Clark C. McClelland, former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet, claims to have seen an ET standing in the shut

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, McCelland is not an astronaut, so?&nbsp; Is your post an attempt to discredit or dishonor such a dedicated and loyal person as McClelland without a fact in your hand?&nbsp; Possibly a way to slander the man?&nbsp; He can't prove it and you can't disprove it.&nbsp;&nbsp;Nonetheless,&nbsp;you're promoting the Fed policy of cover-up and denial; maybe all McClelland did was confess. Posted by et_earth</DIV></p><p>I don't see what you're seeing in jon's post.</p><p>At the most, he's saying he doesn't believe this event occurred. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[et_earth]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't see what you're seeing in jon's post.At the most, he's saying he doesn't believe this event occurred. &nbsp; <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV><br /><br /><p>What I&rsquo;m getting at is this policy of shaming or dishonoring somebody because of something they have seen and are or have spoken about. In the final analysis, either everybody becomes a liar or mentally unstable. In this case the individual (McClelland) became a liar&hellip;&hellip;.Same old snow, you know. Calling somebody a liar or implying they are lying with nothing to present except accusations is unacceptable. I want proof McClelland was making up the story. I challenge, in all respects, in the same way people have been applying &ldquo;they need proof of ETs&rdquo; thereby requiring a most evidential method.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thor06]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>McCelland is not an astronaut.&nbsp; And yes, it is another unverified andd unverifiable claim.&nbsp; An alien seen on an unspecified but secret shuttle mission,&nbsp; Right...... <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> Well, there have been secret payloads...</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't know about this et-earth.&nbsp; It's not his credentials that bother me.&nbsp; One always has to wonder about motive.&nbsp; Honestly he seems paranoid, and in need of money.&nbsp; It's the "cosmic space water for sale" that makes the whole thing a little suspect.&nbsp; 2,500 bucks by the way, if your in the market.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">                           www.watchnasatv.com</font></p><p>                          ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I&rsquo;m getting at is this policy of shaming or dishonoring somebody because of something they have seen and are or have spoken about. In the final analysis, either everybody becomes a liar or mentally unstable. In this case the individual (McClelland) became a liar&hellip;&hellip;.Same old snow, you know. Calling somebody a liar or implying they are lying with nothing to present except accusations is unacceptable. I want proof McClelland was making up the story. I challenge, in all respects, in the same way people have been applying &ldquo;they need proof of ETs&rdquo; thereby requiring a most evidential method. Posted by et_earth</DIV></p><p>Is he lying?</p><p>Is he telling the truth?</p><p>How do we know which it is?</p><p>I'd love to assume automatically certain people aren't lying.&nbsp; However, historically speaking, there have been plenty of UFO stories that have either been hoaxes, outright lies or completely misunderstood natural phenomenon.&nbsp; If a good many of these appear to be "non-events" then what are we left with?&nbsp; Either he presents evidence or we have to go with what has been proven - which doesn't leave much in favor of this being a "truthful" account, does it?</p><p>You want proof he is stating a lie?&nbsp; Well, the only way to do that is find out what mission this was on, find the evidence from that mission that details what occurred and any recordings made during that mission.&nbsp; Analyze it all, put it through a computer with statements from others.&nbsp; If you end up not getting any evidence that these events occurred, then he is lying.</p><p>Or, it could all just be a massive coverup and he isn't telling a lie but telling the truth which can't be substantiated because MIB has blinky-thinged everyone connected with it and stolen all the records but replaced them with exact duplicates which they had to steal and replace again because replacing them with exact duplicates was sort of a dumb idea and the guy who suggested it has been fired and blinky-thinged as well.... </p><p>I'm not making fun of you or the McClelland.&nbsp; I'm just being a little light-hearted here.&nbsp; The truth is we can't know what the truth is until he substantiates his claims.&nbsp; We can't prove he is lying because if we had every nanosecond of whatever mission it was recorded, he could turn around and scream "coverup" without having a shred of evidence for such and people would STILL believe him.</p><p>Therefore, the ONLY option which presents a true solution to the problem is for him to provide direct evidence of his claims.&nbsp; Nothing else will suffice.&nbsp; (How does one prove someone is "not" telling the Truth?&nbsp; Prove a negative?)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> personally observed an 8 to 9 foot tall ET on his 27 inch video monitors while on duty in the Kennedy Space Center, Launch Control Center (LCC). The ET was standing upright in the Space Shuttle Payload Bay having a discussion with TWO tethered US NASA Astronauts! .........Yes, inside OUR Shuttle! BOTH missions were DoD (Pentagon) TOP SECRET (TS) encounters! ......<br /> Posted by Smersh</DIV></p><p><font size="2">DOD, Top Secret... doesn't this tell you the whole story? It is probably a DOD's secret experimental robot, engineers for fun made it in the shape of an ET.&nbsp; I know I'd make a robot look like ET if I were a secret DOD engineer to get a kick out of it. Won't you? </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[et_earth]

