Possibly true. But he was active on the issue in a low key way before that.

Agreed; but for me the question is not when he became interested in UFO and UFO reports, but when he started accusing NASA of covering them up. The first doesn't express hostility toward his employer; the latter does.

Where is the evidence his employer expressed any attention whatsoever to his pre-dismissal UFO reports? Or is that what he claims? Does NASA admit they warned him in some way about his UFO-related activities and implied his job was at stake? If so, I am not aware of it.

There are legal entanglements to publishing the reason why you fired someone, or even any information regarding the particulars of one's employment. An employer generally may not reveal those reasons, or any details of the employment. They may generally verify only simple facts such as job title and dates of employment, and perhaps salary. The employee doesn't have those restrictions. This gives the employee tremendous advantage in that he can make up whatever reason he wants for his dismissal and publish it. If it is false, the employer's only response is generally a defamation action; he may not generally publish his own version of the reasons.

If you've never made a mistake...

The question is not whether McLelland dismissal was justified. The question is whether his perception colored the decision to accuse his former employer. In fact, the sour-grapes hypothesis works better if McLelland was a good employee; it makes his dismissal less objectively justified, more emotionally injurious, and a more credible motive for retaliation.

Just seems to me that it would be easy to be dismissive of anyone by finding some rationality to descredit them.

Unfortunately McLelland's claims rely solely for their strength on the nature of his relationship with his employer, for which we really have only his word. This isn't a case of finding "some" rationality, i.e. of dubious applicability. If his employer gave him subjective cause to dislike them, even for unrelated reasons, then it casts doubt on his reasons for accusing them.

There is no rule that someone who feels he has been wronged has to lash out in a way congruent with the alleged wrong. For example, if a bitter custody battle erupts over a couple's children, the aggreived parent may, say, conceivably report the opponent to the IRS. That doesn't mean his beef with his former spouse derived from taxation, or even that there is a legitimate tax evasion issue. It is simply a convenient way to effect revenge.

It's prudent to look for bias when someone you don't know asks you to trust him. And that's essentially what McLelland does. Further, his claims are extraordinary, requiring more due diligence in assessing his trustworthiness. Getting back at an employer who fired you is generally an excellent reason to make a false accusation.

The evaluation of McLelland is not so binary. I simply find it more credible that he has an axe to grind than that his extraordinary cover-up accusations are fully true.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Yes Axe grinding does alter ones perspective even when they do not realize it themselves.

Buzz Aldren talked about his experiances and observations. Believed UFO's were alien in nature and I don't recall any rift between him and NASA over that. But I didn't really follow that with any particular attention then either. Wouldn't now if this one hadn't been pointed out to me with its fantastic nature.

I guess it got my attention because of claim on physical evidence and not just a fleeting visual apperition. Find a verifiable object on the moon or anywhere else and our view of the universe is forever changed.

Believed UFO's were alien in nature and I don't recall any rift between him and NASA over that.

Ed Mitchell openly says he believes the government has information on UFOs that isn't being shared. And he remains in NASA's good graces.

Find a verifiable object on the moon or anywhere else and our view of the universe is forever changed.

I agree, but the fervent longing for a changed universe shouldn't push one into seeing ghosts and little green men in every lunar nook and cranny.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Demands on my time are becoming excessive. I put together as much detail as time permits and posted it to my web page.

http://www.freewebs.com/moonship5/

On the page titled detail comparison I show a comparison of detail that strongly suggest that the metrics are from a 3 d construction either virtual or a model and clearly stated that. The purpose of the page is for the reader to decide for themselves so state my opinion that the A20 claim fails and present my findings.

At my first evaluation I thought the metrics were authentic but now I think they are constructs. Why, some people have more time and money than sense appearently.

Its still an interesting rock and would like to see better views but expect they will confirm rock.

One primary reason why I'm so happy to be no longer involved with the ethical morass that is American corporate "culture". 35 years in the quagmire fighting for quality was enough. Almost every time I read about American industry taking another hit while the CEOs accept even larger bonuses and the accountants congratulate themselves, all I can think of is "chickens coming home to roost".

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Question. The double crater to the south of anomaly. The more recent crater has an extremly large resurgent dome. Wouldn't a resurgent dome this large indicate a much larger crater that would totally destroy previous crater rather than overprint it?

Does this suggest the resurgent dome might be the largly intact piece of a low velocity asteroid? The anomaly a shard of material from impact?

Just a thougt.

Re "resurgent dome"

Thought that was magma related?
Think I know what you mean and unable to look at what you mention. Some of the shots I have of the moon show some very large centre peaks. Then there is Mimas. Or am I on the wrong track?

Crater in middle of this pix

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...e/?AS15-P-9625

Is that a reusrgent dome? Too large for crater size around it?

I can't see any resurgent domes or central uplift in ny crater in that picture.

Jon

Ah, I see. No expert, just that I thought resurgent dome refers to a magma chamber deforming the old crater/lava dome.

And on the face of it I would not like to say which way the lay is. From a complete novice, old impact? Much catering around it. Many reasons as to why it looks that way?

Resurgent dome is wrong nomenclature. Not up on crater and moon terminology either, need to study some.

I guess central peak is better term.

Sorry. When started this inquiry, plenty of time. Now so busy cant think strait. Let me restate the question. Correct me if wrong.

The crater in the middle of http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...e/?AS15-P-9625

It has a central peak that takes up a large volume of the crater. It is my understanding that central peak is formed from impact dynamics. This crater is imprinted over an older crater. To have a central peak so large wouldnt the energy of impact have made a bigger crater? Does the central peak being such a high percentage of crater voulume suggest different dynamics?

As in a high speed impact would pulverize and eject much material. For large volume of material to stay in crater suggest lower speed impact of a large body? Central peak may have some original asteroid and not pulverized material? Large pieces ejected as shards?

Just a thought from a laymen with no training.

Isn't that a tautology?

yes

Have you checked other craters for the same hypothesis? Just wondering. If I wanted to be up on this then I would start reading up on crater formation and deformation and ejecta etc

What anomaly?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

the Anomaly that we can't see.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Sorry for the termonology. Strange big rock, cause that is what it seems to be. Thirty five years ago I was a teenager as mesmerized by the moon landings as anyone. All of my life I have heard the rumors of strange things astronauts saw on the moon or in space.

Only recently have I become interested enough to check it out. After thirty five years the rumors persist and only now are high resolution images becoming available to anyone but researchers. Add to that the fact that a substantial number of astrounauts publicly state their belief in extra terrestial visitors. Did Armstrong see ships on the moon?

Thought it was time someone tried to get some answers to such wild speculation that wasnt BS. From the hardcore UFO buffs you gotta beat them over the head with a rock to prove it is a rock. From the science community I get mostly scorn for even asking the question. If I chase every rumor down and find each one is just a funny rock I suspect the rumors will persist. But at least I looked for an answer.

Sorry if you find that annoying.

My guess, just from looking at the image, is that the crater walls appear steep which to me indicates something about the material itself. The crater walls look like they have had a lot of loose material sliding back down.

Crater shape and size is driven by a number of factors, including size and speed of impactor, as well as the material being impacted.

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

Thank you, good answer.