Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 98

Thread: Moon Rising "Fake" UFOs Debunked They are Craters!

  1. #1

    Exclamation Moon Rising "Fake" UFOs Debunked They are Craters!

    I recently noticed Jose Escamilla has posted the whole of his movie Moon Rising on Youtube. I have decided to reopen my Hubpage and Youtube video highlighting the obvious scam in presenting craters as UFOs. He did it with "Rods" now he is doing it with craters. Follow my links to my Hubpage where I give a full explanation to my findings. There is also a link to my Youtube video within the Hub or just use the Youtube link provided below.

    "Why should you care about this? Well, if you are a believer, these claims by the filmmaker only hurt the genuine sightings and the general public support of the possibility of extraterrestrials."

    http://hubpages.com/hub/UFO-The-Grea...--Is-it-a-Hoax

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

    Enjoy Jose's craters.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Escamilla himself has debated his findings here.

    http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...escamilla.html

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    Escamilla himself has debated his findings here.

    http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...escamilla.html
    And then ran away when he realized that he actually had to have some evidence and couldn't produce it.
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,201
    Quote Originally Posted by AstroRockHunter View Post
    ... when he realized ...
    I doubt very much that he realized anything at all.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,571
    We should all know this forum is not to be used for bashing individuals.

    That last post especially, kleindoofy, is very close to the line.
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  6. #6

    Moon Rising Fake UFOs

    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    Escamilla himself has debated his findings here.

    http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...escamilla.html
    Really and was he able to state is case for the UFO/Crater anomaly?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by GreyMoon View Post
    Really and was he able to state is case for the UFO/Crater anomaly?
    Why not follow the link and read the thread?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by GreyMoon View Post

    "Why should you care about this? Well, if you are a believer, these claims by the filmmaker only hurt the genuine sightings and the general public support of the possibility of extraterrestrials."
    How do you decide which sightings are 'genuine'
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  9. #9

    Moon Rising Fake UFOs Debunked

    If it is of craters and not UFOs then common sense

  10. #10
    I have written a rather detailed critique of the film, timed to the You Tube segments. May I post it here?

    Don

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,738
    Quote Originally Posted by GreyMoon View Post

    "Why should you care about this? Well, if you are a believer, these claims by the filmmaker only hurt the genuine sightings and the general public support of the possibility of extraterrestrials."
    What "genuine sightings" are you referring to?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by DD4SKYART View Post
    I have written a rather detailed critique of the film, timed to the You Tube segments. May I post it here?

    Don
    I'm interested.

    I have critiqued it many times, and have debated with both Jose and his marketing director Curtis Hedges. Each time I was hoping to have a good conversation; each time I ended up getting called names.

    I'm not sure if this film deserves another thread though. I think this will be around the 4th.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,042
    Quote Originally Posted by DD4SKYART View Post
    I have written a rather detailed critique of the film, timed to the You Tube segments. May I post it here?

    Don
    If you stay within the Rules for Posting, I suppose you could.

    A couple of caveats:
    * Several short posts are peferrable to one really long post.
    * Many participants on BAUT use dial-up connections, so watch the use of graphics; links or attachments (the little paperclip icon above the post window... Go Advanced) are preferred.
    ETA
    * If you have already placed this on the internet, you might want to simpy link to it rather than reprint it here.
    Last edited by Jim; 2010-Mar-09 at 06:42 PM. Reason: formatting, eta
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    What "genuine sightings" are you referring to?
    I took it as potential genuine sightings that might occur in the future. Crying wolf etc.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    468
    Quote Originally Posted by DD4SKYART View Post
    I have written a rather detailed critique of the film, timed to the You Tube segments. May I post it here?

    Don
    ok I would like to take a look at it

  16. #16
    I wrote it as a 'review' I placed in a dedicated 'discussion' page in a Facebook site which used to be a Hoagland fan page, but has since his 'moving on' has been joined by a lot of 'real space' oriented people, with rationality making headway there. I would simply link there but I don't think non facebook members can see it. I will drop it here in sections. I'm not sure there is anyone here that needs convincing about the reasons that film is hogwash, but the topic might come up in discussions and I have reactions that may cover different ground then others. There are no graphics, just links.