<p>Replying to a_l_p_:</p><p><font size="1" color="#0000ff"><em>Is he lying? Is he telling the truth? How do we know which it is?</em></font></p><p>What do we know about McClelland? Does he have a history we can examine to determine his reliability and/or trustworthiness?&nbsp; He seems to have lived an honest life, no larceny involved?</p><p><em><font size="1" color="#0000ff">I'd love to assume automatically certain people aren't lying. However, historically speaking, there have been plenty of UFO stories that have either been hoaxes, outright lies or completely misunderstood natural phenomenon. If a good many of these appear to be "non-events" then what are we left with? Either he presents evidence or we have to go with what has been proven - which doesn't leave much in favor of this being a "truthful" account, does it?</font></em></p><p>There is nothing to say McClelland is making up the story. I believe there must be another explanation.</p><p><em><font size="1" color="#0000ff">You want proof he is stating a lie? Well, the only way to do that is find out what mission this was on, find the evidence from that mission that details what occurred and any recordings made during that mission. Analyze it all, put it through a computer with statements from others. If you end up not getting any evidence that these events occurred, then he is lying.</font></em></p><p>One can examine McClelland&rsquo;s life history and recognize he doesn&rsquo;t have a record of making false or misleading statements. Nothing showing up in the form of a document or record that could provide evidence to indicate McClelland has a history of making false statements.</p><p><font size="1" color="#0000ff"><em>Or, it could all just be a massive coverup and he isn't telling a lie but telling the truth which can't be substantiated because MIB has blinky-thinged everyone connected with it and stolen all the records but replaced them with exact duplicates which they had to steal and replace again because replacing them with exact duplicates was sort of a dumb idea and the guy who suggested it has been fired and blinky-thinged as well.... </em></font></p><p>Well, the Fed is covering up and in the grips of denial and NASA is under their thumb. When in orbit the astronauts must switch to an encrypted communications line to mission control while discussing any UFO observations, thereby keeping the juciy&nbsp;scuttle-butt from the public. The Fed and NASA wish this UFO interest by the public would simply disappear.</p><p><font size="1"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I'm not making fun of you or the McClelland. I'm just being a little light-hearted here. The truth is we can't know what the truth is until he substantiates his claims. We can't prove he is lying because if we had every nanosecond of whatever mission it was recorded, he could turn around and scream "coverup" without having a shred of evidence for such and people would STILL believe him.</em></font></font><font size="1"><font color="#0000ff"><em>Therefore, the ONLY option which presents a true solution to the problem is for him to provide direct evidence of his claims. Nothing else will suffice. (How does one prove someone is "not" telling the Truth? Prove a negative?)</em></font></font>&nbsp; <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font><font size="3"> </font></p><p>If McClelland&nbsp;was of&nbsp;an unscrupulous type of personage then it seems to me we could find some tracks in his past revealing such behavior.&nbsp; Instead, we find an honest man&nbsp;living an honest life and its just to easy to say he&nbsp;is making up the story.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[et_earth]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>personally observed an 8 to 9 foot tall ET on his 27 inch video monitors while on duty in the Kennedy Space Center, Launch Control Center (LCC). The ET was standing upright in the Space Shuttle Payload Bay having a discussion with TWO tethered US NASA Astronauts! .........Yes, inside OUR Shuttle! BOTH missions were DoD (Pentagon) TOP SECRET (TS) encounters! ......Posted by Smersh</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>DOD, Top Secret... doesn't this tell you the whole story? It is probably a DOD's secret experimental robot, engineers for fun made it in the shape of an ET.&nbsp; I know I'd make a robot look like ET if I were a secret DOD engineer to get a kick out of it. Won't you? <br />Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV><br /><br />I have heard of a 8' to 9' tall spirit.&nbsp; Wearing a hood, actually.&nbsp;&nbsp;Oral Roberts is the source.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Smersh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>McCelland is not an astronaut.&nbsp; And yes, it is another unverified andd unverifiable claim.&nbsp; An alien seen on an unspecified but secret shuttle mission,&nbsp; Right...... <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>Yes it's true that McClelland is not an astronaut, or a former astronaut. (I admit I was not certain when I started this thread.) He was an "ScO," which I believe stands for "spacecraft operator." He claims to have seen the ET on his monitor screen, which presumably he would have been using in the course of his duties.&nbsp;</p><p>Regarding his claim that this occured on a secret shuttle mission, in my opinion that makes sense (if this incident did occur,) because a pre-arranged meeting between NASA and an ET race in space, to pass on technology (or for whatever reason,) surely <em>would</em> have been on one of the secret missions, rather than on one of the public ones. IIRC, (I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong,) all the general public saw and knew about the DOD top secret missions that did occur were the launches and landings, with no informaton or TV coverage about what occured in between.</p><p>McClelland has said he is "short of money," since losing his NASA job, but at least he is being honest about his motives, I suppose. &nbsp;</p><p>Incidentally, McClelland has his own website @ <strong>http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/</strong>&nbsp;</p><p>He recently posted an artist's impression of the alleged meeting between NASA / ET in the shuttle payload bay, as he claims to have witnessed it, at <strong>http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/release_mitchell.html</strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1><p><font color="#800000"><em>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea."<br />Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."</em></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Website / forums </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, McCelland is not an astronaut, so?&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Why so? Because a number of posters here assumed that he was. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is your post an attempt to discredit or dishonor such a dedicated and loyal person as McClelland without a fact in your hand?&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>How do you know that McClelland is or is not dedicated and loyal? How do we know that this story is correctly attributed??</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Possibly a way to slander the man?&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>How is pointing out that he is not an astronaut in any way slander.&nbsp; You aren't an astronaut either.&nbsp; have I slandered you?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He can't prove it and you can't disprove it.&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV></p><p>My point exactly.&nbsp; It is an unverified and unverifiable statement.&nbsp; Without supporting evidence it is valueless.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nonetheless,&nbsp;you're promoting the Fed policy of cover-up and denial; </DIV></p><p>I&nbsp;dare point out that a person has made an unverified and unverifable statement and I am promoting a US federal policy of cover up? Hilarious!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>maybe all McClelland did was confess. <br />Posted by et_earth </DIV></p><p>Maybe so.&nbsp; Maybe he has gone psycho. Maybe he is wrong.&nbsp; Maybe he is deliberately misleading us.&nbsp; Without supporting evidence we don't know, so this&nbsp;story&nbsp;is valueless.</p><p>Jon</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p></DIV></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes it's true that McClelland is not an astronaut, or a former astronaut. (I admit I was not certain when I started this thread.) He was an "ScO," which I believe stands for "spacecraft operator." He claims to have seen the ET on his monitor screen, which presumably he would have been using in the course of his duties.&nbsp;</DIV></p><p>But what evidence has he got?&nbsp; None.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Regarding his claim that this occured on a secret shuttle mission, in my opinion that makes sense (if this incident did occur,) because a pre-arranged meeting between NASA and an ET race in space, to pass on technology (or for whatever reason,) surely would have been on one of the secret missions, rather than on one of the public ones. </DIV></p><p>Why would such a meeting be secret?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IIRC, (I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong,) all the general public saw and knew about the DOD top secret missions that did occur were the launches and landings, with no informaton or TV coverage about what occured in between.</DIV></p><p>There were 11&nbsp;of these, STS-4 (experiments), STS-51C (Magnum satellite), STS-51J (DSCS satellite), STS-27 (Lacrosse satellite), STS-28 (SDS satellite), STS-33 (Magnum satellite), STS-36 (Misty satellite), STS-38 (Magnum satellite), STS-39 (experiments), STS-44 (DSP satellite) STS-53 (unknown satellite), all launched between 1982 and 1992.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>McClelland has said he is "short of money," since losing his NASA job, but at least he is being honest about his motives, I suppose. &nbsp;Incidentally, McClelland has his own website @ http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/ . He recently posted an artist's impression of the alleged meeting between NASA / ET in the shuttle payload bay, as he claims to have witnessed it, at http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/release_mitchell.html <br />Posted by Smersh </DIV></p><p>Unfortunately without any evidence to back up his claims.&nbsp; In fact, if he were really spilling the beans on anything secret he would be in jail now.&nbsp; The fact that he is able to dissemniate this stuff shows that he either has nothing really to tell or has not told it.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[bearack]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The consequences of full dislosure about ET visitation / contact (if that's a fact,) would be enormous. Religious beliefs, all around the world, would quite possibly be thrown into disarray.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Smersh</DIV><br /><br />Interesting that the Vatican would release this information this year, aye?</p><p class="first"><strong>&nbsp;Source: Here</strong> </p><p class="first"><strong>The Pope's chief astronomer says that life on Mars cannot be ruled out. </strong></p><p>Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[et_earth]

<p>Replying to jonclark:</p><p><font color="#333333"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Me:</font>&nbsp; Yes, McCelland is not an astronaut, so? </p><p><font color="#0000ff">You</font><font color="#0000ff">:&nbsp; Why so? Because a number of posters here assumed that he was.</font></p><p>Me:&nbsp; Okay, thanks for the clarity.</DIV></p><p><font color="#333333">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></font>Me:&nbsp; Is your post an attempt to discredit or dishonor such a dedicated and loyal person as McClelland without a fact in your hand? </p><p><font color="#0000ff">You:&nbsp; How do you know that McClelland is or is not dedicated and loyal? How do we know that this story is correctly attributed??</font></p><p>Me:&nbsp; IMO, the position McClelland held with NASA gives some credence to the supposition he is honest. McClelland kept silent for a number of years&nbsp;while he was working for NASA. This indicates loyalty on McClelland&rsquo;s part while he was working for them.</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Me:&nbsp; Possibly a way to slander the man? </p><p><font color="#0000ff">You:&nbsp; How is pointing out that he is not an astronaut in any way slander. You aren't an astronaut either. have I slandered you?</font></p><p>Me:&nbsp; Nice switch. Your comments indicate or imply dishonesty on the part of McClelland, therefore indicating or implying possible slander on your part as well. The bottom line is either you have something to backup your thinking or you don&rsquo;t. Apparently you do not.</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Me:&nbsp; He can't prove it and you can't disprove it. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">You:&nbsp; My point exactly. It is an unverified and unverifiable statement. Without supporting evidence it is valueless.</font></p><p>Me:&nbsp; It is the custom of the Fed to hinder or prevent the gathering of information concerning UFO sightings and to discredit the notion they are hiding anything.&nbsp; You have no evidence to suggest McClelland&rdquo;s remarks are valueless. As a matter of fact it seems the evidence points in the other direction. McClelland&rsquo;s statement may be of significant value even though you recognize none.</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Me:&nbsp; Nonetheless, you're promoting the Fed policy of cover-up and denial; </p><p><font color="#0000ff">You:&nbsp; I dare point out that a person has made an unverified and unverifable statement and I am promoting a US federal policy of cover up? Hilarious!</font></p><p>Me:&nbsp; Well, I said promoting Fed policy and that can be done knowingly or unknowingly.</DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Me:&nbsp; maybe all McClelland did was confess.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">You:&nbsp; Maybe so. Maybe he has gone psycho. Maybe he is wrong. Maybe he is deliberately misleading us. Without supporting evidence we don't know, so this story is valueless.</font></p><p>Me:&nbsp; I think, I believe McClelland, therefore not &ldquo;valueless&rdquo; as you describe.</DIV></p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You:&nbsp; Unfortunately without any evidence to back up his claims. In fact, if he were really spilling the beans on anything secret he would be in jail now. The fact that he is able to dissemniate this stuff shows that he either has nothing really to tell or has not told it.</font></p><p>Me:&nbsp; IMO, McClelland would not go to jail because then it would be the same as the Fed admitting his statement&nbsp;was true.</DIV></p><p>The Fed is dictating what is or is not of value. Ask any pilot or airline worker or traffic controller. Ronald Reagan back in the seventies made it clear to them as to where the Fed stands when all the traffic controllers were fired and lost their jobs.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thor06]

<p>Hey, not interested in cosmic space water,&nbsp; I have this bridge I've been trying to unload.&nbsp; It's in brooklin....</p><p>&nbsp;"secret shuttle missions"</p><p>Hehe, I have this vision of the guys walking the shuttle out on the crawler, pretending nothing is going on.&nbsp; "Shuttle what shuttle, we are just out for a walk...."</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">                           www.watchnasatv.com</font></p><p>                          ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Interesting that the Vatican would release this information this year, aye?&nbsp;Source: Here The Pope's chief astronomer says that life on Mars cannot be ruled out. Writing in the Vatican newspaper, the astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, said intelligent beings created by God could exist in outer space. <br />Posted by bearack</DIV></p><p>There is nothing new or surprising in this statement by Fr. Funes.</p><p>Jon</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">JC1:&nbsp; How do you know that McClelland is or is not dedicated and loyal? How do we know that this story is correctly attributed?</span></p><p><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">ET_A:&nbsp; IMO, the position McClelland held with NASA gives some credence to the supposition he is honest. McClelland kept silent for a number of years&nbsp;while he was working for NASA. This indicates loyalty on McClelland&rsquo;s part while he was working for them.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">JC2 By saying he &ldquo;kept silent for a number of years&rdquo; implies that he us telling the truth.<span>&nbsp; </span>Without evidence in support how do you know?</span></p><p><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">JC1:&nbsp; How is pointing out that he is not an astronaut in any way slander. You aren't an astronaut either. have I slandered you?</span></p><p><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">ET_A:&nbsp; Nice switch. Your comments indicate or imply dishonesty on the part of McClelland, therefore indicating or implying possible slander on your part as well. The bottom line is either you have something to backup your thinking or you don&rsquo;t. Apparently you do not.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">JC2 </span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">No switch.<span>&nbsp; </span>Without supporting evidence we don&rsquo;t know whether he is telling the truth or not.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is not slander to question the veracity of someone who makes an extreme claim without supporting evidence.<span>&nbsp; </span>It certainly isn&rsquo;t slander to ask for supporting evidence.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">ET_A:&nbsp; It is the custom of the Fed to hinder or prevent the gathering of information concerning UFO sightings and to discredit the notion they are hiding anything.&nbsp; You have no evidence to suggest McClelland&rdquo;s remarks are valueless. As a matter of fact it seems the evidence points in the other direction. McClelland&rsquo;s statement may be of significant value even though you recognize none.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">JC2 The issue is not what the &ldquo;Feds&rdquo; may or may not have done, but what evidence supports McClelland.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">ET_A:&nbsp; Well, I said promoting Fed policy and that can be done knowingly or unknowingly.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">JC2 And how is asking for evidence promoting &ldquo;Fed&rdquo; policy?<span>&nbsp; </span></span><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">ET_A:&nbsp; I think, I believe McClelland, therefore not &ldquo;valueless&rdquo; as you describe.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">JC2 I would rather believe him if there were evidence to support his statement.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Verdana">ET_A: IMO, McClelland would not go to jail because then it would be the same as the Fed admitting his statement&nbsp;was true.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Verdana">JC2</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana"> Or perhaps because what he is saying is complete rubbish and there is no law against that</span></p><p><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:Verdana">ET_A: The Fed is dictating what is or is not of value. Ask any pilot or airline worker or traffic controller. Ronald Reagan back in the seventies made it clear to them as to where the Fed stands when all the traffic controllers were fired and lost their jobs.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">JC2 Has this any relevance what so ever to the issue to hand?</span></p><p><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana">Jon</span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I&rsquo;m getting at is this policy of shaming or dishonoring somebody because of something they have seen and are or have spoken about. In the final analysis, either everybody becomes a liar or mentally unstable. In this case the individual (McClelland) became a liar&hellip;&hellip;.Same old snow, you know. Calling somebody a liar or implying they are lying with nothing to present except accusations is unacceptable. I want proof McClelland was making up the story. I challenge, in all respects, in the same way people have been applying &ldquo;they need proof of ETs&rdquo; thereby requiring a most evidential method. <br />Posted by <strong>et_earth</strong></DIV><br /><br />Unless I've misunderstood what Mr McClelland said regarding a conversation with Story Musgrave, then one of them is a liar.&nbsp; So whom to believe, the astronaut who's been in space or the UFO enthusiast who's trying to sell a book ?&nbsp;Again someone has to explain to me how it is that McClelland would even be in a position to see what he supposedly saw.&nbsp;How is it that super-uber-secret video would be routed to his display,&nbsp;he being a former chapter director of NiCAP&nbsp;?&nbsp; These 2 things aren't "proof", at least not what I think you want, but it certainly should make you go "hmmmm".</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[et_earth]

<p>IMO, readers of this thread can decide for themselves the facts of the matter concerning UFOs/ETs and why there isn&rsquo;t presentable evidence.&nbsp; Its related to the Fed and its code of silence.&nbsp; That&rsquo;s what got me started to begin with and now I&rsquo;m done.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO, readers of this thread can decide for themselves the facts of the matter concerning UFOs/ETs and why there isn&rsquo;t presentable evidence.&nbsp; Its related to the Fed and its code of silence.&nbsp; That&rsquo;s what got me started to begin with and now I&rsquo;m done. <br />Posted by et_earth</DIV></p><p>"The Fed and its code of silence".&nbsp; Another unsubstantiated claim. </p><p>Jon</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"The Fed and its code of silence".&nbsp; Another unsubstantiated claim. Jon&nbsp; <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>You know, it could be true.</p><p>They could have nothing to say.</p><p>/shrug</p><p>Although, I wouldn't call not having any answers an unwillingness to give any. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[onesmallstep]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"The Fed and its code of silence".&nbsp; Another unsubstantiated claim. Jon&nbsp; <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />Really?...Do you deny there are reams and reams of government documents concerning the UFO phenomenon that are classified, locked away and never seen unless someone pries them loose using FOIA?</p><p>Most of these documents are dated post 1969, after the government supposedly went out of the business of investigating UFOs with the closing of Project Blue Book. If there is no secrecy surrounding the subject and no legitimate phenomenon to hide then why is this so?</p><p>As recently as January 08 the military scrambles F-16s to go after some mysterious object over a residential area in rural Texas, then denies it. The public is just left hanging with no credible explanation as to the nature of the event, or why military jets were flown over an area where they are not supposed to be.</p><p>In addition to that, there are countless examples of military interactions with mysterious objects, then denial after the fact.</p><p>How can you say this is unsubstantiated with a straight face?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Really?...</DIV></p><p>Yes really.&nbsp; there is no unitary "code of science" so beloved by conspiracy theorists.&nbsp; There are many types of confidential information, classified under different peices of legislation over aa long period of time, for many reasons, by many different administrations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you deny there are reams and reams of government documents concerning the UFO phenomenon that are classified, locked away and never seen unless someone pries them loose using FOIA?</DIV></p><p>Of course not.&nbsp; </p><p>But just because it is classified does not mean that it is significant.&nbsp; of that once classified the reasons for that remain valid.&nbsp; Much information remains classified because nobody has got round to declassifying it.&nbsp; In many cases information is classified for reason quite different to what UFO conspiracists imagine.&nbsp; To use an theoretical example a report of an unidenified object seen on radar in 1955 may be classified not because the object is "really" an alien spaceship, but because that report will conatin formation about radar perormance that the government does not want potentially hostile forces to know about.&nbsp; That report will remain claasified unless someone physically gets round to declassifying it even if that radar is no longer in service and no aspect of its technology is still used by an operational system.</p><p>As you say, many documents have been obtained under FOI.&nbsp; Have any of these contained any hard evidence of extraterrestrial visitation?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Most of these documents are dated post 1969, after the government supposedly went out of the business of investigating UFOs with the closing of Project Blue Book. If there is no secrecy surrounding the subject and no legitimate phenomenon to hide then why is this so?</DIV></p><p>Just because a general project came to an end does not mean to say that there will not be specific investigaations of specific instances.&nbsp; Government authorities would be lax in their duty if they did not do so.&nbsp; As for such cases remainign classified there are a dozen good reasons why such investigations will be.&nbsp; Not because they are covering up alien visitaions but specific issues regarding sensor performance, response times and protocols,&nbsp;unidentified intrusions into US air space, </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As recently as January 08 the military scrambles F-16s to go after some mysterious object over a residential area in rural Texas, then denies it. The public is just left hanging with no credible explanation as to the nature of the event, or why military jets were flown over an area where they are not supposed to be.</DIV></p><p>Since there are wildly variant accounts as to what happened why shoudl they be taken seriously?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In addition to that, there are countless examples of military interactions with mysterious objects, then denial after the fact.</DIV></p><p>Almost all of which end up being misrepresentations of quite straight forward events.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How can you say this is unsubstantiated with a straight face?&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>How? Several decades of following of the UFO cult until I got heartily sick of the poor reasoning, hysteria, paranoia and out and out lying associated with most advocates that UFOs are alien spaceships.&nbsp; Plus seeing quite a few things myself that the average person would call a UFO but thanks to understanding astronomy, meteorology, and knowing a bit about satellites and aviation were easily explicable.&nbsp; I have also seen a few things in the sky I could not identify but did not jump to the conclusion they were spaceships from Zeta Reticulii or wherever.&nbsp; They were just unidentified objects.&nbsp; </p><p>That is why hard evidence is so important. Without it any UFO report is just that - an unidenfied flying object.&nbsp; McClelland's claim is aa good example.&nbsp; I am not impressed by his credentials.&nbsp; Just because he worked on the Shuttle program and has some nice testimonials does not mean to say that he should be believed without supporting evidence.&nbsp; Naming the shutttle mission would be a good start, giving the date would be another.&nbsp; Time stamped, verifiable images or other data that can be independently scrutinised by experts of other people's chosing would be a good follow up.&nbsp; Other eye witnesses, either in mission control or on the mission itself would also be very desirable. Doing so for free without asking to pay for his revelations would go a long way to supporting his credibility.</p><p>Otherwise he looks like&nbsp;another Hoagland, playing on his past NASA connection and making wild statements without supporting evidence to make a buck.</p><p>If people want to discuss grand unified conspiracy theories about unitary codes of silence and other fantasies, I suggest you start your own thread.&nbsp; Let's keep this one on McClellands claims.</p><p>Jon</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[onesmallstep]

<p>Jon:</p><p>You brought this about by stating that government secrecy is an unsubstantiated claim, but when I call your hand on it suddenly I must start a new thread?&nbsp; Is that how you win your arguments, by declaring a post off topic and demanding a new thread be started?</p><p>I disagree, government secrecy is at the very heart of this discussion about McClelland.&nbsp; Maybe this guy is a wacko, I don't know, but he claims the event in question happened on a classified shuttle mission.&nbsp; If that is the case you would not expect to get the specific details you demand in order to verify his story.&nbsp; You may as well try to get the classified blueprints for a nuclear submarine via FOIA, ain't gonna happen.&nbsp; Not to say that his story should be taken at face value either, it is just another dead end in a long list of UFO related stories...All we can do is leave it at that.</p><p>But security classification and government secrecy is at the heart of this and many other UFO/ET related events. This is what I thought you were denying with your, "another unsubstantiated claim" statement. Sure UFO related documents can be classified for a myriad of reasons, not necessarily because of any reference to ET.&nbsp; But it is possible that security classification is one of the more effective tools used over the years to maintain a cloak of secrecy around the whole subject.&nbsp; It seems to work well for the nuclear submarine industry and all of the black projects we never hear about.</p><p>The smoking gun documents concerning ET may well be there but we&rsquo;ll never know because we can&rsquo;t gain access to give all of them a proper examination via FOIA because they are classified.&nbsp; In that respect there is most definitely a government cover-up, and to make the blanket statement that all documents are classified due to other reasons is just the easy, broad brush way to dismiss it all without really looking. </p><p>So there we are with another dead end, catch-22 situation. I can't give you the evidence you and other skeptics demand because it is most likely classified.&nbsp; I know, I know... how convenient that appears to be...But it seems to be the situation and has been for years. There is anticdotal evidence and cases where classified documents have "leaked out", but they are not taken seriously either having either been "debunked" or discredited by various sources. Doesn't mean though that as least some of them aren't legitimate, but one fake document is enough to cast doubt over the whole pile. (Hmmm, funny how that works in favor of the debunkers, probably is never used as a disinformation tactic though.)</p><p>You say that your experiences have lead you to paths of "poor reasoning, hysteria, paranoia and out and out lying" Well, my experiences have&nbsp;been just the opposite. The more I hear about the phenomenon, the more I wonder about it.&nbsp; I have not personally investigated any UFO cases, I leave that to others.&nbsp; But I have followed the work of people like J. Allen Hynek, Stanton Friedman, Stephen Greer, John Mack, David Jacobs, George Knapp, and more, who seem like credible researchers. Or do you just lump all of these folks into the Richard Hoagland category and call them all wackos? </p><p>Now we even have someone of the likes of&nbsp;Edgar Mitchell coming forward with an incredible story.&nbsp; Maybe you can dismiss Dr. Mitchell as a wacko, but when someone of his caliber says something, I think it is worth paying attention to and worthy of further investigation. The knee-jerk reaction should not be to start calling his credibility into question, even if he doesn't have a chunk of the Starship Vladrak in his hand when he says it.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Jon:You brought this about by stating that government secrecy is an unsubstantiated claim, but when I call your hand on it suddenly I must start a new thread?&nbsp; Is that how you win your arguments, by declaring a post off topic and demanding a new thread be started?</DIV></p><p>Not at all. et_earth brought up the "Feds and their code of silience".&nbsp;If you want to point the finger at someone going of topic,&nbsp;point it at him/her/.&nbsp;I merely stated out that there is no evidence what so ever for such a unitary "code of silience."&nbsp; There is of course, government secrecy at many levels on many leveles for many reasons, and rightly so.&nbsp; But this does not equate to single policy of secrency regarding UFOs.</p><p>Why did I suggest another thread?&nbsp; Because discussion of secrecy, real or imagined is off topic.&nbsp; the topic for this thread is McClelland's unsubstantiated claims.&nbsp; Why don't you discuss them?&nbsp; if you don't, start a more appropirate thread regarding what you do want to discuss.</p><p>As for winning arguments, I am not interested in that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I disagree, government secrecy is at the very heart of this discussion about McClelland.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>The issue is that makes a specific claim and provides no evidence to back.&nbsp; He is the one making the claim, he is the one who needs to back it up.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe this guy is a wacko, I don't know, but he claims the event in question happened on a classified shuttle mission.&nbsp; If that is the case you would not expect to get the specific details you demand in order to verify his story.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Why?&nbsp; he has already made the claim.&nbsp; if this event really happened and really wasclassified he has already spilled the beans.&nbsp; He has got nothing more to loose by providing supporting evidence.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You may as well try to get the classified blueprints for a nuclear submarine via FOIA, ain't gonna happen.&nbsp;</DIV></p><p>Not at all.&nbsp; McClelland is in the same boat as a person saying that US nuclear submarines and dive to 5000 m&nbsp;and travel at&nbsp;70 kts.&nbsp;They should provide some supporting evidence.&nbsp; if they are disclosing classified information they were privy to&nbsp;then what have they to loose by disclosing more?</p><p>So McClelland&nbsp;should be able to say which mission and provide at least some&nbsp;supporting evidence.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Not to say that his story should be taken at face value either, it is just another dead end in a long list of UFO related stories...All we can do is leave it at that</DIV></p><p>That is the problem.&nbsp; they all end either in dead ends because of inconclusive evience or they are conclusively shown to be misidentifcations.&nbsp; Not one has come though with specific evidence that supports the speculation that we are being visited by aliens, not in 60 years. So until someone has that evidence, who should any time be wasted on them??</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.But security classification and government secrecy is at the heart of this and many other UFO/ET related events. </DIV></p><p>Not at all.&nbsp; Most UFO reports are not classified beecause the military and security services are not involved.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is what I thought you were denying with your, "another unsubstantiated claim" statement. Sure UFO related documents can be classified for a myriad of reasons, not necessarily because of any reference to ET.&nbsp; But it is possible that security classification is one of the more effective tools used over the years to maintain a cloak of secrecy around the whole subject.&nbsp;</DIV></p><p>"Possible" is not the same as actual.&nbsp; It is just speculation on your part that anything to do with the UFO as a phenomena or event is being hidden.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;It seems to work well for the nuclear submarine industry and all of the black projects we never hear about.</DIV></p><p>Of course nuclear submarines actually exist.&nbsp; I have seen them and I know people who have served on them.&nbsp; They are very different to wild speculation that lights in the sky or moving blobs are alien visitation.</p><p>As for black projects, if they are real (Steath, SR71 etc.) they come to light, sooner or later&nbsp;&nbsp;If they don't then they remain unsubstantiated speculation by people with over active imaginations.&nbsp; There is little to differentiate between Aurora and alien space ship sightings except what people attribute the sighting to.&nbsp; And without evidence they shoul;d be treated with the same scepticism.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The smoking gun documents concerning ET may well be there but we&rsquo;ll never know because we can&rsquo;t gain access to give all of them a proper examination via FOIA because they are classified.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Big secrets can't be kept secret for every, secrecy or not.&nbsp; Blaming secrecy for lack of substantiated evidence after 60 years is sour grapes, as m ost UF sightings are not classified.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is far more likely that there is nothing there.</p><p>No matter how many documents are declassified (and many have) a true believer will always say that there must be more that are being hidden.&nbsp; It is an irrefutable argument but not useful.&nbsp; You might as well argue that there are secret files on pixies and the fact that no evidence has been forthcoming just shows how well hidden they are.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In that respect there is most definitely a government cover-up, and to make the blanket statement that all documents are classified due to other reasons is just the easy, broad brush way to dismiss it all without really looking. </DIV></p><p>I don't see any evidence for a government cover up at all on such matters, or any need to posulate one.&nbsp; of course if you already believe the conclusion then you may see one, but that is a circular argument/</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So there we are with another dead end, catch-22 situation. I can't give you the evidence you and other skeptics demand because it is most likely classified.&nbsp; I know, I know... how convenient that appears to be...But it seems to be the situation and has been for years. </DIV></p><p>In that case why not move on and discuss something more productive?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is anticdotal evidence and cases where classified documents have "leaked out", but they are not taken seriously either having either been "debunked" or discredited by various sources. </DIV></p><p>Anecdotal evidence is not good enough.&nbsp; And if a document is discredited, why complain?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Doesn't mean though that as least some of them aren't legitimate</DIV></p><p>If they are discredited by good analysis then they are not legitimate.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but one fake document is enough to cast doubt over the whole pile. </DIV></p><p>Not at all.&nbsp; Ten fake statements do not out weigh one correct one.&nbsp; But so far none have been produced that can be substantiated.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(Hmmm, funny how that works in favor of the debunkers, probably is never used as a disinformation tactic though.) </DIV></p><p>This is called shooting the messenger.&nbsp; Youy don't like the conclusions and so blame the "debunkers".&nbsp; This shows you already think that UFOs really are alien spacecraft.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You say that your experiences have lead you to paths of "poor reasoning, hysteria, paranoia and out and out lying" Well, my experiences have&nbsp;been just the opposite. The more I hear about the phenomenon, the more I wonder about it.&nbsp; I have not personally investigated any UFO cases, I leave that to others.&nbsp; Maybe when you have seen as many as I have you would think differently.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But I have followed the work of people like J. Allen Hynek, Stanton Friedman, Stephen Greer, John Mack, David Jacobs, George Knapp, and more, who seem like credible researchers. </DIV></p><p>Unfortunately in decades of research these people have not come up with anything worth squat.&nbsp; they are like the serious researchers who look for the Loch Ness Monster.&nbsp; They more careful they are the less specific their concusions become.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Or do you just lump all of these folks into the Richard Hoagland category and call them all wackos? </DIV></p><p>I did not say that the people you name were in the Hoagland category.&nbsp; i said that McCleeland looks very much to be&nbsp;in the Hoagland category.&nbsp; Uses his NASA association to build his credetials - check.&nbsp; has unsubstanitated story - check.&nbsp; Claims massive cover up - check.&nbsp; uses lots of cpatials and/or exclamation marks - check.&nbsp; Has a book to sell - check.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now we even have someone of the likes of&nbsp;Edgar Mitchell coming forward with an incredible story.&nbsp; Maybe you can dismiss Dr. Mitchell as a wacko, but when someone of his caliber says something, I think it is worth paying attention to and worthy of further investigation. </DIV></p><p>Except that Mitchell has not seen anything, has never claimed he has and has no evieence to support his assertions.&nbsp; It's all very interesting, but without evidence why should I believe him?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The knee-jerk reaction should not be to start calling his credibility into question, even if he doesn't have a chunk of the Starship Vladrak in his hand when he says it. </DIV></p><p>Interesting!&nbsp;McClelland makes a claim about interaction between astronauts and aliens on a space shuttle mission&nbsp;but tenders no evidence.&nbsp; And you think that scepticism of this is a knee jerk reaction but acceptance of&nbsp;the statement&nbsp;is not?&nbsp; That is very revealling.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[onesmallstep]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>I don't like your methodology of picking my post apart sentence by sentence and responding in bits and pieces.&nbsp; You missed my point entirely in several areas, and even twisted my words in others, but I am not going through it again.</p><p>Keep your head buried in the sand, believe what you want, I'll do the same.</p><p>Good day</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Really?...Do you deny there are reams and reams of government documents concerning the UFO phenomenon that are classified, locked away and never seen unless someone pries them loose using FOIA?</DIV></p><p>You can't "pry away" classified documents using FOIA.&nbsp; Can't do it.. can't be done. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>