JimOberg, on 13 November 2012 - 04:42 AM, said:
You cross paths with lots of top people at a rocket base, and sometimes get to be photographed with them -- but in at least several cases [von Braun, for example, or his claim of direct contact with Story Musgrave], I've concluded McClelland's claim of a personal friendship with them, and secret revelations from them, is imaginary.
The challenge is to see what sort of self-styled 'whistle blower' is really just a self-promoting 'smoke blower'. Some may be, some others may not be. That uncertainty makes case-by-case validation critically important, because you do NOT want to reject or overlook those with authentic information.
McClelland is maybe at one end of the spectrum, Jacobs and his missile shootdown at the other [I think he reported his personal observations quite accurately, just misinterpreted them]. Donna Hare-Tietze may be somewhere in the middle -- reporting stories people told HER, with significant exaggeration and garble. Gordon Cooper's dramatized 'improvement' of his own experiences and of rumors he heard at the Officers Club places him towards the McClelland end, in my view.
HI Jim
Thank you, I truly am befuddled by those that bleat amazing revelations without confirmation, and expect to be taken at their word. I would agree with the above, the relationships seem imaginary, but where you say people like Donna Hare-Tietze may be somewhere in the middle, again I find this confusing as Donna Hare has sided with Stephen Greer as opposed to the people who actually study space. Greer, as you would know, is a physician, and UFOLogist. I find the UFO being airbrushed out claim, threats to Astronauts and her insistance that incredible resolution was quite possible when it was not rather large flags that she is just another crackpot. As she did work at NASA, how can she remain so incredibly credulous? Does she not have direct access to people and data that can answer such questions definitively?
It seems strange to me that people can enter a forum like this, and manage to speak with experts such as yourself, yet some of the people actually at NASA seem to have less information than I can find on the other side of the planet? And come up with ridiculously wild tales to support a vague instance. How can this happen? Honestly, I would give my eye teeth to work at NASA in such a capacity (try me! I'd do it t!

) and I would be in a seventh heaven walking by Astronauts and Shuttles, and would suck in information like a Dyson. It honestly strikes me as nothing short of bewildering that someone can work at NASA and come out the other end with the sort of tales Donna Hare has to tell. Shouldn't she be too smart to believe Greer's nonsense? And just as a prerequisite to work in such a fine place? Or could perhaps her "ET Encounter" have relieved her of objectivity? May I ask if you could express where you see the difference between them. Donna strikes me as worse because she implicate NASA, which I always find pretty ridiculous. That just seems to me like implicating Arrnott's Biscuits or something. NASA is well policed by the amateur community, not to menton that Private Enterprise is keeping up with NASA just fine. Branson is really making a name for himself. It is hard to pardon such gross inaccuracies from people whom I feel really ought to know better. I really do not know what depth of analysis Jacobs was capable, of, and I suppose could have made an honest mistake, but I cannot see that being the case with Donna.
Regardless you certainly have well established the validity of claims made by Clark McClelland.
Cheers.