  17. #17

    'Moon Rising' review 1

    I have looked at the 'Moon Rising' video and posted a review of its contents, *timed to the 9 YouTube segments. My review is in short: 'thumbs down'. I'm reluctant to give the URL of this hodge-podge*of collected crackpot ideas, shoddy research and conspiracy mongering however:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ3wh...eature=related

    Review of sections of 'Moon Rising' video By Jose Escamilla

    Part 1

    Really long introduction, with stirring music...more than 4 1/2 minutes taken introducing itself with the Apollo 8 Earth photo slowly zooming out while President Kennedy and contemporary news clips are played.
    The Clementine Lunar mission is mentioned, then the Clementine image browser run by the Navy. At 5:18 a claim made that "you can find many images that have been smudged or blurred to keep you from seeing what is there".
    At 5:53 a claim is made of seeing " a huge object resting at the top of this crater, it appears to be a large machine or perhaps a large spaceship, or a motor of some kind. You can clearly see this photograph has been smudged over and blurred so we cannot see the details"
    This is a claim based on literally nothing. There are blocky regions of missing data on the global mosaics which are in the map projection stage cosmetically interpolated, with tonal details along the limits of the missing data 'blended' with those where the available photo coverage resumes. There is no useful information contained in these 'dropouts', and none can be tortured from them. In some wavelengths the same regions of bad data in one set are complete in another, which were incorporated in later global maps. The lack of remarkable giant things in the initial blank areas thus filled is viewed with amusing incredulity, as if things are still being covered up rather than revealed.

    I will not dignify by repeating what is made of the interpolated area when enhancing it to death. That would be like a spoiler to a comedy.

    The making of the films poster was discussed, and the preference for a colorful Moon image for such a poster. Earth colors, seen in areal photographs he consulted for some reason, looked attractive when painted onto Lunar photos in Photoshop and lo and behold! "The 'Structures and other objects on the Moon revealed themselves".
    Last edited by DD4SKYART; 2010-Mar-10 at 02:29 AM.

  18. #18

    'Moon Rising' review continued

    Part 2

    Narration continues: "I was so overwhelmed by the results, I have now colorized over 247 photos. Now that I have come up with a format and a routine for colorizing the Moon, I decided to gather the most famous Apollo 'Moon anomaly photos' (my quotes)that researchers from all over the world had been presenting for years, and decided to colorize them."
    At 0:29 An Apollo orbital photo is shown, unidentified. It is of a bright sunlit Moon. The contrast on the Moon is then enhanced as we are told " And this is what it looks like after we bring up the contrast to eliminate the brightness applied to distort the image."

    What? Are we being told all the brightly exposed photos are 'tampered'?

    More contrast, Earthly colors and who knows what else are added then we zoom into a bright sloping region, perhaps a crater wall, with apparent parallel straight ridges, (assuming the details are part of the original). The photo number is very important to include in such examples, as many such photos show the same region under different perhaps more revealing viewing angles.

    His painting the Moon photos with Earth colors is presented as adding clarity to the images: "By painting the Moon with Earth colors and tones we can now see what has been there all along for us to view" is said as we pan into a detail of a colorized orbital Moon photo emphasizing a cluster of small craters.

    The Mike Bara segment at 1:12 cites The 1990s' appearances of Richard Hoagland on the Art Bell radio program as exciting his interest in 'stuff that he had found on the Moon'. Images frequently used on Anomolist web sites are then shown such as the 'shard', at 1:23. This is based on an over enlargement of Lunar Orbiter 3 frame 3084_med, seen at the web site of the Lunar and Planetary Institute Lunar Orbiter Photo Gallery:

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lu...er/frame/?3084

    Little regularly spaced 'tic marks' can be seen across that image, especially in the sky. Sprinkled through out the image are also flecks of stuff from the various stages of the photographic process. Black and white film was shot and developed in the spacecraft, a process that didn't always happen cleanly, as dribbles of processing defects across this and other images testifiy. A small image defect seems more likely from known causes then to conceptually 'project out' something over 2 kilometers tall as the cause!
    At 1:59 an Apollo Surface image is zoomed into, showing the reflection of the astronaut taking the picture reflected in the center of the round mirrored surface. This is a great example of enlarging an image well past its usefulness with the power of suggestion used to 'give form to the noise'. If you didn't already know that blobby shape was a reflection of the photographer one could entertain all kinds of theories, as has apparently been done here. Unfortunately the photo number isn't given, so the best available scan of that photo, undoubtedly available here:

    http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

    cannot be readily located and downloaded to compare with what was presented. In laying out a theory the most basic procedure includes citing the sources you are using so others can judge your conceptual steps for themselves.

