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

Postby Flabbergasted on May 15th, 2014, 4:21 pm

brianv wrote:FG, Could you upload it to torrent or dropbox?


I hope this works (never used Dropbox before):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp0vcj25l9499 ... VHSRip.avi
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 641
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

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

Postby brianv on May 15th, 2014, 5:40 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:
brianv wrote:FG, Could you upload it to torrent or dropbox?


I hope this works (never used Dropbox before):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp0vcj25l9499 ... VHSRip.avi


Yup, works fine!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3862
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

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

Postby CitronBleu on May 16th, 2014, 2:00 am

Flabbergasted wrote:
brianv wrote:FG, Could you upload it to torrent or dropbox?


I hope this works (never used Dropbox before):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp0vcj25l9499 ... VHSRip.avi


Their documentary is quite lyrical. I have to give at least that to the Russians. They may be propagandists, but they also have the soul of poets.
CitronBleu
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 264
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 8:45 pm

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

Postby simonshack on May 16th, 2014, 10:46 am

Flabbergasted wrote:I have a 237 MB avi file of the entire film. It is, as you say, priceless. And it´s such a brilliantly "educational" piece of predictive programming you can actually understand it without speaking a word of Russian! Let me know if you are still interested.

Thank you so much, dear Flabbergasted ! Will watch it later today. :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Postby simonshack on May 25th, 2014, 3:36 am

*

JULES VERNE - the "father of science-fiction"

Image__Image

A good friend of mine recently gave me an old copy of Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon"(1865). In case you're not familiar with Jules Verne (and his enormous influence on Western culture and, well, "the world of the imaginary"), here's an extract from Wickedpedia:

"Verne is the second most-translated author in the world since 1979, between the English-language writers Agatha Christie and William Shakespeare, and probably was the most-translated during the 1960s and 1970s. He is one of the authors sometimes called "The Father of Science Fiction", as are H. G. Wells and Hugo Gernsback."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Verne


But let me get straight to the point. In Jules Verne's fanciful, science-fiction novel "From the Earth to the Moon", we can read that the speed needed for any object to escape from our atmosphere (the so-called "escape-velocity") is "12.000 yards-per-second". Well, a yard being 0.9144 meters, this translates into almost precisely 11.000 meters-per-second (or 11km/per second).

Lo and behold ! This is the almost exact same figure now commonly accepted (by NASA and all) as the escape velocity needed for an object to exit from our Earth's atmosphere! Yet, Jules Verne somehow calculated this figure back in 1865? Amazing !

"On the surface of the Earth, the escape velocity is about 11.2 kilometers per second (~6.96 mi/s), which is approximately 33 times the speed of sound (Mach 33) and several times the muzzle velocity of a rifle bullet (up to 1.7 km/s). However, at 9,000 km altitude in "space", it is slightly less than 7.1 km/s."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity


Well, a far more likely, non-nonsense proposition would be that NASA simply 'stole' those figures from science-fiction writers such as Jules Verne - and adopted them as their own "scientific figures". As a matter of fact, we are told that Tsiolkovsky (the soviet rocket-scientist hailed as the "Father of Space travel") was the man who scientifically calculated this "11km/s" escape velocity speed needed for any object to escape our atmosphere. But hey, Tsiolkovsky (the rocket scientist) came up with this "11" figure almost half a century after Jules Verne (the sci-fi novelist) !


ImageKonstantin Tsiolkovsky - the "Father of space travel"

"His [Tsiolkovsky's] writings on space travel were soundly based on mathematics - unlike, for example, those of Jules Verne - and he laid the mathematical foundations of spaceflight."
http://books.google.it/books?id=xBYYasV ... /s&f=false

Good grief. We are actually being asked to believe that Jules Verne, the science-fiction writer, only happened (by sheer happenstance) to have somehow predicted /pre-calculated NASA's current escape-velocity figure ("11km/s"). How much sillier can this (old and decaying) space-hoax get?

To be sure, whenever one bumps into a book review of Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon", you'll unfailingly read raving appraisals to this tune:
"Jules Verne's had a remarkably accurate vision and prescience of what the future and modern science would bring - and his scientific facts and figures were astonishingly close-to-the-mark."

Or is it perhaps the other way round? <_<
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Postby dblitz on May 25th, 2014, 4:50 am

Hi Simon, interesting post. SF can mean science fiction or speculative fiction but I would like to add specious facts <_<

I'm without internet, just logged on at a friends, but I recently amassed quite a bit of lore concerning rocket scientist Jack Parson's collaboration with L. Ron Hubbard in the creation of a moon child in line with the prophecies of Aliester Crowley. I probably wont have a chance to post about it anytime soon so here's a lead - Chapter 7 of Bare faced messiah, the unofficial Hubbard bio.

http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/bfm/bfm07.htm
dblitz
Member
 
Posts: 226
Joined: April 27th, 2013, 3:32 am

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

Postby tak47 on May 26th, 2014, 2:47 pm

tak47
Member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: October 5th, 2012, 9:27 am

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

Postby brianv on May 26th, 2014, 3:21 pm

tak47 wrote:http://2001.a-false-flag-odyssey.com/

your thoughts on this?


If it had read...

'http://2001.some-old-buildings-got-knocked-down.com'

I might have clicked on it.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3862
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

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

Postby hoi.polloi on May 26th, 2014, 4:17 pm

To me — and I will try to stay grounded and on topic here as we float into the outer space of speculative writings — the mysticism about Kubrick can get a little old for me, particularly when it comes to trying to guess what he was thinking by 'reading into' things he created and said. It's exciting to assume Kubrick understood everything we know now, but it also borders a bit on underdog hero worship and retroactive forgiveness of a crony who profited off of his cozy relationship with the military and fucking with people's minds. These are just my thoughts, feel free to disagree. And it isn't to say all the guesses must inherently be wrong. It could be all of it, or a lot of it, is correct. We have precious little to 'go on' without being part of Kubrick's inner circle of government and post-post-modernist friends, but we all live around human beings and all of us can learn about the human psyche from ourselves, the people around us and the fucking loony beliefs every single person on the planet seems to hold just to stay relatively safe in this world. No offense to rationalism or cynicism.

Anyway, I just skimmed through it and my personal opinion is that some of it could be bang on (the clear parallel between the monolith and the movie screen, and how we might be meant to interpret it on various levels of consciousness) and some of it is very open to interpretation (whether or not the paranoid concepts of 'the elite' or 'the pawns' are represented when and how he says they are) but there isn't much 'in between' for me. For the most part, it is a useful document. I think what Fakeologist user calcifiedlies wrote recently about how 2001 fits in a big picture scenario is just as plausible, though. And as they remind us at the end of the article, they could be completely wrong too.

These are very speculative writings, among Dave McGowan's series. And even if that speculation is capable of reaching a deeper and more important truth because of its powerful leaps to assumed hidden knowledge, we must focus the forum here on the clearest most egregious examples of fakery. On the other hand, I guess I don't see too much harm in at least honoring the work done in long-distance-analyzing the psychology of the hoaxers. If these speculations and musings help people grow accustomed to the facts of fakery, that's great! I especially share concern about the technocracy and what their insanity may bring them to unleash on the human population.

I guess my only worry, if you can call it that, is that this drama may lead people far off into the realm of imagination and emotional reaction and they could lose sight of the physical sciences, the value in humane scientific studies, and/or the importance of each other and our personal responsibility to ourselves when we are combating the lies 'out there'. The deception starts at home, with our own beliefs. Those types of articles tend to build up beliefs and do not give us much time to exercise non-belief or skepticism.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4811
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

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

Postby Lazlo on May 27th, 2014, 12:44 am

Re: Hoi

Hoi says: "Anyway, I just skimmed through it and my personal opinion is that some of it could be bang on (the clear parallel between the monolith and the movie screen, and how we might be meant to interpret it....."


I have never thought that the monolith was ever meant to be profound in the mystical sense but is meant to be more mundane in its meaning in the philosophical sense, if such can be said. The "monolith" is noting more than the old philosophical construct, lately attributed to Locke, of the Tabula Rasa
Lazlo
Member
 
Posts: 220
Joined: February 14th, 2012, 5:13 pm

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

Postby fbenario on May 27th, 2014, 1:11 am

tak47 wrote:http://2001.a-false-flag-odyssey.com/

your thoughts on this?

On May 23, in the REQUIRED reading section of the forum, Hoi posted the following:
ATTENTION please from all our membership:

Please have and demonstrate good reason when posting videos on our forum
. We don't need this place to become Facebook and/or YouTube.

Please do NOT advertise, post hate videos or flood topics with potentially offensive/subliminal media/music. Please see our topics like: Is MUSIC used as a propaganda/mind-control tool? and Are Movies Unwatchable? to understand why certain media may be offensive to some readers, why extremely clear context and careful discrimination is required of our members when posting any media, and why we should be ready to get into a discussion about any media's demerits. (Our policy in response to any media deemed by moderators to be a psychological attack is: shoot down the media first, ask questions later.)

Please DO explain the context of the video, why you posted it and/or have the explanation at the ready in case any single member challenges its presence on the site. This forum is the thinking person's place of refuge from reckless media; that is a rare occurrence on the entire Internet, surprisingly enough.

Thank you.

Tak47, please reedit your post to comply with the forum's rules and guidelines. Quite simply, you are not permitted to post links with no discussion or guidance attached. No more.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2177
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

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

Postby hoi.polloi on May 27th, 2014, 2:17 am

fbenario, thank you, I guess I should have been more clear about whether a media link qualifies just because it is not a video. We do try to encourage people to post a bit of their own thoughts or research or at least some kind of context.


Lazlo wrote:Re: Hoi

Hoi says: "Anyway, I just skimmed through it and my personal opinion is that some of it could be bang on (the clear parallel between the monolith and the movie screen, and how we might be meant to interpret it....."


I have never thought that the monolith was ever meant to be profound in the mystical sense but is meant to be more mundane in its meaning in the philosophical sense, if such can be said. The "monolith" is noting more than the old philosophical construct, lately attributed to Locke, of the Tabula Rasa


Can you explain more about the Tabula Rasa, from your perspective, and how it relates? (For curious readers ... like me.)
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4811
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

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

Postby Lazlo on May 27th, 2014, 3:01 am

hoi.polloi wrote:fbenario, thank you, I guess I should have been more clear about whether a media link qualifies just because it is not a video. We do try to encourage people to post a bit of their own thoughts or research or at least some kind of context.


Lazlo wrote:Re: Hoi

Hoi says: "Anyway, I just skimmed through it and my personal opinion is that some of it could be bang on (the clear parallel between the monolith and the movie screen, and how we might be meant to interpret it....."


I have never thought that the monolith was ever meant to be profound in the mystical sense but is meant to be more mundane in its meaning in the philosophical sense, if such can be said. The "monolith" is noting more than the old philosophical construct, lately attributed to Locke, of the Tabula Rasa


Can you explain more about the Tabula Rasa, from your perspective, and how it relates? (For curious readers ... like me.)



The Tabula Rasa or blank slate is an analogy used in epistemology which is the study at how we arrive at knowledge and its origins. Lately it is attributed to John Locke but its origins go back to the Greek philosophers; Plato may have been playing with this construct in his cave allegory. The meaning of the analogy is that we, as humans, arrive without any knowledge or constructs and we must "write down" or systematize that which we learn, like school children with a slate, and through this process we define our nature; because the slate is blank it is assumed that the possibilities are infinite. If the Monolith gives knowledge it is more through the reflection of the potentialities that exist in the blank slate which the Monolith can easily be seen to represent. Locke says it better: "here are two kinds of experience, according to Locke: observation of external objects—i.e., sensation—and observation of the internal operations of the mind. Locke called this latter kind of experience, for which there is no natural word in English, “reflection.” Some examples of reflection are perceiving, thinking, doubting, believing, reasoning, knowing, and willing.
Lazlo
Member
 
Posts: 220
Joined: February 14th, 2012, 5:13 pm

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

Postby hoi.polloi on May 27th, 2014, 3:55 am

That's a beautiful and fascinating description. Do you find it interesting that the 'blank slate' or the ability to relate to 'life' and to 'the self' in this particular cinematic case may resemble or symbolize the dimensions of a movie screen? And that this rectangle actually rotates to be horizontal like a movie screen at a few points in this movie?

Does that not imply a sort of knowledge or at least subconscious comment on the notion that it is through the popular medium of Hollywood film that Kubrick suggests we gather our own (inner and outer) sort of personal ontology? Even if the creator's medium and the self-awareness of the art itself is an obvious parallel to draw.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4811
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

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

Postby Lazlo on May 27th, 2014, 5:19 am

hoi.polloi wrote:That's a beautiful and fascinating description. Do you find it interesting that the 'blank slate' or the ability to relate to 'life' and to 'the self' in this particular cinematic case may resemble or symbolize the dimensions of a movie screen? And that this rectangle actually rotates to be horizontal like a movie screen at a few points in this movie?

Does that not imply a sort of knowledge or at least subconscious comment on the notion that it is through the popular medium of Hollywood film that Kubrick suggests we gather our own (inner and outer) sort of personal ontology? Even if the creator's medium and the self-awareness of the art itself is an obvious parallel to draw.


"That's a beautiful and fascinating description." Wow, coming from you that is flattering; I always thought you had a pretty good handle on rhetoric. I think you are onto something with the horizontal rotation thing. It would be interesting to check and compare the aspect ratio of a screen and the monolith. I like the allusion to art being a parallel to experience. A rather glib analogy is one of pop music where I heard an artist, when asked to define his meaning of a song said: "it is whatever the listener thinks it is." Here is an example of what you are talking about with the monolith representing a screen. Picasso's Guernica is a representation of an actual "newsreel" film: can you see the frames?

Image
Lazlo
Member
 
Posts: 220
Joined: February 14th, 2012, 5:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests