I hope this works (never used Dropbox before):brianv wrote:FG, Could you upload it to torrent or dropbox?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp0vcj25l9499 ... VHSRip.avi
I hope this works (never used Dropbox before):brianv wrote:FG, Could you upload it to torrent or dropbox?
Yup, works fine!Flabbergasted wrote:I hope this works (never used Dropbox before):brianv wrote:FG, Could you upload it to torrent or dropbox?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp0vcj25l9499 ... VHSRip.avi
Their documentary is quite lyrical. I have to give at least that to the Russians. They may be propagandists, but they also have the soul of poets.Flabbergasted wrote:I hope this works (never used Dropbox before):brianv wrote:FG, Could you upload it to torrent or dropbox?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp0vcj25l9499 ... VHSRip.avi
Thank you so much, dear Flabbergasted ! Will watch it later today.Flabbergasted wrote: I have a 237 MB avi file of the entire film. It is, as you say, priceless. And it´s such a brilliantly "educational" piece of predictive programming you can actually understand it without speaking a word of Russian! Let me know if you are still interested.
Well, a far more likely, non-nonsense proposition would be that NASA simply 'stole' those figures from science-fiction writers such as Jules Verne - and adopted them as their own "scientific figures". As a matter of fact, we are told that Tsiolkovsky (the soviet rocket-scientist hailed as the "Father of Space travel") was the man who scientifically calculated this "11km/s" escape velocity speed needed for any object to escape our atmosphere. But hey, Tsiolkovsky (the rocket scientist) came up with this "11" figure almost half a century after Jules Verne (the sci-fi novelist) !"On the surface of the Earth, the escape velocity is about 11.2 kilometers per second (~6.96 mi/s), which is approximately 33 times the speed of sound (Mach 33) and several times the muzzle velocity of a rifle bullet (up to 1.7 km/s). However, at 9,000 km altitude in "space", it is slightly less than 7.1 km/s."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
On May 23, in the REQUIRED reading section of the forum, Hoi posted the following:
Tak47, please reedit your post to comply with the forum's rules and guidelines. Quite simply, you are not permitted to post links with no discussion or guidance attached. No more.ATTENTION please from all our membership:
Please have and demonstrate good reason when posting videos on our forum. We don't need this place to become Facebook and/or YouTube.
Please do NOT advertise, post hate videos or flood topics with potentially offensive/subliminal media/music. Please see our topics like: Is MUSIC used as a propaganda/mind-control tool? and Are Movies Unwatchable? to understand why certain media may be offensive to some readers, why extremely clear context and careful discrimination is required of our members when posting any media, and why we should be ready to get into a discussion about any media's demerits. (Our policy in response to any media deemed by moderators to be a psychological attack is: shoot down the media first, ask questions later.)
Please DO explain the context of the video, why you posted it and/or have the explanation at the ready in case any single member challenges its presence on the site. This forum is the thinking person's place of refuge from reckless media; that is a rare occurrence on the entire Internet, surprisingly enough.
Thank you.
Can you explain more about the Tabula Rasa, from your perspective, and how it relates? (For curious readers ... like me.)Lazlo wrote:Re: Hoi
Hoi says: "Anyway, I just skimmed through it and my personal opinion is that some of it could be bang on (the clear parallel between the monolith and the movie screen, and how we might be meant to interpret it....."
I have never thought that the monolith was ever meant to be profound in the mystical sense but is meant to be more mundane in its meaning in the philosophical sense, if such can be said. The "monolith" is noting more than the old philosophical construct, lately attributed to Locke, of the Tabula Rasa
hoi.polloi wrote:fbenario, thank you, I guess I should have been more clear about whether a media link qualifies just because it is not a video. We do try to encourage people to post a bit of their own thoughts or research or at least some kind of context.
Can you explain more about the Tabula Rasa, from your perspective, and how it relates? (For curious readers ... like me.)Lazlo wrote:Re: Hoi
Hoi says: "Anyway, I just skimmed through it and my personal opinion is that some of it could be bang on (the clear parallel between the monolith and the movie screen, and how we might be meant to interpret it....."
I have never thought that the monolith was ever meant to be profound in the mystical sense but is meant to be more mundane in its meaning in the philosophical sense, if such can be said. The "monolith" is noting more than the old philosophical construct, lately attributed to Locke, of the Tabula Rasa
"That's a beautiful and fascinating description." Wow, coming from you that is flattering; I always thought you had a pretty good handle on rhetoric. I think you are onto something with the horizontal rotation thing. It would be interesting to check and compare the aspect ratio of a screen and the monolith. I like the allusion to art being a parallel to experience. A rather glib analogy is one of pop music where I heard an artist, when asked to define his meaning of a song said: "it is whatever the listener thinks it is." Here is an example of what you are talking about with the monolith representing a screen. Picasso's Guernica is a representation of an actual "newsreel" film: can you see the frames?hoi.polloi wrote:That's a beautiful and fascinating description. Do you find it interesting that the 'blank slate' or the ability to relate to 'life' and to 'the self' in this particular cinematic case may resemble or symbolize the dimensions of a movie screen? And that this rectangle actually rotates to be horizontal like a movie screen at a few points in this movie?
Does that not imply a sort of knowledge or at least subconscious comment on the notion that it is through the popular medium of Hollywood film that Kubrick suggests we gather our own (inner and outer) sort of personal ontology? Even if the creator's medium and the self-awareness of the art itself is an obvious parallel to draw.