specialists emphasize that there are forces in outer space to mislead terrestial rockets out of their calculated tracks to reduce their speed and to send them back to the airbelt of the Earth). The author was Albert Laurent, and he claimed the Russian and Indian researchers said about the same.

To return to the possible explanations of how McClelland’s story of direct von Braun testimony can correspond to Good’s book account, we can eliminate several hypotheses. Since it has now been demonstrated that the account in Good’s book is garbled (the unjustified attribution of the original magazine story to von Braun), and that the original von Braun story was itself nonsense, there is no way for the existence of two independent versions of the same story originating from von Braun. We are compelled to conclude that the McClelland story can resemble the Good story only by virtue of it being derived from it.

And if it's derived from Good's book, von Braun can't have told it directly to McClelland, in any manner I can figure. Suggestions are welcome.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind i recall hearing something along the lines of "we are faced with an enemy whose base of operation is unknown" from someone else. A president, or general?



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
The "Phantom Follower", in which McClelland sees a spaceship in the sky that other devoted skywatchers, also on watch, all missed.


Clark McClelland writes, “In 1991 (probably September), I had ended a third shift assignment at my LCC (Launch Control Center) top secret office and was making my way to the fourth floor elevator. Two NASA Astronauts (I will not mention their names at this time) were also waiting. We said hello again, because they had been in my Control Room during my monitoring of a Space Shuttle mission in progress. I think it was the important STS-48 UARS flight. If I remember correctly Astronaut Brown was in orbit. As we talked on our way down, one of them told me to look behind the shuttle, as it would be passing over Central Florida that early morning. He said, I would see the next Space Shuttle miles behind the present Space Shuttle in orbit. We said goodbye and I went home but stayed up to watch for the "NEW" craft. Soon, the Space Shuttle came over in a clear night sky and soon thereafter I observed the "NEW" craft apparently in orbit and trailing the official Shuttle mission. As it came overhead, it abruptly steered off to the left of my sight and shortly and completely disappeared. I was surprised with this event. A few weeks later, the very same Astronaut was at the control room again and gave me a foxy smile as if to say," I told you Clark." I cannot say if the trailing object was or was not an alien craft. I'm almost certain the astronaut I mentioned would not disclose an object and this event if it were anything other than an advanced technological development by the USA. The astronauts are very controlled by military secrecy oaths. Later my investigation indicated that it was either the craft called the Aurora or the X-43A.“

It's easy enough to determine whether STS-48 was visible from Cape Canaveral in the dawn-dusk passes. It wasn't -- it passed over Florida either in daylight or the dead of night when it wasn't sunlit, I was told by an expert who did the calculations. And when it was visible, elsewhere, hundreds of space workers, and legions of satellite watchers around the world, were out looking -- and many of them were hair-trigger to note and log other objects.

Yet McClelland suggests only HE spotted the strange object.

I don't understand how this can be true.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
STS-80 UFO („The Demonstration“)
www.stargate-chronicles.com...

Space Shuttle Columbia during STS-80 took a crew of five astronauts into a 17 day, 15 hour and 54 minute mission around the earth, the longest flight in the history of this vehicle. During this lengthy flight a very strange event occurred that even had crewman Dr. Story Musgrave unable to explain what he observed from the shuttle windows.
A large disc shaped object appeared below the Columbia. The shuttle was approximately, 190 Nautical miles high.
The disc was first observed to miraculously appear from out of nowhere, flying through the clouds below and progressing from right to left as the astronauts stared in utter amazement. The outer rim of the craft appeared to be rotating counterclockwise. It was very large (compared to common space junk and breakaway ice), approximately 50 to 150 feet in diameter.

====

STS-80 occurred in November 1996, four years after McClelland had left his job at KSC -- so his information can't have come from direct experience.

The scene referred to is from a payload bay camera, downlinked to Mission Control. There's no available evidence (to my knowledge) that, as McClelland asserts, anyone on board watched the scene from any windows, or on any TV monitor.

Later on a TV show, Musgrave was shown the video cold and admitted he hadn't seen it before. Does that refute McClelland's allegation? Musgrave was given no context of the video, such as time, illumination, or other technical specs by which such scenes can be analyzed. No mystery why he didn't come up with the proper explanation off the top of his (bald) head.

A white blob does appear. There's nothing 'miraculous' about it -- orbiter-generated debris often 'pops up' in the middle of TV field-of-view when (as in this case) the camera was pointed away from the sun, in the direction of the Orbiter's own shadow. Small stuff drifting out of the shadow becomes visible only when it reaches sunlight. Happens all the time and is fully understood by Mission Control operators.

McClelland states that "the astronauts stared in utter amazement". I am not convinced he has any evidence for this, and perhaps he only conjured up the dramatic scene himself.

