Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, etc.)

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: Re:

Postby Utah on June 5th, 2012, 5:32 am

fbenario wrote:Any thoughts on the monolith in the album art for Led Zep's Presence?

[img]LedZeppelinPresencecover.jpg[/img]
The cover and inside sleeve of this album, created by Hipgnosis, features various images of people interacting with a black obelisk-shaped object. Inside the album sleeve, the item is referred to simply as "The Object." It was intended to represent the "force and presence" of Led Zeppelin.[2] In the liner notes of the first Led Zeppelin boxed set, Page explained:

There was no working title for the album. The record-jacket designer said 'When I think of the group, I always think of power and force. There's a definite presence there.' That was it. He wanted to call it 'Obelisk.' To me, it was more important what was behind the obelisk. The cover is very tongue-in-cheek, to be quite honest. Sort of a joke on [the film] 2001. I think it's quite amusing.
...
In 1977 Hipgnosis and George Hardie were nominated for a Grammy Award in the category of best album package.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presence_%28album%29


The album includes my favorite all-time song, from my very first listen decades ago.



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6S9oqJRclo

Great album reminder. Hard to pick a zep favorite. :D

As you and Butthead so graciously pointed out, the obelisk is a phallic symbol popular with Crowley disciples.

Is this too obvious?
Image

“Early Days The Best of Led Zeppelin Volume One” was released on November 23, 1999 as part of a a two-volume compilation album series of some of Led Zeppelin’s early hits from their first four albums. The album cover features the members of Led Zeppelin in late Apollo mission astronaut suits in front of a starry background and a Led Zeppelin logo.

Image
The space suits on John Bonham, Robert Plant and Jimmy Page are identical to the Astronauts in the photo. John Paul Jones and his suit were added to the cover along with some minor changes in the background.
fromhttp://www.feelnumb.com/2012/04/28/best-of-led-zeppelin-album-covers-taken-from-apollo-14-nasa-astronaut-photo/

Mocking the mockery, it would seem ;)
Utah
Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: February 10th, 2012, 6:43 am

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby Utah on June 5th, 2012, 6:25 am

Another occult/crowley/nasa/sci-fi connection:

Image Image
Jack Parsons, 'self-taught chemist' and occultist known for the fuel mixtures which helped America land on the moon!

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/sex_and_rockets.htm
http://www.illuminati-news.com/aleister_crowley1.htm


Parsons, another follower of Crowley, was also buddies with authors L. Ron Hubbard (Dianetics, Scientology, Battlefield Earth) and Robert Heinlein (Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Strange Mistress).

Parsons supposedly blew himself up moving volatile chemicals in 1952.
Last edited by Utah on June 8th, 2012, 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Utah
Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: February 10th, 2012, 6:43 am

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby hoi.polloi on June 5th, 2012, 3:37 pm

Interesting point, Utah.

Here's another tidbit from the interwebs (specifically, a series of quotes from Arthur C. Clarke according to his foundation http://www.clarkefoundation.org/sample- ... uotations/) My bolds.

2001 was written in an age which now lies beyond one of the great divides in human history; we are sundered from it forever by the moment when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped out on to the Sea of Tranquility. Now history and fiction have become inexorably intertwined.

—Foreword to the Millennial Edition of 2001: A Space Odyssey, 1999

What is becoming more interesting than the myths themselves has been the study of how the myths were constructed from sparse or unpromising facts—indeed, sometimes from no facts—in a kind of mute conspiracy of longing, very rarely under anybody’s conscious control.


Just as the human memory is not a passive recorder but a tool in the construction of the self, so history has never been a simple record of the past, but a means of shaping peoples.

The Light of Other Days, by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter, 2000

Surprisingly to me, much of what I've presented about the media's attitude toward technology is echoed in Arthur C. Clarke quotes, which are contradictory and as brutally phrased as an Internet forum user.

