*** 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 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.

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.

[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…



This is from…

Clementine HiRes 750-nm Mosaics
http://starbase.jpl.nasa.gov/archive...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…



* 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/...g13#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?