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

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.

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.

No Shrike, the only one with no real argument is you with your denial of every single aspect of UFOs and ETs. You have absolutely no ground to stand upon, not even quicksand. You repeatedly pick your fights while overlooking and denying tons of contrary evidence by every imaginable source. Give it up.

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.

Originally posted by The Shrike
...
There are certain extra-terrestrials as non-human flying objects flitting over the lunar surface have been filmed by astronauts from orbit.
...

I'm curious what lunar sightings you are referencing. I wasn't aware of any lunar UFO sighting that couldn't be explained as static electricity.

Originally posted by Aliensun

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.

No Shrike, the only one with no real argument is you with your denial of every single aspect of UFOs and ETs. You have absolutely no ground to stand upon, not even quicksand. You repeatedly pick your fights while overlooking and denying tons of contrary evidence by every imaginable source. Give it up.

This is the whine from the true believers whenever somebody actually wants to examine too closely any particular UFO story.

"Oh, no, musn't look too carefully, just believe THIS one because THAT one over there must also be true..."

Hynek admitted much the same thing in 1975 when he compared UFO reports to a bundle of small sticks. "You can bend or break any one by itself, but when bunched together they can't be broken."

With that attitude so common, does anybody wonder that real scientists mock the topic and its proponents?

Originally posted by The Shrike
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!

Please start this as its own thread and let's see where it goes.

Specify the mission, date/time of the video, and other basic references, and let's practice what we preach.

Arthur C. Clark is right. I remember cases of UFOs on radar moving 20+ miles in a second, or some appearing (on radar and to pilot witnesses) to be 4x larger than an aircraft carrier (famous Alaskan case in the 80s with a Japanese airliner) etc...but none of it matters. Even if they are alien controlled (which in a small % of the cases, seems likely), you never can prove it. That's why I stopped caring about UFOs too. I check these forums regularly but avoid "look at this UFO" threads. Here's how they all turn out anyway:

"Photoshop? Video editing? Hoax? Misidentification of known aircraft or phenomena?"
"No, see, here's evidence proving it's not those things ___________."
"Ok, then it's a secret military craft. You can't prove otherwise. Case closed."

Waste of time I saw a UFO before but I don't think anything about it. Nazi Germany had flying saucer looking designs at the end of the war, that was 70+ years ago and those plans went to the Americans and Soviets during Operation Paperclip (NASA was practically born off the work of Nazi scientists). So even if you see some amazing UFO, it doesn't mean it's alien (or that it's not). It'll always be inconclusive. Sorry guys

Edit: But hey, don't let that stop your searching. Who knows, maybe you'll get lucky and the UFO you see will come down to abduct you...and it turns out they're in need of a few good men www.bamkapow.com...

Originally posted by Aliensun

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.

No Shrike, the only one with no real argument is you with your denial of every single aspect of UFOs and ETs. You have absolutely no ground to stand upon, not even quicksand. You repeatedly pick your fights while overlooking and denying tons of contrary evidence by every imaginable source. Give it up.

You exhibit a big, loud mouth spewing nonsense. Put your money where your mouth is, address the topic of the thread, and find someone else to attack with your ad hominem attacks. You're no fun.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
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!

Please start this as its own thread and let's see where it goes.

Specify the mission, date/time of the video, and other basic references, and let's practice what we preach.

The topic wouldn't support a thread and I don't like to waste ATS's bandwidth. The footage I specified is found on the video made famous by Martyn Stubbs, yup, THE SECRET NASA TRANSMISSIONS. The video is available on YouTube and for some technical reason I can't embed videos here and the resultant black screen is blamed by YouTube as "The URL contained a malformed video ID." Sometimes other members are able to embed the video and I hope someone will be able to do it for this video which lasts an hour and a half. However, the video's URL link does work. If you want to take a few minutes, play the video and fast forward to 1:12:55. The footage lasts less than 2 minutes.

I did err above where I say "shuttle" and "astronaut" when in fact the footage was shot from DALLA MIR by 2 Cosmonauts. Preceding the footage we see the introduction in Italian: UFO FILMATI - DALLA MIR - Cosmonauti VOLKOV e KRIKALIOV - 1991. A translation would be: FILMED UFO - DALLA MIR - Cosmonauts VOLKOV and KRIKALIOV - 1991.

What I find amazing is that the cameraperson not only finds the white speck in the darkness and tracks it for over a minute even zooming in on it. What great vision!

When you get to 1:12:55 the footage of the tracked object really begins about 30 seconds later when the dark earth replaces the opening view.

www.youtube.com...

