Escamilla’s Fans Just Got Conned! Deny Ignorance!

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by free_spirit
reply to post by OrionHunterX

 

Then Mr. OrionHunterX if Jose Escamilla is a hoaxer and the Moon Rising
film is a hoax THEN it inevitably means tha LunaCognita IS ALSO a hoaxer
because he was a colaborator, do you agree or not. Tell me OrionHunterX
is LunaCognita also a hoaxer or not, I would like to hear you.

LunaCognita who? Do I need to know him? Is he supposed to be famous?
Is he the future prez of the US of A or a self styled Einstein? If he's some
guy who's mixed up with Escamilla, then yes, he's in the same boat as
Escamilla is in. And that boat is rocking so hard, it's about to capsize, if it
has not already!

[edit on 10-3-2010 by OrionHunterX]

LunaCognita, member of ATS like you, specialist in NASA - Space
anomalies research, well known among many ATS members, you can read
his words here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then I may understand you belive LunaCognita is also a hoaxer because
of his association with Escamilla in this film you claim is a fraud. Fine that
was what I wanted to hear from you.

Originally posted by free_spirit

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by free_spirit

 

I have no knowledge of what role Luna Cognita may or may not have had in the making of that movie.

LunaCognita is a member of ATS and known by many here but anyway just check this thread about the association Jose Escamilla - LunaCognita
and give me your comment, are they both hoaxers in your opinion or not.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh I've run across LunaCognita before. In fact I complimented him for authoring what is probably the best conspiracy theory I've ever read here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The NASA report he used as a primary source is a real, genuine NASA report and the anomaly he found in the report is a bonafide anomaly so strange and bizarre, I can't find or even consider any prosaic explanation for how such an anomaly could occur. In addition to that real NASA report, he supported his case or argument with a lapse in transmission times and some plausible speculation about what he believes happened.

Now does this mean I believe the conspiracy? No, I only said I can't conceive of a prosaic explanation for how NASA can publish such a blatantly erroneous report, but the fact I can't think of a prosaic reason doesn't mean that none exists. So that's a real report, and real evidence, and not at all like calling a crater a flying saucer. He called an "errant report" a possibly true report and I must accept that his proposed explanation is one possibility that seems we can't rule out until we have a full explanation for why the NASA report is so bizarre.

The other encounter I had with him in the same thread, again I don't see as an intentional hoax, but simply ignorance of how film scanning equipment works. He noticed that some old scanned films were in focus in the center, and not at the edges, here: www.abovetopsecret.com... and he built up a conspiracy theory around that observation. Again I don't think that's on par with knowingly calling a crater a "flying saucer", it's just a lack of knowledge about how film scanners work and an active imagination.

So I simply pointed out to him that's the way film scanners work, here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Here's a professional film scanner and it talks about how to deal with EXACTLY what Luna Cognita calls an obfuscation gradient:

Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Film Scanner

Normally, the scanner's autofocus system looks at the center of the frame to perform its focus adjustments. Alternatively, you can specify what part of the film you want it to adjust for, or what part of the film you want to manually adjust the focus based on. These are useful features, in that we've sometimes seen scanner autofocus systems outfoxed by low-contrast, or poorly-focused originals. Also, in the case of severely curled film, you may opt for sharp focus in one part of the frame, at the cost of poorer focus elsewhere. The Dimage Scan multi accommodates such situations with the aforementioned option of specifying the point of focus.

It even points out that it focuses on the center by default!!!!! You have the option of changing this default setting with a manual override if you think the most important part of the image you want in focus is near the edge.

Now I've proven this is a real effect, if you want anyone to believe the conspiracy theory I think the burden is on you to show it's not a result of this prosaic explanation which I've demonstrated.

So no I wouldn't call either of those two encounters I've had with Luna Cognita hoaxes. I would be sadly disappointed, but not shocked if Luna Cognita did call a crater on the moon a "flying saucer" like Escamilla did, but I haven't seen him do that.

I read the thread you referred me to and while it mentioned Luna Cognita and Escamilla, it still didn't define what Luna Cognita's role was in the production of that movie, nor did it confirm anywhere that Luna Cognita called a crater a flying saucer.

So despite your persistent efforts to try to draw conclusions for me that I haven't drawn, I can only present what I have seen and what I know, and none of that so far has confirmed what Luna Cognita's role was in that movie, nor does it confirm LunaCognita called a crater a flying saucer like Escamilla clearly did.

