2010 - A Space Odyssey

espinolman

Was Arthur C. Clarke a mason , did he put the masonic agenda in 2001 : a space odyssey in allegorical format , 9/11 was that part of an agenda !

There is another film after 2001 a space odyssey called 2010 : odyssey 2 , we are now in 2010 , what is going to happen ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V68pnTJwjQU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzNu9wUO-YM

uprising

You could be onto something there espinolman. There will be plenty of small conspiracies, but maybe another spectacular, part 2 always has to be better than part 1.

thecommander

espinolman wrote: »

Was Arthur C. Clarke a mason , did he put the masonic agenda in 2001 : a space odyssey in alegorical format , 9/11 was that part of an agenda !

There is another film after 2001 a space odyssey called 2010 : odyssey 2 , we are now in 2010 , what is going to happen ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V68pnTJwjQU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzNu9wUO-YM

Well seeing that pretty much nothing of what was portrayed in 2001 hasn't happened, I think putting faith in 2010: Odyssey 2 is the same as thinking Back to the Future is a documentary.

espinolman

thecommander wrote: »

Well seeing that pretty much nothing of what was portrayed in 2001 hasn't happened, I think putting faith in 2010: Odyssey 2 is the same as thinking Back to the Future is a documentary.

But you see , what is supposed to happen is in allegorical format .

Jupiter in the 1968 film was substituted for saturn because they could make jupiter look more convincing on screen , in the original novel the signal is tracked to lapetus , one of the moons of saturn .

thecommander

espinolman wrote: »

But you see , what is supposed to happen is in allegorical format .

Jupiter in the 1968 film was substituted for saturn because they could make jupiter look more convincing on screen , in the original novel the signal is tracked to lapetus , one of the moons of saturn .

Still didn't happen.

chozometroid

thecommander wrote: »

Well seeing that pretty much nothing of what was portrayed in 2001 hasn't happened, I think putting faith in 2010: Odyssey 2 is the same as thinking Back to the Future is a documentary.

Just to be clear here, was the double negative intentional? Do you actually mean "nothing has happened" from the 2001 film?

thecommander

chozometroid wrote: »

Just to be clear here, was the double negative intentional? Do you actually mean "nothing has happened" from the 2001 film?

Negative. My mistake.

mickeyrooo

chozometroid wrote: »

Just to be clear here, was the double negative intentional? Do you actually mean "nothing has happened" from the 2001 film?

I was a bit confused about that too...

espinolman

In the 2010 film jupiter(saturn) turns into a sun and a second sun rises on earth . Saturn is another name for nimrod .:rolleyes:

3DataModem

espinolman wrote: »

in the original novel the signal is tracked to lapetus , one of the moons of saturn .

The screenplay and novel were written simultaneously; the decision to change was due to economic reasons.

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

In the 2010 film jupiter(saturn) turns into a sun and a second sun rises on earth .

And?

espinolman wrote: »

Saturn is another name for nimrod .:rolleyes:

No it isn't.

Saturn is another name for Cronus. But there's nothing about Nimrod.

I fail to see anything masonic in either of the films or books.

And have you any evidence Clarke was a mason in the first place?

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

And?

The rising sun symbol !

King Mob wrote: »

No it isn't.

Saturn is another name for Cronus. But there's nothing about Nimrod.

In the babylonian mysteries Nimrod is known as saturn ,

indough

does it make a difference anyway really? as an atheist i dont give a crap if films contain religious symbolism or themes

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

The rising sun symbol !

And?

espinolman wrote: »

In the babylonian mysteries Nimrod is known as saturn ,

No he wasn't.

You can insist it all you want, it doesn't make it true.
So are you going to actually back it up?


So any proof Clarke was a mason?

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

And?

Have you ever heard of cassini?, was supposed to be crash landed into Saturn in 2009 but they extended it's mission a little while, then they will crash land a nuclear powered craft into Saturn, which is mostly hydrogen, just like they crashed Galileo into Jupiter, ever see a hydrogen bomb?, so what would happen if Saturn were to ignite????

And have you any evidence Clarke was a mason in the first place?

