Escamilla’s Fans Just Got Conned! Deny Ignorance!

reply to post by Kandinsky

reply to post by CHRLZ

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

Thanks for the positive feedback folks, I was more than a little annoyed with some of those claims, especially the one about how adding Earth colors to the moon makes the moon look like it's teeming with life. I tried to hide some of my feelings and stick to the facts as much as possible but I think some of my disdain still slipped through anyway, oops.

IT felt good to get that off my chest and on record, so that was enough motivation but it's still nice to get some positive feedback on top of that, thanks!

@secretnasaman, I would sure like to see you discuss some facts at some point rather than just generalizations. You keep talking relentlessly about how great this stuff is but you haven't given us one specific example yet that I can find.

reply to post by CHRLZ


i have no idea why escamilla decided to add false color to the previous black and white images. the color images that were already provided by arizona state were sufficient to prove that the moon was not simply a grey ball of dust floating in space. photos from amateur astronomers backed up that aristarchus for example, was indeed a beautiful blue color, as did nasa's whirlwind program. this is not a mystery.

it is however, a mystery, why some will go to any length to suggest otherwise, including adding false color where none is necessary or complaining about the addition of false color when even nasa uses false color application like uv light and infra red light images of the moon. to me, this whole subject of color is really a red herring. the anomalies are either there or they're not. if they're there, then let's discuss them not whether escamilla used color to accentuate them or not.

in fact, this whole thread reminds me of an exercise in reverse psychology.

Originally posted by undo
to me, this whole subject of color is really a red herring. the anomalies are either there or they're not. if they're there, then let's discuss them not whether escamilla used color to accentuate them or not.

While I agree with you to some extent, there are actually several other separate threads already on ATS discussing anomalies on the moon.

But this thread is specifically about the claims of Jose Escamilla, and the majority of his "Moon Rising" video is about the false colors he applied, so I don't really see it like some small incidental detail in the context of his work, he made a whole movie about it, except he did mention a few other things like crosshairs, and he was wrong about those too:

Moon Rising Part 5

www.youtube.com...

This part starts out by exposing Escamilla's ignorance about how the crosshairs work:

It takes LIGHT to expose the crosshairs and if the sky is BLACK that means no light so without an atmosphere I'm not surprised the black sky doesn't create enough light to expose the crosshairs.

Notice that Escamilla says the crosshairs sometimes show up in dark skies but if you look closely at the example he provides, it's not a completely black sky but a dark gray. Obviously dark gray is enough light to expose the crosshairs, but black isn't.

This looks like a fundamental misunderstanding of photography which the average person can be forgiven for, but not somebody making a movie about it.

Or we can talk about space elevators from 5m and 45s in that video:

"SPACE ELEVATORS":

"I realize that to many people, this idea of building elevators with lengths of tens of thousands of kilometers that can extend from the Earth's surface up to geostationary orbit or up to the moon probably sounds ludicrous."

Well the idea for space elevators isn't THAT ludicrous for something we might do in the future, but claiming that these photos show possible evidence for space elevators is ludicrous.

Do I really need to spend any more time debunking that one when he already says it "sounds ludicrous" in the video? Or can we just agree with that assessment?

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


the issue i take with critiques of his material is that it suggests that he isn't allowed to postulate, even when he notifies you that he's postulating. and i have personally seen both lighter and darker images of the moon in which the cross hairs were visible or invisible or a combination of both, on the surface of the moon and in the sky above the moon in the photos.

remember now, back in 2006 i believed that some of the craters on the moon were floating. it's hard to not see it that way, especially with the bottom lit examples. there are even examples where the "floating" craters are casting shadows on the ground beneath. this left only 2 possibilities in my estimation:

1) that the things were floating above the surface
OR
2) that they were sitting on top of a translucent surface thin enough to allow the casted shadow to present itself but thick enough to offset the shadow

of course, alot of that has to do with the angle of the light apparent on the other surroundings, which allows for things like light and shadow to define whether something is on an opaque surface, above a surface or laying on a transparent surface.



[edit on 14-3-2010 by undo]

pair of "floaters" from clementine

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/967b5cbf6322a276.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by undo

If you can tell me the coordinates for that area I can try to get the images used to make the colour version, like this one, from the opening post.

(click for the full size, 100 metres per pixel, version)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/fbb819f0a192315d.png[/atsimg]

Originally posted by undo
the issue i take with critiques of his material is that it suggests that he isn't allowed to postulate, even when he notifies you that he's postulating. and i have personally seen both lighter and darker images of the moon in which the cross hairs were visible or invisible or a combination of both, on the surface of the moon and in the sky above the moon in the photos.