    The Hubble Space telescope is mentioned, in the context of its obtaining a few images of the Moon. Doing so was actually non trivial as Hubble is designed to observe small relatively faint objects. A comic balloon appears over a WFPC2 mosaic which includes the crater Copernicus, reading: 'NASA's lies were exposed when they released Hubble photographs of the Moon'. The main criticism of the images seems to be they were not in color, as if revelatory results were expected!

    At 3:10 we are told "Prepare yourself for an incredible expedition as we now take you back to the Moon in a voyage filled with mystery and secrecy"

    Heavily colorized, darkened and contrast altered images are zoomed into, with flashing lights and labels 'coaching' us to point out what we are supposed to be seeing. Clips of interviews interspersed with the images give an idea of the conspiratorial assumptions behind the presentations.
    'It's the most monumental cover up in human history' sums it up.

    The claim is made at 6:05 that 'This footage is your first glimpse in human history of the natural colors of the Moon'. The methods described earlier show arbitrary colorizing of the Moon in an Earthlike fashion, so no such claim can be made if these are similar products.
    Here is my own recording of colors of Lunar materials made in natural sunlight with a digital camera which, while imperfect, gives some idea of the brightness and color differences from samples of the Moon we now possess:

    http://www.donaldedavis.com/PARTS/MOONSOIL.jpg

  19. #19

    'Moon Rising' review continued.

    Part 3

    Begins with the accusatory question 'Why will they not show you any of the adaptive optics views of the Moon?'
    'They' have. Here is a nice one from Polomar with 200 meters per pixel resolution, made in support of the LCROSS probe impact:

    http://www.astro.caltech.edu/palomar...ter_impact.png

    Starting +0.18 a lot of time is devoted to the 'Brookings Report ':

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Report

    At 2:30 a 1973 document from the people I used to work for is excerpted while energetic music is played. There are diagrams and images related to a Lunar geology training site made in a volcanic cinder field near Flagstaff, Arizona. TNT was used to create craters copying those in a real spot on the Moon. (3:04) shows the finished crater field with a geologic map of the original Lunar example overlaid. A minimal LM simulator was placed in the crater field to provide an elevated view of the test field, as they would first have of their landing site before exploring the surroundings. A comparison between a simulated cratered surface and an Apollo photograph is shown at 3:14.
    Then large Models of the Moon made elsewhere for the benefit of the simulator TV cameras are shown. A nice Lunar surface model probably made from Ranger close up photos is at 3:26.

    A series of comments and reporting of rumors is then made.

    Starting 3:30 the voice of Jim Lovell is heard describing "the Moon is essentially gray, no color, looks like Plaster of Paris." while a black and white orbital image is panned on.

    So far so good... Apollo 8 appeared so gray in the crew observations that they considered the black and white photos they took as a better match than any of the color photos. Due to sloppy quality control the first color photographs from the Moon looked very green, as Life and other magazines show in contemporary back issues. Only National Geographic made a special effort to get the colors close to the crews visual impression, which meant treating the Moon like a 'gray card' in making the color prints in the days of chemical photography.

    Next (3:50) we are informed 'It has been speculated the Moon Missions were hoaxed-snip-in order to conceal the incredible discoveries found on the Moon'.
    At 4:10 An allegation is made Neil Armstrong saw two UFOs on the rim of a crater!
    Words to that effect are then even put in Armstrong's mouth. I would like to see the source of that one! Unless they can do so, I think that is a sleazy practice, and it will only get worse once the Moon walkers are gone.

    Excerpts of interviews follow about 'lies put in place to hide what's up there', with colorful declarations like 'a couple of nuclear weapons sent up into space were destroyed by the extraterrestrials'. Recollections are shared about Werner Von Braun supposedly discussing weapons in space, saying we would eventually have to fight ETs.
    After a bit of diversion about the practice of 'distribution lists' (I have met a couple of the people seen on that page! ) The Bellcom company is introduced.