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

Originally posted by TheLegend
Arthur C. Clark is right. I remember cases of UFOs on radar moving 20+ miles in a second, or some appearing (on radar and to pilot witnesses) to be 4x larger than an aircraft carrier (famous Alaskan case in the 80s with a Japanese airliner) etc...but none of it matters. Even if they are alien controlled (which in a small % of the cases, seems likely), you never can prove it. That's why I stopped caring about UFOs too. I check these forums regularly but avoid "look at this UFO" threads. Here's how they all turn out anyway:

"Photoshop? Video editing? Hoax? Misidentification of known aircraft or phenomena?"
"No, see, here's evidence proving it's not those things ___________."
"Ok, then it's a secret military craft. You can't prove otherwise. Case closed."

Waste of time

I saw a UFO before but I don't think anything about it. Nazi Germany had flying saucer looking designs at the end of the war, that was 70+ years ago and those plans went to the Americans and Soviets during Operation Paperclip (NASA was practically born off the work of Nazi scientists). So even if you see some amazing UFO, it doesn't mean it's alien (or that it's not). It'll always be inconclusive. Sorry guys

Edit: But hey, don't let that stop your searching. Who knows, maybe you'll get lucky and the UFO you see will come down to abduct you...and it turns out they're in need of a few good men

www.bamkapow.com...

edit on 3-3-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)

No call can be made on UFOs yet. No one knows and speculation is the order of the day. I agree with you on the majority of UFO videos that are presented here mostly from YouTube and I also tend to add my comments if it's the kind of video you point out.

IMO, NAZI UFO-like craft never saw the light of day outside of paper. And I think even less of any human-constructed craft that looks like, flies like, behaves like, UFOs. They're not ours, yet!

I don´t think it´s an irrational reason. In fact it´s the same reason why I am not really interested in UFO´s anymore.

It´s all speculation wich cannot be proven and easily faked. Not that I don´t believe that someof these sightings could be controlled crafts but I don´t see progress in the subject and no real added value.

Originally posted by rigel4

THERE IS NO PROOF.

Of course there is no 'unequivocable proof' as to the true nature of UFOs but there still remains a great many reasons to take the UFO subject seriously - from credible government documentary evidence, radar/sonar evidence, electromagnetic interference evidence and ground trace evidence, right through to credible circumstantial evidence in the form of sworn eyewitness testimony from 1000's of credible individuals.

There are many cases here which leave UFO cynics (and pathological debunkers) with an awful lot of explaining to do and, considering they're not meant to exist, flying discs do seem to pop up quite a bit in government documentation.

Silver rotating UFO over US Atomic facility


Flying discs over Hanford Nuclear plant


Flying disc over Topcliffe


Circular objects over Langley AFB


Rotating saucer shaped object over Georgia


Maxwell AFB Emergency Report - Flying Saucer


Disc shaped object over Minot AFB - 1966


Flying disc over Chicago's O Hare airport - 1952

As for the thread, there's an interesting article below about Arthur's visit to White Sands Proving Ground in 1952 where he also mentions that flying discs may be 'more than mirages or myths':

“The former Royal Air Force flight officer said he based his belief on new data on saucers supplied (to) him by scientists at the United States’ rocket testing base at White Sands, N.M.”

Newspaper Article

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?

^ He's flabbergasted, GIVE HIM AN ANSWEEER!

reply to post by JimOberg


Oberg:

It seems you have misunderstoodHynek's quote:

You wrote: "Hynek admitted much the same thing in 1975 when he compared UFO reports to a bundle of small sticks. 'You can bend or break any one by itself, but when bunched together they can't be broken.'"

That's an old Assoph's fable or something such put in a new frame. I'll explain: You can deny that I've had a UFO abduction experience, you can deny that I and about twenty others saw a huge, low, slow and silent triangle over Laramie in 1998, but taken as a whole only an imbecile would reject all of the evidence of UFOs and ETs ever compiled and insist on no factual grounds that it is all caused by fevered minds.--And I'm not saying you fit that term. Given your background we can suspect other motivations for your stance, not lack of intelligence.

It is interesting and quite humorous that you quote Hynek at all. Surely, you recall that he was hired by the air force Blue Book people to explain away UFOs and due to his scientific training after examining the evidence he moved to the other side of the argument. Admittedly, he never knew exactly what were the physics of the phenomena, but he damned-well was sure they were some sort of unworldly experiences if not visits.

Please, at your leisure, provide us with a nice, detailed thread of why UFOs don't exist. I'm sure you will get a lot of stars and flags and responses. I would ask that you generally cover the entire history and field of UFO experiences reported since, say, 1947, and please be more specific in your denial and debunking than your usually tactic of simply calling us believers morons because we lack your abilities with physics and databases. Really, tell us where you stand on the whole situation without falling back on the old baseless "logic and conventional wisdom" argument.

