Former NASA engineer claims he saw a NINE FOOT alien on 1991 space mission

Are you sure this isn't an early April fools?

This is so cringeworthy.

I believe it, there are lots of tall alien stories out there.

Sure, this particular case has a lot of hoax bells going off.

But generally speaking, it's an odd thing to call out someone as a hoax based upon info gathered from the web, when after all it's quite apparent that TPB can alter web info and change employment records etc.

Take the movie They Live! How about this alternative version:
Keith David finally puts on the crazy sunglasses and sees the alien environment unmasked. One the the skull-faced aliens approaches Keith with another pair of apparently identical glasses and says, "Hey, dude, put these one's on instead..."

Keith puts on the alternative pair of sunglasses and low and behold everything now looks normal again - nothing to see here. Until he turns to Roddy Piper and would you believe it - Roddy's got an alien skull-face !!!



We can't believe everything we read: from those that scream "Aliens..." to those that scream "Hoax", when the apparent evidence for the hoax comes from an unreliable source - the internet and 'documents' or 'communication' scanned' thereon.

originally posted by: McGinty

We can't believe everything we read: from those that scream "Aliens..." to those that scream "Hoax", when the apparent evidence for the hoax comes from an unreliable source - the internet and 'documents' or 'communication' scanned .

Indeed, fair points. However the only evidence for this alleged 9 foot alien comes from McClelland. He gives no supporting evidence, no photos, no video, no astronaut names, no mission details, nothing. All we have is his say so, just like his alleged NASA career, where a cleaner would also get a name badge.

I have a rule of thumb: if I google a subject and the only pages that come up are conspiracy and woo websites, then I don't need to smell it to know it's BS. McClelland is one of those subjects. He's making money from people's willingness to believe this stuff without question, and he's doing that by telling lies.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

I see what you did there

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Yes, indeed i'm sure you're right about McClelland. But depending upon Google can't be a final solution since we know they're in bed with the NSA etc. They can make the searches find and not find whatever they want: e.g. revealing only the 'conspiracy and woo websites'.

Do we know with certaintly that McClelland has not presented any mission details? How would we know for sure that Google/the boogeyman hadn't taken down/misdirected searches to such info. He's written The Stargate Chronicles, which i've not read, but assume there's no mission details in there, but books are always subject to the publisher's edit and who's to say the publisher's are not subject to an edit from TPTB with such books?

I know it's a somewhat obvious argument i'm making and irritating because it creates an impasse for those dependent upon second hand info - 99.9% of us all - but that impasse is there like it or not (i hate it).

mcginty, how about the newspaper clippings from 1981? Don't they suggest he's had a decades-long track record of fantasy?

a reply to: JimOberg

To be fair ... Newspapers do not always tell the truth ... Also as has been mentioned ... Those who are deemed a danger to government departments and agency's ... can easily have their reputations smeared ... and their life severely disrupted or even taken ...

a reply to: JimOberg
Maybe...maybe not

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: JimOberg

To be fair ... Newspapers do not always tell the truth ... Also as has been mentioned ... Those who are deemed a danger to government departments and agency's ... can easily have their reputations smeared ... and their life severely disrupted or even taken ...

So your hypothesis is that the story was fabricated and planted in an obscure newspaper clipping so that THIRTY YEARS LATER when McClelland began publicly telling his stories, somebody would FIND the article and use it to discredit him falsely?

a reply to: JimOberg

What if there are other old newspaper clipping that lend more balance to his story, which google et al are preventing from appearing in their searches?

They don't have to fabricate stuff to spin their version of events, just omit stuff.

So we have one version that consists of a fantasist trying to make a fast buck by making stuff up and hoping no-one asks too many questions, and anther version with a global conspiracy involving every newspaper, search engine and government organisation desperately deleting and editing information on the net to hide something despite that fact that paper copies of newspapers and books do actually still exist out there.

Which sounds more likely?

Can't people see how convoluted the story has to get in order to prove McClelland's fraud as being true?

a reply to: McGinty

Using the argument that the government could just erase any proof that his claims are valid would mean that it would be impossible to disprove ANY claim at all, because any lack of evidence could be explained away simply by a magical wave of a hand while saying "the government is covering it up".

Yesterday, I listened to his interview with Veritas Radio. It was an interview from just a few days ago.

You can listen to the first hour here:

Veritas Clark McClelland page

I haven't made my mind up about him, but I do believe this is the only type of "disclosure" we'll ever get. I tend to be very open minded about this sort of thing. What he's saying seems to support the findings of the case of Gary McKinnon.

Solar Warden - The Secret Space Program

a reply to: onebigmonkey

My point is a general one that more and more people are trusting google to tell them the truth. Have you looked through all the old newspaper archives that may have had other stories on this individual?
I certainly haven't, it's a pretty big task to physically go to all those libraries and do that.

Whereas Google et al provide an easy one stop solution, which the vast majority (including conspiracy believers) are prone to depend upon. Google is the greatest mass-mindcontrol device out there. So because Gaggle and it's peers don't return credible articles on an individual i'm not counting it as fact that said individual must therefore be non-credible.

The reason i think many don't take this point of view is that it disempowers them. The internet makes everyone think they can know everything there is out there on a given subject or individual. Saying 'no one knows nothing' #s all over that empowerment.

The internet has done for critical thinking what elections have done in creating the illusion of choice.

a reply to: McGinty

And I wouldn't entirely disagree with your point.

However, my point still stands: other sources of information are out there and no-one is stopping anyone buying a book, or heading for that library, or looking at any other source of information.

When you google this individual's name you don't get hits that are critical of him - quite the opposite. All you get are UFO sites, or conspiracy sites, or sites that promote UFO sites or conspiracy sites.

I don't condemn him for what google returns about him, I condemn him because he makes an outrageous claim but gives no evidence to support that whatsoever. The only information we have to verify McClelland's information is from McClelland himself, and people should be as critical in their thinking when it comes to unverifiable hearsay from someone they like the sound of as they are of information from sources they don't like.

Just because NASA (or any other official organisation you don't like) has a particular position or set of data on something it doesn't mean that that position is wrong or that the data they produce is wrong.

By all means ask questions about what you see on the internet, but asking questions means you have to accept the answer, not decide what it is in advance and reject answers that don't coincide with your world view.

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: onebigmonkey

My point is a general one that more and more people are trusting google to tell them the truth. Have you looked through all the old newspaper archives that may have had other stories on this individual?
I certainly haven't, it's a pretty big task to physically go to all those libraries and do that....

Some ufologists have been collecting clippings for decades. Now do we have to believe some midnight PTB raiders came into our houses and STOLE those particular clippings and erased their titles from our logs?

I did not find those clippings from google, I clipped them from the paper in 1981. How many mental gymnastics will you invent to evade the significance of that?

Here's one specific case where I concluded McClelland told of an imaginary conversation with Wernher von Braun that was actually based on a mistranslation of a German UFO newsletter garbled by Tim Good in one of his books.

www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

Whenever I see "former NASA engineer claims...", I immediately dismiss it as a hoax.

That particular title may impress some people but the reality is, "former NASA engineer" means absolutely nothing. The guy could have worked at NASA for a week designing a new barf bag and now he can claim he's a "former NASA engineer."