Actually I like Luna Cognita who is obviously a very intelligent person, perhaps with an active imagination but hey that's one of the things I like about him, I like people who can think creatively. So I was kind of hoping you wouldn't point me to the place where he called a crater a flying saucer like Escamilla did, as I'd be disappointed to see that, especially since I have no doubt that Luna Cognita is smart enough to know better. So far I've not seen any evidence for that.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Then as I can see now you don't think LunaCognita is a hoaxer for
colaborating with Escamilla in the Moon Rising film, fine. But there's still
one issue here that I want to comment and let me quote you:

Arbitrageur said: Jose Escamilla is not only NOT a UFO researcher, he is
the ENEMY of UFO researchers (end of quote)

That's quite a statement and it is wrong and I will tell you why. You are
involving all and I mean ALL the UFO researchers in the world, right?
First, I'm a UFO researcher and I don't see Jose Escamilla as my enemy
no way. I know Jose Escamilla and his work and I may disagree with him
sometimes for instance I was the one to critisize the Interstellar film when
it was released and I posted a comment the Rise and Fall of Interstellar as
a resume of my critic. About the Rods I have my doubts but I still remain
with no definitive conclusion, there are many people that belive in the Rod
phenomena and I don't call them fools because it's their privilege and they
decided to belive in the Rods. This means that even I may disagree with
Jose Escamilla I recognize also some of his work as a filmmaker and again
I don't consider him an enemy.

Now, you say Jose Escamilla is the enemy of UFO Researchers and I will
ask you Arbitrageur, who gave you the hierarchy to speak in behalf of all
UFO researchers, now you know what I mean. Your statement has no
grounds simply because you don't know what the millions of researchers
think about Jose Escamilla then how can you say he is the enemy of them
all, that may be interpreted as an arrogant position pretending to be a
perfect individual who knows everything about Ufology, the community
and the researchers. Then unfortunately what you just showed you don't
know about Ufology at all simply because in Ufology many many UFO
researchers are enemies to each other simply due to the regrettable
conflict of interest, and you knwo what this means, conflict of interest then
how can you say Escamilla is enemy of all UFO researchers when they are
also enemies many times because of conflic of interest.

If you are a researcher Arbitrageur you may consider Jose Escamilla your
enemy, that's your priviledge but to denounce this filmmaker as a public
enemy in the UFO community because he doesn't convince you with his
works and theories I'm sorry but that is wrong cause there are still many
who don't agree with you in this issue then it's you against them, you see
what I mean. Listen nobody is perfect in the UFO community in fact there
are many around who make mistakes all the time for different reasons, I
have made mistakes miself so nobody is perfect. So in my opinion go
ahead and make your critics, your denounces but don't involve all the UFO
researchers in your appreciations because that is an illusion.

One last thing, Ufology has become an industry generating money and
filmmakers as well as researchers, tv networks etc. do their operations
and earn money, that's the way it is like it or not, it's the reality.

reply to post by free_spirit

Originally posted by free_spirit
Arbitrageur said: Jose Escamilla is not only NOT a UFO researcher, he is
the ENEMY of UFO researchers (end of quote)

That's quite a statement and it is wrong and I will tell you why. You are
involving all and I mean ALL the UFO researchers in the world, right?

Actually you have to look at the whole quote for context:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.

.

Now before you get upset and think I'm slighting you with that comment, I also include myself as someone not doing serious scientific research. It's really just a hobby for me at this point, but it's people like Escamilla that dissuade me from entering this field since I don't want to be associated with him. Why did Linus Pauling keep his interest in UFOs a secret? I suspect it's at least partly because of the hoaxers that give the subject it's giggle factor. The field of UFO research needs to do a better job of keeping its own house clean so if you're really a UFO researcher then I encourage you to step up to the plate and call out the hoaxers to keep the field more credible.

To give you a different perspective, look at the comments made by someone who I admire and repsect, internos:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by internos
i'm just some guy who loves the subject matter: and if one really loves, for example, his house, then he should NEVER allow the garbage to invade it. Since i love this subject matter, here's why i i try to find out the more i can about every case worthy to be studied: And NOT, i'm NOT happy whenever i find out that something is a hoax, CGI, misinterpretation etc.: actually, i'm not happy at all after finding a mundane explanation to (or "debunkig") something: it's sad, but all in all it's the only way we have to realize WHAT are actual UFOs, to get closer to the truth, to deny ignorance, to have a realistic idea about the actual dimension of the phenomenon: and to those who believe me to be some blind sceptic, listen here: i do believe in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent forms of life, i have NO doubts about it, despite the lack of any conclusive proof. But to believe is VERY different from to know, and to base our thoughts just on our beliefs is way less intelligent than to base them on knowledge.

