It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arthur C. Clarke's Irrational Reason For Ceasing His Interest In UFO Sightings

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
It baffles the mind that anyone could lose interest in UFOs. More so when an individual such as famed science fiction author, inventor, and futurist Arthur C. Clarke. In 1980 he stated that he was no longer interested in UFO sightings. What could this brilliant man have experienced to result in this unusual POV? Would you believe he simply saw the results of computer enhancement of frames from a film taken in 1966 of a then-believed-to-be UFO resulting in said UFO being simply a Piper Cub-type aircraft? And because the plane was at such a great distance from the camera that the resulting small image is too blurry to show the plane's aeronautical details. Since 1966 this film has been shown as proof of a UFO and people swear by it as they swear that the Phoenix "lights" are also a giant UFO, etc.

Even though the computer enhancement took place in 1980 or before and the results broadcast internationally, this film is still being touted as real. Evidence doesn't always win out.

If one of us would have been able to interview Clarke after his pronouncement and asked him "Well, what about all of the other higher-quality films (pre-video) and photographs that can be enhanced and not result in mundane explanations, would you 'believe' again?" Whatever level of acceptance Clarke had for the reality of UFOs it had to be extremely low for him to be disuaded on such flimsy evidence.

Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World (Episode 10) - U.F.O.'s.
Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World: U.F.O.'s (1980)

At 6:27 you can see Kenneth Arnold as he rides in an airplane and describes his controversial sighting which with each telling gets more outrageous!

At 12:45 Clarke introduces the Catalina Island (off California) "UFO" filmed by professional cameraman Lee Hansen on April 15, 1966 and which is flying from right to left and once in a while the film is reversed(?) and shown flying from left to right. I don't really know which is the original direction.

Clarke had the film analyzed at the JPL labs in Pasadena, California. Dr Robert Nathan, a top expert in the computer enhancement of photographs, scanned each film frame and turned them into numbers (old computer speak!). He added each photo to the next successive photo. The end result being that the blurry "UFO" resolutioned to a Piper Cub-type aircraft. Clarke then says the silliest thing that anyone of his intelligence could utter: "There is not need to look further for an explanation ... Another cause is the problem with long-range sightings, we can never be absolutely sure what they were ... And even if it was a visitor from outer space we couldn't prove it ... For this reason I'm no longer interested in UFO sightings ...

I tried to embed the video but lately it's been impossible and one gets the message at YouTube: "The URL contained a malformed video ID. Sorry about that."

The link still works so happy viewing.
www.youtube.com...




posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
Even though the computer enhancement took place in 1980 or before and the results broadcast internationally, this film is still being touted as real. Evidence doesn't always win out.


Ain't that the truth!



Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World: U.F.O.'s (1980)


A great series. Thanks for posting the link.



I tried to embed the video but lately it's been impossible and one gets the message at YouTube: "The URL contained a malformed video ID. Sorry about that."


Let me have a go:



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I absolutely agree with Clarke's conclusions.

THERE IS NO PROOF.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Clarke had no problem with the concept of ET visits to the solar system in the past, present, or future. He just grew skeptical of any current evidence proving it was the ONLY possible explanation.

We were in correspondence, and later email contact, since the late 1970s on spaceflight issues at first. In later years he would send me UFO-related mail he received but couldn't see any reason to reply to. He got a lot of weird stuff, including in particular from Clark McClelland, who wanted Clarke's public endorsement but never got it.

But don't ask me about his fascination with Martian tree photographs....[grin]



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
arthur is one of those people you wonder where he got his information from wa before it was known to the general public one being the face on mars in the 50s that was pulled from a book 2 luptus the moon of saturn describing it long before probes got near he never became a sir as rumors surfaced he liked the kiddies in sri lanka just thinking



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4
I absolutely agree with Clarke's conclusions.

THERE IS NO PROOF.


