UFO: footages, disclosure, archaeological anomalies

[mirandansa]

Radars are bad to, besides the problems inherit in the GPS, there other frms of noise that complicate things. The radar works by sending a radio pulse and then observing the power and the delay of the echo (same thing it estimates the distance trough the relation of the speed of light). The idea circumstance is if the plane reflects the pulse cleanly. But this is not the case, when you send a pulse, it will bounce out on trees, buildings, birds, the ground and some will eventually hit the plane. And it doesn't bounce of the plane cleanly at all, reflects the pulse inregularly in all directions and it will hit on the way back on birds, buildings, trees, ground. It will simply polute everything.
But still radars do work, how do they manage to work? Because they filter the observations, stuff like buildings, trees, the ground is a constant so they eliminate from this profiles (called the radar clutter), other profiles with low intensity like birds and dust are ignored (and then they put a low profile airplane flying near the ground and screws the scheeme up). And unlike GPS radar signals are analogic and are subject to electronic noise, because the components aren't perfect, because the temperature causes fluctuations in the amplifiers, well a million problems. And because you can't eliminate all this noise, there is a probablity that very often you manage to get a false alarm (i.e. the systems indentifies a target that it isn't there, it was just the noise causing it to peak) and you can even estimate how many false alarms you are likely to have in a year (and how many targets you are likely to miss due to the influence of the noise to the oposite side).
When you see the planes going smoothly in the screen, that is not what the radar sees at all, what it sees is a complete mess.
And then it has other problems, I can send a pulse now to listen for a target, but I want my radar to continualy be operating, so on a given interval of time you send a sequence of impulses. Now the impulse must travel to the target and come back, and durng that time, time doesn't stand still, and if the target is far, it does happen that the radar can't tell if what he is listening is an echo of the pulse just sent now or the one before. So what it is going to think is, well this arrive 'x' seconds after the last pulse then it must be an echo from the last pulse and then the difference of time gives us the distance, and you just fucked evrything because now the traveling time has bee under estimated and therefor the distance under estimated. It will plot the plane on the screen where there is no plane at all. And if the echo doesn't come directly from the target, but instead it bounces of something else, it goes "WOW.. another target.. blip!"
The fact that there was not even a transponder response did sugest that the plane was not even there for the secondary radar to act (i.e. the radar that interrogates "who the hell are you?" and expects it to answer). The peak is a typical divergence of the positioning solution because of bad data, we see things like that all the time.

Somehow you missed the line I'd been drawing between "radar records" and "eyewitness-corroborated radar records".

Now have you not know of this details, could you tell what it was? Or even that was something insignificant?
Then we see asshats that think they are specialist just by looking at a graph and say shit like "OMG ALLIENS!... WOW he was totally going 20000 milles an hour".

That's hardly the logic I presented. I suggested this:

1. Pilots et al. see metallic pulsating objects flying in an unnatural way in the sky.
2. The sighting gets corroborated by radar records indicating objects flying in an abnormal way.
3. Evidence points to the physical existence of the unknown technological objects under intelligent control.
4. What could be responsible for that intelligence and technology?

You really didn't have to characterize this process as "OMG ALLIENS!", unless your urge to make fun of people so overwhelmed you that you couldn't possibly recognize the form of contingency in which the extraterrestrial hypothesis is legitimately considered. As seen here and there, sometimes it's the case that hard-core naysayers are ironically the first to bring up the term "aliens" in a discussion of UFOs with those who are sure of the objects' physical reality but not of what they are.


* * *


Below contains declassified transmissions from an American West Airlines flight, involving -- for the first time on record of a commercial airplane encounter with a UFO -- a US government agency, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). The pilot, at 30,000 ft, describes the unknown objects as cigar-shaped, strobe-pulsating, and its length "unbelievable", about 400 ft (122 m). The ATC initially couldn't confirm it on their radar, so it contacted a nearby Air Force base. An F-117 Nighthawk (stealth fighter) went to the nightsky site, and the military pilot observes the pulsating object, calling it "a pretty eerie sight". The object flew dangerously around the two airplanes, and suddenly disappeared. The ATC worried and contacted NORAD's Western Air Defense Headquarter. The recorded transmission shows how they were troubled by the event, with the NORAD respondent saying "Holy shit!". A while later NORAD tells the ATC that they were conducting a search-only tracking for the object. In their final written statement, however, NORAD denies the event happened.



This kind of black-box recordings tell us certain things:

• Factually, pilots do see anomolous flying objects in the sky.
• Factually, ATCs can take UFO reports from pilots seriously and act accordingly.
• Factually, not all UFOs appear on radar.
• Factually, government agencies do attempt to cover-up UFO incidents including pilots' first-hand experiences.

(There is more to NORAD concerning the apparent global increase in UFO sightings since last year, but I'm not going into that now.)