Any that he wasn't?,

espinolman

If you skip one letter in the alphabet for each letter of HAL you get IBM.

uprising

uprising wrote: »

Have you ever heard of cassini?, was supposed to be crash landed into Saturn in 2009 but they extended it's mission a little while, then they will crash land a nuclear powered craft into Saturn, which is mostly hydrogen, just like they crashed Galileo into Jupiter, ever see a hydrogen bomb?, so what would happen if Saturn were to ignite????

Ha, was wondering when this ridiculous theory was going to crop up.

1) the nuclear power supply on Cassini and similar probes cannot cause a nuclear explosion. There is simply not enough fissile material.

2) Even if it could, a single nuclear explosion wouldn't do ****.
In 1994 a comet crashed into Jupiter.
The impact was equivalent to 6 million megatons of TNT.
The is 600 times the power of Earth's entire nuclear arsenal.
I don't see two suns in the sky.

Here's a photo of the resulting fire ball form one of the impacts.


3) Saturn and Jupiter cannot ever before stars because they simply aren't massive enough.
The Sun isn't made of fire and it's not burning hydrogen.
You can't ignite a star with any form of explosion.

The reason they're crashing Casini into Saturn is to prevent it from crashing into and contaminating one of the moons which may harbour life.

In fact if you read 2010, the characters actually discuss how it's impossible for Jupiter to turn into a star.

uprising wrote: »

Any that he wasn't?,

Well there's no proof he was a shapeshifting unicorn.
So by your logic, he was.

uprising

indough wrote: »

does it make a difference anyway really? as an atheist i dont give a crap if films contain religious symbolism or themes

Does it make a difference if you see a new sun rising in 2010?, have you ever heard of cassini?, do you know the plans for it when it's mission is complete?, do you know Saturn is mostly hydogen?.
Have you ever heard of the lucifer project? dismiss it if you want, but look at nasa's website before you do, look at galileo and how they disposed of that, and how they plan to dispose of cassini, being an atheist won't make any difference.

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

If you skip one letter in the alphabet for each letter of HAL you get IBM.

And?
IBM are developing AI's with creepy voices?

Clarke has said this was just a coincidence.

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

In fact if you read 2010, the characters actually discuss how it's impossible for Jupiter to turn into a star.


Well there's no proof he was a shapeshifting unicorn.
So by your logic, he was.

I don't read sci-fi, or believe what it's character's discuss.

Back to unicorns:rolleyes:, do you ever stop and think how silly you look when you pull your unicorn card, it's ridiculous at this stage, always your way of coming out fighting, there are plenty of sources claiming he was a mason, show me one that explicidly says he WASN'T.

I don't fancy doing the rounds when your in unicorn mode, it's a waste of my time, let's wait and see when cassini is disposed of what happens, because they also said the titanic was unsinkable, and your not a scientist so whatever you say it's also a waste of my time to read.
Time Will Tell, not you!.

uprising

uprising wrote: »

I don't read sci-fi, or believe what it's character's discuss.

But you have no problem with using 2010 to discuss the Lucifer project?

uprising wrote: »

Back to unicorns:rolleyes:, do you ever stop and think how silly you look when you pull your unicorn card, it's ridiculous at this stage, always your way of coming out fighting, there are plenty of sources claiming he was a mason, show me one that explicidly says he WASN'T.

I was illustrating the burden of proof, a concept I've had to explain several times, apparently unsuccessfully.
If these sources exist, show them.

As for sources explictly saying he wasn't a mason, how about the fact he was an Atheist?
And that he specifically said that

"Absolutely no religious rites of any kind, relating to any religious faith, should be associated with my funeral."

Hardly something a mason obsessed with symbolism would say.

uprising wrote: »

I don't fancy doing the rounds when your in unicorn mode, it's a waste of my time, let's wait and see when cassini is disposed of what happens, because they also said the titanic was unsinkable, and your not a scientist so whatever you say it's also a waste of my time to read.
Time Will Tell, not you!.

But it has happened, Galileo crashed into Jupiter, no sun.
A comet (and many others before it) crashed into Jupiter, releasing far more energy than Casini can ever hope to, still no sun.

So what exactly leads you believe that Casini can do anything to the atmosphere of Saturn?
And what possible benefit would igniting it bring?

And why would NASA announce their evil scheme on their website.

thecommander

espinolman wrote: »

If you skip one letter in the alphabet for each letter of HAL you get IBM.

The hoverboard in Back to the future was prototyped, but never put into full production due to cost and practical limitations. That fact has as much relevance to the thread as yours does, or had you a point?

indough

uprising wrote: »

Does it make a difference if you see a new sun rising in 2010?, have you ever heard of cassini?, do you know the plans for it when it's mission is complete?, do you know Saturn is mostly hydogen?.
Have you ever heard of the lucifer project? dismiss it if you want, but look at nasa's website before you do, look at galileo and how they disposed of that, and how they plan to dispose of cassini, being an atheist won't make any difference.

perhaps we should discuss these things if they happen, no point going on about something which is make believe for the moment

indough

considering you have to believe in a higher power to be eligible to be a freemason, if he is truly an atheist then he couldnt be a mason anyway

uprising

indough wrote: »

considering you have to believe in a higher power to be eligible to be a freemason, if he is truly an atheist then he couldnt be a mason anyway

Who says he's not a hypocrite, and I wouldn't be looking for honesty from behind an apron, maybe he just took the oath to further his agenda/profession. Catholic priests/bishops/pope's considering they love God so much shouldn't be lobbing their cokks into little boys mouth's, but it didn't seem to bother them while condemning souls and handing out communion to the flock.

uprising

uprising wrote: »

Who says he's not a hypocrite, and I wouldn't be looking for honesty from behind an apron, maybe he just took the oath to further his agenda/profession. Catholic priests/bishops/pope's considering they love God so much shouldn't be lobbing their cokks into little boys mouth's, but it didn't seem to bother them while condemning souls and handing out communion to the flock.

So these sources that say he's a mason....?

indough

but as an atheist he would not be allowed join

and not all priests are kiddie fiddlers by the way

Sleipnir

uprising wrote: »

Have you ever heard of cassini?, was supposed to be crash landed into Saturn in 2009 but they extended it's mission a little while, then they will crash land a nuclear powered craft into Saturn, which is mostly hydrogen, just like they crashed Galileo into Jupiter, ever see a hydrogen bomb?, so what would happen if Saturn were to ignite????

Sorry but the nuclear chain reaction you're suggesting is just impossible.
What are you saying would cause the nuclear reaction to start? Plutonium simply moving through hydrogen? Just....no. You make it sound like it just be like striking a match but it's not at all.

If you think it's possible to create a new star by simply flying a few kilos of nuclear material into a planet, you need to read up on protostar formation.

Also, Cassini won't be "crash landing" as the craft will not reach the core of Saturn; it's far too hot for anything man-made to survive. It will burn up in the atmosphere.

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

So these sources that say he's a mason....?

What are you asking me for?, did I say "HE WAS?", no I didn't!, you were looking for proof he was from somebody else, I was looking for proof he wasn't from you.
Never did I say he explicidly was a mason, read posts 11, 15, 17 and 20 again, I did say there were sources claiming he was and there is, but me showing you them doesn't mean he was or wasn't so why should I waste my time, there are also sources claiming unicorns exist, if I show you them does it imply I actually believe it to be true?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1EObu6FXwc

EDIT:
So Links he wasn't??, we can play your game all night till I tell you what I really think and get a 6 month ban which is next in line for me, I asked you FIRST, if you do actually show me what I asked for then I will definately show you what you are asking for, I promise

uprising

Sleipnir wrote: »

Sorry but the nuclear chain reaction you're suggesting is just impossible.
What are you saying would cause the nuclear reaction to start? Plutonium simply moving through hydrogen? Just....no. You make it sound like it just be like striking a match but it's not at all.

If you think it's possible to create a new star by simply flying a few kilos of nuclear material into a planet, you need to read up on protostar formation.

Also, Cassini won't be "crash landing" as the craft will not reach the core of Saturn; it's far too hot for anything man-made to survive. It will burn up in the atmosphere.

Is that the answer and question all in one?

Sleipnir

uprising wrote: »

Is that the answer and question all in one?

So you're saying that;
nuclear material burns in a hydrogen environment = nuclear reaction?

That's it? Jeez, how long were they working on the Manhattan Project before they figured that out?

You think a new sun is possible from the above, seriously?

uprising

uprising wrote: »

What are you asking me for?, did I say "HE WAS?", no I didn't!, you were looking for proof he was from somebody else, I was looking for proof he wasn't from you.
Never did I say he explicidly was a mason, read posts 11, 15, 17 and 20 again, I did say there were sources claiming he was and there is, but me showing you them doesn't mean he was or wasn't so why should I waste my time,

I'm asking you to show the sources you claimed exist. That's it, I wasn't implyring that you believed it.
You haven't been able to show those sources.

We've shown you reasoning that he can't be a mason.
What evidence have you seen that shows he is?

Or will you just admit there is no evidence at all that he is a mason?
Or do I have to explain the burden of proof again?

uprising wrote: »

there are also sources claiming unicorns exist, if I show you them does it imply I actually believe it to be true?

Odd how you can provide a source for that but not for Clarke being a mason.

uprising

indough wrote: »

and not all priests are kiddie fiddlers by the way

Prove it. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up. I want to see proof.

uprising

uprising wrote: »

Is that the answer and question all in one?

Burning plutonium does not cause a nuclear reaction.

A nuclear reaction cannot turn a gas giant into a star.

uprising

Sleipnir wrote: »

So you're saying that;
nuclear material burns in a hydrogen environment = nuclear reaction?

That's it? Jeez, how long were they working on the Manhattan Project before they figured that out?

You think a new sun is possible from the above, seriously?

No my friend YOU said it will burn up,
BY YOU
"it's far too hot for anything man-made to survive. It will burn up in the atmosphere", I didn't make any claim, you did!.
So are you saying it will burn or won't?

Sleipnir

uprising wrote: »

Prove it. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up. I want to see proof.

You can burn a few kilos of plutonium in Saturn's atmosphere and end up with a new star?
If you make a claim you should be able to back it up. I want to see proof.

uprising

uprising wrote: »

EDIT:
So Links he wasn't??, we can play your game all night till I tell you what I really think and get a 6 month ban which is next in line for me, I asked you FIRST, if you do actually show me what I asked for then I will definately show you what you are asking for, I promise

I think you'll find I was asking for any evidence he was a mason first.
I never once said that he definitely wasn't.

And it's a well known fact that he was an Atheist, which is evidence against he being a mason.

Sleipnir

uprising wrote: »

No my friend YOU said it will burn up,
BY YOU
"it's far too hot for anything man-made to survive. It will burn up in the atmosphere", I didn't make any claim, you did!.
So are you saying it will burn or won't?

I'm not claiming anything, I'm stating a fact.
It will burn up, and then it will be gone and Saturn will be as it was before.
Your claim is that it will destroy Saturn. Or turn it into a star because the hydrogen will ignite. I'm saying that claim is an entire nonsense.

indough

uprising wrote: »

Prove it. If you make a claim you should be able to back it up. I want to see proof.

what a completely retarded comment

Black Uhlan

indough wrote: »

but as an atheist he would not be allowed join

"But in truth all Masonry is full of ambiguity. The texts of 1723 and 1738 of the fundamental law concerning Atheism are purposely ambiguous. Atheism is not positively condemned, but just sufficiently disavowed to meet the exigencies of the time, when an open admission of it would have been fatal to Masonry. It is not said that Atheists cannot be admitted, or that no Mason can be an Atheist, but merely that if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist, etc., i.e., he will not hold or profess Atheism in a stupid way, by statements, for instance that shock religious feeling and bring Masonry into bad repute. And even such a stupid Atheist incurs no stronger censure than the simple ascertaining of the fact that he does not rightly understand the art, a merely theoretical judgment without any practical sanction. Such a disavowal tends rather to encourage modern positivist or scientific Atheism. " - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm

So there is hope for you yet

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

Burning plutonium does not cause a nuclear reaction.

A nuclear reaction cannot turn a gas giant into a star.

Can something simply burning, yea just plain burning, can that ignite gas?

Read what you write, its getting ridiculous, "Burning plutonium does not cause a nuclear reaction, A nuclear reaction cannot turn a gas giant into a star" two wrongs don't make a right, whats your point?, 2 negatives equals what exactly?

uprising

indough wrote: »

what a completely retarded comment

Listen brother I never thought for a moment ALL priests were paedo's, that would be stupid to claim or think.

uprising

Sleipnir wrote: »

I'm not claiming anything, I'm stating a fact.
It will burn up, and then it will be gone and Saturn will be as it was before.
Your claim is that it will destroy Saturn. Or turn it into a star because the hydrogen will ignite. I'm saying that claim is an entire nonsense.

Show me where I claim this please.

uprising

uprising wrote: »

Can something simply burning, yea just plain burning, can that ignite gas?

And stars aren't made of fire.
Igniting hydrogen isn't the same as fusing hydrogen into helium.

Something burning up in a gas giants atmosphere will not cause the atmosphere to catch on fire.

Remember the comet that crashed into Jupiter?
That burned up in the atmosphere and probably exploded.

How come that didn't turn Jupiter into a star?

uprising wrote: »

Read what you write, its getting ridiculous, "Burning plutonium does not cause a nuclear reaction, A nuclear reaction cannot turn a gas giant into a star" two wrongs don't make a right, whats your point?, 2 negatives equals what exactly?

I though it was pretty clear.

Burning plutonium does not cause a nuclear reaction and even if it did
a nuclear reaction cannot turn a gas giant into a star.

indough

Black Uhlan wrote: »

"But in truth all Masonry is full of ambiguity. The texts of 1723 and 1738 of the fundamental law concerning Atheism are purposely ambiguous. Atheism is not positively condemned, but just sufficiently disavowed to meet the exigencies of the time, when an open admission of it would have been fatal to Masonry. It is not said that Atheists cannot be admitted, or that no Mason can be an Atheist, but merely that if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist, etc., i.e., he will not hold or profess Atheism in a stupid way, by statements, for instance that shock religious feeling and bring Masonry into bad repute. And even such a stupid Atheist incurs no stronger censure than the simple ascertaining of the fact that he does not rightly understand the art, a merely theoretical judgment without any practical sanction. Such a disavowal tends rather to encourage modern positivist or scientific Atheism. " - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm

So there is hope for you yet

sorry but that source is rubbish

indough

uprising wrote: »

Listen brother I never thought for a moment ALL priests were paedo's, that would be stupid to claim or think.

it was still a retarded comment

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

And stars aren't made of fire.
Igniting hydrogen isn't the same as fusing hydrogen into helium.

Something burning up in a gas giants atmosphere will not cause the atmosphere to catch on fire.

Remember the comet that crashed into Jupiter?
That burned up in the atmosphere and probably exploded.

How come that didn't turn Jupiter into a star?


I though it was pretty clear.

Burning plutonium does not cause a nuclear reaction and even if it did
a nuclear reaction cannot turn a gas giant into a star.

No it's not clear, it probably exploded, it probably didn't, back to square one. Even the comets you talk of PROBABLY hit, but show me proof, evidence like!, I'll probably get a pain in my bollix playing this game, or probably won't.
Its starting to feel like I'm playing basketball with the special olympics swimming team.

Black Uhlan

indough wrote: »

sorry but that source is rubbish

Should be easy to refute the content then...

uprising

uprising wrote: »

No it's not clear, it probably exploded, it probably didn't, back to square one. Even the comets you talk of PROBABLY hit, but show me proof, evidence like!, I'll probably get a pain in my bollix playing this game, or probably won't.
Its starting to feel like I'm playing basketball with the special olympics swimming team.

No it probably did explode due to the heat and pressure of entry into the Jovian atmosphere.

As for proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker-Levy_9

Here a pic of the comet.


Here's a few of the the impacts.



And here's the scars of the impact.


So how would a tiny little space probe do more than a huge ass comet?

uprising

indough wrote: »

it was still a retarded comment

No this is retarded:

Q:
Could "aliens" be visitors from the future??

A: by indough
always liked this idea, not to say i necessarily believe it but its an interesting thought

either that or theyre from some alternate universe which is out of sync with us time wise

Sorry for bringing another topic in but in showing levels of retardedness it was needed.

indough

uprising wrote: »

No this is retarded:

Q:
Could "aliens" be visitors from the future??

A: by indough
always liked this idea, not to say i necessarily believe it but its an interesting thought

either that or theyre from some alternate universe which is out of sync with us time wise

Sorry for bringing another topic in but in showing levels of retardedness it was needed.

you might have had a point if i hadnt have said i didnt actually believe it in the same post

again, another retarded post from you