Escamilla’s Fans Just Got Conned! Deny Ignorance!

reply to post by secretnasaman


hey are you THE guy who taped and saved all
the transmissions?

reply to post by undo
Darn it Undo. You've just blown his cover...just joking, it wasn't secret.

Yeah, he's the same MS...the fountain from whence our intriguing NASA STS footage flows....

reply to post by CHRLZ


hopefully, you're not lying about any of this. i realize a certain amount of secrecy is required for security reasons, but deliberately coming into forums with photos/videos and peoples inconsequential theories about them and then deliberately lying, is what i would call "protesting too damn much."

reply to post by Kandinsky


oh that's awesome.

he's like a super hero around these parts

i wasn't so taken with the tether material but the rest of it was amazing.

A comment about the actual content of the movie "Moon Rising"...& not the tabloid dumpster-diving about independent filmmakers private lives...

This is a very serious subject...the issues raised in "Moon Rising" represent 'Dark Matters' & 'Deep Threats' that are not to be taken lightly.

The investigation of the NASA moon mysteries begins with the recognition of anomalies on NASA moon photos. The existence of something on the moon...where it shouldn't be.

"Moon Rising" makes it clear that something is being deliberately hidden by NASA that appears on their own moon pictures.

The movie represents a massive & growing 'body of evidence' that UFOs are real & seen by NASA moon cameras. Evidence provided by "Moon Rising" adds to this global data base.

The film demonstrates the presence of UFO phenomenon on the moon & has everything to do with the American Military & their goal of arming space for future wars.

"Moon Rising leads directly to the conclusion that UFOs are on the moon & are being concealed at all costs by NASA & other space powers.

The movie was made to demonstrate this very point. Its style of presentation is intended to allow the viewer to share in the process of discovery as it unfolds...simultaneously providing as much info as possible along the way via NASAs own explanations of everything being observed in the moon environment.

The narrative is put forward in such a way as to establish patterns of evidence which emerge on their own accord & are then summarized in the photographic evidence.

Today only machines go to the moon. People hardly travel anywhere at all. And those that do are all military...or military approved "space tourists".

Billions of dollars have been spent on a space station that is only 200 miles above us!
And most of the satellites in orbit look down, rather than up, turning space flight into an Earth observation tool.

So thank you Jose Escamilla & your team, for "looking up".

reply to post by secretnasaman
Naturally, we are all allowed to have an opinion on Moon Rising. Many of us aren't convinced by the use of Photoshop to color in magnified Moon images. Pareidolia is often like a Rorschach test...people see what they want to see. Sometimes they try too hard to make the rest of us see too...

The true importance of Moon Rising is therefore dependent on its accuracy of content. If none of these images really show machines and suchlike...then the 'NASA coverup' allegation is redundant and the film is simple entertainment.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
A comment about the actual content of the movie "Moon Rising"...& not the tabloid dumpster-diving about independent filmmakers private lives...

Pointing that what we see in the movie is (most likely) not what Escamilla says is also a comment about the actual content.

"Moon Rising" makes it clear that something is being deliberately hidden by NASA that appears on their own moon pictures.

That is debatable, to me, ATS members have been doing a much better job than Jose Escamilla, both in the way the information is presented as in the content of that information and how close it may be to the truth.

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
What do you have to say to this Mr Escamilla? Oh yeah! I know! The Soviets faked their images too! Damn!

Yes this would be the likely answer we would expect since he clearly claims that Japan's faking stuff too.

I'm glad you brought this up because Escamilla makes some scientifically incorrect claims about the effects of atmospheric dispersion on color, and fraudulently uses Earth colors to colorize the moon. Interestingly, his very own evidence proves his own claims are false (Saves debunkers some work):

Why The Moon Appears Grey From Earth


Note in the first minute at about 120,000 miles from the Earth, he highlights the quote by Neil Armstrong: "It appears that we do not have the depth of color at this range that we enjoyed at 50,000 miles out, however the oceans are still a definite blue"

Note carefully that the color change was perceived between 50,000 miles and 120,000 miles out. Do you think most Escamilla fans would know there's no atmosphere to speak of 50,000 miles or more above the Earth? I would hope so, yet why would they believe this nonsense at 1m11s in the video:

"The fact is that this same gradual color fading that Neil Armstrong and other Apollo astronauts saw is also happening when we down here on Earth look up at the moon. The same atmospheric color diffusion principles occur because we are looking through the same atmosphere the apollo astronauts were when they were in space looking back at the Earth"

So he is claiming that the loss in color intensity Neil Armstrong observed between 50,000 and 120,000 miles above the Earth is due to atmospheric color diffusion? This can't be true if there's so little atmosphere above 50,000 miles, can it?