Some say it's just ball lights, which is interesting, firstly because ball lights themselves are a phenomenon of which little is known, secondly because I'm not sure how "lights" -- if that's what all "ball lights" amount to -- can reflect radio signals like airplanes do for radar to pick up, and thirdly because another kind of pilots -- astronauts --, too, see such unknown pulsating objects in space, which would lend more scientific enigma to "ball lights" if these were responsible for those outerspace UFOs as well:



Some might like to further specify the nature of the "ball lights" as "ball lightning". But not all ball lights are so associated with natural lightning. A great example is Norway's Hessdalen Lights that I've occasionally mentioned. Perhaps I can now dig into its research project a bit more, especially because the lights' shape, motion, and speed might be of relevance to the radar-recorded UFOs. This is probably the most academically attended contemporary proof for the reality of enigmatic UFOs and for the scientific legitimacy of ufology I can present.

Allow me to suggest you watch the first three parts of the 2006 documentary, UFO Portal over Hessdalen:

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

There are two more videos, but to sum up so far:

There are three main types of the lights or their behaviors:

• Type 1: rapidly sparkling
  Type 2: slowly drifting around for hours
  Type 3: gathering together or being joined by smaller lights

(Notice also where witnesses and scientific researchers describe the objects' shapes as "cigar", "piece of bread", "metallic cloud", etc., which are common UFO traits observed by pilots during their flight too)

Photographs show that the balls can move as fast as 30,000 kph, straight but with small spiral details. (Arthur rightly pointed out that the anomolous point in the radar records of the Stephenville Lights could be just a glitch and that the eye-witnesses might have been mistaken on what they believe to be the ultra-fast speed of the objects. But these Hessdalen Lights are most likely genuinely ultra-fast, as well as ultra-slow. This extreme range of speed also parallels those outerspace near-Earth lights, of which there are two main apparent types: a larger, visually lasting spherical type that can be observed afar and a smaller, almost invisibly fast beam type that can pass even in close front of an astronaut during extra-vehicular activity.)

The phenmenon has of course attracted UFO researchers (including former debunker Allen Hynek). A series of 53 dedicated observations were made between 1984-85 using military equipments. One of the findings was that the lights were somehow intelligently responsive to laser beams shot towards them by the researchers.

In a remote field (a couple of hours from the nearest town), moose hunters found some precisely cut 40-cm-deep 1.8x5 m square holes, the lost portions of which must have weighed 2,000 kg (2nd video, 6:30). Another apprently artificial hole of the exactly same volume had been found further to the north of Norway 2 years earlier. Similar holes were found in the US the same year, 1984, as well. (For that matter, Argentina recently experienced a bizarre series of incidents where, for instance, a contained body of water, including swimming pools and cisterns, would suddenly disappear. Some UFOs apparently abducted cows as well. The country announced this year an official UFO study committee.)

In 1994, the researchers organized an international conference with leading scientists from eight countries including the US, Russia, and Japan. They concluded that the phenomena were NOT likely caused by:

• - reflections from car-/train-lights
  - TV / radio signals

In 1998, the researchers set up a dedicated observatory in the region. The first camera immediately began capturing UFOs, including the one dated 1999.12.4 (3rd video above, 4:27), a self-illuminating object joined by another smaller light coming from beneath.

Inspired, a team of Italian scientists at Bologna Radio-Astronomy Center, conducted their own radar & electromagnetic investigation. One of the members reports at 8:20 of the 3rd video that this phenomenon is not specific to Norway but occurs around this planet, including Australia and Thailand (I earlier mentioned the analogous case in the US studied by a geologist, whose pictures show optical traces of an ultra-fast light of unknown nature). The Norwegian and Italian scientists teamed up to establish the Hessdalen Research Association (HERA).



Their intermediary conclusions from the 4-year joint scientific research are:

• </B></COLOR>[*]The phenomenon is identified as a bright flying object with special characteristics making it unique to science.
  [*]The phenomenon is more complex and diverse than expected, indicating more than 1 single kind of phenomenon.
  [*]The phenomenon is sometimes made up of separate units that may depart and fly away.
  [*]The speed varies from still to 8km per second.
  [*]The phenomenon changes course in speeds indicating no mass by physical means.
  [*]The phenomenon seems to be able to take on pieces of plasma or energy from the ground whilst passing by.
  [*]The phenomenon seems to radiate energy due to the light and frequency change of colour.
  [*]<COLOR color="#FFFFFF"><B>Many interesting spectra in the optical and radio frequency range have been detected but more data is needed to draw proper conclusions.

I hope you see why I became interested in ufology.

The phenomenon has been observed above mines several times, which brought the researchers' attention to Hessdalen's richness in metal / mineral resources as a possible factor for the concentration of the phenomenon (this is also the case for the South American regions where archaeological anomalies and UFO sightings have been frequent).



Photographs and radar records confirm not only the objects' existence but also their physical interaction with the ground: they are extracting something from the ground. Notice also where one of the researchers talks about how the objects might involve some unknown plasma-based mechanism for storing energy (another reason why those notable ufo researchers were invited to speak at the Global Competitiveness Forum in the matter of new energy technology, infrastructures for which Obama is currently stressing need to be built).