So do you understand his point about loving the subject matter and wanting to keep the garbage out? That's what I was referring to. If you really love the subject matter, then I think you should want to keep the garbage out too.

ATS realizes this and that's why they have a policy to ban members who knowingly post false information or hoaxes. That's also one of the things I like and respect about ATS. I can't speak for ATS management, but the claim that a crater on the moon is a flying saucer is far worse than claims I've seen them ban people for making. So clearly people knowingly making false claims are not welcome at ATS, and they shouldn't be welcomed into the field of UFO research at all, that was my point, sorry if you disagree but that's your right.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


G'day Arbitrageur

Thank you for your extremely thoughtful, extremely well expressed comments.

It's that very high standard of discussion that keeps me so strongly interested in ATS.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I must accept that his proposed explanation is one possibility that seems we can't rule out until we have a full explanation for why the NASA report is so bizarre.

and if you never get an explanation from NASA and despite the overwhelming evidence will you keep clinging to your skepticism about it ? oh wait , don't answer that , i already know your answer

He noticed that some old scanned films were in focus in the center, and not at the edges,
t's just a lack of knowledge about how film scanners work and an active imagination.

since you in no way shape or form proved that is the explanation, i could easily accuse you of having a active imagination. you don't even know what the condition of the film was when it was supposedly scanned yet here you are making the claim that it was old and curled and nobody should think otherwise. i think your opinions are masquerading as facts again



LunaCognita can speak for himself but i am pretty sure he doesn't believe Jose's flying crater theory. neither do i but i think the main point Jose is trying to get across to everyone is we should be questioning any pictures of the Moons surface and not taking what NASA and the DoD has presented to us at face value. i could be wrong but that's my take on it.

reply to post by easynow


Hey Easy,

Arbitrageur has had a month to discover and present example images/frames to corroborate his speculative theory - he has not.

I guess we can speculate on the reasons why after a whole month, this is still the case.

reply to post by Exuberant1


hey Exuberant1,

are you surprised that he can't find any examples ?

nah , me either LOL

even if he did find some example, it still does not prove that is the explanation for the blurred effect we see in the DAC footage.

it's very possible that the footage was transferred to digital form not long after it was brought back from the mission and didn't even need to be rescanned or reprocessed ? i am sure he believes his theory though and will keep making unfounded proclamations to feed the perpetual denial machine.

reply to post by easynow
reply to post by Exuberant1

Since this thread is about Escamilla's moon crater being a flying saucer and his other outrageous claims, kudos to you for not defending those claims.

And if you're skeptical of the source I quoted stating how film scanners work, that's fine, at least that's debatable unlike the moon crater =flying saucer hoax, and even if the point is to get people to question the "official story" there has to be a more effective means to accomplish such a goal than to perpetrate a hoax. It seems to me that would have the opposite effect and get people to pose more questions about the hoaxer and less questions about the entity the hoaxer is trying to debunk.

Originally posted by easynow
and if you never get an explanation from NASA and despite the overwhelming evidence

Overwhelming evidence? Forgive my mirth. When 99% of these idiotic images are usually quite quickly shown to be Moon craters (not UFO's), jpeg artefacts (not city sized aliens), lens flares, people with their heads turned (not empty helmets), known stars or planets (not alien ships).. ad infinitum, it just goes on and on. And the naive and gullible keep repeating them (deliberately?) in the hope that the accumulated hysteria from all the scattergunned garbage will help them sell another DVD or book, or perhaps just give them their 15 minutes of youtube fame.


LOOK AT THIS THREAD for example, The whole premise was a complete debacle a stupid misinterpretation made by someone who REFUSES to acknowledge they got it wrong. When I asked people like secretnasaman, free-spirit and others to post some better examples they run like the wind, change the topic, talk about something else. ANYTHING to not let their beloved stupidities be threatened by actual KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING and EXPLANATION.

Even here, you think you are making some sort of a point about film scanners? I'm sorry, but you just proved 2 things:

1. You simply know NOTHING about the topic. The effect of focus problems (usually caused by non-flat film, but can be due to lens quality or sensor misalignment) is so well known in imaging circles, it's not even funny. Get some experience in this area before making further silly proclamations.

2. By not even considering this as an issue, you prove you have NO IDEA how the scientific method works, or about the concept of 'burden of proof', or even just plain LOGIC. To blithely eliminate that issue as a possibility, as you just did, simply shows how desperate you are to plug your ears and scream la-la-la-la if anyone offers some information about things you need to take into account, or simply tries to teach you something that might threaten your pet theory.

