Another NASA employee comes forward - 8-9 Foot Alien Sighted, page 34

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 17-8-2008 @ 12:43 PM by thrashee

Originally posted by spacevisitor
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.

No offense taken

Are you now eliciting the skeptic's interest in a thread as evidence itself? Is there anything that passes below the bar of credibility for you?

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 08:49 AM by spacevisitor

Originally posted by thrashee
Is there anything that passes below the bar of credibility for you?

Yes there is.
But to stay on this thread, what more credibility do you want with people like former NASA astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchell and in this case former NASA Space Flight Controller Clark McClelland and what former NASA astronaut Gordon Cooper said for years before he died?

www.ufoevidence.org...

Read more articles on this topic: ASTRONAUT SIGHTINGS

www.ufoevidence.org...

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 @ 10:04 AM by Phage

Originally posted by spacevisitor
former NASA Space Flight Controller Clark McClelland

Correction: Spacecraft Operator. This does not indicate that McClelland had any official connection to flight ops.

[edit on 18-8-2008 by Phage]

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 10:22 AM by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by spacevisitor
former NASA Space Flight Controller Clark McClelland

Correction: Spacecraft Operator. This does not indicate that McClelland had any official connection to flight ops.

Thanks for that correction Phage.

I see here that you are absolute right.

www.stargate-chronicles.com...

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 @ 03:46 PM by thrashee

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Do you know that Mitchell is much older then McClelland?

Yes. Point being? Oh, because I said maybe he's an old and bitter man? That statement isn't the logical equivalent of stating that old people aren't credible, is it?

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

Ultimately, no. His site is childish. His insistence that we cannot not take him seriously is a shameful type of pleading. This type of presentation does do harm.

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?

My engagement in this thread is not logically equivalent to embracing McClelland or his ideas, is it?

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]

reply posted on 19-8-2008 @ 02:22 AM by chetinglendalevillage

Take the road taken... WALK.

It is so difficult to believe some information off a Heaven's Gate'ish looking site and especially difficult to see past is any author writing with a multitude of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! marks after each comment!

Sure sign of lunacy and inability to convey a meaningful message when you are just so busting at the seams with each comment. Honestly, it looks like the many stock issuance spam emails I get... you know... like "BUY Rocks because there has been EVIDENCE the deman for rocks in Alaska will explode 450% by December!" With a link to buy a penny stock valued at .00005 cents/share.

So you say, heck with it, I'll put in $100 bucks and the stock goes up to .000065 the next at 10am but by close has dipped to .000045 with volume tripled.

This story is a pennystock.