Ditto his claim that the outer rim of the 50 to 150 foot diameter disk (how was that measured?) was rotating. I've never seen any evidence that these white dots were doing anything of the sort.

If there is any verifiable backup evidence for this story, aside from McClelland's own imagination, I hope somebody will share it with us.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Mclelland discounts the possibility of what he says he saw being an alien ship;


I'm almost certain the astronaut I mentioned would not disclose an object and this event if it were anything other than an advanced technological development by the USA. The astronauts are very controlled by military secrecy oaths. Later my investigation indicated that it was either the craft called the Aurora or the X-43A.“


The X-43A was a scramjet test bed. I believe the Aurora is alleged to be a scramjet. Scramjets are air-breathers. What would such a craft be doing in orbit much less performing a fairly radical orbital manuever;


As it came overhead, it abruptly steered off to the left of my sight and shortly and completely disappeared.


To give him the benefit of the doubt he does say at one point "apparently in orbit" but he seems to be making an effort to say that it was, indeed in orbit;


As we talked on our way down, one of them told me to look behind the shuttle, as it would be passing over Central Florida that early morning. He said, I would see the next Space Shuttle miles behind the present Space Shuttle in orbit....

soon thereafter I observed the "NEW" craft apparently in orbit and trailing the official Shuttle mission...

I cannot say if the trailing object was or was not an alien craft.


What was the point of this essay? Is he implying that it was alien? Was the phrase "advanced technological development by the USA" accompanied with an implied nudge, nudge, wink, wink? Or is it an another effort to demonstrate that he was in with the in crowd of NASA?



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
McClelland's stories seem to promise new historical insghts into how several famous 'space UFO' stories originated in the 1960's and 1970's.

Here's an example:

NICAP's Donald Keyhoe wrote in "The TRUE Report on Flying Saucers", TRUE magazine, 1967, page 12:

"On April 8, 1964, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration launched from Cape Kennedy the first two-man Gemini capsule, a crucial step in our effort to land an astronaut on the moon. The capsule went into its planned orbit around the earth, and sensitive instruments began gathering data that would reveal flaws and point out possible improvements in the design. This first test flight was a great success. You read about it next morning in your paper."

"But there was something you didn't read. This report was given to me confidentially by two scientists present at the test. The Gemini capsule was still in its first orbit when four spacecraft of unknown origin flew up to it. While startled radar trackers watched their screens in open-mouthed amazement, the four took up positions around the capsule - two above it, one beneath, one aft. Whoever was inside those strange craft appeared to be inspecting the capsule minutely and with care. They drew close to the capsule and paced it for a full orbit of the earth. Then, apparently finished with their scrutiny, they pulled away and vanished into the unknown."


We can compare this with the version McClelland posted on his website. The Keyhoe story clearly seems to be derived from a report that McClelland sent him back in that period. This gives a 'historical depth' to McClelland's stories (at least some of them) and verifies his account of activities with Keyhoe and NICAP.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim, i'd like to know your opinion about these three images:


AS10-28-3988
www.lpi.usra.edu...


AS10-28-3989
www.lpi.usra.edu...

AS10-28-3990
www.lpi.usra.edu...




Thanks in advance



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Aside from adding in claims that HE and an associate solved the 'POGO' problem in Titan-II boosters (Martin Marietta built the vehicle and ITS engineers also claim to have been the ones who solved it, designed the fixes, and implemented them -- not two guys in the hangar), claims for mysterious 'MJ-12' MIBs showing up to keep the lid on, and claims he was at every scene of every action, his description of the raw sequence of flight events is similar, and plausible.


"As the Gemini Capsule entered orbit, the RCA world tracking team began to realize that "our" capsule was not alone as viewed through their incoming telemetry, visual theodolite and other high powered optical data. Our capsule had four 'visitors". The RCA team was ordered to run a recheck of the situation to be certain ghost images were not the cause. The Titan ll stages [SIC! Only one stage enters orbit with the payload -- JEO] were also excluded as causing the images.

"Several hours after the objects departed their single orbit rendezvous with the Gemini capsule, a strange shadowy group of personnel arrived on scene... One thing was for certain, this group was at the Cape for no other reason other than the Gemini Titan mission and its guests.

"The official NASA determination was that the objects were the torn particles or remains of the Titan upper stage that apparently entered orbit with the Gemini capsule. I was at the news conference and I nearly began to laugh. How could a broken [sic!] stage overtake the capsule and stop slightly ahead of the capsule to accompany it an entire orbit around the earth?"


I have at least two serious technical problems with this narrative.

First, NASA couldn't TRACK a satellite for a full orbit of the Earth, only sporadically between long passes out of range of radar sites. So any observations of extra blips near the main payload (which frequently happened in those days, both due to items coming off the booster and spacecraft, and tracking side-lobe ambiguities) would have been rare. Which blip seen on pass 3 was the same as pass 4 would be impossible to tell. One seen 'overtaking' on one pass couldn't be linked with another seen 'holding position' an hour later.


