In Reply to: And there are those who tell us that the film is an unmasking of NASA malpractice and malevolence. posted by clarkjohnsen on May 12, 2008 at 10:54:05:
...when exposed to new and contrary information.
And even when it isn't in any field of their own "expertise". Maybe, especially when.
The bleaters might do themselves a favor and examine the controversy surrounding the infamous Brookings Report of 1961.
Arthur Clarke and Stanley Kubrick, well acquainted with that document, collaborated to produce a film that would sink into the minds of a generation inculcated by their government not to accept the evidence before their very eyes. (It didn't help that the government altered the evidence wherever possible.)
"2001" -- The classic 1968 movie depicting a future "NASA’s" history-changing discovery of extraterrestrial artifacts … which it then promptly "covers up" … because of National Security … including, from the very astronauts sent to investigate the evidence themselves!
Arthur C. Clarke himself said that there must be a period of preparation before certain disturbing truths can be revealed to the public. Did their movie jump the gun? Or was it part of the, ah, preparation?
Most folks, as we see, prefer to dodge the larger questions.
clark
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Interesting, how the dupes of the government/media complex will always bleat and scream... - clarkjohnsen 08:23:37 05/13/08 (3)
- Either you are an idiot, or you are nuts: why not let a qualified physician decide? (nt) - orejones 08:55:16 05/13/08 (2)
- Clark's last alien probing showed a 9% mentality - down from 11%- and that he should cut down on sweets - Bambi B 09:12:57 05/14/08 (1)
- It's a shame you should say that. Why? - clarkjohnsen 08:45:00 05/15/08 (0)