... i already know your answer

And there's your problem You think you can read people's minds and motives, and if they dare to bring up something that shakes your theory, they are immediately the enemy. You think it's funny that you can so easily dismiss valid issues. How's that all working for you?

Me, I listen, I research, I work things out, and when I put together the pieces and find a logical explanation, I accept it until further contradictory information appears. And I know when someone knows their subject, like Arbitrageur did here. That's how science works. That's how the legal system works. That's how things get done, by the people who apply those principles.

LunaCognita can speak for himself but i am pretty sure he doesn't believe Jose's flying crater theory

Let's start with that - see if you can actually make a REAL point.. ON WHAT BASIS do you think that? Mind-reading skills, or is there a thread you can point me too?

Originally posted by free_spirit
One last thing, Ufology has become an industry generating money and
filmmakers as well as researchers, tv networks etc. do their operations
and earn money, that's the way it is like it or not, it's the reality.

Exactly! You hit the nail on the head! It has become a money making industry and how! So you do agree that Escamilla is generating money by propounding bizarre theories like insisting that many craters on the Moon shown in his film are "The only clear and detailed photography ever released of real flying saucers". Huh?

If only Escamilla had used the words 'probably', 'looks like', 'may be' 'perhaps', 'possibly' etc, it would have given the choice to the reader to decide. But when he insists on his misplaced beliefs and issues statements as reproduced above, then the whole ball game changes!

If the intention is to make a quick buck like Escamilla is doing by his preposterous statements without adequate research, influencing the gullible to part with their hard earned greenbacks to buy nonsense, then it's a great disservice to the UFO community as a whole.

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

it's very possible that the footage was transferred to digital form not long after it was brought back from the mission and didn't even need to be rescanned or reprocessed ?

Well that would certainly add more credence to the theory that says video data was being intentionally blurred; It would just make it that much easier to do and get away with.

That might also partially explain why Arbitrageur can find any Apollo DAC 16mm film that exhibits film curl and which looks like what was presented by lunacognita in the other thread.


*But really, you think they actually may have had such capabilities? Wouldn't there be a paper trail?

I honestly don't believe in all the photos that he has picked out and adjusted, but some of the photos, are honestly compelling. Except for the craters =P

Originally posted by easynow
it's very possible that the footage was transferred to digital form not long after it was brought back from the mission and didn't even need to be rescanned or reprocessed ?

What? Maybe I am misunderstanding this, but you do realise that the DAC was a 16mm FILM camera? FILM.

Can you suggest what methodology existed then (or now) for directly transferring the 'data' in digital form, from that film?

Your point clearly implies that this method would not involve a lens and sensor (if it does, the film flatness issue is very important), so I'm intrigued.

Do explain.

Less laughter, more reality and sensible informed debate, thanks...

Originally posted by jdmmade
I honestly don't believe in all the photos that he has picked out and adjusted, but some of the photos, are honestly compelling. Except for the craters =P

Sigh. Which ones, and why?

I'm not disagreeing, some of the lunar imaging is extraordinarily beautiful and compelling. And it's all available for free from NASA and other sites. You could put your own DVD together, and give it away...

But specifically, what images give evidence for a conspiracy of some sort? It would be nice if you identified the nasa references (as a decent researcher should ALWAYS do), and then we could quickly identify the mission, and the type of imaging.

Originally posted by CHRLZ


....some of the lunar imaging is extraordinarily beautiful and compelling. And it's all available for free from NASA and other sites.

Free = courtesy of the American Taxpayers.




Anyhow, not all of the images and video data are readily accessible to the public. And plenty of it has been lost.


Edit: And if you go to LPI for your images - sometimes over half of the data is gone - totally blacked out (for our own good though):




AS17-148-22718



...for our own good.

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by CHRLZ

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by easynow
and if you never get an explanation from NASA and despite the overwhelming evidence

Overwhelming evidence? Forgive my mirth. When 99% of these idiotic images are usually quite quickly shown to be Moon craters (not UFO's), jpeg artefacts (not city sized aliens), lens flares, people with their heads turned (not empty helmets), known stars or planets (not alien ships).. ad infinitum, it just goes on and on. And the naive and gullible keep repeating them (deliberately?) in the hope that the accumulated hysteria from all the scattergunned garbage will help them sell another DVD or book, or perhaps just give them their 15 minutes of youtube fame.

news flash CHRLZ,

what's any of that got to do with what Arbitrageur is claiming about the DAC footage we were discussing in my thread and he brought up in this one ? are you just grasping at anything to attack me with ?