* * *


What would be like if scientists put other UFO hot-spots such as Mexico under similarly dedicated formal observance? Would we more understand this:

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

What are these things? Some "crackpot" NASA astronauts have a clear idea:

"Houston, this is Discovery. We still have the Alien Spacecraft under observance."
(from a 1989.3.13 transmission)

 

[SpaceCDT]

This kind of black-box recordings tell us certain things:

• Factually, pilots do see anomolous flying objects in the sky.
• Factually, ATCs can take UFO reports from pilots seriously and act accordingly.
• Factually, not all UFOs appear on radar.
• Factually, government agencies do attempt to cover-up UFO incidents including pilots' first-hand experiences.

"Factually"? A youtube video of a history channel show? Do you have any references for anything in that video?

You have also once again failed heavily in your aeronautical knowledge, because the Nighthawk was not a fighter aircraft.

What are these things? Some "crackpot" NASA astronauts have a clear idea:

"Houston, this is Discovery. We still have the Alien Spacecraft under observance."
(from a 1989.3.13 transmission)

Look, get your story straight, either "government agencies do attempt to cover-up UFO incidents including pilots' first-hand experiences" - in which case the crew of the Discovery would not have been broadcasting about a UFO contact on the open air - or they have begun letting some really stupid blokes into the astronaut programme.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Somehow you missed the line I'd been drawing between "radar records" and "eyewitness-corroborated radar records".
(...)
That's hardly the logic I presented. I suggested this:

1. Pilots et al. see metallic pulsating objects flying in an unnatural way in the sky.
2. The sighting gets corroborated by radar records indicating objects flying in an abnormal way.
3. Evidence points to the physical existence of the unknown technological objects under intelligent control.
4. What could be responsible for that intelligence and technology?

I don't give a flying fuck what you think that was. That was a typical miss convergence of the positioning equations due to faulty data, anyone who has ever worked with a radar will be able to tell you that.
Now how the hell did you get to the conclusion that there was a "unknown technology" or a technology of any kind other than the radar itself? Or that it was even controlable, or done so by inteligence? Given that what you see on the screen didn't even really happen.
And then you beg the question "what posses the traits of being inteligent and technologicaly advanced" (because things happened exactly as I said so) which are also not human (because hell if the answer has to be reasonable)... wink wink, nudge nudge... know what I mean?
You are way over the deep end.

 

[mirandansa]

Somehow you missed the line I'd been drawing between "radar records" and "eyewitness-corroborated radar records".
(...)
That's hardly the logic I presented. I suggested this:

1. Pilots et al. see metallic pulsating objects flying in an unnatural way in the sky.
2. The sighting gets corroborated by radar records indicating objects flying in an abnormal way.
3. Evidence points to the physical existence of the unknown technological objects under intelligent control.
4. What could be responsible for that intelligence and technology?

I don't give a flying fuck what you think that was.

Where did I say what I think that was?

And then you beg the question "what posses the traits of being inteligent and technologicaly advanced" (because things happened exactly as I said so) which are also not human (because hell if the answer has to be reasonable)... wink wink, nudge nudge... know what I mean?

Where did I premise "not human"?

Now how the hell did you get to the conclusion that there was a "unknown technology" or a technology of any kind other than the radar itself? Or that it was even controlable, or done so by inteligence?

Assuming that you know I wasn't talking specificially about the American West Airlines incident:

I meant to sum up what ufologists know from the accumulated records of UFOs encountered by pilots, including those Iranian, Peruvian, and Japanese pilots in separate incidents that I mentioned the other day.

Many unknown objects were eye-witnessed and radar-recorded to be following human airplanes, which indicates some kind of locating intelligence on the part of the objects if the witnessing and radar are not all false; they would also occasionally respond to human behaviors so as to avoid any harmful consequence (e.g. if a jet fighter shoots at it, it would dodge the fire at an ultra-fast speed and disable the fighter's attacking system), which indicates some kind of remote controlling system on the part of the objects if the fighter itself was not malfunctiong.

Unless you discredit all of the pilots' accounts and radar records, you would understand that they may well have seen forms of technology which they didn't recognize in conventional frameworks.

This kind of black-box recordings tell us certain things:

• Factually, pilots do see anomolous flying objects in the sky.
• Factually, ATCs can take UFO reports from pilots seriously and act accordingly.
• Factually, not all UFOs appear on radar.
• Factually, government agencies do attempt to cover-up UFO incidents including pilots' first-hand experiences.

"Factually"? A youtube video of a history channel show? Do you have any references for anything in that video?

What kind of references are you asking for? If you think the FAA would make an official report acknowledging the reality of these UFO encounters, you're over-expecting. It's not hard to suss out that the Federal Aviation Administration is tasked also with public relation maintainance and is not supposed by the (US) government to openly inform the public of the existence of unidentifiable objects flying above the country, especially around civilian flights and in the age of terrorism.

They may provide transmission & radar records only on demand (and not always even if on demand), often with no official statement regarding the objects' identity. And it's not free of charge. Who would be most interested in a UFO incident enough that they would try to obtain the records by invoking the Freedom of Information Act and paying the institution the set fee? UFO researchers, of course. Certainly not the Washington Post. The History Channel is a television portal of such enthusiasts and can afford funding non-academic research on these fringe areas in a way that individuals might not be able to. I'm not saying that their shows are the most reliable source of information on everything, but they are certainly among the foremosts to broadcast attention-worthy clues on the matter of UFOs that would be grossly ignored by other major television outlets.

A "fact" is basically a body of information presented and understood as an objective reality, and that's how the black-box recording has appeared in the relationship between the shows/articles and me; I accept that the recording is real. If you doubt its authenticity, you can verify it by asking a copy of the same material directly from the FAA. If not you personally, then ask some group of hard-core debunkers to do it for you.

If you want to track down the incident by means other than the FAA records, here's the basic info:

Flight: American West Airlines Flight 564 from Tampa (Florida) to Las Vegas (Nevada)
Pilots: Capt. Gene Tollefson and First Officer John J. Waller
Date & Time: 1995.5.25, around 22:30

You have also once again failed heavily in your aeronautical knowledge, because the Nighthawk was not a fighter aircraft.

Right, it was an attack aircraft. Satisfied? (Besides being a nomenclatural gripe irrelevant to the point of the story, you're obscuring the fact that the "fighter" attribute to F-117 is common, let alone not my invention. Has this encyclopedic airforce technology website "failed heavily" because it calls F-117 a "Stealth Fighter"? Take it easy.)

What are these things? Some "crackpot" NASA astronauts have a clear idea:

"Houston, this is Discovery. We still have the Alien Spacecraft under observance."
(from a 1989.3.13 transmission)

Look, get your story straight, either "government agencies do attempt to cover-up UFO incidents including pilots' first-hand experiences" - in which case the crew of the Discovery would not have been broadcasting about a UFO contact on the open air - or they have begun letting some really stupid blokes into the astronaut programme.

You get my story straight. I said "attempt". Doesn't mean that they will always succeed at switching between public and non-public transmissions. Perhaps there were multiple channels between the Shuttle and the ground station, or it was entirely up to the latter to control the transmission buses for the public broadcast, I don't know; and none of that would have guaranteed that the humans would never make a mistake such that a confidential-meant report gets leaked out and recorded by the public audience (in this case, Donald Ratsch of an American radio club that monitors NASA transmissions).

Otherwise the active astronauts are generally careful enough, I surmise. They can get more vocal about the cover-up as they leave the institution. Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell are great examples. Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong are not exceptions. Here's what Armstrong said in 1994 in the 25th anniversary of their Moon landing:



"To you, we say, we've only completed the beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs are available to those who can remove one of the truth-protecting layers."

You got to wonder what on earth he means by "remove one of the truth-protecting layers". He's not, at least in any usual sense, talking about scientific exploration in general; we don't usually say science is to discover truths that are "protected" by something. Perhaps he knows, from his experience with NASA, that some level of great truths is controlled by the institution (AND other truths by other institutions -- note "one of ..."), and this cryptic speech was the best form in which he could deliver his call for our attention to that uncharted truth level, commending some kind of a disclosure effort to us, the newer generations.

Buzz Aldrin talks about Moon and Mars in a similarly suggestive manner:



Below is Phobos' monolith Aldrin mentions:

(MOC Image 55103 from the Mars Global Surveyor, 1998)

Look at the shadow. It's a vertically long object. Some say it's a natural rock created by a meteor impact. The Canadian Space Agency is planning to explore this site.

Mars itself has one:

(snapped from 266 km / 165 mi away by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter)

According to scientists at the University of Arizona -- to whom the above picture is credited along with NASA and JPL --, it's "just an unremarkable boulder".

More space anomalies:

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

Much like how the FAA wants to ignore the UFO phenomenon, it appears NASA has been tampering with images showing anomalies (do you remember those former NASA employees disclosing how they were ordered to airbrush uncanny structures on Moon?). If the authorities can't get the record straight, then we might want to turn to independent astro-photographers. Some of the clips shown above were taken by such people. Now, there's an interesting figure who goes by the name of John Lenard Walson. Walson claims to have devised an apparatus composed of a camcorder and a telescope capable of focusing in on deep space objects. UFO researcher Jose Escamilla noted Walson's work and made a short documentary on it, called Insterstellar. The objects are reported to be orbiting Earth at varying distances. Walson seems to have a YouTube channel, where he put up text copies of his exchange with professional astronomers.