I disagree with your agreement of Clarke's conclusions. It's okay and preferable to not agree with believers because they do not operate with evidence. But take it from me, a natural skeptic who has seen non-human aerial objects close and clearly, the proof is in the pudding and I love pudding!

It is 2012 so the days of UFO hearsay are mostly gone, replaced by more than sufficient, though clearly circumstancial evidence. You are always going to have questionable photos and videos, but you cannot say that it applies to 100%. As long as there are genuine photos and videos of what we term UFOs, that is sufficient proof for us who accept their reality after having our own sightings. Not all sightings are valid, especially nightime ones. But a daylight sighting where details are clear and the witness has a decent database of what is ours and what is not is good enough.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Clarke had no problem with the concept of ET visits to the solar system in the past, present, or future. He just grew skeptical of any current evidence proving it was the ONLY possible explanation.

We were in correspondence, and later email contact, since the late 1970s on spaceflight issues at first. In later years he would send me UFO-related mail he received but couldn't see any reason to reply to. He got a lot of weird stuff, including in particular from Clark McClelland, who wanted Clarke's public endorsement but never got it.

But don't ask me about his fascination with Martian tree photographs....[grin]


Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any other attempt by Clarke to explain any other sighting and why he picked the Catalina Island film is a mystery without a solution. Surely, whatever interest he developed about the footage had to come from exposure to other sightings in photos or on film.

But let's use as an example of some kind. You have been flooded with insults from all quarters on your stance on space "UFOs". You always offer prosaic explanations although some, if not most of them, cannot be accepted. I've told you about a particular length of footage taken from a shuttle flight in which a very interested astronaut videos a "white" object far below the shuttle and zipping along above the earth but in the darkness until some earth features can be seen. Anyone in their right mind would have to agree that your prosaic explanations would be out of this world as the object could never be ice crystals, shuttle debris, the result of shuttle firings, etc. It is footage of, ahem, a UFO!

But you have more or less ignored commenting on it 'cause you must be aware of the footage and you didn't want to embarrass yourself and be the subject of ridicule.

I think that Clarke's reason is illogical as one doesn't make a judgement call on just one episode that wasn't that great to begin with. The quality of the film should have been the first red flag.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by geobro
arthur is one of those people you wonder where he got his information from wa before it was known to the general public one being the face on mars in the 50s that was pulled from a book 2 luptus the moon of saturn describing it long before probes got near he never became a sir as rumors surfaced he liked the kiddies in sri lanka just thinking


From Wikipedia to correct the above 50s (sic) date:
en.wikipedia.org...(region_of_Mars)
One of the features in the Cydonia region, the "face on Mars" (about 1.5 kilometers (one mile) across), has had special notoriety in Western culture since it was imaged in 1976, because it looks like a face.[11] This naturally occurring pareidolia has also inspired science fiction literature which typically assume it is a non-natural structure.[11][12] For comparison, an example of naturally occurring pareidolia on Earth is New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain.

In one of the images taken by Viking 1 on July 25, 1976, a 2 km (1.2 miles) long Cydonian mesa, situated at 40.75° north latitude and 9.46° west longitude,[13] had the appearance of a humanoid "Face on Mars".



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 

Don't need proof. Seen one. Working on bringing my experience here.

Like Mr. Clark, I too mistrust "proofdom" because nowadays anything is presentable and you can't trust it impeccably. I believe he grew to regret asking people to send him "theirs" because there was just too much gibberish that people wanted him to look at. Almost all of which must have made him wretch.

I understand his dilemma. Tried trolling UFO's on YouTube? Night mare of undefined, misidentified, disinfo crap. Everything is debunked or the devil or CGI. Very frustrating because I know what I saw, and in this modern day of hi tech science of recording, I am waiting to see the kind of thing I saw on screen.

Personally I think the real stuff is censored from our view.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 

1952 or 53 i thik look up richard hoagland what did arthur know & when did he know it on his enterprse mission site



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
snip
Personally I think the real stuff is censored from our view.


This kind of statement makes me fume! It couldn't have been created by a logical mind.

What is the real stuff? Who censors it? How does whoever does the censoring get access to it so that no one else sees it? How do you account for the untold reports of sightings that are continuously brought to our attention via a myriad of sources?

You must believe your own unreasonable theory so how did you come to such a conclusion?



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by geobro
 


1951 the sands of mars original cover there was a 1953 comic cover as well long before 1975



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by rigel4
I absolutely agree with Clarke's conclusions.

THERE IS NO PROOF.


I disagree with your agreement of Clarke's conclusions. It's okay and preferable to not agree with believers because they do not operate with evidence. But take it from me, a natural skeptic who has seen non-human aerial objects close and clearly, the proof is in the pudding and I love pudding!

It is 2012 so the days of UFO hearsay are mostly gone, replaced by more than sufficient, though clearly circumstancial evidence. You are always going to have questionable photos and videos, but you cannot say that it applies to 100%. As long as there are genuine photos and videos of what we term UFOs, that is sufficient proof for us who accept their reality after having our own sightings. Not all sightings are valid, especially nightime ones. But a daylight sighting where details are clear and the witness has a decent database of what is ours and what is not is good enough.

I think i can confidently say, that as yet there is 100% No proof of Alien craft on earth.
There is circumstantial evidence,but there cannot be proof or , ... well there would be proof, and as far as i know
there is no smoking gun. It's a nice idea though, having aliens roaming around our skies in far out craft.

But it is still science fiction not science fact.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   


Originally posted by intrptr
 

Personally I think the real stuff is censored from our view.


Originally posted by The Shrike
 

This kind of statement makes me fume! It couldn't have been created by a logical mind.

What is the real stuff? Who censors it? How does whoever does the censoring get access to it so that no one else sees it? How do you account for the untold reports of sightings that are continuously brought to our attention via a myriad of sources?

You must believe your own unreasonable theory so how did you come to such a conclusion?

You are right. How could I know something is censored any more than you know it's not?
Ok, fuming, untold, myriad, illogical reports. "Untold myriads of reports" is not what I am talking about. Just the untold myriad of misunderstood, faked and disinfo ones. Like Mr. Clark. He got tired of looking at all the gibberish. Or didn't you listen to him in the video? And like I said I have yet to see one "on tape" do the things I saw one do. But go ahead and bring your best one or two and we'll swap. Here's one of mine...

Not saying this is real... I didn't make it or know anything about it. Just saying this is more indicative of how they move and own the sky (like I saw once).




posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


...why he picked the Catalina Island film is a mystery without a solution. Surely, whatever interest he developed about the footage had to come from exposure to other sightings in photos or on film.

He picked it because of the enormous volume of mail and expert opinion he received about it. His show was built around the stuff he got in the mail (truckloads) and picked what he considered the best ones for review. This one he pulled strings at the lab to enhance and it was debunked. Embarrasing for him and used up limited favors a man of his enormous rep has. All that review wore him out because it consumed all his time. Thats why he stopped. It wasn't an "irrational" decision on his part.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by rigel4
I absolutely agree with Clarke's conclusions.

THERE IS NO PROOF.


I disagree with your agreement of Clarke's conclusions. It's okay and preferable to not agree with believers because they do not operate with evidence. But take it from me, a natural skeptic who has seen non-human aerial objects close and clearly, the proof is in the pudding and I love pudding!

It is 2012 so the days of UFO hearsay are mostly gone, replaced by more than sufficient, though clearly circumstancial evidence. You are always going to have questionable photos and videos, but you cannot say that it applies to 100%. As long as there are genuine photos and videos of what we term UFOs, that is sufficient proof for us who accept their reality after having our own sightings. Not all sightings are valid, especially nightime ones. But a daylight sighting where details are clear and the witness has a decent database of what is ours and what is not is good enough.

I think i can confidently say, that as yet there is 100% No proof of Alien craft on earth.
There is circumstantial evidence,but there cannot be proof or , ... well there would be proof, and as far as i know
there is no smoking gun. It's a nice idea though, having aliens roaming around our skies in far out craft.

But it is still science fiction not science fact.


I agree with you and also subscribe to the no-alien hypothesis. However, the word "alien" has many definitions. For our discussion I'm sure that "alien" is used to define an extra-terrestrial. There are certain extra-terrestrials as non-human flying objects flitting over the lunar surface have been filmed by astronauts from orbit. So the term for them as ETs is acceptable. But, ETs from other planets, galaxies, universes, etc., I don't accept.

Of course, it goes without saying that if there are lunar ETs and perhaps their "vehicles" are the ones being seen and videographed by humans then alien applies and we have official NASA films and now videos to offer as proof for what the astronauts filmed then were not human-constructed objects which can also be said for present space UFOs. But other theories have been mentioned by the likes of Jacques Vallee as to "aliens" and UFOs being intradimensional. For that we have bupkis evidence.

Since emulsion films and digital "films" are being affected in the form of images, something real is doing the affection and their reality is the proof, as it is not of the imagination.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Shirke said:

"It baffles the mind that anyone could lose interest in UFOs. More so when an individual such as famed science fiction author, inventor, and futurist Arthur C. Clarke. In 1980 he stated that he was no longer interested in UFO sightings. What could this brilliant man have experienced to result in this unusual POV?"

Shirke, you seemed to have overlooked an extremely important portion of Clarke's doings. He was extremely fond of young boys and assumed by many that was one of his reasons for moving to Malaysia a more relaxed country in that regard and escaping English law. It is not hard to assume that he was forced to become an exile.

Plus, if you want to look into it, I have some posts of a year or so ago that fingers him as being the mysterious stranger in the tale is recounted in Sir Peter Horsley's Sounds From Another Room The apparent RAF-hatched plot was to make the Prince of England, via Horsley being his aide, look like a fool because he was interested in UFOs and flying RAF planes.

So here, we have a couple of good reasons why Clarke changed his tune: He had not choice. While Clarke was the brillant and talented fellow, he had trouble with is zipper.

I hold his book Childhood's End as the ultimate fable about where the human race is going.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr


Originally posted by intrptr
 

Personally I think the real stuff is censored from our view.


Originally posted by The Shrike
 

This kind of statement makes me fume! It couldn't have been created by a logical mind.

What is the real stuff? Who censors it? How does whoever does the censoring get access to it so that no one else sees it? How do you account for the untold reports of sightings that are continuously brought to our attention via a myriad of sources?

You must believe your own unreasonable theory so how did you come to such a conclusion?

You are right. How could I know something is censored any more than you know it's not?
Ok, fuming, untold, myriad, illogical reports. "Untold myriads of reports" is not what I am talking about. Just the untold myriad of misunderstood, faked and disinfo ones. Like Mr. Clark. He got tired of looking at all the gibberish. Or didn't you listen to him in the video? And like I said I have yet to see one "on tape" do the things I saw one do. But go ahead and bring your best one or two and we'll swap. Here's one of mine...

Not saying this is real... I didn't make it or know anything about it. Just saying this is more indicative of how they move and own the sky (like I saw once).


I simply disagreed with your comment ("Personally I think the real stuff is censored from our view.") and asked that you support it with more than a belief since such a thought can only come from a belief that you know something we don't. You didn't. And the Mexican video has nothing to do with our conversation.

Once again, what is real stuff and who is censoring it from our view?



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


what is real stuff and who is censoring it from our view?

If it's censored, how can I show it to you? My first statement about the real stuff being censored stands.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 


But, ETs from other planets, galaxies, universes, etc., I don't accept.

What? Maybe thats why they have yet to reveal themselves to you. Why bother since you "don't accept it"?




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join