Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't like your methodology of picking my post apart sentence by sentence and responding in bits and pieces. You missed my point entirely in several areas, and even twisted my words in others, but I am not going through it again.Keep your head buried in the sand, believe what you want, I'll do the same.Good day <br />Posted by onesmallstep</DIV><br /><br /><p>The Fed should be willing to turn over all there classified documents containing statements/reports about UFO’s whenever they’re of a non-military black ops variety. The Fed and its agencies should be saying “look and see for yourself, we are confident nothing will prove out concerning ET visitations“. There is no reason to keep reams and reams of worthless UFO documents secret and locked away, if indeed they are worthless? Instead, UFO hunters find cover-up and denial including orders telling witnesses to keep silent, by their nemesis, federal regulators enforcing their regulations. “There ain’t no actual evidence” croaks the scholarly. LOL</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Clark C. McClelland, former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet, claims to have seen an ET standing in the shut
Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Fed should be willing to turn over all there classified documents containing statements/reports about UFO’s whenever they’re of a non-military black ops variety. The Fed and its agencies should be saying “look and see for yourself, we are confident nothing will prove out concerning ET visitations“. There is no reason to keep reams and reams of worthless UFO documents secret and locked away, if indeed they are worthless? Instead, UFO hunters find cover-up and denial including orders telling witnesses to keep silent, by their nemesis, federal regulators enforcing their regulations. “There ain’t no actual evidence” croaks the scholarly. LOL Posted by et_earth</DIV></p><p>But, which ones though?</p><p>How would you know it if they said they turned over everything they had? Wouldn't people STILL doubt that if they didn't find what they were looking for?</p><p>There are ways to find out some things about classified documents. But, the type of thing that is the "Holy Grail" of UFO=ETI supporters is not going to be found that way. Nobody is going to referrence a document like that in a lower-order document. No catalog is going to list that. No publication report, body of work or copy record is going to show stuff like that. At least, not something you can easily get your hands on with an FOIA request. It's "possible" to get referrences to documents that "sound" like they could be what people are after but, they don't have to be. There could be nothing more than a number with the title of "Classified" or "Secret Restriced Data" and you'd have no idea what was in it but, someone out there will claim it has UFO=ET evidence value. </p><p>If the Fed faced the Nation, dropped their pants and said "Here! This is all we know about UFOs!" and it didn't have what people wanted to see then they'd still claim the Fed was hiding something. It's the ultimate in "blame games." Blame the government for hiding top-secret information whether it exists or not.</p><p>IS there information on UFO=ETI? Well, if anyone has such a thing, it would be our government. But, do they have such a thing? If they did or didn't, we wouldn't know. The only time we'd know, for sure, is if they released information that satisfied every single UFO=ET proponent. That will never happen. Their will always be someone, somewhere, that doesn't believe the government. </p><p>Personally, I think if anything ever comes to light on this issue, if there is ever any "breakthrough" that UFO=ETI proponents want to see, it's going to come from the public and not the government. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p>It's like jonclarke said.</p><p> </p><p>The government basically doesn't want any enemies to discover anything so they can use it as progress to make things more difficult.</p><p> </p><p>How about this? An UFO crashes, our military (no matter which branch) goes and checks it out.. Everything's being recorded.. EVERYTHING. From the jeeps they use, how many people there were, what equipment they used and so on.</p><p>If that information was in the open, the enemies would not care about the UFO, they would be looking for anything they could use against us. I expect you'd probably want to be much more safer than being in a war zone. </p><p>All we can say is: Maybe there's UFOs, maybe there's not. </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't like your methodology of picking my post apart sentence by sentence and responding in bits and pieces. You missed my point entirely in several areas, and even twisted my words in others, but I am not going through it again.Keep your head buried in the sand, believe what you want, I'll do the same.Good day <br />Posted by onesmallstep</DIV></p><p>In other words, your mind is made up, don't confuse you with facts and reason!</p><p>Jon<br /></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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just when you may have thought it was safe to go back in the water (ie no more former NASA astronauts or employees making ET claims,) this story has appeared:NASA veteran Clark C. McClelland confirms alien existence as outlined by astronaut Edgar MitchellI, Clark C. McClelland, former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet, 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! I also observed on my monitors, the spacecraft of the ET as it was in a stabilized, safe orbit to the rear of the Space Shuttle main engine pods.I observed this incident for about one minute and seven seconds. Plenty of time to memorize all that I was observing.It WAS AN ET and Alien Star Ship!A friend of mine later contacted me and said that this person had also observed an 8 to 9 foot tall ET INSIDE the SPACE SHUTTLE CREW COMPARTMENT! Yes, inside OUR Shuttle! BOTH missions were DoD (Pentagon) TOP SECRET (TS) encounters! With my verifiable background, there is no Federal Government Agency that can say I am crazy!Full story here. I have a feeling that last sentence may be challenged by some, but we'll see. I believe Mr McClelland may have made other ET claims before. <br />Posted by Smersh</DIV></p><p> </p><p>A SCO (SpaCecraft Operator) is job for some of our best technicians. They spend most of their work day in the Shuttle Orbiter cockpit doing repair work or supporting engineers in the Firing Room by throwing switches etc. They are not astronauts. They have never flown in space.</p><p>By the way there is no record of a former or current SCO by that name. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> A SCO (SpaCecraft Operator) is job for some of our best technicians. They spend most of their work day in the Shuttle Orbiter cockpit doing repair work or supporting engineers in the Firing Room by throwing switches etc. They are not astronauts. They have never flown in space.By the way there is no record of a former or current SCO by that name. <br />Posted by <strong>shuttle_guy</strong></DIV><br /><br />Thx for the input. Perhaps you can shed some light on this aspect of what Mr McClelland claims. Apparently he saw some video of the shuttle bay during a military mission. Would any SCO ever be in such a position or place to see such a video ? My guess is that an SCO's duties are performed in FL while any video during that phase of flight would only be seen in the Houston MCC. Is it routine for an SCO to be in the MCC ? <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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But, which ones though?How would you know it if they said they turned over everything they had? Wouldn't people STILL doubt that if they didn't find what they were looking for?There are ways to find out some things about classified documents. But, the type of thing that is the "Holy Grail" of UFO=ETI supporters is not going to be found that way. Nobody is going to referrence a document like that in a lower-order document. No catalog is going to list that. No publication report, body of work or copy record is going to show stuff like that. At least, not something you can easily get your hands on with an FOIA request. It's "possible" to get referrences to documents that "sound" like they could be what people are after but, they don't have to be. There could be nothing more than a number with the title of "Classified" or "Secret Restriced Data" and you'd have no idea what was in it but, someone out there will claim it has UFO=ET evidence value. If the Fed faced the Nation, dropped their pants and said "Here! This is all we know about UFOs!" and it didn't have what people wanted to see then they'd still claim the Fed was hiding something. It's the ultimate in "blame games." Blame the government for hiding top-secret information whether it exists or not.IS there information on UFO=ETI? Well, if anyone has such a thing, it would be our government. But, do they have such a thing? If they did or didn't, we wouldn't know. The only time we'd know, for sure, is if they released information that satisfied every single UFO=ET proponent. That will never happen. Their will always be someone, somewhere, that doesn't believe the government. Personally, I think if anything ever comes to light on this issue, if there is ever any "breakthrough" that UFO=ETI proponents want to see, it's going to come from the public and not the government. Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV><br /></p><p>There is a procedure allowing for the declassification of classified material/documents. The procedure needs to be reviewed and amended, thereby permitting a fast tract to UFO documentation declassification and release. When Bill Clinton was president, he would spend hours at a time going through classified UFO documents looking for some he could declassify and release. </p><p>My concern is shown through the example of the O’Hare UFO incident. The Fed have their regulations to enforce and did at O‘Hare. Pilots are aware of the Fed policy requiring them not to talk to anybody concerning UFOs. With the O’Hare sighting there are witnesses on the ground, however, pilot observations on approach to O’Hare are absent. Why? Because the Fed said no talking and pilots work for a living like most people. In the Narcap report within the statements made by the witnesses there could have been different angles of observation, including some from the side at approx. 90 deg. from the ground. Instead, there is a gapping hole in the accumulation of information within the report, and it was caused by the Fed. This is an example of which UFO sightings the Fed could be permitting witnesses to talk about, a_l_p_. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p> </p><p>I said I wasn't going to bother repeating myself on this thread, but since you are being such a sweetheart, I feel obligated to respond to all of your "facts and reason"</p><p>It shouldn't bother you though if I just pick and choose my responses and piece-meal it together:</p><p>JC: "The issue is that makes a specific claim and provides no evidence to back. He is the one making the claim, he is the one who needs to back it up."</p><p>OSS: Duh, okay, I think...(From what I can make of this through the mangled grammer.)</p><p>JC: "if this event really happened and really wasclassified he has already spilled the beans. He has got nothing more to loose by providing supporting evidence."</p><p>OSS: Sure, getting access to classified documentation is as easy as rolling off a log.</p><p>JC: "McClelland is in the same boat as a person saying that US nuclear submarines and dive to 5000 m and travel at 70 kts. They should provide some supporting evidence. if they are disclosing classified information they were privy to then what have they to loose by disclosing more?"</p><p>OSS: Uh, maybe 20 years in Leavenworth if he illegally discloses actual classified documents</p><p>JC: "they all end either in dead ends because of inconclusive evience or they are conclusively shown to be misidentifcations. 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>OSS: My whole point is that anything real will be CLASSIFIED. Anything that has been released will either be fake or disinformation. This is the point you conveniently ignored. </p><p>JC: "Of course nuclear submarines actually exist. I have seen them and I know people who have served on them."</p><p>OSS: Again you missed my point, I asked that you provide me the blueprints for their construction, i.e. they are CLASSIFIED, can't do it.</p><p>JC: "As for black projects, if they are real (Steath, SR71 etc.) they come to light, sooner or later If they don't then they remain unsubstantiated speculation by people with over active imaginations.</p><p>OSS: Boy that is an all encompassing statement...and wrong. Do you know how many classified programs from WWII are still unknown? Project Mogel for example wasn't revealed until 1995 or so.</p><p>JC: "Big secrets can't be kept secret for every, secrecy or not. Blaming secrecy for lack of substantiated evidence after 60 years is sour grapes, as m ost UF sightings are not classified. It is far more likely that there is nothing there."</p><p>OSS: Again, just another incorrect assumption on your part.</p><p>JC: "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. It is an irrefutable argument but not useful. 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>OSS: Wrong, wrong, wrong, No one has claimed there are files on pixies. But lots of folks with credentials to back it up have made claims regarding documents about ufos.</p><p>JC: "This is called shooting the messenger. Youy don't like the conclusions and so blame the "debunkers". This shows you already think that UFOs really are alien spacecraft</p><p>OSS: Now this one makes absolutely no sense, but maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that if a so-called leaked document is proven to be a fake, it could have been released on purpose as a disinformation tactic. This is quite an effective tool that is used by government intelligence and is mentioned in one of the Condon reports as a way to maintain a coverup. I did not blame debunkers for anything.</p><p>JC: "Unfortunately in decades of research these people have not come up with anything worth squat. they are like the serious researchers who look for the Loch Ness Monster. They more careful they are the less specific their concusions become.</p><p>OSS: I'm sorry but they have come up with more than squat. This shows you have not done your homework and don't know what any of these people are reporting. Apparently you are so blinded by your own preconceived opinions and ideas that you don't or won't even bother to look at any of their material.</p><p>JC: "Except that Mitchell has not seen anything, has never claimed he has and has no evieence to support his assertions. It's all very interesting, but without evidence why should I believe him?</p><p>OSS: Call me gullible, but if a former Apollo Astronaut told me in all sincerity that the moon was made of green cheese, I could not dismiss it out of hand. My own preconceived ideas may not be the end all of everything sane and rational.</p><p>JC: "Interesting! McClelland makes a claim about interaction between astronauts and aliens on a space shuttle mission but tenders no evidence. And you think that scepticism of this is a knee jerk reaction but acceptance of the statement is not? That is very revealling.</p><p>OSS: Again, nice word twist. I was specifically referring to Ed Mitchell when I said this, not McClelland. I said McClelland may be a wacko, I don't know anything about him. I do think Edgar Mitchell's word carries some weight if for nothing more than as a starting point for further investigation. Your automatic reaction is that he must be a wacko if he says X,Y, or Z.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is a procedure allowing for the declassification of classified material/documents. The procedure needs to be reviewed and amended, thereby permitting a fast tract to UFO documentation declassification and release. When Bill Clinton was president, he would spend hours at a time going through classified UFO documents looking for some he could declassify and release. </DIV></p><p>That's my point. You can't get them if they are classified. I don't know anything about Clinton's efforts to declassify anything relating to UFOs so can't comment there. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My concern is shown through the example of the O’Hare UFO incident. The Fed have their regulations to enforce and did at O‘Hare. Pilots are aware of the Fed policy requiring them not to talk to anybody concerning UFOs. With the O’Hare sighting there are witnesses on the ground, however, pilot observations on approach to O’Hare are absent. Why? Because the Fed said no talking and pilots work for a living like most people. In the Narcap report within the statements made by the witnesses there could have been different angles of observation, including some from the side at approx. 90 deg. from the ground. Instead, there is a gapping hole in the accumulation of information within the report, and it was caused by the Fed. This is an example of which UFO sightings the Fed could be permitting witnesses to talk about, a_l_p_. Posted by et_earth</DIV></p><p>I'll have to look at the report again. Will try this weekend. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p>onesmallstep,</p><p>In regards to your responses to jonclarke</p><p> </p><p>At what point in your process of evaluating credibility do you require verifiable evidence? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
If the Governments of the world didn't obey the law of Omerta, we would never have had series like X-Files. It was pretty cool when it came around in about '96.<br />
