Escamilla’s Fans Just Got Conned! Deny Ignorance!

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by OrionHunterX

 

Admittedly, I am not very smart. Nor very trusting.
I am NOT defending Mr. Escamilla (sp?) But try as I might, I am unable to align
your OP images.

When I try to use big crater as reference: (Small crater not aligned)

When I to use small crater as reference: (Big crater not aligned)

Thanks.

Hi kk! Good point! However, I would like to point out that the images Mr. Escamilla uses in his documentary appear to be from the Clem-UVVIS Multispectral Mosaic Version whereas the other B/W image is from the Lunar Orbiter Mosaic alternate mode.

The latter has been cropped to match the Clem MM version. Try resizing this latter image and you'll have a perfect fit! Needless to say, it's the same area and the same crater! And that's the crunch point!

Originally posted by OrionHunterX


Whatever, don't worry. Be happy!

As you wish!

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
Hey now lets not destroy some of the best work I have ever seen in the UFO documentary field.

I'm afraid that simply reveals you are not qualified or experienced in any of the areas concerned. That's not meant as an insult - why, I'm not qualified to comment on brain surgery techniques, or cosmological string theory.

Escamilla seems to be motivated by money. It's that simple. If he can get away with fooling people who don't understand stuff, then he will. This was adequately demonstrated by his 'roswell rods' debacle, where LONG after these supposed anomalies were explained (and the explanation was 100% correct, 100% repeatable and 100% proven), he *still* promotes it. The site is still there, even now, in the hope that a few stragglers will not have seen the debunking (nay 'DEMOLITION'), of the bulldung. Go on, go take a look. Google it. The site is still there, and you'll see within one click you are harangued for 'donations'.

Is there anyone in the field who is without blemish?"

Of course not. Why, even I make the odd mistake - I think there was one back in 1972... I love making mistakes, because I immediately learn something - wish they happened more often...

But the difference is:
- when a REAL researcher or investigator makes an error, they listen, learn from it, and withdraw their claims if they are wrong.
- real researchers don't use viral marketing to sell videos/shares in production costs..
- real researchers don't run like the wind when their errors are shown, or they are asked to support their claims with evidence

This last point was amply demonstarted by the embarrassing debacle at BAUT:
www.bautforum.com...
where he was pulled up very short on his ridiculous post-processing 'technique' that supposedly revealed a giant (city-sized!) alien on the Moon. By the way, even Jose recognised the rank stupidity of that claim and eventually withdrew it, but still did not admit his methods were flawed and then he simply disappeared in the face of overwhelming evidence and examples.

Anyway, I'm starting to get all ad-hominem-ish. So let's get down to specifics.

Rock, what in your opinion is the best piece of information that Escamilla produced? Be specific, don't just use the usual copout that there's too much to pick from. Hey, pick out your best three, if one feels too limiting.

And then, those of us with the requisite knowledge will patiently and comprehensively explain why it is rubbish. Now if I and/or the other far-more-knowledgable folk here can't manage to do that, I'll happily concede defeat, and I will have learnt something.

Otherwise, you will have learnt something.

To date, all I've seen of Escamilla's work is EASILY deBUNKable garbage.

So, show me something that isn't. By the way, it would be nice if Mr Escamilla could defend his position, but I understand he is banned here, for reasons that you will understand if you examine some of his past threads...

Jose Escamilla has fans? I thought he was just someone jamie maussan would have work for him when jamie was running low on hoaxes.

reply to post by CHRLZ

Excellent post CHRLZ! A star for you! I would like to reproduce what you said - a challenge to Mr Escamilla's die hard fans....

"what in your opinion is the best piece of information that Escamilla produced? Be specific, don't just use the usual copout that there's too much to pick from. Hey, pick out your best three, if one feels too limiting."

Yep! Bring it on guys! Let's see what you've got!

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Yep! Bring it on guys! Let's see what you've got!

The very fact that Jose E. actually MADE something at all is a HUGE contribution to
the NASA mystery.

ATS members...What has this hunterorionp "guy" ever 'got'?..."yep! Bring it on guys! Let's see what you've got!...he shouts!!

How sad is that? A guy in a ski mask disses at a UFO researcher..

Pitch us a new storyline, minus the melodrama...& please include a better attitude

You point out mistakes...are you kidding me?...These are a handful of isolated errors in a massive study.

The premise remains intact.

Originally posted by secretnasaman
Yep! Bring it on guys! Let's see what you've got!

The very fact that Jose E. actually MADE something at all is a HUGE contribution to
the NASA mystery.

ATS members...What has this hunterorionp "guy" ever 'got'?..."yep! Bring it on guys! Let's see what you've got!...he shouts!!

How sad is that? A guy in a ski mask disses at a UFO researcher..

Pitch us a new storyline, minus the melodrama...& please include a better attitude

You point out mistakes...are you kidding me?...These are a handful of isolated errors in a massive study.

The premise remains intact.

I presume some of that quoted text was yours? Please learn how to quote properly. But anyway, I see nothing added in there of substance, indeed it all appears to be ad hominem (just like your previous post - am I noticing a trend?).. so I'll repeat the request, directed specifically at you:

Please post the best pieces of information, in your opinion, that Escamilla produced.


Now you have several options available - you can either:

1. Ignore the request completely and continue with ad hominem

2. Make excuses "Oh, I can't choose..."

3. Use the old "beat them down with quantity" technique, and post twenty or so examples. If you do, I'll take the first three (and I suggest anyone else does likewise so as not to encourage MORE tinfoilhat tactics).

4. Comply with the request, and just see how it pans out.



Now if you choose 1 or 2, you give the game away - that could, at best, be construed as fear that you will pick ones that are easily deBUNKable, and therefore demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the topic on which you speak. There are other interpretations, but they are even less complimentary...

If you choose 3, well, you get the same effect as 4, and simply demonstrate you are not that interested in sensible debate and are more interested in tactical posting and diversionary tactics.

By the way, 'secretnasaman', I particularly enjoyed reading how you were sooo impressed by DOF's analysis over on the STS-75 tether thread. I was impressed too - his analysis was simply amazingly comprehensive. And then you went and spoiled it when you said you still think it's a UFO.

I couldn't help but notice that you, strangely, inexplicably, forgetfully?, left out any justification for that 'think'......

Oh, and while you are supporting Escamilla, perhaps you would like to pop over and read the BAUT thread I linked to above. Then pop back here and tell us if you agree or disagree with Escamilla's post-processing approach and general research skills, with specifics.

PS - What did you think of his work with John Lenard Walson and Gridkeeper?

reply to post by OrionHunterX


if you look at the color images in the area of the mares,
they look fairly transparent and rather thick. like a very thick sheet of plexiglass over top of alot of internal stuff. not sure what it is, but there's some really interesting stuff up there.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Admittedly, I am not very smart. Nor very trusting.
I am NOT defending Mr. Escamilla (sp?) But try as I might, I am unable to align your OP images.

Just using PS with 2nd image @ 50% opacity. Sizing within ballpark. Granted one is a video and the other a still, but even considering perspective/distortion differences, I expected closer match.

Thanks.

Actually, I DO think it's smart to check claims and not trust everything you see - so well done, kk. But as OrionHunter pointed out, these are not same-scale images, so you needed to go a little farther. You used a good method to start, namely using Photoshop and making one layer about 50% opacity. But then you need to scale the layer - one of the ways to do this is:

1. Make sure you are 'on' the layer you wish to adjust

2. Use the Move tool to drag the layer and line up one crater edge

3. Then, use the menu - EDIT, TRANSFORM, SCALE

4. Now, drag the FURTHEST corner marker (ie the one diagonally opposite to the crater edge you aligned) until the second crater is about right.

5. Apply the transformation by clicking on the Move tool again. Answer 'yes'.

6. Make any fine adjustments - the scaling may have shifted your initial crater alignment a little. Return to step 3 if necessary.

For future reference, if you need to try this again and the images were not correctly aligned (North/South), then you might also have to rotate it a little (edit/transform/rotate) to get them in line before scaling them, but in this case, I just did the scaling and got an absolutely perfect match.

Also, if the images were from the edge of the image field, or not taken from directly above, there may be other perspective or lens distortions, but again, in this case, no such complexity is required to verify it.

It really is the same crater... For Escamilla not to actually check something so simple, and then to also not realise what the 'funny colours' were about.. Sheesh.


PS - I hope that all applies to your version of Photoshop. I'm still using my dear old CS (v8).

reply to post by undo

That's interesting. Can you specify the area or better still, post the images here? Thanx!

About the metals/minerals found on the Moon, Chandrayaan-1’s X-ray Spectrometer (C1XS) detected magnesium, aluminum and silicon during normal conditions. The instrument could detect calcium, iron, titanium, sodium and potassium in key areas in the southern hemisphere and on the far side of the Moon during solar flares that acted like flashbulbs.

The heat from the impact of micrometeorites melts and vaporises these metals, which are then redeposited on rock fragments as tiny, scattered beads in a glassy coating.

The mineral hapkeite was made when iron and silicon was deposited with two parts iron and one part silicon (Fe2Si), researchers said.

And when they used a very precise synchrotron laser to look at the mineral's crystal structure, they found it was similar to the structure of synthetic Fe2Si.

The scientists also found other phases of the mineral, which would have been formed at different pressures and temperatures.

Hapkeite is the third iron-silicon mineral scientists have found in meteorites, after suessite and perryite, which were reported in the 1970s and 1980s.

Similar minerals have also been found on Earth, as fulgurites or natural, hollow carrot-shaped glass tubes formed when lightening hits sandy soil.

In a nut shell, what you're probably seeing could be the result of the heat generated due to the impact of micrometeorites traveling at speeds of up to 100,000 kph, melting these metals resulting in the formation of a 'glassy' surface.





www.abc.net.au...

reply to post by OrionHunterX


I respectfully beg to differ. If you review the my first comparison, the large crater achieves PERFECT, EXACT alignment (Size/Scale) whereas the small crater is misaligned.

I achieved a very close (Size/Scale) match. Cropping is irrelevant. Also as another poster pointed out the craters appear quite round. This means no vertical or horizontal distortion. (egg vs. football shape) Perhaps I will create another example using grid lines to illustrate my point. Regardless, it cannot simply be "minimized" that he images do not align.

I am open to any other logical reasons or examples that dismiss my claim.
(Notice I never said proof?)

Regards

reply to post by OrionHunterX


yeah i think this one had me kinda amazed for awhile. it's like a scuffed up dance floor.

www.thelivingmoon.com...

[edit on 9-3-2010 by undo]

reply to post by OrionHunterX


excellent work. this is great attention to detail and research on your part. its sad that there 's hardly ever THIS much due dilligence put into such claims.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
I respectfully beg to differ. If you review the my first comparison, the large crater achieves PERFECT, EXACT alignment (Size/Scale) whereas the small crater is misaligned.

I achieved a very close (Size/Scale) match.

The problem for you is that the amount of scaling required to match the images is quite small. The small adjustment in size barely affects the size of the craters at all, certainly well within the constraints of these low-resolution images.

Please check my previous post and TRY IT. Then if you still believe the craters are no longer the right sizes, please give actual pixel dimensions and quantify the discrepancy.

Now I could just post my result for you, but you won't learn anything that way. However, rest assured that if you don't do it, I will.. and with all the steps outlined in painful detail, careful and verifiable pixel measurements, little arrows and everything, so *anyone* can exactly duplicate the result.

But like I said, it's your claim, so please do what you should have done at the start... My post above tells you exactly what to do.

FTR, I do this sort of stuff a lot, to help identify things like stars caught in space images. Even though it's not my analysis, there's a good example on this thread (scroll down to 'zerotensor's post):
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh look, just by coincidence, it's a video produced by secretnasaman being debunked. It's a funny old world.

I wonder why he didn't participate?

Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by OrionHunterX

 

I respectfully beg to differ. If you review the my first comparison, the large crater achieves PERFECT, EXACT alignment (Size/Scale) whereas the small crater is misaligned.

I achieved a very close (Size/Scale) match. Cropping is irrelevant. Also as another poster pointed out the craters appear quite round.

My guess is that the "very close" is the problem. Why only very close? The crater alignment is also close in the images you posted.

We meant to resize it, not to crop it, I know we said crop but that was meant to mean resize, so try resizing it instead of cropping it and do it better than "very close", and see what you get.

reply to post by secretnasaman

Geee! Are you trying to provoke me, Mr Martyn Stubbs? Then you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't get flustered that easy like you do! Your rants are the result of frustration leading to verbosity which is becoming legendary! Anyway here's some advice: you need to cool your radiator some. It'll do you a world of good! Bursting a nerve in the brain due to high BP isn't a good idea!

Apart from being a cable operator of a TV station, what pray are your qualifications??

[edit on 9-3-2010 by OrionHunterX]

Originally posted by MajorDisaster

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

The Moon not being just a lump of rock? Then what in the world is it? What are these so called 'revealings' you talk of?

Oh yeah! It's a great big alien space station!

I should've known!

Nah...You're confusing our moon with Saturn's Moon "Mimas" :

Originally posted by secretnasaman
How sad is that? A guy in a ski mask disses at a UFO researcher..

Secretnasaman, some of us (like me) find it really annoying that you would refer to Escamilla as a "UFO researcher", he is nothing of the sort, unless you think calling craters on the moon "flying saucers" is doing UFO research.

No, UFO's are a real phenomena and "not visionary or fictitious", and real UFO researchers research real UFOs.

Jose Escamilla is not only NOT a UFO researcher, he is the ENEMY of UFO researchers, because his calling camera artifacts "rods" and his calling craters "flying saucers" brings shame and ridicule to what should otherwise be taken as a topic for serious scientific research that has inspired the interest of real scientists like Dr Linus Pauling who would only do his research in secret, probably because of all the nutjobs in the field.

And it's not a matter of making one mistake, it's one fraudulent claim after another, from camera artifacts as rods, to craters as flying saucers, to out of focus debris particles in the STS-75 video, and the list goes on and on. Either he's intentionally hoaxing us, or he has serious issues with cognitive perception and I think he's too smart for the latter so I'm suspecting the former.

Maybe if the UFO community can do a better job of calling out the hoaxers and the tricksters, we can finally gain some credibility so that serious researchers won't consider the whole subject of UFOs off-limits due to the giggle factor associated with people who perpetrate one falsehood after another like Escamilla. No, unlike real UFOs which aren't "visionary or fictitious", Escamilla's "flying saucer" craters are fictitious, much to the chagrin of serious UFO researchers. So when you call Escamilla a UFO researcher, I see that as an insult to real UFO researchers.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

I hope this will better illustrate my point. Please provide a visual representation and spare me the PS techniques, I understand the program.

Using the bottom image below, I created 2 Red Circles with precise visual match. I duplicated that layer and scaled it down over the top image. Waalaa. The craters DO NOT align.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f711217fd701.jpg[/atsimg]
I am NOT defending Mr. Escamilla but rather trying to figure out why you deem a close resemblence of one lunar surface as an exact match to another. I look forward to the benefit of your reply and visual evidence.

I am not obstinate, just curious.

Regards...kk






[edit on 9-3-2010 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
reply to post by secretnasaman

 

Geee! Are you trying to provoke me, Mr Martyn Stubbs? Then you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't get flustered that easy like you do!

Your rants are the result of frustration leading to verbosity which is becoming legendary!

Anyway here's some advice: you need to cool your radiator some. It'll do you a world of good! Bursting a nerve in the brain due to high BP isn't a good idea!

Apart from being a cable operator of a TV station, what pray are your qualifications??

[edit on 9-3-2010 by OrionHunterX]

pot meet kettle.

What are your qualifications if I may ask?