Another NASA employee comes forward - 8-9 Foot Alien Sighted, page 34
Pages: <<  31    32    33    34    35    36    37  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 135 times


reply posted on 15-8-2008 @ 08:04 PM by menguard
reply to post by thrashee



Well, I guess we should let them carry on with the show, no applause, please people.


reply posted on 16-8-2008 @ 10:52 PM by blufunk



reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 11:44 AM by thrashee
reply to post by JimOberg



Hard to discuss real evidence when there wasn't any to begin with


reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 12:37 PM by spacevisitor
Originally posted by thrashee
reply to
post by JimOberg



Hard to discuss real evidence when there wasn't any to begin with


Hi thrashee, no offence of course, but if there really wasn’t any real evidence to begin with regarding this also obvious for you and others very interesting thread you never would have taking so much time and so much effort by making some 56 replies now and come to the conclusion that there wasn’t any evidence to begin with.
So because you are doing that with an almost inhumanly effort it must be just the opposite, what I already knew of course.

Priceless.


reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 08:56 AM by thrashee
reply to post by spacevisitor



Thanks for the links. My issues aren't with Mitchell or any other astronauts, my issues regard the topic of this thread: McClelland. All the autographed photos in the world doesn't make up for the hackish nature of his presentation or story.


reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 10:37 AM by spacevisitor
Originally posted by thrashee
reply to
post by spacevisitor


All the autographed photos in the world doesn't make up for the hackish nature of his presentation or story.


Regarding the sensitive information he makes public he must sorely have a very important reason for doing it the way he did in my opinion.


reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 11:09 AM by thrashee
reply to post by spacevisitor



Sure...$$$. Or maybe he's just an old and bitter man. Who knows.

All I know is Mitchell won't back him up, his website is a discredit for those out of NASA who do maintain that UFOs are real, and his claims, stories, and responses do not evince respect from someone who is a reputable part of the scientific community.

Seriously...I would run, not walk, away from this guy if you really care about ufology being furthered and taken seriously.


reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 03:16 PM by spacevisitor
Originally posted by thrashee
reply to
post by spacevisitor



Sure...$$$. Or maybe he's just an old and bitter man. Who knows.


I think it is more likely that he just wanted what obvious more and more people who worked in those areas wanted and that is coming forward and tell the truth and hope that he won’t become killed for it as many others where.

Originally posted by thrashee
All I know is Mitchell won't back him up,


Do you know that Mitchell is much older then McClelland?

Originally posted by thrashee
his website is a discredit for those out of NASA who do maintain that UFOs are real, and his claims, stories, and responses do not evince respect from someone who is a reputable part of the scientific community.


That is just a matter of opinion don’t you think?

Originally posted by thrashee
Seriously...I would run, not walk, away from this guy if you really care about ufology being furthered and taken seriously.


Seriously thrashee, must I come to the conclusion now that you really don’t care about ufology being furthered and taken seriously because you obvious don’t run away from this guy/thread?



reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 03:23 PM by Turiddu
reply to post by spacevisitor



thrashee is 100% correct, anybody who is serious about "Ufology" will brush off these claims as nothing more than attention grabbing fiction. Not only have claims about his own personal background been called into question but he has yet to provide any evidence for these claims. The burden of proof is on his shoulders, not the shoulders of skeptics. If he wants anyone to believe him he must provide us compelling evidence and he has yet to do that. As has been stated earlier in this thread we don't yet fully know why he is making these claims, perhaps he is a disgruntled ex-employee or maybe he is "preparing" us for a future book he hopes to release (or a current one?)

[edit on 18-8-2008 by Turiddu]


reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 03:44 PM by spacevisitor
Originally posted by Turiddu
reply to
post by spacevisitor



thrashee is 100% correct, anybody who is serious about "Ufology" will brush off these claims as nothing more than attention grabbing fiction. Not only have claims about his own personal background been called into question but he has yet to provide any evidence for these claims. The burden of proof is on his shoulders, not the shoulders of skeptics. If he wants anyone to believe him he must provide us compelling evidence and he has yet to do that. As has been stated earlier in this thread we don't yet fully know why he is making these claims, perhaps he is a disgruntled ex-employee or maybe he is "preparing" us for a future book he hopes to release (or a current one?)

[edit on 18-8-2008 by Turiddu]


Well, lets forget for a short moment of course Clark McClelland, that must be not so difficult for you then I suppose.

Are you willing to tell me your opinion about what another NASA employee/astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchell claims then and please don’t come with a remark like this thread isn’t about Dr Edgar Mitchell.
Thanks.

Here is what Dr Edgar Mitchell claims.

www.liveleak.com...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.news.com.au...


reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 03:49 PM by thrashee
reply to post by spacevisitor



Here is why I respect Mitchell. He is only relaying his own personal information, but he's not staking major claims in it. He's not waving a banner proclaiming that he has critical information that absolutely *must* be shared with humanity....and then try to charge for such sharing of information. He's not claiming that he has "books" on this subject, when in fact he's really taking stabs at publishers who won't publish him.

Look at Mitchell's presentation. And then look at McClelland's. Yes, neither have proof. The difference is all in the claims.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by thrashee]
Pages: <<  31    32    33    34    35    36    37  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 9 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 17 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 12 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 19 days ago with 28 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 3 days ago with 27 member flags
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 member flags