That's obviously false as there's no appreciable atmosphere between 50,000 miles and 120,000 miles.

It's also false because that's not the way atmospheric color diffusion works, here's how it does work:

Wavelengths of light vary in length by color and the reddish wavelengths are the longest with bluish or violet being the shortest, as shown here:
www.colourtherapyhealing.com...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cbf64541f297.jpg[/atsimg]
Since the shorter wavelengths on the right move back and forth so fast, they have more interaction with the atmosphere as they travel through it, and are scattered more easily, it is this effect that makes the sky blue. In contrast, the longer wavelengths can snake through the atmosphere without coming in contact with as many air molecules and thus are diffused less than the shorter wavelengths, so that's why atmospheric diffusion gives the sun and the moon a tendency to look more reddish when low on the horizon, NOT GRAY. And in fact Escamilla himself shows pictures of the reddish moon on the horizon in the video at 1m45s, which IS a result of atmospheric diffusion, but then goes on to claim that's why the moon looks gray, in contrast to his EVIDENCE showing the moon looks RED!



So Escamilla debunks his own claim that atmospheric diffusion makes the moon look gray with his own evidence in 2 ways:

1. He shows the color change (of the Earth) appears between 50,000 miles and 120,000 miles where there's essentially no significant atmosphere, and
2. He presents pictures of the effect of atmospheric diffusion on the moon, showing that it makes the moon look reddish, not gray.

Then he presents some grayish looking fog or smog a little after 3 minutes and claims that shows how the "atmosphere" makes things look gray in the distance.



The effect of haze is mostly a result of the haze itself and not necessarily an effect of the "atmosphere" itself, which can be quite clear in certain conditions.

Then he restates his atmosphere claim at 3m50s:


With him doing all the work providing evidence to prove his own claims false, there's not much left for me to do except provide one more piece of evidence, this is the only one that Escamilla didn't already provide himself. If the moon looks gray because of atmospheric diffusion, why does the moon still look gray from the international space station?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b1fc751b1ca1.jpg[/atsimg]

That's a cool photo because you can see where the Earth's atmosphere is, and you can also tell that you're not looking through it to see the moon.

Does anyone want to guess the real reason why the Earth or the moon look more grayish at greater distances?

The inverse square law says that at 100,000 miles the light reaching your eyes isn't HALF of what it was at 50,000 miles, it's only ONE QUARTER!!! So light intensity is a big factor, and it becomes a problem with the square of the distance which means the greater the distance the more the effect skyrockets, it's not linear.

If you have one of those rotary dimmer switches at home you can do a personal experiment on color perception versus the number of photons reaching your eyes. After sunset, get a color palette of some sort, or a colorful object and note how intense the colors are when the dimmer is at full intensity. Now turn the dimmer down and as the room gets nearly dark, what happens to the colors? They gradually get less intense, in fact when the lighting gets low enough, you essentially see in black and white, or grayscale. What has changed between seeing in full color, versus seeing in black and white? No change in the amount of atmosphere, just the number of photons hitting your light receptors in your eyes. So just as turning down the dimmer switch causes less and less photons to hit your eyes, so too does increasing the distance to an object viewed cause less photons from that object to hit your eyes, and this is not an effect of atmospheric dispersion as you demonstrated yourself with the rotary dimmer experiment.

Here's another experiment you can try at home if you have a good camera/telescope combination and some image processing software: Look at this photo of the moon taken from Earth:

blog.deepskycolors.com...


Do you think this is a fake? Depends on what you mean by fake, read what the photographer says about it:

Is the moon really like this? Well, sort of. This is what happens when you take a picture of the moon, neutralize the colors (so the median of the values of R, G and B is the same) and then saturate the image. So in a way, yes, those colors are real, and the only difference is that they've been exaggerated a bit.

I wouldn't call it "fake" and it's not even really "false color", it's more like "enhanced color", the colors are really there, they've just been accentuated and exaggerated compared to the way they originally showed up in the photo. Now could there have been some color enhancement or tweaking of photos of Earth taken from the moon? It sure looks possible to me. But does that make those pictures fake? Well, not unless you think this is a fake picture of the moon, and I don't think it is, it's just "color enhanced". And since it's an enhancement of colors that are really in the moon photo, the colors present are likely to be more accurate at least in hue if not intensity, than Escamilla's method of choosing "Earth colors" to "colorize" the moon photos, which he describes at 8m30s in this video:

Moon Rising Part 1


He describes how he took Earth colors, applied them to the moon, and guess what, after doing that the moon looks more like the Earth!! How's that for shocking?
His conclusion after doing this? The moon appears to be teeming with life!!! What????????

Escamilla admits and points out around 4m 45s there's "natural" color imagery of the moon online so why does he need to use colors from Earth for his colorization of the moon?:

www.mapaplanet.org...

