Moon Rising - The truth about the moon revealed

Originally posted by Jimmy2theR

"this may or 'may not' be a giant humanoid, perhaps the shadows seem to reflect something of a human form, we will never know until NASA releases this photograph unblurred and with the clarity available for us to see."

Jimmy,

That is the problem...

NASA would be happy to not release the frames after such a comment; and gladly allow it to stand unanswered.

This will affect all of us - the next time someone makes a Lunar Anomaly thread, they will be probably treated to reminders of what Jose said in the first ten minutes of his new film.

*The debunkers have already reminded us several times in this thread... and this is just the beginning of it.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Hey, Exuberant (cute puppy) I starred you for that, because for all of my skepticism, I have a feeling that good stuff is being hidden from us.

I just hate to see amateruish, easily explained-away attempts be promoted -- it lowers the bar.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Jimmy2theR

 

he says; "this may or 'may not' be a giant humanoid, perhaps the shadows seem to reflect something of a human form, we will never know until NASA releases this photograph unblurred and with the clarity available for us to see."

Yes. That is exactly what he says. That is the point!

Again: "...this may or 'may not' be a giant humanoid..." (my bold) is what drives the credibility meter down towards zero!

It doesn't matter how hard you try to spin this, the filmmaker said it, in his narration. Doesn't matter where he got the idea from -- he chose to include it in the narrative.

Also, any critical eye can look at the 'blurred' portion and should be able to instantly see it for what it truly is -- an artifact of the transmission process. A digital artifact.

There are more "smudged over" objects in the Clementine web site and you're way off on this 'artifact of the transmission process!' You believe that you need to take 'wmd_2008' up on that red bridge he's selling. Artifacts don't leave certain portions of the object remaining visible. Either you're eye sight is pretty bad or you have a medical condition that doesn't allow you to see what is really there! Get it straight, 'may or may not be' is what he says, so quit making remarks about this trying to make things pop out at you out of context. By the way, just what line of work or expertise do you have to even comment here? Obviously you don't look at the facts and know nothing about imagery, so why even make these lame remarks? Jimmy2theR

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Jimmy2theR]

reply to post by Jimmy2theR


You are right about the censoring.

NASA tried to photoshop and airbrush the anomalies out of their lunar imagery, whereas the NAVY blatantly blurred, smudged and edited.

*If higher resolution images ever get released or should become available; all the blurring will let us know where to look.


Here is a nice frame from Moon Rising - what is that in the background?:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b9b46ff52744.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Exuberant1


A 'nice frame from Moon Rising'.

What was their source, please?

AND, you left us with a rather open-ended question.

So, I'll bite ( )

What do you think it is?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

A 'nice frame from Moon Rising'.

What was their source, please?

You can find the source on your own - you are not totally incompetent.


*Here is another frame from Moon Rising, showing how NASA added in some fiducials by using transparent film before releasing the images:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6d291170690.jpg[/atsimg]

(Some fiducial anomalies are the result of the plate spacing on the Hasselbladd cameras - but not this one....)

Originally posted by Exuberant1



Here is a nice frame from Moon Rising - what is that in the background?:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b9b46ff52744.jpg[/atsimg]

To answer Weedwhacker (if he will so indulge), i believe it is airbrush artifact. The swirling, circular shape, along with the scattered appearance inside the circular shapes, looks like outo f focus airbrush pattern. That is my 2 cents.

reply to post by Exuberant1



I'll try to let the snide back-handed 'compliment' that I didn't quote slide off my back...

*Here is another frame from Moon Rising, showing how NASA added in some fiducials by using transparent film before releasing the images:

(Some fiducial anomalies are the result of the plate spacing on the Hasselbladd cameras - but not this one....)

Firstly, you did the frame grab, apparently. But I believe that that little gem has been floating around for a long time, now. Kindly explain it, then.

Because what I see are the reseau plate etchings' shadows. I am not a photographer, nor am I familiar at all with Hasselblad cameras, but I can't for the life of me understand why NASA would see fit to intentionally screw with a photo by adding fiducials!!