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>onesmallstep,In regards to your responses to jonclarke At what point in your process of evaluating credibility do you require verifiable evidence? <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV><br /><br />Depends on who it is and what they are saying. Didn't you ever know anyone whose word was as "good as gold"...Maybe your mother or father or someone you really trusted. On the other hand, there are people I've known who I wouldn't believe if they told me what the time of day was unless I checked the clock.</p><p>When someone like an Edgar Mitchell comes forward with an out of the ordinary story and the immediate knee-jerk reaction is to begin questioning his credibility, I just have a problem with that. Maybe I have too much respect for all of the Apollo guys that I am a little prejudiced. But some people deserve the benefit of the doubt, others don't.</p><p>If an Edgar Mitchell says something is true, let's at least do some investigation and check his story out before calling him a nutjob. That's all I'm saying.</p><p>As far as the argument between jonclarke and myself, it's basically about the government using security classification as a means to hide things from the public. I say it can and has been done...Apparently he feels differently. It is not about anyone’s credibility.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Depends on who it is and what they are saying. Didn't you ever know anyone whose word was as "good as gold"...Maybe your mother or father or someone you really trusted. On the other hand, there are people I've known who I wouldn't believe if they told me what the time of day was unless I checked the clock.When someone like an Edgar Mitchell comes forward with an out of the ordinary story and the immediate knee-jerk reaction is to begin questioning his credibility, I just have a problem with that. Maybe I have too much respect for all of the Apollo guys that I am a little prejudiced. But some people deserve the benefit of the doubt, others don't.If an Edgar Mitchell says something is true, let's at least do some investigation and check his story out before calling him a nutjob. That's all I'm saying.As far as the argument between jonclarke and myself, it's basically about the government using security classification as a means to hide things from the public. I say it can and has been done...Apparently he feels differently. It is not about anyone’s credibility. Posted by onesmallstep</DIV></p><p>Here's my point:</p><p>Absence of evidence is not evidence.</p><p>A lot of what you were saying seemed to be directed towards lending credibility to his statements simply because evidence wasn't available and that evidence could be hidden.</p><p>I understand that. I really do.</p><p>However, while I understand that there "could" be difficulty in obtaining that type of evidence, the simple fact that it is difficult or impossible to obtain does not lend him any credibility whatsoever.</p><p>The only thing he has as credibility is his reputation. That's it. There is nothing regarding the "absence of evidence" which can possibly lend him any credibility. Further, there's nothing in anyone's claims where there is an absence of evidence which can possibly lend that claim credibility.</p><p>One seeming "truism" amongst many conspiracy/UFO/Alien/Monster/phenomenon related claims is that "The Gubberment Covered It Up So I Can't Prove It To You." Could the government cover something up? Sure, I think it's possible for a limited amount of time. BUT, it's not infallible. </p><p>(All just my opinion, btw) Secrecy breaches begin with breaches along lines of separation. The further removed someone is, the less likely it is that they will obtain secret information. The closer someone is, the more likely it is they will obtain secret information. Now, that doesn't mean they're out there running up copy bills at Staples. But, casual discussions or related discussions of secret material are usually the source within groups of people that are working on something but have different clearances, etc. You might be working on turning a nut for a project and become the unintended recipient of secret information. You may not know it's secret. You may only get part of an idea of what is going on somewhere. You may get enough of an idea to figure it out if you combine it with what you are working on. You may even talk with someone who ends up unloading something on you that you're not supposed to know about.</p><p>So, if this is true, which I believe it is. Then, how long does it take for my Degrees of Separation rule to end up revealing a meeting between human beings and an alien on board the Shuttle which happens to have umpteen bajillion people working on that project? We're not talking about military secrets here. That's something NASA works with and is familiar with. They're guarded to protect the security of our country. A breach there directly endangers someone's kids. We're talking about an "ZOMGZ!" event, supposedly, the effects the entire World. IF these events were common, that'd increase the frequency of the Degrees of Separation rule being put into effect. These aren't guys on a military base. These are guys that go home to the wife and kids living in a regular neighborhood, who work on commercial projects, who have temporary contracts, etc, etc, etc.. How long would an OMG! moment remain secret? A year? Five years? Ten Years? A day? How long would it take for the guy who drives the pizza delivery van to find out? </p><p>Sure, this could be the first "big release" due to McClelland's notoriety. That's possible. But, what is "possible" isn't what we're discussing. "Possible" is not evidence. It's just the possibility there is evidence.</p><p>I respect his past dedication and work. I do not sully that. But, his claim here has to be met with much more than just his word and the possibility that he can not produce any evidence does not lend this story any credibility. Are there other aspects of his story, particularly within his "book" that could be more credible? Possibly. But, there's no evidence provided to substantiate his claims there either. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here's my point:Absence of evidence is not evidence.A lot of what you were saying seemed to be directed towards lending credibility to his statements simply because evidence wasn't available and that evidence could be hidden.I understand that. I really do.However, while I understand that there "could" be difficulty in obtaining that type of evidence, the simple fact that it is difficult or impossible to obtain does not lend him any credibility whatsoever.The only thing he has as credibility is his reputation. That's it. There is nothing regarding the "absence of evidence" which can possibly lend him any credibility. Further, there's nothing in anyone's claims where there is an absence of evidence which can possibly lend that claim credibility.One seeming "truism" amongst many conspiracy/UFO/Alien/Monster/phenomenon related claims is that "The Gubberment Covered It Up So I Can't Prove It To You." Could the government cover something up? Sure, I think it's possible for a limited amount of time. BUT, it's not infallible. (All just my opinion, btw) Secrecy breaches begin with breaches along lines of separation. The further removed someone is, the less likely it is that they will obtain secret information. The closer someone is, the more likely it is they will obtain secret information. Now, that doesn't mean they're out there running up copy bills at Staples. But, casual discussions or related discussions of secret material are usually the source within groups of people that are working on something but have different clearances, etc. You might be working on turning a nut for a project and become the unintended recipient of secret information. You may not know it's secret. You may only get part of an idea of what is going on somewhere. You may get enough of an idea to figure it out if you combine it with what you are working on. You may even talk with someone who ends up unloading something on you that you're not supposed to know about.So, if this is true, which I believe it is. Then, how long does it take for my Degrees of Separation rule to end up revealing a meeting between human beings and an alien on board the Shuttle which happens to have umpteen bajillion people working on that project? We're not talking about military secrets here. That's something NASA works with and is familiar with. They're guarded to protect the security of our country. A breach there directly endangers someone's kids. We're talking about an "ZOMGZ!" event, supposedly, the effects the entire World. IF these events were common, that'd increase the frequency of the Degrees of Separation rule being put into effect. These aren't guys on a military base. These are guys that go home to the wife and kids living in a regular neighborhood, who work on commercial projects, who have temporary contracts, etc, etc, etc.. How long would an OMG! moment remain secret? A year? Five years? Ten Years? A day? How long would it take for the guy who drives the pizza delivery van to find out? Sure, this could be the first "big release" due to McClelland's notoriety. That's possible. But, what is "possible" isn't what we're discussing. "Possible" is not evidence. It's just the possibility there is evidence.I respect his past dedication and work. I do not sully that. But, his claim here has to be met with much more than just his word and the possibility that he can not produce any evidence does not lend this story any credibility. Are there other aspects of his story, particularly within his "book" that could be more credible? Possibly. But, there's no evidence provided to substantiate his claims there either. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p> </p><p>"Absence of evidence is not evidence"...Catchy, but I didn’t say it was and that’s not the point.</p><p>You keep dwelling on this particular shuttle mission...Just forget that. I don't believe anyone saw an alien standing in the cargo bay of the shuttle for cripes sakes. I have said twice now that this McClellan guy is probably a nut, I DON'T KNOW.</p><p>My argument is about a general practice of using/misusing security classification to hide certain things from the public. Whether it be the specifications for a B-2 Bomber, cost overruns on certain projects, waste, fraud, and abuse within certain agencies, or little green men, I don't know specifically, but I am fairly certain it has been used for that purpose for some of the above, or possibly all four.</p><p>Your theory about degrees of separation is nice. Probably true if we are talking about what happened down at the pool hall last Saturday night. But it doesn’t wash when talking about government security classification with the penalty of serious prison time for breeches in security. The government is in the business of keeping secrets, and they do it very well. For every secret that does manage to leak out there are thousands that you will never know about. Just ask the Rosenbergs or the Walker family if the Gubberment is serious about their secrets.</p><p>Personally I don't think that security classification is being used to hide anything on this particular shuttle mission. It is just the event that lead into the discussion about the use of security classification and coverups in general.</p><p>I don't know how to say it any plainer than that.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> "Absence of evidence is not evidence"...Catchy, but I didn’t say it was and that’s not the point.You keep dwelling on this particular shuttle mission...Just forget that. </DIV></p><p>Fair enough. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My argument is about a general practice of using/misusing security classification to hide certain things from the public. Whether it be the specifications for a B-2 Bomber, cost overruns on certain projects, waste, fraud, and abuse within certain agencies, or little green men, I don't know specifically, but I am fairly certain it has been used for that purpose for some of the above, or possibly all four....Posted by onesmallstep</DIV></p><p>IIRC, there have been security issues that have been used to "get around" certain things. There have also been consequences. For instance, look at "Area 51." For years, hazardous materials were not properly disposed of. What happened? They ended up having a mess of ethylmethylbadstuff sitting there waaaay out of violation of any sane disposal program. But, what could they do with it? Send it off to someone to dispose of? Well, they couldn't. Why? Because, sending crap like that from somewhere that doesn't exist that isn't supposed to be doing anything gives people knowledge about what they are doing. So, how to dispose of it? Who's going to impose restrictions? Nobody. So, it sat there... and sat there.. and sat there. There are plenty of other examples as well leftover from from WWII. Good lord, look at "Manhattan Project" sites. Sure, we didn't know what we know today. But, some of the crap that is there defines explanation because knowbody knows exactly wtf it is. There are probably a lot of good present day examples as well. While these are some of the consequences of such types of classifications, they're probably also instances of things exactly like you say - Clearances used to get around certain "rules."</p><p>But, we can only act on what we know, right? We can only put safeguards in place and hope that those charged with making sure they are followed are doing their jobs. If they're not, we can only hope that somewhere, in the process of review, somebody points a finger and yells "STOP!" </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p>Nobody in any government would declassify something like:</p><p> </p><p>"Alien stopped by the space shuttle. Asked for directions to *BLacked out/censored*</p><p>Our men stood there, surprised. Alien cleared throat, assumed to be a polite way to break awkward moment.</p><p>"You don't know?" The alien said. Alien turned around and boarded ship, flew off. </p><p> Lt. *Blacked out/censored* claimed The alien ship was *blacked out/censored* </p><p> INVESTIGATION pending. </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody in any government would declassify something like: "Alien stopped by the space shuttle. Asked for directions to *BLacked out/censored*Our men stood there, surprised. Alien cleared throat, assumed to be a polite way to break awkward moment."You don't know?" The alien said. Alien turned around and boarded ship, flew off. Lt. *Blacked out/censored* claimed The alien ship was *blacked out/censored* INVESTIGATION pending. <br /> Posted by infiniteman8</DIV></p><p>
</p><p>Alien - "Wow, this is Earth huh? You guys from around here?"</p><p>Astronaut - "Uh.. Yes. I mean, Yes.. Sir?"</p><p>Alien - "Great! Do you guys know Fred?"</p><p>Astronaut - "Uh.. Errm.. I dunno.. Uh. It's kind of a big place." </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
</p><p>Alien - "Wow, this is Earth huh? You guys from around here?"</p><p>Astronaut - "Uh.. Yes. I mean, Yes.. Sir?"</p><p>Alien - "Great! Do you guys know Fred?"</p><p>Astronaut - "Uh.. Errm.. I dunno.. Uh. It's kind of a big place." </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div><p>Too funny! </p><p> Alien- "I have a message from our world to yours, I would like to play it for you on my cosmic cool boom box"</p><p>Astronaut- "uh...er....ok"</p><p>Alien- " just press this button to hear our profound words of wisdom" </p><p> <strong>Button</strong><br /> </p><p> <br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/15/de7debb6-f362-4143-afa6-0e950ede4b4f.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /> </p><p> Alien- <laughing hysterically></p><p>Astronaut- "uh....did we just get....."</p><p>Astronaut2- "yea I think we did"</p> ━━━━━━━━┏┓ __<br />┏┫ ┏┓ ┏┓ ┣┓ ┃┃<br />┗┫ ┃ ┣┛ ┏━━┻┃<br /> ┃ ┗━━━┛ ┃ ┣━━ ┃ <br /> ┗━━━┳━━━┛ ┣━━ ┃<p> </p><p>also: </p><p> I was quietly reading your post A-L-P, took a sip of my coffee, and almost did a spit take on "methlyethlybadstuff". I'm assuming you mean tetrahydrakillazine, it's ok people get those confused a lot. <br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> <font color="#0000ff"> www.watchnasatv.com</font></p><p> ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </p> </div>
<p>and in 1991 he took a picture with astronaut Brian Duffy. McClelland surely takes care of his body, since he seems to be at his 30's in that photo. Assuming that he joined NASA (NACA) in 1958, he would be at least 20 yr-old at that time. Maybe he was born in 1938. In 1991 he should be at 53.</p><p>Lets look at this page:</p><p>http://www.stargate-chronicles.com/credentials.html</p><p><font color="#67cee6">"Clark McClelland's</font> long association with the UFO phenomenon has followed him throughout his aerospace career. In 1958 he was assigned to the national space program at Cape Canaveral, Florida, and helped launch or viewed 650 rockets and spacecraft."</p><p> Look at the picture that follows this excerpt:</p><p>"Certificate for NASA Apollo 11 Mission contributions signed by Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 16, 1969, Kennedy Space Center."</p><p>Seems to be retouched</p><p>And the photo that follows:</p><p>"Apollo Achievement Award signed by NASA Administrator.</p><p class="quotes">Text: "In appreciation of dedicated service to the nation as a member of the team which has advanced the nation's capabilities in aeronautics and space and demonstrated them in many outstanding accomplishments culminating in Apollo 11's successful achievement of man's first landing on the moon, July 20, 1969."</p><p class="quotes"> Pay attention to his name written at the center of image. Seems to be retouched with special erasing liquid. Or reouched with image retouching software.</p><p class="quotes">And he designed the Apollo 11 patch!