Escamilla’s Fans Just Got Conned! Deny Ignorance!

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

yada yada yada.......

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"yada yada yada"? Well, that's really deep and sensible debate, right there.

I notice you linked to a post that contains no debate or discussion, just a video. So, I should waste my bandwidth on something that you can't even be bothered describing or commenting on?

Well, I'm sorry, but until you put a little EFFORT in and actually describe what you saw and what you think, I'm not putting any effort in either.

I'm SICK TO DEATH of this "Here look at this!!! PROOF!!" mentality..

Originally posted by mcrom901
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

yada yada yada.......

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sure?
These are flase-color photos, sorry -> en.wikipedia.org...

This very first picture from jaxa (fakes?NO!) shows a "quasi color" picture, they are not visible for our eyes.

Figure 1 First Image taken by the KAGUYA MI The color image of the Moon (quasi color image) was composed by applying red, green and blue respectively to three bands, namely 900nm, 700nm and 415nm, of the nine bands of MI. The comparative computation image shows the comparison of the strength of two bands, 750 nm and 1,000 nm. By processing image data acquired by multiple band widths, we can learn the volume and scattered direction of material dug up to the surface from the inside and chemical composition of materials existing underneath craters. Such information is necessary for studying the scale and direction of a collision when a crater was formed. The image was not calibrated yet, but, by comparative calculation, we can more clearly see the inconsistency of the distribution of material scattered around the crater compared to in a single-band image. The red to yellow (then yellow-green) areas indicate that more dug-up material exists there due to crater formation on highlands anorthosite surface soil (in dark blue).

Source: www.jaxa.jp...

Not very colorfull....but not B/W:

reply to post by CHRLZ


i was not mistaken.......

yada yada yada.........

reply to post by CHRLZ


Do you think it is acceptable to discuss banned members in the manner in which you are discussing Escamilla (a banned member)?

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by hellfrozeover

 

As for what you mentioned, it is not acceptable to discuss Banned Members, but I can tell you this; anyone that was Banned was done so due to T&C violations and nothing more.

Perhaps we are allowed to discuss this banned member - or maybe now all banned members?


Anyhow, I shall refrain.

(...Until Steven Greer joins and gets banned - that is when I will live on the edge like you guys and trash banned members )

reply to post by cushycrux


yeah right...........

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by CHRLZ

I make my judgements about forum dweller's knowledge and credibility by what spews from their keyboard

me too and right now, your not looking to knowledgeable to me and correct me if i'm wrong but it appears that you have nothing to offer us on the topic other than demands that somebody hand you the answers on a silver platter ?

You haven't ruled it out?

no i haven't and NO Arbitrageur has not and cannot prove that the theory he is favoring, IS the answer and YOU can't either ! but i guess if i don't agree with him or you despite the fact that the claim is still unproven, then i will be labeled as someone who doesn't understand basic scientific reasoning ? huh, imagine that ! you want me and the rest of the world to accept a unproven claim just because that one feels good to you ? LOL

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..

dude in case you forgot already, you attacked me first ! who is the one with the anger problem ? i think the answer to that is obvious and don't fool yourself, there's nothing about you to be jealous about ! ROTFL !

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'.

yep it's clear that's what YOU ARE ALL ABOUT, just waiting for someone to do all the work for you and hand you the evidence on a silver platter ! whooo boy you are some serious researcher ! ...i am getting jealous now !

your not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you ? i already said i didn't believe Jose's flying crater theory so WHY the heck would i be posting something to defend it ?

Do you think it is acceptable to discuss banned members in the manner in which you are discussing Escamilla (a banned member)?

That's a fair question, but before answering... the post of mine you replied to did not contain any insults aimed at Escamilla, and the quote you then added was not from this thread at all, nor did it involve me.. I'm not complaining, but just to make things clear..!

Anyway, to answer your question, this is a conspiracy forum, is it not? If we are not allowed to discuss the works of people who are banned here, but that continue to advertise their wares outside the forum, would that be fair or in any way enforcable?

I do agree that there should be moderation in all things (pun intended), but we have to be able to call a spade a spade. If someone calls me a hoaxer, a charlatan or a fraud, they are most welcome!, but I simply ask them to back it up. If they can prove it, I'll wear the audience decision..

To date, I have tried to give examples of why I believe what I do about him. If they are insufficient or wrong, anyone is welcome to defend him and point out where I am wrong. Truth will win out, with a little luck.

I don't know where in the T&C it says you cannot discuss banned members Internet contributions. Talking about their banning is probably out of bounds though, and I hope I don't now transgress over that line... but so be it... Personally, if I was Escamilla, I would simply apologise to the moderators for any past transgressions, and ask to be allowed to return. That's IF I wished to defend myself..

But I would then again draw your attention to the thread over at BAUTForum (I won't quote it again, but check back a few pages) where Escamilla has *not* been banned.. but he has chosen to disappear, rather than defend himself on some very similar topics.

Anyway, you can always report any post that you think crosses the line, including this, and I'll wear the moderator's decisions (or deletions, or bans..!).

Perhaps they may wish to elaborate and clarify?

And if you now don't hear from me again, you'll know why..

reply to post by CHRLZ


G'day CHRLZ

I wouldn't worry about the "banned member" issue.

He's just tossing it in as a red herring to annoy you.

There are plenty of precedents for this sort of thing.

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not (also in QLD for tonight!)

Originally posted by easynow
me too and right now, your not looking to knowledgeable to me and correct me if i'm wrong

Sure. I pointed out that reproducing a film in a digital format involves a lens and sensor at high magnification (=shallow depth of field). Do you agree or not? If it does, that means that film flatness is a big issue. If you seriously need links and examples to prove that, then you are not qualified to be commenting on the topic.

It is therefore relevant (to the offtopic stuff you introduced here), yet as my quotes showed, you dismissed it and lambasted the poster..

I've asked anyone who wishes to take up the claims of Escamilla, to do so in their own words. That way we can get an idea if they actually understand the topic - eg, why false colours might be involved... That way we avoid wasting time and bandwidth on topics that simply show that the poster hasn't the first clue about what they are looking at.

I've seen nothing whatsoever ontopic from you, in fact all I've seen is an attempt to change the subject to film scanners and a steaming pile of ad hominem..

no i haven't [ruled it out]

No? Here's another quote from that thread.

either you supply some video examples of this effect for everyone to see and make a comparison or you got zippo, nada, nothing !

Oh No. You certainly didn't rule it out.

NO Arbitrageur has not and cannot prove that the theory he is favoring, IS the answer and YOU can't either !

You just don't quite get the old "burden of proof" concept do you? Nor do you like getting involved in gathering all the relevant evidence and knowledge available and listening to alternate theories. Much better to laugh and throw stones.

i already said i didn't believe Jose's flying crater theory so WHY the heck would i be posting something to defend it ?

?
Then surely this thread was over for you after the first post, so why are you still here? I'm glad it still amuses you though.

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

 

G'day CHRLZ

I wouldn't worry about the "banned member" issue.

He's just tossing it in as a red herring to annoy you.

There are plenty of precedents for this sort of thing.

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not (also in QLD for tonight!)

Do I really sound worried? heheh, maybe I should use more emoticons.

I figured you were an orstraylian from the 'cheers mate' bizzo. Cooee, cobber. I'm not actually a Q native, but I'm here for a few more years probably.. Havagood'un.

PS I'd invite you for a beer/cordial (you're probably not far away if you have just snuck up from NSW?), 'cept I'm about to hit the sack - hard yakka at work today, and a worse one and early start due for tomorrow.

reply to post by CHRLZ


G'day again CHRLZ

I'm luxuriating in a "5 star" in town.

I'll 'ave another chardy for ya

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by CHRLZ

Sure. I pointed out that reproducing a film in a digital format involves a lens and sensor at high magnification (=shallow depth of field). Do you agree or not? If it does, that means that film flatness is a big issue. If you seriously need links and examples to prove that, then you are not qualified to be commenting on the topic.

i agree there would have to be some "sensor" to pick up the image off the film but that in no way proves that the film was curled or curled enough to create the defocused effect. am i saying it's impossible ? no i am not and it could be the explanation but there is no proof and nobody here to bear witness to the actual processes and circumstances surrounding the event of the transfer. in other words you weren't there and don't really know what happened. so just because some film has had a film curl issues i automatically have to accept that theory ? no sorry can't do that, i require more than that because of the overall subject matter. you may disagree and that's cool, i will respect your opinion but i expect the same in return.

(to the offtopic stuff you introduced here)

dude you really gotta work on those reading skills some more, Arbitrageur is the one who brought all this up in this thread, blame him not me.

I've seen nothing whatsoever ontopic from you,

i was just responding to your off topic posts and now i am the bad guy ?
nice one !

Oh No. You certainly didn't rule it out.

your taking that out of context (i'm not surprised) and once again **sigh ... no i haven't ruled it out but i also don't see ANY evidence that tells me with a doubt that is the final explanation. if you do then i am happy for you but it means you are willing to accept some theory without question even though you weren't there ! that's not very smart is it ?

You just don't quite get the old "burden of proof" concept do you?

good joke haha...yep i don't get it , uh huh surrrrrrre !

:shk:

why are you still here?

good question, i usually ignore rude know it all's like yourself

reply to post by easynow

Originally posted by CHRLZ


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.

Just like to fully disagree with that ridiculous comment, and thank you easynow for ALL your effort and showing the rest of us 'loons' your info. I have found it invaluable and ... sexy!

It's a funny forum at times this ATS eh

I like Joe and appreciate his efforts. Perfect or imperfect, with or without some flaws. No sure why you're attacking Joe.

It is so funny how non ufos believers come to boards to convice themselves that there are no UFOS, so why come here if you don't believe in UFOS

Originally posted by kolta
It is so funny how non ufos believers come to boards to convice themselves that there are no UFOS, so why come here if you don't believe in UFOS

There's so much wrong with that statement I'm not sure where to begin. Everybody believes there are UFOs unless they ignore the thousands of UFO reports filed each year.

So the question isn't whether there are UFOs or not, but instead the question is "What are they?" Well, according to MUFON, most of them are natural phenomena or manmade objects. But even after investigation, some can't be explained, hence the appropriate term "unidentified", however I don't even think the term UFO is appropriate, I believe the correct term should be UAP for "unidentified aerial phenomena" as adopted by NARCAP (National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena):

www.narcap.org...

The term "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" or UAP is an attempt to address the fact that not all UAP are described as UFO. Many are simply described as unusual lights. NARCAP feels the term "UAP" more accurately reflects the broad scope of descriptions in aviation reports as well as the possibility that these unusual phenomena may arise from several different sources.

Anyway the reason people come here is to seek the truth. Just because I've never seen any evidence that aliens are piloting UFOs doesn't mean they aren't, and I would actually be happy if I could find some evidence that they are, so that's one reason I come here, it's a good place to share evidence which has at least been vetted to some extent, unlike other sources, such as youtube for example, though to their credit they finally banned that crazy person in PA who kept posting airplanes and claimed they were UFOs.

But ATS is much better because ATS generally does a much better job of keeping the hoaxers out and the contributors here tend to post higher quality material. So remember the wise words of our dear departed friend jkrog08, we're all here for the same reason, to learn the truth.

It's threads like this one that help separate fact from fiction by pointing out some of the fiction, and unfortunately this field of UFOlogy has more than its fair share of that. But once we weed out the fiction we are left with some interesting facts about UFOs and I think we can all be appropriately intrigued by those regardless of what we feel they might be.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Nice speech but your statement remains, you said Jose Escamilla is an
enemy of UFO researchers (All of them including me) that was wrong and
you know it even that now you want to change to sense of your words so
live with that. By the way if you really want the garbage out as you said
why don't you start with the NASA, DOD and goverment's informations or
should I say dissinformations about UFOs, ET's, the Moon etc. then you
would have a real advance in your crusade for an immaculate UFO field.
Good Luck.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I would actually be happy if I could find some evidence that they are

got any ideas about what kind of evidence would convince you ?

if you do, i would like to hear about it and since that wouldn't be on topic for this thread you can , if you want to, post your thoughts in this thread here.



on topic:

no i still don't believe Jose's flying Moon crater theory but there could be UFO's on and around the Moon.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
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.

Excuse me your majesty but you are wrong, I did post two links in Page 5
about LunaCognita, why don't you make a little effort and check those
links here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also if you are new in ATS there is a search function if you just have made
a little effort and type the words you would find several links about Luna.
And of course if you were just a little smart you could have used Google
to get information about LunaCognita, just by typing some words, easy.
Man don't be that lazy, do your own search.

By the way, now you sound extremely pissed off man, just take it easy
you still have you life.

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

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!

then it's a great disservice to the UFO community as a whole.

Sure I hit the nail in YOUR head buddy but I think you don't live in America
since you sound so upset about the money issue, in America everything is
related to money so what, people have to make a living, what is your
complaint, but wait... I see let me guess, you are one of those visionaries
looking for the utopic world where everything is free, where all the motives
of people in life is to give everything to the world for free. Now I see why
you are so dissapointed and I can only say to you go back to your
monastery where you live your all-is-free life and enjoy your pure
life away of the mundane things of this world specially the evil MONEY.

Finally this. Don't you dare to pretend to be the official voice of the UFO
community (by saying a great disservice to the UFO community) If it was
a great dissiervice as you claim it was TO YOU this alleged disservice.
Who gave you the authority to speak or make claims in the name of the
UFO community, don't be that selfish arrogant and speak for yourself. We
are sick and tired of people like you that use the same cliche just to
support your claims, speak for yourself and accept the consequences.