Since its emergence around 2007, the authenticity of the footage has been debated on ATS (e.g. this thread). My current thought is that it's too good to be true, that there is no reason not to suspect it's fake, especially in these days of digital imaging technology. Nevertheless, I want to share this with you just for consideration purpose:

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

:shock: So it's true...


Other planets do have rocks.
Mars is trolling you :lol:

(Galle crater)

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

What are these things? Some "crackpot" NASA astronauts have a clear idea:

"Houston, this is Discovery. We still have the Alien Spacecraft under observance."
(from a 1989.3.13 transmission)

Haha! I totally missed this part.
This nonsensical claim seems to originate from this site, which also has the relevant audio.
http://www.ken-welch.com/Reports/Aliens.html

It's not difficult to tell that it's either entirely fabricated or partly fabricated with a bit of wishful thinking. The CAPCOM voice, a british accent?
I've been following the space programme closely enough to tell this has zero credibility.

 

[Pulsar]

Sorry, can't resist:

 

[Memeticemetic]

"To you, we say, we've only completed the beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs are available to those who can remove one of the truth-protecting layers."

Except that he didn't say that. Listen to the video again carefully and you will see that he quite clearly says, "one of truth's protective layers". He enunciates his words quite well so there is absolutely no ambiguity in what words were spoken. For chrissake, look at the sentence before, "...great ideas undiscovered". How could anyone for a moment think he goes from undiscovered ideas immediately to a cover-up of discovered ideas. Idiocy and puerile imagination. This is why we reject your "evidence" in general. All you present are hints, allegations and deliberate or accidental misinterpretations of clear data. It's pathetic and embarrassing for you and hiding behind a friendly demeanor and slippery non-committal language serves you not at all.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

:shock: So it's true...


Other planets do have rocks.
Mars is trolling you :lol:

(Galle crater)

WRONG!

This proves that Watchmen is based on a true story and Alan Moore is god.

 

[mirandansa]

:shock: So it's true...


Other planets do have rocks.
Mars is trolling you :lol:

[snip]
(Galle crater)

WRONG!

This proves that Watchmen is based on a true story and Alan Moore is god.

[snip]

Your sarcasm doesn't help.

The long rectangular objects on Mars and its satellite Phobos stand out from other objects on their surfaces; wondering whether they could be other othan just naturally formed boulders is a legitimate expression of scientific curiosity.

Buzz Aldrin describes them as a "monolith", which implies artificiality, that it was put there by something, which, according to him, is "the universe" or "God". He might not be literal and straightforward here; he might be trying to cryptically tell us something he cannot be frank about, just like Neil Armstrong.

Many think these historic astronauts are still under NASA's administrative control that determines what they can or cannot say in public. A case has been made by both insiders and outsiders with substantive evidence that NASA (as well as JPL etc.) has been censoring space-related information including photographs of Moon and Mars.

"To you, we say, we've only completed the beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs are available to those who can remove one of the truth-protecting layers."

Except that he didn't say that. Listen to the video again carefully and you will see that he quite clearly says, "one of truth's protective layers". He enunciates his words quite well so there is absolutely no ambiguity in what words were spoken.

You may be right. And I don't think "truth's protective layers" is so significantly different to "truth-protecting layers". I would understand from either construct that he means "layers which protect a truth". I did some corpus research on Google with "protect * truth" (asterisk for an optional determiner), and apparently every usage of "protect" refers to an intelligent cause (i.e. do-er). Why would Armstrong have wanted to go against that norm and be so idiosyncratic with this word choice that's so unnecessarily and inappropriately cryptic for that kind of anniversary speech, if he didn't mean an intelligent cause for the "protection"?

For chrissake, look at the sentence before, "...great ideas undiscovered". How could anyone for a moment think he goes from undiscovered ideas immediately to a cover-up of discovered ideas.

You're assuming that every discovery is instantaneously shared by everyone. But discoveries are not in itself an objective event; it hinges on subjectivity. An idea discovered by A might as yet not be discovered by B. When the doctor exclusively finds out that the patient has cancer, the doctor might decide not to rightaway share this information with the patient, who might be deemed "not ready for the reality". We in the developed countries have discovered more than 1,000 planets beyond the solar system, and this discovery may not have been shared by many native Papua New Guineans in subsistence-based communities (it may even be the case that they lack the necessary paradigm to grasp the very concept of "exoplanet" and thus to properly interpret the nature of the discovery).

Discovered by the authorities, undiscovered by the public. How could you miss that?

I also wonder whether Armstrong said "great" just as a figure of speech or as a literal description that he knew actually applies to specific "ideas" that he had in mind.

Idiocy and puerile imagination. This is why we reject your "evidence" in general. All you present are hints, allegations and deliberate or accidental misinterpretations of clear data. It's pathetic and embarrassing for you and hiding behind a friendly demeanor and slippery non-committal language serves you not at all.

I'm fine with you saying that: I'm pathetic and embarrassing in your eyes. I just want to present things to people so that they would miss less information to draw (intermediary) conclusions from about this subject. And, if you really think the meaning of Armstrong's speech is unequivocally what you construe it as, the broader scope of interpretation that I've suggested and that runs out of your set epistemological rim, should readily appear false to other intelligent people as well. So you probably can take it easy about what I say on this thread.

Sorry, can't resist:

2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968, the same year of the USAF-run Condon UFO Report's publication and one year before Armstrong & Aldrin's Moon landing. Throughout the 1960s, NASA's largest body, the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), was headed by Wernher von Braun, the aforementioned ex-Nazi/SS officer, who was passionate about the idea of sending humans to Moon; and, as I said earlier, although Braun himself was not during his American career explicit about his belief in past/current alien visitation, his German colleagues at NASA have been quite vocal about their interpretation of ancient texts (e.g. the Mahabharata, the Bible) as premitive documentations of real alien contact.

The film's director Kubrick cared a lot about realism, so much that he hired two NASA employees, Frederick Ordway as science advisor and Harry Lange as production designer. Its visual elements, and possibly others, were greatly informed by NASA. Ordway was an engineer at Braun's MSFC.

In the film's begining section, "the Dawn of Man", early ape-humans find a monolith at the time of their invention of tool and language, followed by the film's first murder scene:

4 million years later, having grown into a technological civilization, humans discover once again the mysterious black artifact on Moon:

Humans' most perfect artificial intelligence, HAL, results in the film's second murder scence on their way to Jupiter, and spaceship crew David Bowman disconnects HAL, after which the monolith appears perpendicularly right into the vertically aligned planets and (natural) satellites, effectively forming a cross:

In this section, "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite", Bowman is taken through a "Star Gate", ending up in a neoclassical lightened room, alluding to the Age of Enlightenment. The sequence depicts Bowman's aging (where the younger one sees the older one but not vice versa), and, at the moment of his death, the monolith makes its final appearance, at which Bowman points his finger much like Adam in The Creation of Adam:

The journey of the sperm-like ship to the ovum-like Jupiter ends with a fetus (new life), with its eyes opened (enlightened), looking at Earth (historical home) from space (new paradigm).

It famously features Richard Strauss' musical piece, Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche wrote a book of the same title, in which he describes man as an evolutionary bridge between the ape and the Superman. Kubrick himself said: "Man is the missing link between primitive apes and civilized human beings. Man is really in a very unstable condition". (The plot also alludes to the Dionysian (instinct-based, uncontrolled) and Apollonian (reason-based, controlled) modes of being that Nietzsche would often talk about; the film release was followed by the Dionysian Woodstock rock festival and the Apollonian Apollo mission.)

(Also: The bone used as a weapon in the murder graphically leads into one of the future's satellites orbiting Earth, implying the weaponization of space. In reality, MSFC head Braun and other ex-Nazi employees have had connections to the US military's space weaponization program.)

Arthur C. Clarke, the script's co-author, reveals in the novel version that:

• The monolith in the story is a tool created by an alien race that has been through many stages of evolution: from organic to biomechanical and finally to a state of pure energy. These aliens travel the cosmos assisting lesser species in their evolutionary steps.
• The room in which Bowman dies represents a kind of zoo in which humans have been living and observed by the invisible alien entities.

Clearly, this NASA-informed film revolves around the idea that aliens have long been visiting & observing Earth. The sequel is called 2010. In reality, 2010 and on has been marked by a strange wave of alien/UFO-related news. I talked about the Royal Society messaging "prepare for alien contact", but did you know they even celebrated their 350th anniversary in 2010 with a specially remastered version of Odyssey's soundtrack?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

:facepalm:

Did this thread really need wall of text about 2001: A Space Odyssey? Really?

 

[Pulsar]

:facepalm:

Did this thread really need wall of text about 2001: A Space Odyssey? Really?

Yeah, I knew I shouldn't have brought it up. She uses everything you write for her next post.

Random thread is random.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Holly crap! Could it be? I think we have been hadded. She is a troll, she has been baiting us all along. Fuck off!
The 2001 space mashup was just going to far!

 

[SagansHeroes]

Seriously? It took 22 pages to realise it was a troll?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Seriously? It took 22 pages to realise it was a troll?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

 

[mirandansa]

:facepalm:

Did this thread really need wall of text about 2001: A Space Odyssey? Really?

Yeah, I knew I shouldn't have brought it up. She uses everything you write for her next post.

Random thread is random.

Holly crap! Could it be? I think we have been hadded. She is a troll, she has been baiting us all along. Fuck off!
The 2001 space mashup was just going to far!

Seriously? It took 22 pages to realise it was a troll?

Calm down.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Hey, Miranda, check out this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

He also has the delusion that fictional stories represent literal truths. Should be right up your alley.

Next you'll be telling us that the Superman comics represent all the nice things that aliens have been doing for us over history. :roll:

 

[mirandansa]

Hey, Miranda, check out this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

He also has the delusion that fictional stories represent literal truths. Should be right up your alley.

(Didn't I already comment on that guy earlier?)

I didn't say the film represents literal truths. You got some fictional story of me there.

Next you'll be telling us that the Superman comics represent all the nice things that aliens have been doing for us over history. :roll:

Pulsar sarcastically associated the monoliths on Mars and Phobos that I'd been talking about with the film's monolith; as a response, I pointed out actual relations between the film and other things I'd been talking about, namely:

1. Regarding UFOs, I'd been talking about the Condon Report and the two Apollo astronauts; the film was released right around the time of the report's publication and the astronauts' Moon landing.

2. Regarding UFOs, I'd been talking about NASA and Braun, who headed the institution's largest center; one of the NASA employees Kubrick hired was from Braun's center.

3. Regarding UFOs, I'd been talking about the Royal Society; this academy used the film's soundtrack for its 350th anniversary in 2010, which was also the year featured in the film's sequel.

4. Regarding UFOs, I'd been talking about alien visitation; the film uses the idea of alien visitation as an underlying plot device.

I also tried to bring your attention to the film's philosophical aspects regarding mankind's place in the universe. Your careless reaction reminds me of our exchanges on the Religion & Irreligion forum last year. Back then, I would point out the philosophical aspects of a broader range of religions or of notions of God / divinity / sacredness etc. and the gross indifference to that intellectual spectrum on the part of the YouTube / LoR atheist community, and then you guys would decidedly humph and say that I must be a New Age nutter on mushrooms, that my ambiguous stance between theism and atheism must come from intellectual inability, that subjective perspectives must have no import in the discussion of reality. I would try to explain with reference to non-Western non-monotheistic religions that theism itself doesn't hinge on a belief in God as an individual being, and you guys would say that you couldn't give a care to any idea of non-Judeo-Christian impersonal God that you weren't familiar with. My call for a philosophical depth to a discussion has tended to go unappreciated here and there. (But I feel the situation is finally changing at least on YouTube:

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

If you remember, I actually predicted these guys had the potentials to make such a new series of constructive suggestions on YouTube.)

When I pointed out the film's allusion to The Creation of Adam, I meant to prepare two kinds of God questions. One is more literal. If there were aliens with billions of years of civilizational history, whose physical bodies have evolved into a special form of energy and whose masterly technology allows them to freely travel within the entire universe or even between multiverses, would it not be possible for them to have achieved the literal status of omnipotent "gods"? Would it not be possible for them to literally create a universe by means of simulation technology?



The other one is more philosophical. What would it mean for different species of intelligent beings to evolve in the same universe? Could some immaterial pattern universally underlie the ways in which the consciousness of human and non-human intelligent beings relate to the Cosmos, such as Heidegger's Dasein? Would the metaphysics held by that concourse of biologically unrelated beings revolve monadologically or rhizomatically? Would they ask the same question about the sacredness of the direct experience of the creator-less world? Would they see the same Godhead of the Cosmos?

Again, this was tangential to the main subject of UFOs. You could have silently ignored it. But you didn't, and for this one more time that you posted, you ridiculed me again. I'm not angry about you ridiculing me personally; I'm disheartened by your indifference to certain intellectual dimensions of our world. I feel that my purposes have been perpetually misunderstood. Would I have to tell you that I've put the above clip with Morgan Freeman not because I believe it's telling the truth but because I want to share this food of thought with you? I want to think about things freely. I don't say what the identities of UFOs are; I say what they could / might be, based upon my understanding of the evidences. And you are always welcome to accurately point out my mistakes, if any. Derision doesn't help. Try more reason.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Except that he didn't say that. Listen to the video again carefully and you will see that he quite clearly says, "one of truth's protective layers". He enunciates his words quite well so there is absolutely no ambiguity in what words were spoken.

You may be right. And I don't think "truth's protective layers" is so significantly different to "truth-protecting layers". I would understand from either construct that he means "layers which protect a truth". I did some corpus research on Google with "protect * truth" (asterisk for an optional determiner), and apparently every usage of "protect" refers to an intelligent cause (i.e. do-er). Why would Armstrong have wanted to go against that norm and be so idiosyncratic with this word choice that's so unnecessarily and inappropriately cryptic for that kind of anniversary speech, if he didn't mean an intelligent cause for the "protection"?

Sad. Look at the gymnastics you have to go through to parse an ulterior meaning behind commonly used language. It is not at all "idiosyncratic" or "cryptic" to anthropomorphize concepts poetically. Especially when giving an emotional speech regarding scientific exploration. When you anthropomorphize the word 'truth' it is then perfectly natural to modify the poetic use of the word with an anthropomorphic adjective. You have passed well beyond an honest exploration for truth into bizarre conspiracy whack-jobbery. By the way, I am right about the words he used, you should properly omit the words 'may be' and replace them with the word 'are'.

For chrissake, look at the sentence before, "...great ideas undiscovered". How could anyone for a moment think he goes from undiscovered ideas immediately to a cover-up of discovered ideas.

You're assuming that every discovery is instantaneously shared by everyone. But discoveries are not in itself an objective event; it hinges on subjectivity. An idea discovered by A might as yet not be discovered by B. When the doctor exclusively finds out that the patient has cancer, the doctor might decide not to rightaway share this information with the patient, who might be deemed "not ready for the reality". We in the developed countries have discovered more than 1,000 planets beyond the solar system, and this discovery may not have been shared by many native Papua New Guineans in subsistence-based communities (it may even be the case that they lack the necessary paradigm to grasp the very concept of "exoplanet" and thus to properly interpret the nature of the discovery).

Discovered by the authorities, undiscovered by the public. How could you miss that?

I also wonder whether Armstrong said "great" just as a figure of speech or as a literal description that he knew actually applies to specific "ideas" that he had in mind.

Bollocks. I'm not making any assumption of the sort. I'm well aware that a discovery made by one human is not instantaneously zapped into the brain of every other human. This is sophistry pure and simple. The objections I raised were on how you arrived at the conclusion of some kind of cover up using the tenuous argument that Armstrong's poetic use of language supporting it. I don't need a lecture on how dissemination of information occurs, and none of it supports your case in any way.

You can wonder all you damn well please about Armstrong's use of the word 'great' to describe undiscovered ideas. The fact that you bother to do so is rather telling, methinks. We have many ideas that are, subjectively, great. It is no stretch of the imagination whatsoever to say that there are other great ideas to come, yet undiscovered. And it is precisely the sort of thing one would say when encouraging further exploration.

Idiocy and puerile imagination. This is why we reject your "evidence" in general. All you present are hints, allegations and deliberate or accidental misinterpretations of clear data. It's pathetic and embarrassing for you and hiding behind a friendly demeanor and slippery non-committal language serves you not at all.

I'm fine with you saying that: I'm pathetic and embarrassing in your eyes. I just want to present things to people so that they would miss less information to draw (intermediary) conclusions from about this subject. And, if you really think the meaning of Armstrong's speech is unequivocally what you construe it as, the broader scope of interpretation that I've suggested and that runs out of your set epistemological rim, should readily appear false to other intelligent people as well. So you probably can take it easy about what I say on this thread.

My "epistemological rim" is perfectly fine, thank you very much. Do not think that a placid demeanor obfuscates the implication that you consider yourself to be more open minded and accepting of evidence than I. Even in this, however, you are wrong. What you provide is not evidence, it is narrative building. Stories are fun, I enjoy literature immensely and the work of Clarke specifically. But when you try to mix your story-telling with science you do yourself, and the world, a great disservice. I deride your posts for the simple reason that this is the treatment your horse shit deserves. I cannot fault your demeanor which is as exemplary as mine is execrable. For which my only excuse is that I find the semi-plausible presentation of non-evidence to be a pernicious and deplorable act which I will proudly do my small part to counter-act.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

When I pointed out the film's allusion to The Creation of Adam, I meant to prepare two kinds of God questions. One is more literal. If there were aliens with billions of years of civilizational history, whose physical bodies have evolved into a special form of energy and whose masterly technology allows them to freely travel within the entire universe or even between multiverses, would it not be possible for them to have achieved the literal status of omnipotent "gods"? Would it not be possible for them to literally create a universe by means of simulation technology?

It's possible, but unprovable and requires a long string of conjecture. If your standards get that low the Judeo-Christian system seems just as likely and a lot more compelling. Presumably these programmer-gods aren't going to burn me for eternity as a sacrifice to their self-importance, after all.

The other one is more philosophical. What would it mean for different species of intelligent beings to evolve in the same universe? Could some immaterial pattern universally underlie the ways in which the consciousness of human and non-human intelligent beings relate to the Cosmos, such as Heidegger's Dasein? Would the metaphysics held by that concourse of biologically unrelated beings revolve monadologically or rhizomatically? Would they ask the same question about the sacredness of the direct experience of the creator-less world? Would they see the same Godhead of the Cosmos?

No way to know until we actually meet them. Dawkins has said that any alien life would also be the product of natural selection and so some very basic similarities would exist, but heck, we can't even nail down a firm philosophical framework for our own minds yet.

Again, this was tangential to the main subject of UFOs. You could have silently ignored it. But you didn't, and for this one more time that you posted, you ridiculed me again. I'm not angry about you ridiculing me personally; I'm disheartened by your indifference to certain intellectual dimensions of our world. I feel that my purposes have been perpetually misunderstood. Would I have to tell you that I've put the above clip with Morgan Freeman not because I believe it's telling the truth but because I want to share this food of thought with you? I want to think about things freely. I don't say what the identities of UFOs are; I say what they could / might be, based upon my understanding of the evidences. And you are always welcome to accurately point out my mistakes, if any. Derision doesn't help. Try more reason.

Your rebuke is well taken; I did answer rudely and in haste. However, you really need to raise your standards of what you consider.