I'm basing my observations on what he showed in the video but if you have better examples, post away.

remember now, back in 2006 i believed that some of the craters on the moon were floating. it's hard to not see it that way, especially with the bottom lit examples. there are even examples where the "floating" craters are casting shadows on the ground beneath. this left only 2 possibilities in my estimation:

1) that the things were floating above the surface
OR
2) that they were sitting on top of a translucent surface thin enough to allow the casted shadow to present itself but thick enough to offset the shadow

Well the past tense is encouraging, but you forgot option 3:
3) Our eyes and our brain are playing tricks on us

Some people fail to consider this option but there's a similar effect called the Hollow-Face illusion

The reason it works so well on faces is that we never see concave faces, they are always convex, so our brain can't deal with the contradiction too well and forces us to see it as convex, even if it's concave.

Craters on the other hand we normally see as concave but by playing with the lighting and coloration it's not too hard to trick our brains.

So does the fact you use past tense "remember now, back in 2006 i believed" mean that you no longer believe it today?

Now tell me if this sounds like he's "postulating" as you put it (3m50s):



"All the photos Jose presents in this film, you are seeing the only clear and detailed photography EVER RELEASED in full color of REAL FLYING SAUCERS!"

I don't see any postulation in that statement, it sounds like it's being presented as a fact doesn't it?

By the way the reason the craters he calls flying saucers often look donut shaped is because of the "central peak uplift" shown in this illustration:



In the STS-75 video which he says is the same thing as the craters on the moon, the cause of the "hole" in the donut shape is caused by a mirror in the lens, so yes they both have roughly a donut shape but for totally different reasons, and they aren't the same things as he suggests.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


today i'm more inclined to believe they are on a surface that is transparent. look at my posted "floaters" image. use your critical eye. where's the light source? what's causing the shadow? download the image and zoom in on the southern rims. what do you see? where the terrain appears to elevate or decline, how do the "Craters" present on the elevation or the decline? do they make sense? do they fit into their surrounding environment?

these are all questions a scientific mind would ask.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

today i'm more inclined to believe they are on a surface that is transparent. look at my posted "floaters" image. use your critical eye. where's the light source? what's causing the shadow? download the image and zoom in on the southern rims. what do you see? where the terrain appears to elevate or decline, how do the "Craters" present on the elevation or the decline? do they make sense? do they fit into their surrounding environment?

these are all questions a scientific mind would ask.

Do you want to know what a scientific mind would do? It would give ArMaP the coordinates he asked for so we can look at a original imagery that hasn't been frakked with. Then it would assess the genuine or source imagery, so let's start there.

Do you have the coordinates?

Edit to add: Even without the originals, I don't see the problem with these craters. It looks like the direction of the light source is about 20 degrees to the left of straight up, approximately, not sure of the exact angle of elevation of the light source but I really don't see any problems.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by ArMaP


now why would i want to look at the black and white version of the same image when i have the color version of the same image, presented by the same people that presented the black and white version?

armap, i'm surprised at you. you're getting lazy.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


armap knows i didn't frack with that image. that's the color version of clementine. no frackin'.

what i don't get is, why:

1. TAKE THE PICTURES
2. MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
3. THEN GET MAD WHEN THE PUBLIC ACTUALLY LOOKS AT THEM

if you don't want people to speculate, don't put the dang stuff out there in the first place.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

armap knows i didn't frack with that image. that's the color version of clementine. no frackin'.

Maybe ArMaP knows where it is, but I don't, can you give me the coordinates for my benefit?

reply to post by undo


Did you find it from the link provided by an ATS member in this post?

When I searched the Google machine for Clementine + color, that ATS thread post came up.

Now, kindly answer the question from ArMaP? What coordinates are the photo you used a few posts ago? Or, which image from that link to Clementine photos? Finally, will you ever admit that the "colored" photo has been manipulated, not to hide anything, but to enhance it for what appear to be research purposes?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Add:

This is the picture in question.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/967b5cbf6322a276.jpg[/atsimg]

Honestly, when I look at it I see craters, with internal and external sloping rims. They don't "float" (and, really, just what sort of mechanism would be responsible for such logic- and gravity-defying feats?)

The only thing unusual about that image is its false-color.



[edit on 14 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


the color browser isn't loading. i'd give you the coords, once i found the place again. i found that image back in 2006, so it's long erased from my memory where the site is but if i remember correctly it's on the farside of the moon. but the pds map a planet in color, doesn't appear to be working. it wasn't working a couple hours ago either, so either it's down for maintenance or been taken offline.

reply to post by weedwhacker


WEED!
i posted it in 2006 in zorgon's thread

Revealed for the First Time Color Images of the Moon from Clementine Satellite
www.abovetopsecret.com...

this is my post in that thread.. notice date is 2006
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 14-3-2010 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

the color browser isn't loading. i'd give you the coords, once i found the place again. i found that image back in 2006

Noted with thanks.

Well the reason I assumed the image had been frakked with is that since this thread is about Escamilla's stuff I thought maybe you got a colorized image from his site, but I shouldn't have assumed that I guess, though I do think we should keep this thread more or less on topic regarding Escamilla's claims so hopefully that image ties in. Gee if you had posted the coordinates when you originally posted it we'd have it, good job finding such an old post, I have a hard time finding my posts from just 6 months ago sometimes.

But I really don't see anything mystifying about that image, like I said, light source direction about 20 degrees left of straight up, you don't see that? (you asked about the light source).

reply to post by Arbitrageur


well i knew the only two possible threads it could've been in were either john lear's moon thread or the color clementine thread posted by zorgon. since it was a color pic, i went to that thread first and thank goodness i found it there, because the lear thread is huge by comparison.

i feel kinda bad for jose because i understand why he sees what he says he sees. i saw it too. i decided not to pursue it for monetary value at the time because i was concerned that if i were wrong, it would constitute ripping people off. for the same reason, i don't sell my ebooks on topics related to ancient technology.

it also dawned on me that my position was accusatory, and i don't like that position. i'd rather just look at the evidence, come up with a feasible theory that supports the evidence without laying accusation for any parties involved. the only safe position such a proposition suggests is to assume that they aren't allowed to tell people what's up there, not because our government says so, but because of something even bigger than they are. i know that's out there, but it's the least negative position i can take in light of what my eyes tell me i'm seeing in the pictures.

it dawned on me that perhaps the floaters were the caps of immense mushrooms or plants of some kind with huge caps on them, this primarly due to the fringes hanging off the southern rims in the floaters pic, i posted earlier.
here's an example of how mushroom caps would look from above, in an environment where the mushrooms are gigantic (This is from world of warcraft, burning crusades expansion, zone: zangarmarsh. the fogginess of it is actually an effect built in to the zone itself, meaning that i didn't make it look this way, the game was built to look this way)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/e06c9917af37226e.jpg[/atsimg]


these mushrooms are underlit, as seen in this photo from the same zone, same mushrooms

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/6029e3a2fd19aabd.jpg[/atsimg]

i know it's a silly idea but the concept would explain why we have a huge "Crater" like thing that to me, doesn't appear to be on the ground, yet has these fringy things hanging off them, casts shadows, has examples of being bottomlit from some unseen light source and so on.

don't laugh. some guy figured out gravity with an apple

reply to post by undo

I understand what you're saying, and I can even force myself to try to see what you're seeing, but the main difference between you and me, is that you seen to trust your senses more than I do, and you shouldn't. Just look at this list of what Neil Tyson says should be called "Brain failures" which proves that our sensory perceptions can't really be trusted to interpret what we see accurately:

en.wikipedia.org...

There may yet be some mysteries about craters but we understand their geometry reasonably well, and I don't see anything in the light and shadows of your crater photo that contradicts our understanding. You are just experiencing the "hollow face illusion" except on craters and in reverse, I believe, it's a known illusion that we can have trouble distinguishing between convex and concave images.

Now if only we could see all the images in 3-D like we can with Tycho crater, it would eliminate all doubt in your mind, check this out:

wms.selene.jaxa.jp...

Right under the picture of the crater (which shows the angles which the flyby follows in the movie) you'll see links to MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 versions of the movie. Choose the latter if you want the highest quality, that's what I did.

The text on that page is Japanese but if you paste the URL into Google Translate you get this:

Click the image to be played on a two-minute video, "Kaguya" with the Terrain Camera (TC) is created by changing the perspective a little bit of stereoscopic images. You can view the topography of Tycho in the sense of pleasure as if flying. Tycho whole picture first, and close to the central hills, steep flight along the inner wall of the crater, as well as the crater floor in low-altitude flight, it will be close to what the central hill again.

Maybe someday we'll be able to get real 3-D imagery of more of the moon's surface like that, instead of the fake 3-D we get from Google Moon. And once we do that, the last few holdouts who still think Escamilla's craters are flying saucers will finally be convinced otherwise!