    Part 4

    While doctored (darkened, contrast stretched, arbitrarily colorized) lunar photos are adorned with flashing lights we are told about people in the know who are daring to speak out. An alleged former NASA employee describes heavy handed security measures and passes rumors of highly secret sightings of alien craft by Apollo astronauts while on the Moon. She seems amazed that fellow employees 'knew' this while her boss didn't. "I don't know how they can do it but they can let some people know about it and then others not". More conspiracy talk follows, encompassing the world.
    At 3:05 what may be part of the Clementine color mosaic is panned across, featuring blue bright fresh craters. 'Unusual but true facts about the Moon' appears over this. The Moon 'ringing like a bell' after deliberate impacts tested the Lunar seismometers placed by the astronauts is mentioned.
    The idea of an 'artificially hollowed out Moon' is then invoked!
    An interesting true detection of water vapor ions by instruments left at the Apollos 12 and 14 sites is mentioned.
    A questioning of the age of the Moon follows. A nice site discussing the best data on the oldest known Lunar samples and their implication is here:

    http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/April04/l...rthosites.html

    There was a bit more of part 4, but I felt further commentary was wasted.

    Part 5. (as split on YouTube)

    We are introduced to the registration 'cross hairs' used in the Apollo Hasselblad film cameras which left thin + shapes across the image. In many regions of the sky where glare has caused light to 'wash' over part of the black sky they also appear, and in the first surface photos shown here they do. Wherever the marks on the cover glass block the light they will be visible. Where no light exposes the film they will not be distinguishable within whatever 'grain' accompanies unexposed film.
    However, at 0:57 they show an Apollo 17 photo, going out of their way to show the lack of 'crosshairs' in the sky. The claim is then made that 'almost about 90 percent of the 'moon shots' have what we call a 'false horizon'. The photo they show appears to be AS17-137-21009.

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-137-21009.jpg

    Others taken looking toward the Sun from the same panorama show the crosses wherever light has fallen on the film:

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-137-21023.jpg

    Another example from the same roll of film:

    http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...-137-21018.jpg

    A series of supposedly revelatory failures to see 'crosshair's in the skies are then paraded, using an enhancement method that cannot bring out what isn't in the scan. Exposure judgments may well have been in the scanning stage to optimize the sunlit scenery, however many Apollo surface images, such as the pair mentioned above, show light has exposed the film to a visible threshold in places, and the cross hairs are always there.

    We are asked at 1:47 'Ever wonder why no stars appear in space-Apollo and Moon Photography?'

    Not true. In experiments designed to photograph faint or UV wavelength astronomy subjects stars were recorded in great number. An example from Lunar orbit from Apollo 15:

    http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb...2&to_year=3000

    And from the surface of the Moon, in the Apollo 16 LM shadow, a camera designed to take images in the far ultraviolet obtained images of the Earth and stars like this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AS16-123-19657.jpg

    At 2:16 the space history book 'This New Ocean' by William E Burrows is mentioned. The cover is discussed, "on the cover of his book there are two black running parallel lines that climb up from the Earth and they pass the moon on either side paralleling it", He then finds lines in the skies of various space photos after extreme contrast enhancement and claims "obviously Burrows is privy to something the public is not privy to. He's really just a classic insider/outsider like Andrew Chaikin is...He's a guy who knows what the truth is but has agreed to perpetuate the lie rather than to reveal what the truth is, for a variety of reasons."

    The Earth image used on the cover of that book was an oil painting by Dennis Davidson, made of 5 narrow vertical canvases pressed against each other. The 'lines' are the small gaps between the painting sections! The work is referenced here:

    http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/eclipse99/...live_nasa.html

    Andy Chaikin, http://www.andrewchaikin.com/ is among his other talents perhaps the most readable of space historians. I would suggest to anyone interested in space his books on the exploration of the Moon as well as 'A Passion for Mars'.

    Starting at 3:18 some photos made from the ground of the Moon in the sky and Lunar eclipses are also stretched to show lines among the noise!

    A space elevator is mentioned as a hypothesis, despite the herculean engineering required, comparable to that of a crewed starship. One should ponder a simpler cause for lines brought out of the black skies by extreme contrast enhancement of images, such as digital camera dark image 'noise'. As a general rule it is usually productive to start 'tiny and close' when searching for the cause of odd things in photos not constrained by the photographed subject matter.
    At 6:00 Egyptian hieroglyphics begin to be cited as evidence of ancient space elevators leading to symbolic material, going downhill fast in my interest. I decided it is not worth my time to continue trying to make sense of the remaining 3 minutes of this part.
    Last edited by DD4SKYART; 2010-Mar-13 at 07:53 AM.

  20. #20

    'Moon Rising' review continued

    Part 6.

    More discussion of graphic symbology until about 1:40 when Apollo surface photos are shown processed to show streaking and probable traces of development unevenness of the paper prints. These 'defects' also appear over the shaded sides of the mountains in this and subsequent photos shown.

    Once again, If one wants a look at the best scans available on line at the moment to compare with examples made in 'anomolist' presentations one can consult the Project Apollo image archive:

    http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

    Unfortunately the failure to provide image numbers complicates the checking of the photographs yourself.

    Next the topic seems to shift to UFOs at 2:30, starting with a detail in a 1400s madonna painting. More symbology material follows to 4:14 when a subject I can relate to appears 'The Natural color of the Moon'.
    Lovells' 'Gray, no color' comment is played while a rather gaudily colored Moon image is panned across. The USGS Clementine mosaics are mentioned, with the colors in the mosaic closest to 'natural color' taken literally. The colors were in effect 'stretched' by the original sensor wavelengths used to help distinguish mineral types, although the color differences are real.
    Bright fresh craters are suddenly called 'disks' and some are claimed to be floating! Gross misreadings of photos follow, with more promised.

    I would like to close this section review with a bit more on the colors of the Moon, in a fine site by astro photographer Filipe Alves:

    http://www.atalaia.org/filipe/moon/colorofthemoon.htm

    Near the page top are a trio of color saturations in a close up of the reddest spot on the visible Moon, the Aristarchus Plateau. The middle 'normal image' has my endorsement as an observer and an artist as a reasonable suggestion of the visible color saturation. Anyone with normal color vision can use a telescope near full Moon, perhaps with a neutral density filter, and see for ones self. Much more subtle color can be 'pulled' from quality photo data, as Filipe photographs and maps out, complementing views obtained from other viewing angles by spacecraft.

  21. #21

    'Moon Rising' review continued

    Part 7

    A clip of the video of the tether experiment during the Shuttle mission STS-75 is shown.

    For a better sense of context, a lengthy video sequence of the straightened tether, orbiting 70 to 90 nautical miles away, can be seen here:

    http://www.space-video.info/shuttle/columbia-sts75.html

    The field of view is sprinkled with moving bits of debris, each traveling in a straight line, allowing for camera movement. They resemble dust motes in the air seen in a shaft of sunlight in an otherwise dark room except for their individually straight paths, like computer simulations of the stars drifting among each other in our skies through time. When the camera zooms in on the tether, many foreground specks are thrown out of focus, a depth of field issue as anyone who uses a zoom lens knows. The defocused specks appear as round disks, bigger as they are further out of focus, with characteristics of the camera optics internally forming central dark spots and thin 'slices' cutting in from the bottom on each. They are represented as 'living things' in the narration! "...They seem to be alive. I come to see that these things are thriving on the Moons surface, there's thousands of them and they're hovering above the Moons surface".
    Clementine maps are panned across, some with the brighter round smaller craters tinted a light blue. The association being offered is the bright 'blue' craters, many of which have darker centers, are the same as 'UFOs' interpreted from the 'disks' made by the out of focus 'motes' in the STS 75 video! One wonders if this is some kind of parody.

    Music is played for a couple minutes while colorful Lunar Clementine mosaics, and possibly some of the darkened hand colorized material, is are panned across, and as animations of photos projected on planes and globes. At 2:20 a dark 'Maria' (ancient lava plain) surface is represented as a dark opening to a cavern! More Moon images follow, and more claims are made of the existence of huge "Glass domes, UFOs, massive building and scaffolding spread through out the Lunar terrain in many sizes, shapes and forms. It is evident the missions to the Moon were more involved than gathering rocks and dirt samples."

    More musical pans across colorful Moon maps are made, with a statement made at 4:50 "We're talking about...the covering up of hyper advanced technology, that could do away with...our dependence on fossil fuels...technology that allows for much quicker transport through space than we have ever been told.

    At 5:06 Mike Bara says in part 'Why they would spend the kind of money they're spending, India, China, all these, Japan all these countries, to go back to the Moon to what, to collect rocks? No, they're going back there because there's something incredibly valuable there that they know that we have, that the United States brought back, that they want a piece of."

    A summary of allegations of NASA coverups and image tampering concludes this segment.

    The lack of perceived value of knowledge about the Moon for its own sake is an underlying assumption I take issue with, more on this in the concluding comments.

  22. #22

    'Moon Rising' review conclusion

    Part 8

    The first 3 minutes are mostly music accompanied pans across more Clementine derived Moon mosaics. As mentioned earlier, they show real color differences but since the wavelengths gathered ranged from the ultraviolet to the infra red the color contrasts 'squeezed' into the visible spectrum will give unnatural color contrast. This is desirable for mineralogical studies but is not what a photographer would be after when duplicating ones visual impression. This is assuming no retouching has been applied to the presentations as well.
    At 3:07 Aristarchus crater as photographed by Apollo 15 in color and black and white is shown, happily giving the frame numbers. Hubble images of the crater are shown next, displaying the radial patterns of landslides and bright impact melt saturated debris of the final stages of the crater forming process draped over the rim. This relatively fresh crater is among the youngest on the Moon, and near full moon appears dazzling through the telescope in relation to its surroundings. At 3:37 a Clementine (?) photo (ID not given) labeled 'Aristarchus crater full color daylight' appears, then another Clementine image product is seen showing less shadow and the brilliant impact melt as light violet blue. This is labeled as being taken at night! Not true, all such images are sunlit. Repeated pans across the blue colored Aristarchus and other parts of the Clementine map are indulged in for the remainder of the segment.

    Part 9

    Takes up where part 8 left off, music and wanderings across the Clementine mosaic. At 1:38 JFK's voice is used, talking about how 'we intend to be first'. End credits start at 2:15.



    Some overall impressions follow:

    This is a summary of a way of looking at things that accepts vast conspiracies as part of the hypothesis. The video appears to be a product of someone sympathetic to such ideas, and probably not very knowledgeable about planetary science. Not every odd concept mentioned has been addressed, some are too vacuous to wrap my mind around, others make me feel like a food critic trying to review the contents of a fast food tray.

    Although UFO lore isn't part of my main interests, the STS -75 video is instructive of video footage showing knowable things being misleadingly used out of context in that very belief driven subject. There was a little bit of Lunar anomaly talk on part 2. My suggestion for anyone who thinks there is something large and remarkable standing on the Moon is to find out by examining the available photography the presumed location of said feature, and draw up on a map a predicted 'zone' it would have to be in if real, or a latitude and longitude figure if one is confident of it's location.
    In the case of the 'shard' In a discussion I had years ago I suggested looking for its shadow in the relevant Lunar Orbiter photos. If one thinks there is a tall castle or UFO base on the Moon one should be able to estimate it size and reflective characteristics, etc from whatever images brought attention to a given spot in the first place. Now the LRO orbiter is capturing images of unprecedented detail of the Moon. The new maps resulting from this data treasure will be the place to check at specific places for specific predicted things. Someone in the Anomalist community should be willing to commit themselves to describing what they think they see, and let the new data either embrace or scorn their hypothesis. It is unlikely this will happen, the ways of science are not always friendly to ideas driven by motivations other than willingly offering ones self to be tested by new knowledge.

    The end of part 7 claims the scientific knowledge gained from Apollo was unimportant compared to their scenario. The knowledge gained by the geology of the Moon gave us a window into the distant past almost erased from the record of the rocks of Earth. The process of the creation of the Solar System was opened up to us. The Lunar soil was found to contain materials future generations can use to build space colonies and give Humanity new places to go. Perhaps such knowledge is considered worthless compared to imagined powerful beings that can solve our most pressing problems. The kind of thinking that looks to superior beings for such answers rather than our selves isn't that of science, it is more like religion.
    In the end perhaps critical thinking is becoming but a schism.

    Don Davis

    March 2010
    Last edited by DD4SKYART; 2010-Mar-13 at 08:03 AM.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    810
    May I offer my appreciation for that effort, Don.

    One of the problems I have is that there is so little time and so many newbies stumbling over stuff like Escamilla's. So it all gets reposted time and time again, raising the same old claims, even long after they are debunked..

    So it is really useful having a summary like this, to save the horrendous amounts of time required to re-bunk the bunk... let alone to have to force oneself to re-watch some of this nonsense.

    Thanks muchly...

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    468
    Thank you Don, that was pretty good

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,148
    Artist Don Davis? Let me first say that I've long enjoyed your art.

    And, nice review. I started to watch Moon Rising, but didn't have the patience to go through all that nonsense. Regarding this:

    Quote Originally Posted by DD4SKYART View Post
    At 4:10 An allegation is made Neil Armstrong saw two UFOs on the rim of a crater!
    Words to that effect are then even put in Armstrong's mouth. I would like to see the source of that one! Unless they can do so, I think that is a sleazy practice, and it will only get worse once the Moon walkers are gone.
    That was from a claim by a Maurice Chatelain, who, at UFO sites, is said to have been the "Chief of Communications" during the Apollo 11 mission, but in reality, hadn't been working on anything Apollo related for some time, and never anything this grand.

    Here's a thread on it:

    http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...in-apollo.html

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  26. #26
    Thanks. I am also grateful for the reference on that phony Armstrong 'quote'.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    209
    Thanks for the review DD4skyart

    I really wish Jose would come back and attempt to refute your review.

  28. #28
    For the Record - I NEVER 'ran away' from you here or any other thread. I got busy on better things to do than debate with people who decided to make a circus out of the last thread by never getting to the real issue with the photo in question. Go here:
    http://tblnfilms.com/BADAST/Image1.html

    I have had their comments and a few other things answered there. As far as Don Davis and his "long winded rant" I told him he's a waste of time for me to even comment on his silly review. What you people don't get is that I don't care what you all say here to try and ridicule me. You make accusations as you have, even gone to the great lengths to "lie" on certain areas, Jay you have been busted "lying here" and if Bad Ast, allows you people to read MY answer to all you did in the last thread, then fine, BUT if Bad AST "censors" the link, then what can I say? I really don't care what these people say here. In fact I laugh this stuff off, but I do appreciate you all keeping this stuff on the airwaves. Sincerely - Jose Escamilla

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    746
    I have never seen any evidence that Jay has ever lied. In fact, having followed various posts from Jay over several different boards, I would say he was totally honest... scrupulously so.

    Would you care to present clear, unequivocal evidence that Jay has been dishonest?
    Last edited by Obviousman; 2010-May-09 at 12:08 AM. Reason: Corrected spelling

  30. #30
    A PS to the "craters thing" - It's all a matter of persective. I've been hit at ATS by people calling me a "con-man" hoaxer, that I was banned there for hoaxing things and ALL that is a lie. BUT in typical ATS form, Springer and those that I have evidence on of not only lying to ATS members about why I was banned, but when I finally have time to get my film done on what I have on ATS and Springer, they willo ALL owe me a huge apology and re-instatement. I happen to dig ATS, but the owners lied and did a number on me for whatever reasons. AND for the record. RODS are very real. All that MonsterQuest debunkery was a deliberate lie imposed on the ignorant JQ public and many of those that think RODS are mere insects. Had MonsterQuest been truthful, they would have done as I requested. Do the RODS camera test in Broad Daylight, and setting the regular camcorder to my "Skyfishing Protocols" that eliminate insects, birds, etc. Instead they deliberately ignored this and did the night test which they "knew" would produce artiacts I have been talking about avoiding for years. BUT that's what people do. They ignore the real facts and instead make up things as they go along. Kinda like CHRIZ, BOBBER, JAY UTAH, etc. and put their own faked "test images" to try and debunk the original test I did on the "original photo" in question. That's okay. As I stated before - this debating - turned ridicule and circus attraction ends with me. I have no time to debate people that won't ever look at the evidence with clear intelligent minds. Insterad of getting to it seriously, they go on lengthy rants that go no where. CHRIZ and BOBBAR showed me how silly it gets. Jay Utah is the best you got here and that's really a laugh for me. I mean it - not to be disrespectful Jay, but you are silly. Sincerely - Jose Escamilla - "motto: I NEVER RUN AWAY and I call 'em as I see 'em."

Similar Threads

  1. Georgians panic at fake "news" of Russian invasion
    By Ilya in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2010-Mar-16, 06:38 PM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2007-Sep-08, 04:04 PM
  3. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-31, 08:11 AM
  4. "Fake moon dirt" article in Wall Street Journal
    By Babbling in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2005-Mar-17, 07:16 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: