*** Moon Rising *** A Must See UFO Film about our Moon!

[DropaKing]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ3wh2cjekE

I believe this would be the proper section within your forum for all the (language) Astronomers to take a look at...

I believe the comments on this film should be quite interesting...

PEACE,

DropaKing

[Sticks]

Please note, not everyone here is in a position to view videos so please elaborate. Also it is not good form to make your argument a "See this link" only. You need to explain your position in your own words for those not prepared to follow links

[Musashi]

Blurry Clementine pictures conspiracy.

ETA:

Giant blurry spaceship near a crater with humongous humanoid working under the hood. Also, a strange color palette hypothesis arrived at by turning color earth images to greyscale and then extrapolating backwards to what the shades of grey on the moon really are.

[Garrison]

Blurry Clementine pictures conspiracy.

ETA:

Giant blurry spaceship near a crater with humongous humanoid working under the hood. Also, a strange color palette hypothesis arrived at by turning color earth images to greyscale and then extrapolating backwards to what the shades of grey on the moon really are.

I think that's been done a couple of times, without anyone providing a rational explanation why none of the millions of professional and amateur astronomers who have looked at the moon have ever seen these 'true' colours.

[JayUtah]

Simply more of the same pareidolic hogwash that pulls the wool over the eyes of gullible conspiracy-seekers.

Jose Escamilla selects one of dozens of Clementine images that contain transmission or sewing artifacts, declares (with no proof) that they have been "deliberately tampered with," and then purports to "analyze" the image.

One blur obscures an "object" that is "ten times the size of Los Angeles" according to recognized forensic image analyst Jim Hoerricks. (I've invited Mr. Hoerricks to join us; Escamilla will probably not be pleased with what Jim has to say.) The film provides no explanation for why such a large "object" remains unseen by earthbound telescopes, which have the resolution to see objects of that size on the lunar surface.

Escamilla then "enhances" the blur, apparently by repeated arbitrary applications of the Unsharp Mask filter in Adobe Photoshop. With his "object" now artifically (i.e., falsely) clarified, he makes the astounding claim that there "may or may not be" a "humanoid" working on the front of the object, which he declares to be a spaceship. Escamilla provides no explanation for why his "humanoid" would be the size of a large city, and why it is standing upside-down on the lunar surface. That is, the line of sight in this photo and the local "up" at the image location are inconsistent with the hunched-over orientation of the purported humanoid.

In the last portion of this segment, Escamilla simply applies arbitrary color subjectively to the grayscale images of the lunar surface and then astoundingly declares that this procedure "reveals" the lunar surface structures. I don't even know where to begin saying what's wrong with that.

No, this is simply the same old hogwash that's been done a dozen times. It will continue to be done as long as there is a sucker born every minute.

[Fazor]

Escamilla then "enhances" the blur, apparently by repeated arbitrary applications of the Unsharp Mask filter in Adobe Photoshop.

Well, that IS silly . . . anyone with half a brain knows the only real way to recover unrecorded visual data in an image is by using CSI software that only responds to the vocal command "enhance!"

It's always lost on me how someone can rationalize the "fact" that Nasa is so evil but well organized that they can pull off such huge conspiracies, but that a simple digital image software package that millions of people use every day will come built in with the tools to uncover said conspiracy.

I saw another good example on a program the other week, where some "specialist" was using 3DStudio to prove a video showed a UFO. He had the video set up as the viewport background, and was then manipulating the scene to "recreate it". As if the fact that he could place spheres and light sources in a widely-used rendering program made him such an expert that it didn't matter that distances and placement of various objects was so arbitrary that all he was really doing was manipulating a scene he invented to fit the theory in such a way that it sort-of fit (but even then, it really didn't). Okay, that was a long sentence . . . I need to catch my breath.

[JimHoerricks]

Here's what I shared with JayUtah via e-mail:

"It's funny how this keeps popping up.

He, his publicist, and I went a few rounds over his attempts to mis-quote my findings and twist my words to support his efforts. I think his final output may mention that I examined certain areas of the images - without revealing / downplaying my findings. As if the mere mention of my esteemed name will lend credibility to his work. This is one job that I wish I would have not taken.

Essentially, his allegations that he could "see" remnants of buildings, vehicles, and people in this image were without merit. At 1 pixel = 1 km resolution (reported by NASA), there's nothing to "see." His Photoshop work was completely unorthodox and could not withstand a repeatability challenge (I couldn't repeat his work to verify his results - the essence of peer review). Even with all his allegations, at the given resolution, the "smudge" was of such a size to obscure a moderately large city from view.

In the end, the data did not support his allegations - so he chose not to include my findings (again - after a few rounds of "corrections" with his media folks)."

I try to screen media contacts, but sometimes they misrepresent themselves or try to hide aspects of the production until the show goes on-air. Needless to say, when a production company pulls a stunt like this, I don't work with them again.

Yours,

[Dave J]

So, DropaKing...it would appear that you've been mistaken. This video has been debunked, thoroughly.

[R.A.F.]

Thanks for the explanation, Jim, and welcome to the board!

I see that Mike Bara participated in this video...what is it they say about "birds of a feather"?? :)

[Swift]

By the way Jim Hoerricks, welcome to BAUT. Hope you stick around, we could use your expertise.

[JayUtah]

...

Thank you for joining us, Jim.

"His Photoshop work was completely unorthodox and could not withstand a repeatability challenge..."

And I think that's also the conclusion of most of us here. We see this behavior a lot: people randomly apply transformations from various programs without understanding algebraically or algorithmically what these systems accomplish, and without understanding that the results must be carefully interpreted.

"...the 'smudge' was of such a size to obscure a moderately large city from view."

That was all Escamilla reported of your findings -- the estimation of size. His claim insinuates that you confirmed it was an "object," and he emphasizes the sensational implications of such a size.

I try to screen media contacts, but sometimes they misrepresent themselves or try to hide aspects of the production until the show goes on-air.

This occurs all too frequently. I find it highly dishonest because it suggests these producers are quite aware of the controversial (and likely entirely false) nature of their claims. It all but admits their claims can't stand up to honest, professional scrutiny.

[CJSF]

I had an e-mail "discussion" with Mike Bara years ago. He was completely impervious to my argument that one can not extract detail beyond the image resolution. His "analysis" of alleged "dentition" marks in the "face" on Mars was based on him zooming many times past "full resolution" in Photoshop with the bicubic filter used for the display preferences.

When I debunked his methods, and he found out I had hoped (at that time) to work as an image analyst for a NASA instrument, he accused me of being some sort of pagan who worshipped Egyptian gods.

It was quite a trip.

CJSF

[Strange]

it suggests these producers are quite aware of the controversial (and likely entirely false) nature of their claims. It all but admits their claims can't stand up to honest, professional scrutiny.

I doubt the producers are interested in veracity or otherwise. They are only interested in the popularity of the program - the more outlandish the claims, the better. And any controversy will only add to it.

[Extravoice]

In the last portion of this segment, Escamilla simply applies arbitrary color subjectively to the grayscale images of the lunar surface and then astoundingly declares that this procedure "reveals" the lunar surface structures. I don't even know where to begin saying what's wrong with that.

Click here (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060907.html) to see a true revelation of the moon's colors (albeit exaggerated).

Click through for the high-res photo. It's worth it. :)

[R.A.F.]

I had an e-mail "discussion" with Mike Bara years ago. He was completely impervious to my argument that one can not extract detail beyond the image resolution.

Not that Bara needs a reason for his outlandish beliefs, but TV crime shows share a portion of the responsibility for the idea that one can extract detail beyond image resolution. We've all seen where investigators will zoom in on (for instance) a license plate and get a readable number even though it is obvious that there is simply not enough information in the original image to discern what the plate number is.

[Extravoice]

We've all seen where investigators will zoom in on (for instance) a license plate and get a readable number even though it is obvious that there is simply not enough information in the original image to discern what the plate number is.

I was impaneled on a jury in a criminal case a while back. During screening, the judge asked each prospective juror a series of questions. When she forgot to ask one of the questions, an attorney said, "Your Honor, would you please ask him the CSI question?"

They were specifically looking to determine how much of the bogus capabilities depicted in that type of show we actually bought into.

[Gillianren]

When I debunked his methods, and he found out I had hoped (at that time) to work as an image analyst for a NASA instrument, he accused me of being some sort of pagan who worshipped Egyptian gods.

Leaving aside the totally bizarre connection, or lack thereof, it's not as though that would change the quality of your science if you did.

[JayUtah]

...

...only responds to the vocal command "enhance!"

I talk to my computers all the time, but the vocabulary I use probably wouldn't be suitable for prime-time television.

...but that a simple digital image software package that millions of people use every day will come built in with the tools to uncover said conspiracy.

Or that the simple tool that millions use daily has a more effective means of eliminating "inconvenient" evidence. Escamilla's claims rely on the "blur" retaining enough data to be recovered by forensic techniques. It's just as easy, using Photoshop, simply to select the unwanted region and bucket-fill it with gray, completely obliterating the underlying data and providing absolutely no basis for a "reconstruction."

The premise in Escamilla's argument is that NASA didn't want us to see this information. Yet NASA did such a poor job of obscuring it. That makes no sense.

...was so arbitrary that all he was really doing was manipulating a scene he invented to fit the theory in such a way that it sort-of fit...

Yes, the good ol' confirmation bias. Certain classes of optical illusion remind us that there is more than one way to produce any set of visual observations. Finding one of those ways doesn't confirm that it's what produced the observed effect. TV shows tend to stop when the hypothesis is formulated, and don't go on to test the hypothesis. Bad science!

[Astrobot]

Cause NASA does not know how to cover up images properly?? Damn, I could take a photo of a 100000ft high cactus on the moon and erase it convincingly using GIMP, and clone tool.

A city bigger than Los Angeles? ummm....ok.....giant humaniod in metropolis sized space suit? Go get me another can of cool aid....

[ravens_cry]

Blurry Clementine pictures conspiracy.

ETA:

Giant blurry spaceship near a crater with humongous humanoid working under the hood. Also, a strange color palette hypothesis arrived at by turning color earth images to greyscale and then extrapolating backwards to what the shades of grey on the moon really are.
Ouch.
Considering that a greyscale image only uses 256 different shades, while a Truecolour image has 16.7 million different colours,some major assumptions are going to be made, to put it mildly.

[JimHoerricks]

By the way Jim Hoerricks, welcome to BAUT. Hope you stick around, we could use your expertise.

Thanks. Feel free to poke me with questions as the need arises. :lol:

Yours,

[DropaKing]

Musashi: Thank you for the Breakdown!


I think that's been done a couple of times, without anyone providing a rational explanation why none of the millions of professional and amateur astronomers who have looked at the moon have ever seen these 'true' colours.
Jose made it very clear that these photos taken from the Clementine Archive were from the far side of the Moon, the side we never get a glimpse of from Earth. As for amateur astronomers not seeing the color of the Moon, I believe using an Adaptive Optic Lens on your telescope or camera will reveal the true color of the Moon from here on Earth.

Jim Hoerricks: Thanks for coming on here Jim and sharing your opinion, but I am deeply concern with how you analyze images. Its one thing to say I don't believe in the hiding of a Moon Giant/Space Ship which to me is totally understandable, but you should give Jose back his Money if you are not going to stand behind your own analysis of the size of this smudge object. It's cool if the idea of all of this is terrifying but stand up and be the Man! You know that the Clementine images featured in Moon Rising are officially hosted on the Naval Research Laboratories website, so a logical argument would not be about the source being illegitimate. My question is that after exploring the Clementine Lunar Browser, finding these neatly smudge objects on the mosaic and comparing them to areas on the mosaic that had no such smudgings, something obvious popped up, something I figured an image expert of any level would have mentioned. I notice that the Clementine Satellite embeds a special Algorithm and/or Compression information in its RAW photos as to secure its authenticity when transmitting to Earth. This information is missing in all of the images that feature these neatly smudge objects on them. What this means is that the images were manipulate before being posted on the Lunar Browser, hence the Smudging. How else do you explain how the compression information found its way on some images and not on others? Humanoid or not, the images are not presented as they were originally photographed by the Satellite and this gives credence to Jose's wild claims.

There are certain members at ATS (Above Top Secret) who by posted example were easily able to take the Ship/Humanoid image and using photoshop got the same convincing results as Jose so I know that this will hold up in a Peer Review to a certain degree. I believe the real test is whether using photoshop techniques can truly recover missing data from a purposely blurred image?

There is no hoax in Jose's claims... Speculative: YES! HOAX: NO!

[JimHoerricks]

... if you are not going to stand behind your own analysis of the size of this smudge object. It's cool if the idea of all of this is terrifying but stand up and be the Man!

As you clearly do not know the contents of my analysis in this matter, kindly refrain from further speculation and name calling.

If you have something productive or illustrative to share, start with your real name and location ... then begin your thesis.

[JayUtah]

...

Jose made it very clear that these photos taken from the Clementine Archive were from the far side of the Moon...

I heard no such statement. Please give a time index in this clip where these clear statements appear.

As for amateur astronomers not seeing the color of the Moon, I believe using an Adaptive Optic Lens on your telescope or camera will reveal the true color of the Moon from here on Earth.

No.

Further, whether that or any other such technique would work is completely irrelevant to Escamilla's claims and method, which are simply the arbitrary application of hues from a completely foreign context (aerial Earth photography). There is simply no justification for doing that, nor for claiming this reveals the "true" color of the Moon.

...but you should give Jose back his Money if you are not going to stand behind your own analysis of the size of this smudge object.

But that's a complex question. The hidden premise is that the blurred region actually obscures an object. If there were an object, and if the blur just hid it, Jim's computations show that it would be an object the size of a city. That doesn't confirm that there's an object there. Escamilla skips that part and just accepts Jim's findings as what we call in logic a "converted conditional."

Let Jose Escamilla publish Jim Hoerrick's report in its entirety so that we can see whether he has misrepresented Hoerrick's findings.

Further, Jim implies that Escamilla approached him under false pretenses. What do you have to say about that?

Humanoid or not, the images are not presented as they were originally photographed by the Satellite.

Of course not. They've been index, transformed, and stitched into a data structure that is applicable to the browser. Escamilla is the one claiming they have been "deliberately tampered with." That's his burden of proof. He hasn't satisfied it. He hasn't even tried. He simply implies ignorantly that the raw data from the satellite is what he's getting in the little toy browser.

...and this gives credence to Jose's wild claims.

No. Escamilla's claims are completely unsupportable from any standpoint. He assumes the photos were deliberately tampered with, even when more effective "tampering" methods are available. He assumes the identity of "objects" allegedly hidden by these image artifacts. He assumes that missing embeds can mean only one thing. He uses ad hoc methods that have no basis in imaging science.

Sorry, but the experts agree: Jose Escamilla doesn't know what he's doing and his results are entirely without any valid basis.

...so I know that this will hold up in a Peer Review to a certain degree.

No. Peer review includes reviewing the methods for congruence and validity. Simply fiddling with the sliders until you like what you see is not image analysis, and it is not a confirmation of Escamilla's claims.

I believe the real test is whether using photoshop techniques can truly recover missing data from a purposely blurred image?

Prove the image was "purposely" blurred. Seriously: that is formally a direct question.

Second, you haven't answered why someone trying to hide data would only hide it partially when complete obliteration is just as easy.

Third, there is no such thing as "photoshop techniques." There are image analysis techniques, which have their basis in science and mathematics, and must be applied with judgment, knowledge, and skill and their results understood at more than a superficial, observational level. Adobe Photoshop provides tools by which those techniques may be implemented. Owning a copy of Photoshop does not make you an image analyst any more than owning a chisel makes you Michelangelo.

Fourth, you can't put back data that was taken out. Escamilla's techniques create the semblance of clarity and detail. It is an artificial effect of his misuse of image processing methods.

[slang]

this will hold up in a Peer Review to a certain degree

Oh, no doubt. We just need to consider who his peers are, and how they review. :rolleyes:

[Access Denied]

He simply implies ignorantly that the raw data from the satellite is what he's getting in the little toy browser.
Jose "Rods" Escamilla ignorant? You’re too kind sir, that implies he has a valid excuse.

Indeed all the raw data that's available* is freely available, you just have to work a little harder than your average NASA conspiracy promoter is willing to work to find it.

In fact, here’s one example I found that should help refute the claim that there’s anything nefarious going on…

http://starbase.jpl.nasa.gov/archive/clem1-l-h-5-dim-mosaic-v1.0/cl_6018/hxxx3313/browse/h79n3313.jpg

This is from…

Clementine HiRes 750-nm Mosaics
http://starbase.jpl.nasa.gov/archive/clem1-l-h-5-dim-mosaic-v1.0/cl_6018/index.htm

What you’re seeing here is an image from the HiRes (20 m/pixel) camera overlaid on the lower resolution (100 m/pixel) Clementine Basemap Mosaic that the crude NRL browser shows in rougher form. If they were trying to hide anything under those “airbrushed towers” they really screwed up because they forgot to classify the hires image that shows what’s underneath it TOP SECRET and delete it from their website.

Here’s another example…

http://starbase.jpl.nasa.gov/archive/clem1-l-h-5-dim-mosaic-v1.0/cl_6016/hxxx3081/browse/h42n3081.jpg

* As I understand it Clementine experienced some sort of data transmission problem and much of the image data was lost. Apparently the images from each pass were temporarily stored in memory while waiting to be transmitted back to Earth at the appropriate time and sometimes the data in the circular buffer was overwritten with new data from the next orbit(s) before it all could be sent back.


P.S. I hesitate to send anyone to ATS but for anyone that’s interested, here’s a link to an older post of mine (under a different username… long story) where I posted these and also tried to correct some particularly ignorant (if not deliberate) misconceptions about Clementine color images of the Moon…

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread237436/pg13#pid2689359

[Garrison]

Musashi: Thank you for the Breakdown!


Jose made it very clear that these photos taken from the Clementine Archive were from the far side of the Moon, the side we never get a glimpse of from Earth. As for amateur astronomers not seeing the color of the Moon, I believe using an Adaptive Optic Lens on your telescope or camera will reveal the true color of the Moon from here on Earth.

Jim Hoerricks: Thanks for coming on here Jim and sharing your opinion, but I am deeply concern with how you analyze images. Its one thing to say I don't believe in the hiding of a Moon Giant/Space Ship which to me is totally understandable, but you should give Jose back his Money if you are not going to stand behind your own analysis of the size of this smudge object. It's cool if the idea of all of this is terrifying but stand up and be the Man! You know that the Clementine images featured in Moon Rising are officially hosted on the Naval Research Laboratories website, so a logical argument would not be about the source being illegitimate. My question is that after exploring the Clementine Lunar Browser, finding these neatly smudge objects on the mosaic and comparing them to areas on the mosaic that had no such smudgings, something obvious popped up, something I figured an image expert of any level would have mentioned. I notice that the Clementine Satellite embeds a special Algorithm and/or Compression information in its RAW photos as to secure its authenticity when transmitting to Earth. This information is missing in all of the images that feature these neatly smudge objects on them. What this means is that the images were manipulate before being posted on the Lunar Browser, hence the Smudging. How else do you explain how the compression information found its way on some images and not on others? Humanoid or not, the images are not presented as they were originally photographed by the Satellite and this gives credence to Jose's wild claims.

There are certain members at ATS (Above Top Secret) who by posted example were easily able to take the Ship/Humanoid image and using photoshop got the same convincing results as Jose so I know that this will hold up in a Peer Review to a certain degree. I believe the real test is whether using photoshop techniques can truly recover missing data from a purposely blurred image?

There is no hoax in Jose's claims... Speculative: YES! HOAX: NO!

You know once I would have expected Dropaking to return and sheepishly admit his mistake but not now. Reading the thread last night I could almost see the above before it was written. Is that a bad thing?

Questions for Dropaking:
Even if this image came from the farside of the moon, which you haven't shown, do you imagine that this is the first time farside has been imaged?
Have you looked for other sources to see if you can find images of those areas?

[Fazor]

It's been mentioned before, but if something was indeed being hidden, why would they do it with blatantly obvious "city-sized" smudges, when there's many more convincing techniques that would be so much harder to detect? (And why would they release top-secret images at all, if that were the case?)

I mean, a theft ring wouldn't store their loot in a building with a giant 'Not a Stolen Goods Cache!" sign on the front.

[JayUtah]

...

Jose "Rods" Escamilla ignorant? You’re too kind sir, that implies he has a valid excuse.

Well all I have evidence for is that he's ignorant of this point. I don't know whether he's deliberately hiding anything or evading, but it's worth considering.

Indeed all the raw data that's available* is freely available, you just have to work a little harder than your average NASA conspiracy promoter is willing to work to find it.

That's the important point. The convenience browser introduces errors related to the transformation and stitching of the source images together into the presented mosaic. DropaKing implies that we're looking at raw data in the browser, but we most certainly are not.

If they were trying to hide anything under those “airbrushed towers” they really screwed up...

Even Escamilla shows other images of the same crater with the "object" no longer visible. He provides no explanation for why his ginormous spacecraft and its mechanic are visible in one photo but not in the other. Sorry, but one's explanation must account for all the data, not just the ones you can fiddle with in Photoshop to make pretty pareidolic pictures.

As I understand it Clementine experienced some sort of data transmission problem and much of the image data was lost.

Clementine's imaging mission was largely secondary. That is to say, the primary mission of Clementine was as an engineering test bed. In order to accomplish that mission, the spacecraft had to be tasked to a practical purpose in order to generate mission requirements and constraints. It didn't largely matter that the imaging portion of the mission was only partially successful. And yes, Clementine data are plagued by drop-outs, overwrites, and transmission errors. That's fine, according to the mission operators. But it means that anyone attempting to analyze Clementine photography has to consider those accepted and known failures. You can't point to something that's most likely the result of stitching over a drop-out and say unequivocally without proof that it's "deliberate tampering."

[HenrikOlsen]

Not that Bara needs a reason for his outlandish beliefs, but TV crime shows share a portion of the responsibility for the idea that one can extract detail beyond image resolution. We've all seen where investigators will zoom in on (for instance) a license plate and get a readable number even though it is obvious that there is simply not enough information in the original image to discern what the plate number is.
One thing that would be interesting was if they used the whole sequence of security camera pictures and combined them with something like RegiStax to get the required information.

Does anyone have a reference for the theoretical limits of that technique?

[DropaKing]

I see that I now have everybodies attention even Jims...

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/41Group_Lunar_FYEO/02files/FYEO_Lunar_03.html#V2.0

Dont be afraid of a little speculation gentlemen as the world is not as dumb as you have been led to believe...

DropaKing...

[cjameshuff]

One thing that would be interesting was if they used the whole sequence of security camera pictures and combined them with something like RegiStax to get the required information.

Does anyone have a reference for the theoretical limits of that technique?

A reference, no. But I don't see how such techniques could do anything but work around sensor resolution and poor viewing conditions, the resulting image is still limited by the optics. With good optics and enough images (a lot of images, with a lot of camera jitter), you could get a very good approximation of a diffraction-limited image with a single-element sensor.

[Gillianren]

Dont be afraid of a little speculation gentlemen as the world is not as dumb as you have been led to believe...

How about a little evidence? It's more worthwhile. You can speculate about anything, but it doesn't actually help until you've got something to show for it.

[jja]

Dont be afraid of a little speculation gentlemen as the world is not as dumb as you have been led to believe...

Who's afraid of speculation?

I think that you're upset because we don't enthusiastically respond to a type of speculation - a type that is doomed to be unfruitful because the tools of reason are being used incorrectly or in ignorance.

[JayUtah]

...

I see that I now have everybodies attention...

Now that we have your attention, will you address the many questions in this thread?

By referencing and advocating Jose Escamilla's work, you have obligated yourself to defend it. I and several others have raised material objections to his claims, which you have not addressed. I have asked a direct question to which I would like to have an answer. You have further been challenged by Jim Hoerricks to defend the insinuation that he has retracted claims made to Escamilla.

Dont be afraid of a little speculation...

But neither you nor Escamilla are speculating; you are making testable allegations of fact that you have declined to test.

You have claimed that the Clementine images have been deliberately redacted. Please either support that claim with evidence or withdraw it. Further, you have suggested that Jose Escamilla's image "analysis" techniques are valid and useful. I require that to be established more rigorously than has been done.

...the world is not as dumb as you have been led to believe.

Neither are these self-proclaimed "researchers" as smart as they have led you to believe.

I am simply asking you to prove your claims. If all you can do is to insinuate that everyone who disputes you is stupid, then there's not much further to discuss.

[slang]

the world is not as dumb as you have been led to believe...

I don't know... I just went outside for a smoke and asked the world some pretty tough questions, and it didn't respond. It just threw more snow.

[captain swoop]

DropaKing, as JayUtah points out there are outstanding questions to you in the thread. By advocating you are obliged to support or retract your claims as per the rules for the CT Forum.

These are linked at the bottom of this post, please take some time toread them.

[AstroRockHunter]

Musashi: Thank you for the Breakdown!


Jose made it very clear that these photos taken from the Clementine Archive were from the far side of the Moon, the side we never get a glimpse of from Earth. As for amateur astronomers not seeing the color of the Moon, I believe using an Adaptive Optic Lens on your telescope or camera will reveal the true color of the Moon from here on Earth. ...[SNIP]

DropaKing: Could you please explain what you think you mean by
an Adaptive Optic Lens :confused:

[Spoons]

I don't get this. DropaKing, how dopey do you think the image processing guys are?
I am a fraud.
If I had a message typed in the gap between this sentence and the previous one that outed me as a hoaxer, I could go back and set the text to the same colour as the background. Please try highlighting that line.

Alternatively, in the gap after this paragraph I had the same note, but rather than leave the information in there in disguised form, I deleted it.

The magic of this is that no amount of processing will find that same message in that spot.

The image processors at NASA, or wherever can easily chose to either disguise the data, or delete it. If you were tasked with hiding a critical piece of info, which would you chose? Wouldn't you be completely incompetent to just hide it rather than delete? Do you think they are that incompetent?

[Garrison]

I see that I now have everybodies attention even Jims...

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/41Group_Lunar_FYEO/02files/FYEO_Lunar_03.html#V2.0

Dont be afraid of a little speculation gentlemen as the world is not as dumb as you have been led to believe...

DropaKing...

Unfortunately for you this board has some very smart people on it and they've seen this sort of thread time and again. Someone gets excited about a Youtube video or set of pictures that require an ignorance of physics, optics, image processing, or all three to take seriously as 'evidence'. They launch a thread in the CT section full of enthusiasm, and are surprised when everyone else doesn't start applauding and cheering them on.
Seriously, take a look through the CT section, see how many threads there are that start off exactly like yours. They all seem to end the same way as well, the OP accusing people of being dupes and shills, and that they are being censored because they are expected to stick to the rules.

[Daffy]

Dont be afraid of a little speculation gentlemen as the world is not as dumb as you have been led to believe...

DropaKing...

On the evidence I have to say it is dumber than I ever imagined.

[DropaKing]

I have made my case.....

This is the problem with most of the questions you gentlemen are asking me and I use the "gentlemen" word out of sincerity...
Your questions are not dumb or purposely being ignored by me, its just that they are all answered within the film itself... I am assuming the majority of you weren't happy with Part 1 of this film and you probably didn't watch the other 9 parts were allot of the questions that are being ask here have already been answered with examples....:whistle:

I apologize to those who did watch the other parts and then it comes down to you didn't pay attention to the content or "Source Evidence" presented or don't understand what you just watched, or simply can care less, which in that case makes you opinion on this subject superfluous. I am totally fine if people hate this film and I am not here to advocate the existence of E.T., but I can share, what you people would classify a "Conspiracy Film" in the "Conspiracy Section" of your site unless the administrators of the site feel that I have misinterpret the posting rules and indeed I have to provide a dissertation with my youtube link....LOL!

As for me, there are people (?Jim?) that expect me to write a thesis or provide such documents on my findings but I assure you that the bottom line is if this matter and content of this topic is of great importance to you, you will take the time and do your own homework like other people are doing all over the Internet and be your own Judge.... What you discover, choose to believe and care to recognize as the Truth is up to you, like in any situation you have ever faced in the past... Remember, its healthy to see the other side of the coin and that's what this topic is about...

PEACE to the Human Race,

DropaKing....:whistle:

[LaurelHS]

On this site, if people ask you questions, you're expected to answer them and just repeating, "Watch this film," is not considered an adequate answer.

[Garrison]

I have made my case.....

This is the problem with most of the questions you gentlemen are asking me and I use the "gentlemen" word out of sincerity...
Your questions are not dumb or purposely being ignored by me, its just that they are all answered within the film itself... I am assuming the majority of you weren't happy with Part 1 of this film and you probably didn't watch the other 9 parts were allot of the questions that are being ask here have already been answered with examples....:whistle:

I apologize to those who did watch the other parts and then it comes down to you didn't pay attention to the content or "Source Evidence" presented or don't understand what you just watched, or simply can care less, which in that case makes you opinion on this subject superfluous. I am totally fine if people hate this film and I am not here to advocate the existence of E.T., but I can share, what you people would classify a "Conspiracy Film" in the "Conspiracy Section" of your site unless the administrators of the site feel that I have misinterpret the posting rules and indeed I have to provide a dissertation with my youtube link....LOL!

As for me, there are people (?Jim?) that expect me to write a thesis or provide such documents on my findings but I assure you that the bottom line is if this matter and content of this topic is of great importance to you, you will take the time and do your own homework like other people are doing all over the Internet and be your own Judge.... What you discover, choose to believe and care to recognize as the Truth is up to you, like in any situation you have ever faced in the past... Remember, its healthy to see the other side of the coin and that's what this topic is about...

PEACE to the Human Race,

DropaKing....:whistle:

No you see it really doesn't work like that here, 'the other side of the coin' needs something better than tricks with Photoshop to cause it to be taken seriously.
Again; have you looked for other images of these same locations? Are you still accusing Jim Hoerricks of lying? Why do you refuse to take his word when you seem so willing to accept that of the creator of the video? What have they done to earn such credibility with you?
It isn't about choosing to believe; its about the quality of the evidence on both sides, and you have yet to present anything worthy of the name.
As I feared you are just treading the same well worn path...

[AstroRockHunter]

I have made my case.....

This is the problem with most of the questions you gentlemen are asking me and I use the "gentlemen" word out of sincerity...
Your questions are not dumb or purposely being ignored by me, its just that they are all answered within the film itself... I am assuming the majority of you weren't happy with Part 1 of this film and you probably didn't watch the other 9 parts were allot of the questions that are being ask here have already been answered with examples....:whistle:

I apologize to those who did watch the other parts and then it comes down to you didn't pay attention to the content or "Source Evidence" presented or don't understand what you just watched, or simply can care less, which in that case makes you opinion on this subject superfluous. I am totally fine if people hate this film and I am not here to advocate the existence of E.T., but I can share, what you people would classify a "Conspiracy Film" in the "Conspiracy Section" of your site unless the administrators of the site feel that I have misinterpret the posting rules and indeed I have to provide a dissertation with my youtube link....LOL!

As for me, there are people (?Jim?) that expect me to write a thesis or provide such documents on my findings but I assure you that the bottom line is if this matter and content of this topic is of great importance to you, you will take the time and do your own homework like other people are doing all over the Internet and be your own Judge.... What you discover, choose to believe and care to recognize as the Truth is up to you, like in any situation you have ever faced in the past... Remember, its healthy to see the other side of the coin and that's what this topic is about...

PEACE to the Human Race,

DropaKing....:whistle:
Typical woo-woo dodge technique.
I apologize to those who did watch the other parts and then it comes down to you didn't pay attention to the content or "Source Evidence" presented or don't understand what you just watched
I did not watch all 9 parts, I have better things to do with my time. I did watch the first 2 parts, and I can tell you that I did understand what was being presented and I can tell you that it is garbage. If you want to believe this fantasy, go right ahead. We are here to help people who are interested in and want to learn about real science. Don't come in here and tell me that I "don't understand" your garbage.

Now, as far as
Your questions are not dumb or purposely being ignored by me, the rules of this board require that YOU answer questions put to you about your claims. "Just watch the video" does not fulfill this requirement. You are required to demonstrate the YOU understand what it is that you present. You can only do this by answering the questions put.

Now, to repeat myself:


Quote:
Originally Posted by DropaKing http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/98111-moon-rising-must-see-ufo-film-about-our-moon-post1644122.html#post1644122)
Musashi: Thank you for the Breakdown!


Jose made it very clear that these photos taken from the Clementine Archive were from the far side of the Moon, the side we never get a glimpse of from Earth. As for amateur astronomers not seeing the color of the Moon, I believe using an Adaptive Optic Lens on your telescope or camera will reveal the true color of the Moon from here on Earth. [I]...[SNIP]


DropaKing: Could you please explain what you think you mean by
Quote:
[QUOTE]an Adaptive Optic Lens
:confused:

[R.A.F.]

Your questions are not dumb or purposely being ignored by me, its just that they are all answered within the film itself... I am assuming the majority of you weren't happy with Part 1 of this film and you probably didn't watch the other 9 parts were allot of the questions that are being ask here have already been answered with examples.

I apologize to those who did watch the other parts and then it comes down to you didn't pay attention to the content or "Source Evidence" presented or don't understand what you just watched..

So your "answer" is that we either didn't watch all 10 parts of the video, and even if we did, we just didn't pay attention, or didn't understand?

I see that you've never considered the possibility that you might be mistaken.

[captain swoop]

DropaKing, as Garrison says it doesn't work like that here. Don't answer questions by refering people to Youtube videos, we want you to answer them here. It's not up to the other posters to explain anything. You are the one making the claims, it's up to you to support them. Please read the rule 13, it lays out your responsibilities.

[Swift]

I am totally fine if people hate this film and I am not here to advocate the existence of E.T., but I can share, what you people would classify a "Conspiracy Film" in the "Conspiracy Section" of your site unless the administrators of the site feel that I have misinterpret the posting rules and indeed I have to provide a dissertation with my youtube link....LOL!

You have misinterpreted the rules. I strongly advise you study them further as well as the advice for conspiracy theory supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/86593-advice-conspiracy-theory-supporters.html).

We have no interest in "look at this, believe it or don't" links to YouTube videos. If you are advocating the ideas put forth in this video, then you are obligated under our rules to defend them, to answer questions about them, and to offer other evidence. If you are not advocating anything, I can just close this thread.

Also, be aware that many members can not watch long videos online, either because YouTube is a blocked site for them, or because of low bandwidth connections. We expect at least some additional information and explanation, not just a link to a video.

Lastly, lose the attitude and :whistle:.

Consider this an official warning. Further failure to follow our rules and these instructions will result in infractions.

[Fazor]

Heh, haven't seen someone manage to have three moderators chime in at one time. I guess that means the other areas of the forum are currently free for me to cause some havok...

But since it's been said so much, I won't repeat the topic of these recent posts. Just point out that they have the Fazor's Seal of Approval . . . not that it's a particularly meaningful or prestigious award. . .

[DropaKing]

I see that I now have everybodies attention even Jims...

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/41Group_Lunar_FYEO/02files/FYEO_Lunar_03.html#V2.0

Dont be afraid of a little speculation gentlemen as the world is not as dumb as you have been led to believe...

DropaKing...

I am having to requote myself, something I never expected on a site with such arbitrary restrictions....hence my arbitrary "attitude"...:whistle:

No one bothered to look at this simple HTML based link and comment on the contents within it.... Then you ask me questions about a film you may have not even watched all of and blame me for the fact that some of your members dont have a fast enough connection or compatible setup. Now you expect me to hold your hand along the way as if I will gain any of self worth or value from it....:whistle:

I am sharing a film in the correct section within your website and I saw an obvious flaw in Jim's Assestment. Take my opinion with a grain of salt or not, but if you moderators/administrators want to find a simplistic reason to ban a free speaking person who has shared his opinion with repsects to others, its O.K. by me because guess what I am doing while you are reading this now...:whistle:

[JayUtah]

...

I have made my case.

No. You have pointed to where Jose Escamilla has made his case.

Your questions are not dumb or purposely being ignored by me, its just that they are all answered within the film itself.

No. You claimed Escamilla identified the location of the photo Hoerricks examined as the far side of the Moon. I asked you for a specific reference to where Escamilla stated this. That's not an unreasonable request.

You claim that Escamilla's photo analysis methods are valid and have been peer-reviewed. I asked you followup questions to that claim, and those are certainly not questions covered by the film.

You claim that Jim Hoerricks has retracted his report to Escamilla and have essentially accused him of professional misconduct. You have yet to substantiate those claims, and they are not questions that are covered in the film.

You have claimed that blurry portions of Clementine images have been "purposely" obscured. I have asked you to tell us how you know that's what produced those regions. You have declined.

You are on the hook for your claims. Your method is precisely why our rules forbid simply referencing someone else's claims: you advocate Escamilla's claims insofar as they seem to support you. As soon as there is opposition, you distance yourself from them and say you have no further responsibility.

...or don't understand what you just watched, or simply can care less, which in that case makes you opinion on this subject superfluous.

Or maybe it's painfully obvious from the first 8 minutes that Jose Escamilla doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about, has no evidence for his claims, and is misprepresenting both the data and his skills and methods. Kindly don't assume that everyone is as gullible as you are.

...feel that I have misinterpret the posting rules and indeed I have to provide a dissertation with my youtube link.

Yes, you have misinterpreted the rules; and yes you need to provide arguments in your own words that you are willing to defend. Whether than extends to a dissertation depends on how good you are at supporting your point.

As for me, there are people (?Jim?) that expect me to write a thesis or provide such documents on my findings...

Since you have publicly accused Jim Hoerricks of professional misconduct, you not only have moral duty to substantiate your accusation, you may have a legal obligation as well.

...you will take the time and do your own homework like other people are doing all over the Internet...

I'm professionally qualified in imaging and image analysis. This qualification and experience occurred in the real world. I assure you I have done my homework.

What is your education and qualification in image analysis? What professional experience do you have in it? What have you personally done to test the strength of Jose Escamilla's claims?

I'm really not interested in being called uninformed by someone who doesn't even know what adaptive optics are for.

...and be your own Judge

I am my own judge. And my judgment, amply supported by knowledge and experience, is that Jose Escamilla doesn't know what he's talking about, and neither do you. I've given several reasons why I believe my judgment is correct. I have asked you to answer for that, and you refuse. What does that say about your forthrightness?

What you discover, choose to believe and care to recognize as the Truth is up to you...

What I choose to believe as true is that which can be rigorously tested for its strength and truthfulness. You seem to be fully content to accept "speculation" as truth. You fully admit that Jose Escamilla is merely speculation. Yet when others don't believe in that speculation, you accuse them of sloth and closed-mindedness.

Remember, its healthy to see the other side of the coin and that's what this topic is about...

You seem to believe that any idea has merit just because it can be formulated and expressed. You fail to appreciate that the "other side of the coin" may be absurd and unsupported. Kindly don't fault those who are able to see that.

[PetersCreek]

Considering the (lack of) content, rudeness, and general attitude of his most recent post, I've given DropaKing another infraction, resulting in a 3-day suspension. Please hold additional questions until his return.

[Access Denied]

No one bothered to look at this simple HTML based link and comment on the contents within it....
OK I’ll bite… it’s a John Lear fanboy site run by his Las Vegas neighbor Ron Schmidt.

Lear showed up on ATS and convinced Ron (aka “Zorgon”) and a couple other incredulous folks including the owners of ATS (who banned anyone who did not show Mr. Lear the utmost respect… and in the end Lear himself) of the validity of the following claims…


There has been a “secret” mining operation on the Moon since the 60s
The Moon is hollow and artificial and was towed into place by aliens
The "secret" space program uses Nazi built anti-gravity saucers and launches the "secret" Space Shuttle from the South Pole and other undisclosed locations
The Moon’s gravity is not 1/6th that of the Earth’s, it’s 2/3rds
The Moon has a breathable atmosphere
There are plants and trees and stuff growing on the far side of the Moon
In fact there are people living on all the planets in our solar system
When you die your soul gets sucked into a giant “soul collector” on the Moon built by our Alien Overlords from (?) and from there it gets recycled
Bob Lazar worked at Area 51 on “secret” alien spaceships and brought home three pieces of Element 115 that the aliens gave us, two of which were “stolen” back and the other remains at an undisclosed location
Aliens are eating humans stored in vats in a “secret” underground base near Dulce, NM
Proof for many of these claims exists in the form of hand drawn sketches

It appears Jose Escamillo has now picked up the torch for the Lear fanboys and you appear to be associated with the site you linked to. Perhaps when you come back you can let us know if I missed anything…

[Van Rijn]

No one bothered to look at this simple HTML based link and comment on the contents within it....


I looked at it. I didn't see much worth commenting on. It appeared to be another moon conspiracy fantasy, with unimpressive assertions that data dropouts are deliberate cover-ups, and lots of talk of "anomalies" that are supposed to be mysterious or alien or something.

Is there anything on that page you want to defend here?

[JayUtah]

...

No one bothered to look at this simple HTML based link and comment on the contents within it...

Oh, I looked at it. I lost interest quickly when I saw that it was the same few photographs of ratty Clementine data that get posted here every few months, and the same vague handwaving about how this must be some evil NASA coverup.

You seem to think that all this is new to us. Have you read this site? So much for you doing your homework. I have yet to meet any "researcher" who uses these photographs and who can speak intelligently about space-based imaging, image storage, compression and transmission methods, atlasing systems that employ stitching algorithms, or any of the many technical points that touch on these photos. They all have grandiose theories of government coverup based on their ignorance of what else might have happened.

As for John Lear, I've debated him directly and so I don't need any go-between. Lear was completely unable to support any of his points without vague, handwaving references to stuff that exists only in his fertile imagination.

Then you ask me questions about a film you may have not even watched...

No, I asked you questions about claims you had made personally. You're just seeing how much mileage you can get out of the general unwillingness to sit through an hour of speculative hogwash made by someone with no demonstrable skill and little intellectual honesty.

Now you expect me to hold your hand along the way...

No, I expect you to expend some original thought. You call everyone closed-minded, even though you clearly admit that what you've pointed to is no more than speculation. You call into question people's professional ethics with no evidence in support of your accusation. You chide people for laziness when you haven't even seen whether your claims have already been addressed.

When it comes right down to it, all you've really done is post a link and then whine. I expect a whole lot more activity from someone who seems so accustomed to judge others.

I'm sure this sort of brow-beating goes over just fine in places where the audience isn't that familiar with spacecraft, digital imaging, and image analysis. But sooner or later you will run up against people who have actual professional qualifications and experience in those areas. Those people do use the Internet, you know. And I'm afraid that the same bluff and bluster that fools the overly credulous elsewhere simply doesn't last very long in the face of genuine expertise.

You're being asked to rise to a level of knowledge and expertise that naturally attends your claims. You didn't really think that claiming yourself to be "open-minded" would exempt you from being asked questions, did you?

...if you moderators/administrators want to find a simplistic reason to ban a free speaking person...

No one is preventing you from speaking your mind. However if you want to speak your mind here, then there are rules attached to your participation. Those rules require you support the claims and accusations you've made with appropriate evidence, and to make your own case instead of pointing to someone else's arguments. You'll find that polite society doesn't often tolerate "free speech" that is merely a euphemism for passive-aggressive bullying and ignorant accusations.

Free speech means you're responsible for the things you say. Nothing more is happening here than an attempt to hold you responsible.

[R.A.F.]

OK I’ll bite… it’s a John Lear fanboy site run by his Las Vegas neighbor Ron Schmidt.

Lear showed up on ATS and convinced Ron (aka “Zorgon”) and a couple other incredulous folks including the owners of ATS (who banned anyone who did not show Mr. Lear the utmost respect… and in the end Lear himself) of the validity of the following claims…

[LIST]...snip...Bob Lazar worked at Area 51 on “secret” alien spaceships and brought home three pieces of Element 115 that the aliens gave us, two of which were “stolen” back and the other remains at an undisclosed location.

This is the one that always gets me. Element 115 by it's very nature would be unstable, and have a very short half life...in other words, it's not the kind of substance you could carry around in your pocket, and anyone who tells you that he can has a serious "problem" with the truth.

It's no wonder I don't hang out at ATS...my BP is high enough without going out of my way to raise it. :)

[Spoons]

Membership should come with a 6 month supply of fish oil.

[PetersCreek]

DropaKing/MoonJack has been permanently banned for creating another user account in order to circumvent a suspension. Without an OP to respond, this thread is closed. As always, please report this post if there is reason to reopen it for further discussion.