Further, though I can't find references to this, did they have a variety of lenses used? Because, based on the distortions, that looks a lot like a fish-eye lens. The fiducial crosses are curved (distorted). AND, curved equally. Again, why would NASA choose to do that?

My opinion? Any little "crack" that someone can desperately use to make a "Moon Hoax" film will not be ignored, no matter how disingenuous its use is.

Oh, meant to add: I bolded your word regarding the film. As far as I've known, ALL film is 'transparent'. Wouldn't be very good otherwise!!!

[edit on 6/11/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker"perhaps the shadows seem to reflect something of a human form,

So the fact that he also says it could be just shadows doesn't count?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
*If higher resolution images ever get released or should become available; all the blurring will let us know where to look.

They get released just fine... I just ordered my 11x16 600 dpi scan from the original 70mm negative of the NASA triangle debris...

Here is the quote

Ron,

I put the file sizes next to the scans you requested and below you will find
the pricing for these scans:

> > 11x14 300 dpi - 40 Mb
> > 11x14 600 dpi - 160 Mb
> > 16x20 300 dpi - 85 Mb
> > 16x20 600 dpi - 330 Mb

Grand Scans:

20 Mb: $19.95
50 Mb: $34.95
100 Mb: $39.95
150 Mb: $49.95
200 Mb: $65.00
201+ Mb: $0.48/Mb

Burn files to a cd: $4.49
FTP upload: $5.00
Standard Mail (shipping & handling) : $8.00


I hope that answers all of your questions.

Thank you,

Emily Richison
Bay Area Imaging

Bay Area imaging is minutes away from JSC and the ONLY contractor that NASA will release negatives to for prints

So yes they are available, but they are not cheap...

And they denied the request for the 17 images that LPI catalogues of the Apollo 15 reel 83 but xist only as thumbnails. Can't order those

As to the Clementine images... those are NAVY so you need to go get them from the DoD... let me know how you make out with that

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Because what I see are the reseau plate etchings' shadows. I am not a photographer, nor am I familiar at all with Hasselblad cameras, but I can't for the life of me understand why NASA would see fit to intentionally screw with a photo by adding fiducials!!

They wouldn't but there is another explanation that would explain it, and it would explain why the 'shadows' are not equal on all the marks in this image.

First of all the mark IS a shadow cast on the negative from the plate. Now why would there be a shadow of a shadow?

In my mind there is only one thing that can cause this effect we see here

A second light source at a different angle

Originally posted by zorgon

So yes they are available, but they are not cheap...

For all the billions of dollars we have given them and continue to give them; NASA should have no good reason not to digitize their images and make all of them available to the public - who already paid for them.

The same goes for the STS missions. I bet Youtube would be glad to host the hours from missions like STS-75, especially with all the traffic it would generate.

And sometimes when one orders a pic from NASA - they just send you a photo of a photo... I'll try to find some examples of this;
(I wonder if they've ever done this anyone over FTP)

"A second light source at a different angle"

Holy Plaster of Paris!

Imagine the implications...

Could it be that this is a Photo of a photo?

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
And sometimes when one orders a pic from NASA - they just send you a photo of a photo... I'll try to find some examples of this;

Yup Sherpa ordered some from LPI. they were supposed to be high res prints but were just blown up from the same images on the web at LPI. The online NASA ones were better res

reply to post by zorgon


Do you think that the second light source in the image could be accounted for by it being a photo of a photo?

Perhaps the second light source was used to illuminate the photo.... I'm stumped.


Edit - Check out the pic in the NASA image of the Day Gallery. It reminds me of the threads here:

www.nasa.gov...

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Jimmy2theR


So all of a sudden your KNOW exactly how every possible process in the capture of these pictures could EFFECT the resultant picture YEH RIGHT.

reply to post by Jimmy2theR


So WHAT is YOUR expertise to comment on here or is it a simple case if you believe eSCAMilla's BS you can comment if you dont you cant!

We have had a thread on here recently when one of the ANOMALY experts on here with 30yrs experience no less! WAS proved wrong on one of his main assumptions about photographs of the Moon.

Lots of members on here are KEEN amatuers photographer/video makers.

Will say this again I do think out there somewhere other life exists has it been to the moon apart from us NO, mars dont think so either, but I want REAL proof not the rantings of some IDIOT out to make money.
Use your eyes to look at these thing not your IMAGINATION
QUOTE may be a GIANT HUMANOID ! 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999 % CHANCE ITS NOT

Originally posted by wmd_2008
... the rantings of some IDIOT...

Use your eyes to look at these thing not your IMAGINATION
QUOTE may be a GIANT HUMANOID ! 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999 % CHANCE ITS NOT

You task me you really do..



How about this one...



About the center of this image (rotate it 90% right)

files.abovetopsecret.com...





[edit on 12-6-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Jimmy2theR

 

So WHAT is YOUR expertise to comment on here or is it a simple case if you believe eSCAMilla's BS you can comment if you dont you cant!

We have had a thread on here recently when one of the ANOMALY experts on here with 30yrs experience no less! WAS proved wrong on one of his main assumptions about photographs of the Moon.

Lots of members on here are KEEN amatuers photographer/video makers.

Will say this again I do think out there somewhere other life exists has it been to the moon apart from us NO, mars dont think so either, but I want REAL proof not the rantings of some IDIOT out to make money.
Use your eyes to look at these thing not your IMAGINATION
QUOTE may be a GIANT HUMANOID ! 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999 % CHANCE ITS NOT

wmd_2008, Mr. Escamilla wants to chat with you personally. Let's go to the personal area and I will forward you his email and phone number. That is IF you have the "nads" to even go there, which I seriously doubt. YOU will have to reveal who you are to him and have a go at it on a one to one. I promise you, I will not reveal your name here as this is not what we do in the business we are in and ATS would probably intervene and cut this off. I know for a fact he has something to tell you about abusing his family name "Escamilla" which has roots in Spain, and how this forum here at ATS has allowed his family name to be slandered by the likes of you accusing his family name as being scammers, liars, and all you spewed here, when you really have no grounds for saying stuff like this. IF you have any kind of spine (which is very doubtful you coward), meet me in the U2U area so I can give you his contact information. I dare you to have the spine to contact him personally with your defamatory remarks. You will have the safety of even giving him another false name and email ID, as we all know you are that kind of a coward, yet he has nothing to hide and provides his information rightthere to anyone who wants to contact him. So it's on you (wmd_2008) who has cowardly chosen to blemish his good name here at ATS! This goes for the rest of you accusers, meet me there. He really wants to speak with you all! Too bad ATS chose to ban him for "NO REASON" other than false accusations. Meet me there! Jimmy2theR

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Jimmy2theR]

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Jimmy2theR]

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Jimmy2theR]

I paid and seen it back 2 week ago.. I liked it a lot. Compare to 'MoonViews".. which was crap.

It needed more work tho in the montage and producing. The sound is not always good and the last 14min is just recap of moonviews crap with music and moonsurfing.

reply to post by Jimmy2theR


So, while you still failed to answer the very simple question "Are you connected to Jose Escamillas enterprise ( which could have been done with a very simple yes/no without revealing what connection you exactly have with Escamilla ) you are no getting into the tone i've been expecting.

ATS did not ban him for "NO REASON" - he threatened fellow ATS members and their families - that's not what i would call "NO REASON" and since you so carefully stated, that the man has anger management issues, i think you are very well full aware of what exactly happened back then, right ?

I somehow get the feeling, that you have been registered to ATS in the past under another username......

And just for my personal opinion - his RODS alone and the refusal to see his "discovery" as what it really is, has made Jose unbelievable, once a scammer always a scammer.

Cheers
Phil