</p><p class="quotes">"Two mission emblems I designed. The Apollo 11 first landing on the moon and the Challenger Memorial Emblem that NASA would not allow to be created. NASA wanted the Challenger forgotten as quickly as possible in human minds. "</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thx for the input. Perhaps you can shed some light on this aspect of what Mr McClelland claims. Apparently he saw some video of the shuttle bay during a military mission. Would any SCO ever be in such a position or place to see such a video ? My guess is that an SCO's duties are performed in FL while any video during that phase of flight would only be seen in the Houston MCC. Is it routine for an SCO to be in the MCC ? <br />Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p><p>There was very little or no inflight public video during a DOD mission. KSC would not have any reason to have the secure video.</p><p> A SCO works in Florida at KSC and at the landing site if the vehicle lands at a site other than KSC. They do occasionally go to JSC for some training however I know of no SCO ever being in the MCC during a DOD mission.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When someone like an Edgar Mitchell comes forward with an out of the ordinary story and the immediate knee-jerk reaction is to begin questioning his credibility, I just have a problem with that. Maybe I have too much respect for all of the Apollo guys that I am a little prejudiced. But some people deserve the benefit of the doubt, others don't.</DIV></p><p>In ordinary matters yes. Unfortunately when it is an allegation this big his unsubstantiated opinion is not enough. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If an Edgar Mitchell says something is true, let's at least do some investigation and check his story out before calling him a nutjob. That's all I'm saying.</DIV></p><p>It there were some supportings facts then we could check the story abut. But he has not supplied any. So how can we check it? It is just heresay.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As far as the argument between jonclarke and myself, it's basically about the government using security classification as a means to hide things from the public. I say it can and has been done...Apparently he feels differently. It is not about anyone’s credibility. <br />Posted by onesmallstep </DIV></p><p>You don't get it do you? It is nothing to do with security. It is to do with evidence and its absence. there is not one iota of evidence supporting McClelland's claim. There is good reason to doubt many aspec ts of his story, based on statements from people like Shuttle_Guy</p><p>Jon<br /></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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You don't get it do you? It is nothing to do with security. It is to do with evidence and its absence. there is not one iota of evidence supporting McClelland's claim. There is good reason to doubt many aspec ts of his story, based on statements from people like Shuttle_GuyJon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />No, you're the one that apparently doesn't get it, or doesn't pay attention. I have said at least three times now that I don't think McClelland's story is credible. </p><p>My argument with you was about government coverups based on your comment that it is just another "unsubstantiated claim"...At least I thought is was, with you though, one can never be sure what the heck you are talking about.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, you're the one that apparently doesn't get it, or doesn't pay attention. I have said at least three times now that I don't think McClelland's story is credible. </DIV></p><p>In that case we agree. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>My argument with you was about government coverups based on your comment that it is just another "unsubstantiated claim"...At least I thought is was, with you though, one can never be sure what the heck you are talking about. <br />Posted by onesmallstep </DIV></p><p>Your claim for a unitary "fed code of silence" remains unsubstantiated. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I said I wasn't going to bother repeating myself on this thread, but since you are being such a sweetheart, I feel obligated to respond to all of your "facts and reason"It shouldn't bother you though if I just pick and choose my responses and piece-meal it together:</p><p>JC: "The issue is that makes a specific claim and provides no evidence to back. He is the one making the claim, he is the one who needs to back it up."</p><p>OSS: Duh, okay, I think...(From what I can make of this through the mangled grammer.)</DIV></p><p>We agree</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>JC: "if this event really happened and really wasclassified he has already spilled the beans. He has got nothing more to loose by providing supporting evidence."</p><p>OSS: Sure, getting access to classified documentation is as easy as rolling off a log.</DIV></p><p>Who said anything about it being easy? But if you are going to make way out statements without supporting evidence you have to expect people to take them with a pinch of salt.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>JC: "McClelland is in the same boat as a person saying that US nuclear submarines and dive to 5000 m and travel at 70 kts. They should provide some supporting evidence. if they are disclosing classified information they were privy to then what have they to loose by disclosing more?"</p><p>OSS: Uh, maybe 20 years in Leavenworth if he illegally discloses actual classified documents</DIV></p><p>A story this important would be worth it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>JC: "they all end either in dead ends because of inconclusive evience or they are conclusively shown to be misidentifcations. 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>OSS: My whole point is that anything real will be CLASSIFIED. Anything that has been released will either be fake or disinformation. This is the point you conveniently ignored. </DIV></p><p>Not all knowledge is within any government's power to classify.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>JC: "Of course nuclear submarines actually exist. I have seen them and I know people who have served on them."