OR

are your reading comprehension skills as bad as i think they are ?

LOOK AT THIS THREAD for example, The whole premise was a complete debacle a stupid misinterpretation made by someone who REFUSES to acknowledge they got it wrong. When I asked people like secretnasaman, free-spirit and others to post some better examples they run like the wind, change the topic, talk about something else. ANYTHING to not let their beloved stupidities be threatened by actual KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING and EXPLANATION.

well i guess you have been to the Moon yourself and know everything don't you ? thank God we have you here !!....FYI i can see why they avoided replying to you, you come across as a rude know it all !

:shk:

1. You simply know NOTHING about the topic. The effect of focus problems (usually caused by non-flat film, but can be due to lens quality or sensor misalignment) is so well known in imaging circles, it's not even funny. Get some experience in this area before making further silly proclamations.

another news flash for you CHRLZ,

i am well aware of the process despite your assumptions and ignorant proclamations. i gotta ask, are you a mind reader ? if you are then your not a very good one because you don't have a clue about what i know.

By not even considering this as an issue, you prove you have NO IDEA how the scientific method works, or about the concept of 'burden of proof', or even just plain LOGIC.

i haven't ruled it out and if you had read my thread where we were discussing this you might know that but i guess it's easier for you to just make up little fantasies in your mind and use that to launch an attack ?

And there's your problem You think you can read people's minds and motives

i think it's safe for me here to call you a hypocrite

ON WHAT BASIS do you think that?

nunya business , what makes you think i owe you any explanation ?

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Anyhow, not all of the images and video data are readily accessible to the public. And plenty of it has been lost.

Edit: And if you go to LPI for your images - sometimes over half of the data is gone - totally blacked out (for our own good though):

i guess thats where the difference is at....... to question authority..... or act like vultures on other peoples preys.....

Originally posted by easynow
i am well aware of the process despite your assumptions and ignorant proclamations. i gotta ask, are you a mind reader ? if you are then your not a very good one because you don't have a clue about what i know.

This from the same person who suggested that the data could be directly transferred from the film without a lens or a sensor? Still waiting for an explanation... I make my judgements about forum dweller's knowledge and credibility by what spews from their keyboard... I'm sure readers are quite capable of spotting who knows what they are talking about, and who pretends (or quickly tries to Google it up as necessary..)

i haven't ruled it out and if you had read my thread where we were discussing this you might know that but i guess it's easier for you to just make up little fantasies in your mind and use that to launch an attack ?

You haven't ruled it out? - Strange. You said this:
"since you in no way shape or form proved that is the explanation, i could easily accuse you of having a active imagination. you don't even know what the condition of the film was when it was supposedly scanned yet here you are making the claim that it was old and curled and nobody should think otherwise. i think your opinions are masquerading as facts again"
FOLLOWED BY:
"i am sure he believes his theory though and will keep making unfounded proclamations"

Sounds like 'ruling out' to me, along with a childish ad hominem attack for even suggesting alternative explanations.

Maybe you should think before you post, and try to remove the anger.
And unwarranted jealousy, if you seriously think I'm a know-all..

i think it's safe for me here to call you a hypocrite

You can use whatever names you like, but I won't reciprocate. I just call your proclamations stupid. "Ill-informed" and "gullible" is about as far as I'll go.

ON WHAT BASIS do you think that?

nunya business , what makes you think i owe you any explanation ?

You seem to understand the term hypocrite, judging by that effort, so it's a pity you can't use it properly, or recognise it internally.

But do keep laughing. All good researchers do that.


STILL waiting to for the really convincing examples, you know, the ones a that aren't craters.. I'm guessing it won't be coming from easynow either - his excuse being 'he doesn't like me'.

You'd think these folk would want to use their wit and wisdom to take me down a few pegs, but no. Any excuse will do. I'm not sure they understand the point of a public forum, and that they are not just talking to me. Ah well, it's their choice.

And may I make an observation? NO-ONE has yet defended Jose Escamilla's ufo's to any real degree. I think it is accepted that they are indeed craters (but I'm open to any decent argument...).

And as yet NO-ONE has proffered any better examples. Unless you count cropping out black sky, in an image that is fully available in the uncropped version.. (I mean really, is that the best you guys can come up with?)


So, no argument about the thread subject. No better examples - in fact many further examples of similar behaviour from Escamilla.

What should one make of that?

You don't have to be a know-it-all...


[edit on 11-3-2010 by CHRLZ]

reply to post by CHRLZ


yada yada yada.......

www.abovetopsecret.com...