If you've studied the astronauts' transmissions, you know that the colors they see are dependent on the angle of the sun versus the surface they are looking at. They can look at the surface with the sun at one angle, and see tannish or brownish hues, and look at the exact same surface with their view or the sun at a different angle, and it can look gray. So based on this fact, there is no reason to assume the astronaut is lying when they say they see gray, as they also admit they see other colors when looking at it from different angles.

And the question of what the "natural" color really is can be a complicated subject, as this link shows regarding how the "natural" colors have been adjusted to be more comparable to astronomical observations: www.mapaplanet.org...

In conclusion, Escamilla may be right about one thing, that it's possible to see more colors of something ( like the Earth or the moon or anything else) when you're closer to it than when you're farther away, but almost everything else he said about the subject appears to be wrong as far as I can tell, with his most egregious fraud being to use Earth colors to colorize the moon and then claim that shows the moon is "teeming with life" when he even knows the site where the "natural" moon colors are posted. Or he could have photographed the moon himself and enhanced the actual moon colors like the amateur photographer did, though as the photographer points out, those colors are exaggerated, but at least they would have more basis in reality than using "earth colors" to colorize the moon.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur
That's worth an applause! Nice post and clearly a lot of time and effort. Moon Rising is an interesting film and certainly thought-provoking. Nevertheless, just about all the points have been raised by Living Moon affiliates on ATS before. Perhaps Living Moon should invest in thematic background music too?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

hopefully, you're not lying about any of this. i realize a certain amount of secrecy is required for security reasons, but deliberately coming into forums with photos/videos and peoples inconsequential theories about them and then deliberately lying, is what i would call "protesting too damn much."

I don't quite understand this post - can you be specific about what you think I may be lying about, and the 'inconsequential theories'? Or was that directed at someone else? You only quoted me, so I have to presume it was all aimed at me.

You may call it protesting too much, but I would observe that you crammed quite a few allegations into that single post, without a single specific.

Ooh look, some (almost) specifics!!

secretnasaman:
This is a very serious subject...the issues raised in "Moon Rising" represent 'Dark Matters' & 'Deep Threats' that are not to be taken lightly.

Sounds exactly like tabloid-type headline-speak (TTHS).

The investigation of the NASA moon mysteries begins with the recognition of anomalies on NASA moon photos. The existence of something on the moon...where it shouldn't be.

Oooh, scary. More TTHS. An anomaly is only such when it is unexplained. Escamilla's (and yours, it seems) level of ability to explain these, and lack of recognition and understanding of explanations, is in 'deep' question here... Indeed, your reticence to be SPECIFIC about the best of these 'anomalies', here where there are clearly folks with a very sound knowledge of imaging, optical effects, and general space science, is VERY revealing. Did you think no-one would notice that you haven't posted a SINGLE supporting example on this thread????

"Moon Rising" makes it clear that something is being deliberately hidden by NASA that appears on their own moon pictures.

TTHS. And only in your opinion. As you are not being specific, your opinion is worth exactly what I just paid for it.

The movie represents a massive & growing 'body of evidence' that UFOs are real & seen by NASA moon cameras. Evidence provided by "Moon Rising" adds to this global data base.

TTHS. And only in your opinion. As you are not being specific, your opinion is worth exactly what I just paid for it.

The film demonstrates the presence of UFO phenomenon on the moon & has everything to do with the American Military & their goal of arming space for future wars.

TTHS. And only in your opinion. As you are not being specific, your opinion is worth exactly what I just paid for it.

"Moon Rising leads directly to the conclusion that UFOs are on the moon & are being concealed at all costs by NASA & other space powers.

TTHS. And only in your opinion. As you are not being specific, your opinion is worth exactly what I just paid for it.

This repeating crap is annoying, isn't it? It would stop if you got specific and said something that was useful and actually debatable.

The movie was made to demonstrate this very point. Its style of presentation is intended to allow the viewer to share in the process of discovery as it unfolds...

Just curious, do you have that deep voice that they use when promoting movie trailers?

I've snipped the rest, as it is just more fanboi speak, and I have better things to do with my time.

secretnasaman, it is VERY clear that you just want to express your opinion and not be questioned, required to provide supporting evidence, or discuss alternative explanations for these anomalies. For to do so would gradually whittle them down until you are left with little or nothing left. It is a well-known tactic. Don't get caught up in specifics, because you can then just handwave and generalise, and claim that there is reams of evidence.

It is up to the reader to decide the truth. I'm always happy to debate specific examples. I expect those who participate in such debates to be prepared to listen, to accept when they are wrong, or in the face of evidence, accept that an anomaly could well be from a cause they hadn't considered, or didn't comprehend. Again I would point out the OP, and that every other example of Escamilla's work referenced here to date, has been debunked. Because it is BUNK. If anyone cares to stop handwaving, avoiding specifics and running around in circles, I'm happy to debate the issues on a case by case basis. secretnasaman, exuberant1, mcrom, etc are demonstrably not willing to do that.

Draw your own conclusions.

Edit:
PS - Arbitrageur - wow - way to go! That was SUPERB. I was going to have a go at this topic when I had time, but you nailed it far better than I would have. Thanks for saving my time and making me redundant!

[edit on 14-3-2010 by CHRLZ]

reply to post by CHRLZ


G'day CHRLZ

Regarding the issue of discussing banned members as raised by Ex1.....

I have checked with the mods.

We are not allowed to discuss the circumstances surrounding the banning of an ex-member.

We are allowed to discuss the material & info being issued by that ex-member.

That is to say.....you have approached this issue correctly

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 14-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


G'day Arbitrageur

Your relentlessly high quality work is a true highlight on ATS.

But then.....I've told you that before.....



Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 14-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

G'day CHRLZ

Regarding the issue of discussing banned members as raised by Ex1..... I have checked with the mods.

We are not allowed to discuss the circumstances surrounding the banning of an ex-member.
We are allowed to discuss the material & info being issued by that ex-member.

That is to say.....you have approached this issue correctly

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Your input is greatly appreciated, Maybe... Thanks for the clarification.

May I also applaud your ever fair, calm and considered approach to your posts here. You are an inspiration and a good influence towards a better forum...

reply to post by CHRLZ


i don't presume you are lying, i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. i have encountered people discussing this subject before, perhaps not specifically on the subject of escamilla but moon anomalies or nasa-based conspiracy, in general, who were clearly willing to lie. i gave them the benefit of the doubt until they proved they weren't honestly interested in the truth.

an example:

there's a space launch platform out in the ocean.

skeptic says "there is not a space launch platform out in the ocean" (paraphrased)

proof of space launch platform out in the ocean, is provided.

skeptic ignores it and spends the rest of his time engaging in mud slinging about conspiracy in general, along with the sudden appearance of a fellow with similar insults.

stuff like that ruins the science of this subject. woulda took that skeptic 20 seconds to find the space launch platform out in the ocean on a google search.


[edit on 14-3-2010 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

i don't presume you are lying, i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. i have encountered people discussing this subject before, perhaps not specifically on the subject of escamilla but moon anomalies or nasa-based conspiracy, in general, who were clearly willing to lie. i gave them the benefit of the doubt until they proved they weren't honestly interested in the truth.

an example:
there's a space launch platform out in the ocean.
skeptic says "there is not a space launch platform out in the ocean" (paraphrased)
proof of space launch platform out in the ocean, is provided.
skeptic ignores it and spends the rest of his time engaging in mud slinging about conspiracy in general, along with the sudden appearance of a fellow with similar insults.

stuff like that ruins the science of this subject. woulda took that skeptic 20 seconds to find the space launch platform out in the ocean on a google search.

Gee, thanks so much for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

How is it that your example isn't ontopic? You couldn't find one example of my information that you think could be a lie, yet you made the suggestion anyway...

Interesting approach.

reply to post by CHRLZ


oh you want me to ? i mean i can go over every single thing you said and fill the thread up with my previous research that almost mirrors escamilla's regarding moon anomalies in the color moon photos from arizona state uni (who got them from USGS) on the map-a-planet site. i could bury you in so much information that the thread would turn into a monstrosity. i don't think you want that, unless you're trying to promote escamilla's films.

reply to post by OrionHunterX
Thank you for that I was just about to buy the dvd in question.
I will save my money and spend it more wisely elsewhere.

I'll clear this up now...

Every single member of ATS is WELCOME to discuss whatever it is that Jose puts out there... Bugs, dust, etc...

The only thing that is "verbotin" is discussing why he was banned from here (but a quick search will answer that too).

Carry on...

Springer...

Originally posted by undo
oh you want me to ? i mean i can go over every single thing you said and fill the thread up with my previous research that almost mirrors escamilla's regarding moon anomalies in the color moon photos from arizona state uni (who got them from USGS) on the map-a-planet site. i could bury you in so much information that the thread would turn into a monstrosity. i don't think you want that, unless you're trying to promote escamilla's films.

Haven't you been reading the thread? Just provide your very best example, don't give me the usual copout - "oh I have so many, I don't want to clutter the thread.." Yeah, right.

POST THE VERY BEST EXAMPLE.

I also note that you are now backing away from your suggestion that I lied, and have changed the topic and threatened to bury the thread. Nice work. I'm sure no-one noticed the tactics.

OK, so what's your single best example? I hope you know your topics.