Originally posted by Aliensun
That's an old Assoph's fable or something such put in a new frame. I'll explain: You can deny that I've had a UFO abduction experience, you can deny that I and about twenty others saw a huge, low, slow and silent triangle over Laramie in 1998, but taken as a whole only an imbecile would reject all of the evidence of UFOs and ETs ever compiled and insist on no factual grounds that it is all caused by fevered minds.--And I'm not saying you fit that term. Given your background we can suspect other motivations for your stance, not lack of intelligence.
...

The fact that many people report UFOs, abductions, etc. doesn't at all rule out "fevered minds" as the answer. There are many fevered minds in the world. I suspect that wasn't what Hynek meant, because I saw him on a video in one of karl 12's threads saying he was only interested in high strangeness cases with good evidence.

Originally posted by Aliensun
Please, at your leisure, provide us with a nice, detailed thread of why UFOs don't exist.

Uh, would you permit me, without prejudice, to call that a 'moronic suggestion'?

Nobody can prove that. It's a set-up question. And yes, I think you're intelligent enough to realize it.

So let's chuckle over it and move onto do-able desires -- investigate cases.

In the restricted areas of my personal experience and study, spaceflight operations, I have reached the opinion that NONE of the stories attributed to 'space UFOs' rises to the persuasive power of requiring the existence of a hitherto fundamentally alien stimulus. And don't sneer at 'data bases' -- without them, you're only groping in the dark reaches of imagination.

I heard Hynek make that assertion in person, in Fort Smith in 1975. I knew him from his Northwestern emeritus visiting days, where I did graduate work in astrodynamics on a NASA grant in the late 1960s. Vallee was there at the time, too.

As for my general views and arguments on the entire phenomenon, which has been a lifelong fascination of mine from the days of Keyhoe and Adamski, I've tried to elaborate them on my home page www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html, for which I'd be happy to discuss any item at greater length once you've read a few. Enjoy!

Now, we were discussing a specific case that had been raised. Do you have any contributions on the evidentiary value of that case, or others like it?

Originally posted by cloudyday
The fact that many people report UFOs, abductions, etc. doesn't at all rule out "fevered minds" as the answer. There are many fevered minds in the world. I suspect that wasn't what Hynek meant, because I saw him on a video in one of karl 12's threads saying he was only interested in high strangeness cases with good evidence.

To Hynek, that largely came to mean cases from 'educated people', particularly astronomers. This reflected a widespread academic delusion, snobbery towards the hoi polloi. And it misled Hynek into enthusiastically endorsing bogus data from Soviet UFO flaps [caused by rocket and space activity, as I have shown to the satisfaction of MUFON, among others] because astronomers were among the witnesses, more confused than most.

reply to post by JimOberg

Well, I went to your website listed above and noticed the Hynek/Oberg debate from Omni was a bad link, I'll have to hunt that down.

I did read your article The failure of the 'science' of UFOlogy which any one interested in ufos should read.

Good stuff overall--hit & miss though.

The one question I haven't managed to have you answer yet is this: Have you ever come across any information in your years of work that suggest the possibility of space-based lifeforms that normally exist outside our human perceptions?

Not necessarily intelligent lifeforms, Jim, but something along the lines of "Critters." Plasma-based creatures for example?

Plasma physics is not alone in suggesting that ever-increasing possibility.

Originally posted by The GUT
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Good stuff overall--hit & miss though.

Agree -- it is not well organized. I've been fixing links and doing some reorganization the last few weeks.

The one question I haven't managed to have you answer yet is this: Have you ever come across any information in your years of work that suggest the possibility of space-based lifeforms that normally exist outside our human perceptions? Not necessarily intelligent lifeforms, Jim, but something along the lines of "Critters." Plasma-based creatures for example?

I have not, but there are some on-board plasma experiments [mostly Russian, I think] to characterize its behavior in zero-G that may cast light on any self-organizing phenomena, which might be along the lines of your interest.

In general, I've seen the 'plasma critters' suggestion and as of now feel it is an explanation awaiting a puzzle that it fits. I mean -- there's no lack of plausible prosaic explanations of the apparitions recorded/reported in space, so far.

Besides, I've seen no serious suggestion as to what a 'plasma critter' would LOOK like. Sort of like the 'wormhole' theory for rocket plume sightings -- a non-explanatory semantic stab in the dark. What SHOULD a worm-hole [real world, not Hollywood] look like after all?

But it could justifiably belong on the legitimate "long-shot list' of high-strangeness stuff that need operators and astronauts to keep an eye out for. There's no a priori reason to discount it.