Second, McClelland asks mockingly, "How could a broken stage overtake the capsule", referring to the expended second stage. Actually, discarded upper stages practically ALWAYS overtook and passed their deployed payloads. It was normal -- to those familiar with launch operations -- and is STILL normal (e.g., Soyuz manned spacecraft and their third stages).

The way it happens involves orbital dynamics, which is a specialty that even many mechanically-inclined space workers don't need to study. The primary payload separates from its booster with forward thrusting that places it in a slightly higher orbit. The booster's lower orbit is shorter in length and since closer to Earth is accelerated more strongly by gravity. Added to air drag, which affects big hollow things (e.g., empty fuel tanks) more than dense heavy things (payloads) and hence sucks them into even lower and faster orbits, this is the recipe for cast-off boosters and flaked-off debris to pull ahead of the main payload very, very quickly.

This seems to me to be a genuine launch puzzle that could easily have been caused by extraneous objects, embellished by dramatizations, misunderstandings, and the 'improvements' any narrative accumulates over decades of retellings.

As for the stories of MIBs with MJ-12 badges, I wonder if McClelland informed Keyhoe of this in his report at the time, and then, if so, why Keyhoe didn't publish it in 1967 -- or whether McClelland only remembered this item thirty years later.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by internos
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim, i'd like to know your opinion about these three images:

Thanks in advance




Happy to join you on a new thread... please don't give excuses for posters here to avoid the central theme we've been discussing.

What is your thinking on these pictures? What is unusual about them, that makes you wonder about the need for an extraordinary stimulus?

[edit on 14-8-2008 by JimOberg]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


There is not a lot to stay on topic about here. You make claims of McClelland being less than truthful, and provide as evidence minor discrepancies in vernacular.

Did you even look at the images that Internos pointed out to you? If you had, you would not have asked what was so extraordinary.

What concerns me is that you will not end up answering Internos. It isn't like we get audience with anyone from NASA that often, and you only show up here to debunk people (adding nothing beyond that of any use tot he site content). I cannot blame Internos for taking the first opportunity he could, and he would be remiss for not asking given that he is a site Conspiracy Master and image specialist.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim,

I have a friend who is a contractor with NASA. They comission paintings from him (Kennedy Space Center, Smithsonian) to help document many of their missions. I bring this up only as an example to the fact that he has been working with NASA for many years but is not and never has been a NASA employee. I have seen many similar posed photos of him with many astronauts/NASA executives/etc, where if placed on a web site would look strikingly familiar to McClelland's.

Not only does he chuckle when I forward threads like this to him, he has come up with his own term. He labels this "The world of Strange"

I imagine you may have crossed paths with him in the past.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
What concerns me is that you will not end up answering Internos.


Rest easy. And stay on target.

Let me dig out the higher-res images of the object in Internos' links.

Also, as background, you should read the 1971 NASA report on 'moon pigeons' -- it's on my home page (www.jamesoberg.com).

(edit to add link) Here's the direct link:
members.aol.com...



[edit on 14-8-2008 by JimOberg]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by internos
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim, i'd like to know your opinion about these three images:

Thanks in advance




Happy to join you on a new thread... please don't give excuses for posters here to avoid the central theme we've been discussing.

What is your thinking on these pictures? What is unusual about them, that makes you wonder about the need for an extraordinary stimulus?

[edit on 14-8-2008 by JimOberg]


Jim, per your request, I have made a new thread regarding these three particular images. You can find it here



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
What concerns me is that you will not end up answering Internos.


Rest easy. And stay on target.

Let me dig out the higher-res images of the object in Internos' links.

Also, as background, you should read the 1971 NASA report on 'moon pigeons' -- it's on my home page (www.jamesoberg.com).

(edit to add link) Here's the direct link:
members.aol.com...



[edit on 14-8-2008 by JimOberg]


Jim sorry for posing you an off topic question: i've just tried to bring it to your attention because i had no other ways ( i didn't know if you were allowed to use U2U, out internal private messaging system: and the reasons why i brought it to your attention are both the reports on Moon pigeons and the fact that i thought that you may already have an explanation coming from one of your rersearches

But absolutely, the last thing i would do is to drive a thread off topic. .

Thanks for your contribution to this thread, and thanks for being so kind to find the time to reply in the thread Images for Mr. Oberg to analyze started by bigfatfurrytexan.
I've sent you an U2U: Click here to check your U2U In Box.



[edit on 14/8/2008 by internos]



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Does anyone want to discuss the argumentations I have posted casting doubt on the veracity of major stories from McClelland?



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I thought we had. I would rather see more than errors in vernacular, as stronger evidence might be needed.

If it were a murder trial, so far you have a "Not Guilty" verdict.





new topics




 
138
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join