</p><p>OSS: Again you missed my point, I asked that you provide me the blueprints for their construction, i.e. they are CLASSIFIED, can't do it.</DIV></p><p>You don't need blue prints to show that they exist. There is also considerable information that can be cgeaned about the details off how they are designed built and operated. Including dubtless information that would technically be classified.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>JC: "As for black projects, if they are real (Steath, SR71 etc.) they come to light, sooner or later If they don't then they remain unsubstantiated speculation by people with over active imaginations.</DIV></p><p>OSS: Boy that is an all encompassing statement...and wrong. Do you know how many classified programs from WWII are still unknown? Project Mogel for example wasn't revealed until 1995 or so.</DIV></p><p>It might have been classified but the general details were still known long before then. I read about them in the early 80's. Just because something is classified does not mean that overal details are not known, or that declassification will dramatically change the overal picture.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>JC: "Big secrets can't be kept secret for every, secrecy or not. Blaming secrecy for lack of substantiated evidence after 60 years is sour grapes, as m ost UF sightings are not classified. It is far more likely that there is nothing there."</p><p>OSS: Again, just another incorrect assumption on your part</DIV></p><p>Not an assumption, it is basic fact of history.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.JC: "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. It is an irrefutable argument but not useful. 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>OSS: Wrong, wrong, wrong, No one has claimed there are files on pixies. But lots of folks with credentials to back it up have made claims regarding documents about ufos.</DIV></p><p>How do you know there are not? It just shows how well hidden they are.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>JC: "This is called shooting the messenger. Youy don't like the conclusions and so blame the "debunkers". This shows you already think that UFOs really are alien spacecraft</p><p>OSS: Now this one makes absolutely no sense, but maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that if a so-called leaked document is proven to be a fake, it could have been released on purpose as a disinformation tactic. This is quite an effective tool that is used by government intelligence and is mentioned in one of the Condon reports as a way to maintain a coverup. I did not blame debunkers for anything.</DIV></p><p>So what? One example of disinformation does not mean that all statements are false. Each must be judged on its merits. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>JC: "Unfortunately in decades of research these people have not come up with anything worth squat. they are like the serious researchers who look for the Loch Ness Monster. They more careful they are the less specific their concusions become.</p><p>OSS: I'm sorry but they have come up with more than squat. This shows you have not done your homework and don't know what any of these people are reporting. Apparently you are so blinded by your own preconceived opinions and ideas that you don't or won't even bother to look at any of their material.</DIV></p><p>If any evidence of value had been discovered it would be the science story of the millenium. So where is it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>JC: "Except that Mitchell has not seen anything, has never claimed he has and has no evieence to support his assertions. It's all very interesting, but without evidence why should I believe him?</p><p>OSS: Call me gullible, but if a former Apollo Astronaut told me in all sincerity that the moon was made of green cheese, I could not dismiss it out of hand. My own preconceived ideas may not be the end all of everything sane and rational.</DIV></p><p>You an call yourself what you like. If an Apollo astronaut said the Moon were made of chesse he would be 1) pulling our leg, 2) in need of treatment, 3) lying, We have ample evidence from lunar samples from Russians, from meteorites as well as Apollo, from lunar missions from Russia, China, Japan, and ESA as well as the US, from ground based observations by thousands of astronomers all over the world as to what the Moon is made of.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>JC: "Interesting! McClelland makes a claim about interaction between astronauts and aliens on a space shuttle mission but tenders no evidence. And you think that scepticism of this is a knee jerk reaction but acceptance of the statement is not? That is very revealling.</p><p>OSS: Again, nice word twist. I was specifically referring to Ed Mitchell when I said this, not McClelland. I said McClelland may be a wacko, I don't know anything about him. I do think Edgar Mitchell's word carries some weight if for nothing more than as a starting point for further investigation. Your automatic reaction is that he must be a wacko if he says X,Y, or Z. <br />Posted by onesmallstep</DIV></p><p>The same applies to Mitchell. he has provided no evidence to support ihs statement, and was not even claiming to be an eye witness. So why should I believe him without supporting evidence? Mitchell believes many odd things and has done so for decades. That does not make him right, or wrong. What matters is whether there is evidence to support such statements. So faar there is none.</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>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your claim for a unitary "fed code of silence" remains unsubstantiated. Jon <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><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>(I can just repeat myself too)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
SpaceX launches 21 Starlink internet satellites from Florida, lands rocket at sea (photos)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram