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: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 

I was reading The City and the Stars yesterday. Only got to page 20-something. But was hooked. There's something about Arthur. He had a mind for these kinds of things that's unlike Isaac Asimov.

Watch:
No, he's not a demi-god. He's just a man that fits his role and does his work. A lot of people criticized him for not having rich characters, or something. But I like his mind. Something...

Dig into a writer and they crack. Something happens that turns you off. Maybe it's their style or their temperament or their background or their prejudices or god knows what. Arthur hasn't cracked.

Maybe I'm using the wrong tool. Like using a screwdriver to crack cement. Need a jackhammer.
edit on 3-3-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


I have been a Clarke obsessive since I was 12 years old and watched 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time. That being said, Sir Arthur was not a child molester, pedophile, or other version of perversion. Those nasty lies were spread by British tabloids in order to discredit him before his knighthood. The Sri Lankan (not Malaysia) government cleared him of any wrong doings in their own investigations. Sir Arthur was most likely bi-sexual if not fully homosexual...Almost all of his post 1960s works mention bi or gay characters and open sexual relationships.

As for the UFO stuff, Clarke kept an open mind, as much as someone of his knowledge and standards could be. I remember reading a charming account of him and Kubrick watching a light in the New York skies in the 60s, wondering if it really was an alien spacecraft...turned out to be Echo, a giant inflatable communications satellite. While his imagination rushed towards the far end of the spectrum, he also understood that there are easier and more likely explanations to be found.

My two cents.
edit on 3/3/2012 by NuminousCosmos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 03:23 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.


''As above, so below''
Apply this to bigfoot and I just might buy what you're selling?
edit on 3-3-2012 by Caver78 because: add info



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr

Originally posted by The Shrike
Originally posted by intrptr
 


So you really do not have an argument and are grasping at straws. Your argument is similar to those who claim that NASA airbrushes lunar photos that contain alien structures. Since the early '80s I've had a standing challenge: produce two identical photos, one raw and the other airbrushed. No one has ever produced such a pair.


Ok. Since the 80's huh? Here is the debunk to another thread about moon bases. Careful what you ask for. You will of course have to look at this posters picture and be able (and willing to) compare it to the video at the beginning of the thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And shirker, I'm done here. It is apparently futile to deny your ignorance, so why bother. Wait till my first hand experience comes out, then you can come there and piss in my bowl of Cheerios. It will be sweet revenge for you I am sure.


I have no idea what you are talking about but thanks for the pissing invite as I really hate Cheerios.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Shrike, I missed any reply you made to this, please repost.

I'm specifically responding to an explicit request of yours, so I'd hoped you would react to it.



Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
While there is good footage of other unknowns, your comments on the above particular tracked object will be of interest.


Let me get this straight.

You are in awe of a video made by an Italian TV program, supposedly from Mir in 1989 [there is no such thing as 'DALLA MIR', that's just an Italian word], supposedly 'in darkness', of something the crew was watching and filming out the window. No date/time. No crew comments.

And you call it a UFO.

Why do you assume it's in darkness? Why can't it be a sunlit object? Can you tell night from day in orbit?

Why do you assume it's anomalous? How many man-made objects deliberately approach and recede from Mir every year, in those days?

But still you say:



. 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!


I'm flabbergasted. How did you make that leap that NO prosaic explanation could be possible when you don't even have the most basic contextual information to even CHECK on a long list of potential prosaic explanations?

edit on 4-3-2012 by JimOberg because: typo



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Clarke was a scientist, he worked on radar during WW2, and postwar he obtained first-class degrees in mathematics and physics at King's College London.
But sadly, like most scientists, he felt ill at ease and out of his comfort zone with anything that can't be scientifically explained such as God, paranormal phenomena and UFO's etc which is why scientists take the easy way out and dismiss them out of hand.
Other scientists are not so skeptical, for example a former manager of the Fylingdales Moor early warning radar station publicly stated- "We were so powerful we used to get returns off the moon...we also had UFO's buzzing us, it was the radar that attracted them"..



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
While there is good footage of other unknowns, your comments on the above particular tracked object will be of interest.


Let me get this straight.

You are in awe of a video made by an Italian TV program, supposedly from Mir in 1989 [there is no such thing as 'DALLA MIR', that's just an Italian word], supposedly 'in darkness', of something the crew was watching and filming out the window. No date/time. No crew comments.

And you call it a UFO.

Why do you assume it's in darkness? Why can't it be a sunlit object? Can you tell night from day in orbit?

Why do you assume it's anomalous? How many man-made objects deliberately approach and recede from Mir every year, in those days?

But still you say:



. 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!


I'm flabbergasted. How did you make that leap that NO prosaic explanation could be possible when you don't even have the most basic contextual information to even CHECK on a long list of potential prosaic explanations?


I could have saved you the trouble of replying as your "patented" response is written in stone. I know there is no such thing as DALLA MIR. I simply forgot to translate DALLA which, roughly means "FROM". So we have "TWO COSMONAUTS FILMING A UFO FROM MIR 1991". And, yes, the footage is awesome even though it lacks the refinements that would warm the cockles of your heart. It's visual, man! Sometimes the data that you require is not available but that doesn't undermine the quality of the sighting. You don't want to admit that a UFO was videographed from space because you have some sort of bias to such phenomena. Perhaps I am really naive in thinking that you are going to be honest with us if not with yourself. Oh, well, I guess the only time your tune will change is when you are "abducted" and taken into space to see for yourself!


From Wikipedia:
In July 1991, Krikalev agreed to stay on Mir as flight engineer for the next crew, scheduled to arrive in October because the next two planned flights had been reduced to one. The engineer slot on the Soyuz TM-13 flight on October 2, 1991, was filled by Toktar Aubakirov, an astronaut from the Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, who had not been trained for a long-duration mission. Both he and Franz Viehböck, the first Austrian astronaut, returned with Artsebarsky on 10 October 1991. Commander Alexander Volkov remained on board with Krikalev. After the crew replacement in October, Volkov and Krikalev continued Mir experiment operations and conducted another EVA before returning to Earth on March 25, 1992, having been in space when the Soviet Union was dissolved December 26, 1991.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
I could have saved you the trouble of replying as your "patented" response is written in stone. I know there is no such thing as DALLA MIR. I simply forgot to translate DALLA which, roughly means "FROM". So we have "TWO COSMONAUTS FILMING A UFO FROM MIR 1991". And, yes, the footage is awesome even though it lacks the refinements that would warm the cockles of your heart. It's visual, man! Sometimes the data that you require is not available but that doesn't undermine the quality of the sighting. You don't want to admit that a UFO was videographed from space because you have some sort of bias to such phenomena. Perhaps I am really naive in thinking that you are going to be honest with us if not with yourself. Oh, well, I guess the only time your tune will change is when you are "abducted" and taken into space to see for yourself!



How is it unreasonable to ask you for the date/time of the video you are so impressed with? If you can't provide it, just admit so -- don't make excuses that it's not important. The video looks like an object at some distance from Mir, just like an approaching or departing Soyuz or Progress vehicle would look [or even a shuttle], or a jettisoned trash bag, or any number of regular spaceflight events of that nature.

So what is preventing you from accepting the feasibility of such a prosaic explanation?

Please don't tell me it's because you accept the integrity and honesty of the Italian TV program.

How is it that you can demand an explanation, but think you're justified in withholding the critical information required for even beginning an investigation?

By sabotaging any serious investigation, does that make you think you've "won" the debate over the video's UFOness?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
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.


Hmmmm...maybe his homos3xual interests have taken precedence?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by intrptr
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.


So you really do not have an argument and are grasping at straws. Your argument is similar to those who claim that NASA airbrushes lunar photos that contain alien structures. Since the early '80s I've had a standing challenge: produce two identical photos, one raw and the other airbrushed. No one has ever produced such a pair.

If it's censored then how do you know anything about it, whatever it is? Your first statement rests on quicksand.


Not sure what he meant by censorship.... but there indeed is a strange observation on this Google Sky location which appears as if a patch or a sticker has been attached over an actual image.

Not sure if it is to hide something or just it is a mere incident... can't comment!



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dhayfule

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by intrptr
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.


So you really do not have an argument and are grasping at straws. Your argument is similar to those who claim that NASA airbrushes lunar photos that contain alien structures. Since the early '80s I've had a standing challenge: produce two identical photos, one raw and the other airbrushed. No one has ever produced such a pair.

If it's censored then how do you know anything about it, whatever it is? Your first statement rests on quicksand.


Not sure what he meant by censorship.... but there indeed is a strange observation on this Google Sky location which appears as if a patch or a sticker has been attached over an actual image.

Not sure if it is to hide something or just it is a mere incident... can't comment!


Beautiful and interesting imagery of the sun and sky. But that's not what we're alluding to. We're talking, mainly, about lunar images captured by the various lunar mission and in the resulting photos people think that they can see lunar anomalies/structures. Most of the time the photos are blurry, pixelated, colored, etc., but they don't show REAL anomalies. Accusations fly all over by those who claim that NASA airbrushes anomalies/structures out of the photo. Not so.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join