:P

But what he reveals in these quotes about his attitude towards the relationship between history and fiction ... shows a lot about his respect (or lack thereof) for the facts. It seems he was half as concerned about trying to leave a legacy than he was about actually helping the world. For an egoist, though, he did "popularize" science, as promised. I suppose he didn't intend to mislead so many people into a religious fervor over this pop science, though.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby hoi.polloi on June 5th, 2012, 3:54 pm

Arthur C. Clarke comes across as a kind of average pot-smoking buffoon, who realizes a bunch of "deep" things every day, while eating his morning cereal, but says just as many non-wisdoms as anyone else. Why is he so supported by TPTB?

I'm getting the impression that our government agents have an irrational, almost schizophrenic, philosophical religious belief in the idea that if we fool most of the people into believing something, perhaps they will make it happen in reality. Their bosses probably think differently, but foster their employees' brand of idealism.

As such, and as their religious desire to colonize outer space seems to be a genuine obsession, there may be some innocent idiocy to their insistence on the secrecy of NASA's lies. It's almost as though they believe that the lies will actually morph the laws of space and time and force their vision to be real.

On the other hand, as dcopymope would likely declare, that could all be an act and their motives for lying are much more plain and sinister; they just want power and money. And the "lies transforming into truths" belief (a.k.a. "alchemy") is merely what the lower echelons of the pyramid schemes are told, in order to get those with "good intentions" on board with the massive conspiracies.

A better word for this collaborative goal, rather than "conspire" (to "breath together"), would probably be "conpense" ("to be inclined together" or "think in harmony").

A conpensity is like a collective propensity, a kind of "leaning together" that nudges humanity in a particular direction. Of course, we shouldn't shy away from or simply cast aside the valuable word "conspiracy", which is a true phenomenon in all these hoaxes. But if we admit that it's more like conspiracies leading conpensities, we don't have to argue that millions of people know the facts about a secret hoax. It's more like thousands of people know, and those thousands are good at seducing the will of millions.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby Maat on June 5th, 2012, 6:15 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:...
A better word for this collaborative goal, rather than "conspire" (to "breath together"), would probably be "conpense" ("to be inclined together" or "think in harmony").

A conpensity is like a collective propensity, a kind of "leaning together" that nudges humanity in a particular direction. Of course, we shouldn't shy away from or simply cast aside the valuable word "conspiracy", which is a true phenomenon in all these hoaxes. But if we admit that it's more like conspiracies leading conpensities, we don't have to argue that millions of people know the facts about a secret hoax. It's more like thousands of people know, and those thousands are good at seducing the will of millions.

I concur with your thinking, Hoi :) The idea of coining new words to more accurately define the probable cause, or prepense, of what we observe is excellent too — especially necessary given their propensity for hijacking and redefining language and familiar terms.

Since you've inspired my linguistic bent, may I suggest the co- prefix to 'pense' (think) rather than con-, i.e. 'copensity' instead of "conpensity"? It would give it more of the 'cooperative' sense and eliminate any presumptive confusion with 'compens(ity - ation)'.
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby hoi.polloi on June 5th, 2012, 6:24 pm

Good point. Thanks for your support. Either con-pensity or co-pensity would be nice to specify the kinds of people who aren't plotting but who are used to advance the plot by their collective tendencies. Wickedpedia tends to favor "con" to mean "with/together", so to me it makes equal sense to keep it "co" as in "cooperation".

To me, it is slightly more honest to keep it related to the word it is inspired from, and leave it con-. However, co- has a more innocent feel to it, which also may be true. It depends mostly on whether we want to divorce this word from "conspiracy".

I would say conpensity to assign a semiconscious deliberateness to the leanings. I would say copensity to imply a helplessness to their leanings. Perhaps use either in their relevant contexts? ^_^
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby Maat on June 5th, 2012, 7:09 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:...I would say conpensity to assign a semiconscious deliberateness to the leanings. I would say copensity to imply a helplessness to their leanings. Perhaps use either in their relevant contexts? ^_^

Perfect! Image One for the puppeteers & one for the puppets ^_^
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby simonshack on June 5th, 2012, 7:34 pm

Hey, Hoi and Maat...

Your neologistic conversation just inspired me for a more accurate word to describe the 9/11 vicsims' reimbursement monies - and similar con schemes:

"Con-pensation funds". :P
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6330
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby Maat on June 5th, 2012, 7:59 pm

Good one, Simon! :D We may need a glossary soon — or a Clues Condensed Dictionary? :lol:
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby lux on June 5th, 2012, 9:12 pm

We are all nitwits according to Clarke:

As a long-time admirer of the United States, I am appalled to hear that a recent poll suggests that 20% of Americans are ignorant fools: I hope the figure is grossly exaggerated, as no other term is strong enough to describe anyone who believes the Moon landings have been faked. If the late unlamented Evil Empire was still around, I might have suspected some of being communist sympathisers attempting to discredit the one achievement for which the U.S.A. may be remembered a thousand years from now. Remembering how quickly Watergate unraveled, how could any sane person imagine that a conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people over more than a decade would not have done the same? Ben Franklin put it well: "A secret known to three people can be kept — as long as two of them are dead."

And how do these nitwits account for the fact that, for the last thirty years, the laser reflectors and radio sensors on the Moon have been transmitting terabytes of data back to Earth? Who do they think put them there — E.T.s? But I can't waste any more time on lunatics: I am too busy proving that George Washington never existed, but was invented by the British Disinformation Service to account for a certain minor unpleasantness in the Colonies.
Sincerely,
Arthur Clarke, 11 July, 2001.
source
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby simonshack on June 6th, 2012, 12:05 am

lux wrote:We are all nitwits according to Clarke:

As a long-time admirer of the United States, I am appalled to hear that a recent poll suggests that 20% of Americans are ignorant fools: I hope the figure is grossly exaggerated, as no other term is strong enough to describe anyone who believes the Moon landings have been faked. If the late unlamented Evil Empire was still around, I might have suspected some of being communist sympathisers attempting to discredit the one achievement for which the U.S.A. may be remembered a thousand years from now. Remembering how quickly Watergate unraveled, how could any sane person imagine that a conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people over more than a decade would not have done the same? Ben Franklin put it well: "A secret known to three people can be kept — as long as two of them are dead."

And how do these nitwits account for the fact that, for the last thirty years, the laser reflectors and radio sensors on the Moon have been transmitting terabytes of data back to Earth? Who do they think put them there — E.T.s? But I can't waste any more time on lunatics: I am too busy proving that George Washington never existed, but was invented by the British Disinformation Service to account for a certain minor unpleasantness in the Colonies.
Sincerely,
Arthur Clarke, 11 July, 2001.
source


OMG. Well, if those really are Arthur C. Clarke's words, we now know he was either a nitwit - or a perp. <_<
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6330
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby fbenario on June 6th, 2012, 1:40 am

simonshack wrote:
lux wrote:We are all nitwits according to Clarke:

As a long-time admirer of the United States, I am appalled to hear that a recent poll suggests that 20% of Americans are ignorant fools: I hope the figure is grossly exaggerated, as no other term is strong enough to describe anyone who believes the Moon landings have been faked. If the late unlamented Evil Empire was still around, I might have suspected some of being communist sympathisers attempting to discredit the one achievement for which the U.S.A. may be remembered a thousand years from now. Remembering how quickly Watergate unraveled, how could any sane person imagine that a conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people over more than a decade would not have done the same? Ben Franklin put it well: "A secret known to three people can be kept — as long as two of them are dead."

And how do these nitwits account for the fact that, for the last thirty years, the laser reflectors and radio sensors on the Moon have been transmitting terabytes of data back to Earth? Who do they think put them there — E.T.s? But I can't waste any more time on lunatics: I am too busy proving that George Washington never existed, but was invented by the British Disinformation Service to account for a certain minor unpleasantness in the Colonies.
Sincerely,
Arthur Clarke, 11 July, 2001.
source


OMG. Well, if those really are Arthur C. Clarke's words, we now know he was either a nitwit - or a perp. <_<
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby lux on June 6th, 2012, 2:26 am

BTW, I recommend getting a copy of the Dec 1966 issue of National Geographic and keeping it handy to show anyone who brings up the "reflectors on the moon proof" malarkey. I bought a copy on eBay for a few dollars. The magazine has an article about lasers which mentions that MIT has been bouncing them off the moon for years, obviously long before the Apollo Missions supposedly went there. And, just as obviously proves that you don't need a reflector to bounce lasers off the moon in the first place.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby hoi.polloi on June 6th, 2012, 4:21 am

Ugh. Clarke definitely sounds like one of the "converted" technology-obsessed drones. It's like the Skeptic Magazine religion or something. I don't think he honestly understands science enough to know what he's talking about, if indeed that was a quote by him.

BTW, I recommend getting a copy of the Dec 1966 issue of National Geographic and keeping it handy to show anyone who brings up the "reflectors on the moon proof" malarkey. I bought a copy on eBay for a few dollars. The magazine has an article about lasers which mentions that MIT has been bouncing them off the moon for years, obviously long before the Apollo Missions supposedly went there. And, just as obviously proves that you don't need a reflector to bounce lasers off the moon in the first place.


That makes sense, yes. More indication that Clarke is just rambling. He doesn't even come across as a cohesive wise old man. He sounds like a bitter young kid with a chip on his shoulder about the "unpatriotic" and a handy comedic sarcasm to bat away any arguments against his belief.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4746
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Sci-Fi Fathers of NASA (Arthur C. Clarke, Rodenberry, et

Postby reichstag fireman on June 6th, 2012, 6:27 am

simonshack wrote:
lux wrote:We are all nitwits according to Clarke:

As a long-time admirer of the United States, I am appalled to hear that a recent poll suggests that 20% of Americans are ignorant fools: I hope the figure is grossly exaggerated, as no other term is strong enough to describe anyone who believes the Moon landings have been faked. If the late unlamented Evil Empire was still around, I might have suspected some of being communist sympathisers attempting to discredit the one achievement for which the U.S.A. may be remembered a thousand years from now. Remembering how quickly Watergate unraveled, how could any sane person imagine that a conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people over more than a decade would not have done the same? Ben Franklin put it well: "A secret known to three people can be kept — as long as two of them are dead."

And how do these nitwits account for the fact that, for the last thirty years, the laser reflectors and radio sensors on the Moon have been transmitting terabytes of data back to Earth? Who do they think put them there — E.T.s? But I can't waste any more time on lunatics: I am too busy proving that George Washington never existed, but was invented by the British Disinformation Service to account for a certain minor unpleasantness in the Colonies.
Sincerely,
Arthur Clarke, 11 July, 2001.
source


OMG. Well, if those really are Arthur C. Clarke's words, we now know he was either a nitwit - or a perp. <_<


I'm tempted to chalk-up Arthur C Clarke as a blackmailed serial paedophile, who did exactly what what he was told to do and say by his blackmailing handlers. Pretty commonplace situation really.

To this day, the blackmail Operation Ore keeps an army of elite kiddy fiddlers singing from the same hymnsheet on a host of topics. The army includes several former government ministers from the UK, and even a NATO Secretary General, or two.

It's said that the Moonie Sex Cult has some pretty damning goods of its own - a burgeoning portfolio of Washington insiders - politicians, judges, army top brass - all caught on camera engaged in vile child sex acts with the "Little Angels", the Moonies' travelling choir of Korean schoolgirls brought over especially to entertain certain circles. (Franklin Conspiracy et al)

If that's correct, Clarke didn't really speak freely at all. He was a paedo-puppet. How many more like him?
reichstag fireman
Member
 
Posts: 466
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests