It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moon Rising - The truth about the moon revealed

page: 13
71
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
She died last month cause of an unkown cancer!


no just kidding, i wonder too!




posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   


I blew it coming here. I see how most of you ATS'rs want everything for "free" and if someone, in this case Jose Escamilla, charges for his works, it's more of a demeaning case against his integrity for having to charge for his findings. All or most of you claim he's in it for the money and nothing else, yet, his films have proven to bring forth evidence no one else has presented and no one else has the "moxie" to present. Moon Rising, should it be used as a tool for disclosure, has every bit of the reason why NASA needs to be taken to task. His film brings forth evidences that no one else in the world has tapped. It's not just another film about the re-hashing of all that been presented by other film documentary producers. Moon Rising, in my opinion, is the ultimate Moon Anomaly documentary ever made. Nothing comes close to this film. Moon Rising presents things you have never seen before. The stylings of a Jose Escamilla film, he brilliantly brings it! No matter what you here at ATS say about him, accusing him of being a thief, a charletan, and a faker, you are all wrong. I don't know where all these rumors started, but I have grown to know him personally, and a lot of his accusers here on ATS are dead wrong on who he really is. The way I look at it, his accusers are more than likely misinformation / agent provocateurs, bent on discrediting his great works. All these accusations and smear campaigns against him here on ATS, have no bearing on his works. Where it all comes down to it, he is bringing to the table what no-one else dares to touch. His "cutting edge" films are thought provoking and bring truth in a way anyone can grasp. So for all of you accusing him and calling him a liar, you need to show us here at ATS, where you get your information that proves what you accuse him of. Otherwise, just keep these accusations to youreslves and just go away.
Jimmy2theR


Jimmy2theR, really? Did you come here just to sell us this? Personally I am confused on this point. Are you in on the cut? Is there a special ATS discount on his site?

Certainly everybody needs to make some money somehow, even Mr. Escamilla, but your attitude towards him is sounding like you are deifying the man... or is this just marketing plain and simple? Peaked our interest by claiming it free, then backtracking on this. That is a marketing tactic



The stylings of a Jose Escamilla film, he brilliantly brings it


that is pure marketing gold, there.

What is the price of disclosure these days? Hell, I will buy if not too much and take a look at the bearded lady. Or maybe just get netflix to buy a copy or two and get it from them.

Don't get too angry at us, we want to know "the truth" as much as your friend wants to sell it to us... but that is the problem, we are not here to buy, we are here to discuss, question, discover, and even dismiss.

BTW, where is Mr. Escamilla ? Did he get banned from ATS? I dunno. Figure he would be here selling his wares... isn't that against the T&C?

And Jimmy, if this is just a case of being an extreme and loyal Jose fan and not marketing scheme, well, you must really like his work; but relax, everybody is entitled to their opinion... they are not commenting on your integrity... well, I am, inquiring about it, at least



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
My feeling is that there is a cover up and that there are structures of a society from long ago on the moon and mars. That being said I think all who believe this general theory must be carefull as to what sorces we trust and choose to back.

We are the minority in our beliefs and if we truy expect to persuade others to procure results for our cause then we must be wise in our argument.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by catlantiswe want to know "the truth" as much as your friend wants to sell it to us...


That I doubt very much... I also doubt you would recognise the truth if it bit ya in the backside




BTW, where is Mr. Escamilla ? Did he get banned from ATS? I dunno.


Yes he did for arguing with Grid keeper over the JLW secret spacecraft pictures



[edit on 3-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

That I doubt very much...



Seriously? You do not believe that people here, at least at their kernel of being want to know what is true? Or do you mean that people here stick to what they believe unwavering to proselytize their position paying no heed to arguments and other beliefs contrary? Or something else?



I also doubt you would recognise the truth if it bit ya in the backside



Lol, probably true, zorgon.
But isn't that the way it should be? I think the truth is "out there"... really beyond the fringes of our comprehension. How boring would the truth be if it fell in line with all our models?

Anyway, I believe there are bases on the moon, and am interested in seeing what the new documentary has to offer. I did like his first one. Although there may be alternative explanations for some of the material presented.
Does that seem odd?


BTW, zorgon, I like your posts. I was going though some pics on my iphone the other day, and to my surprise, right there in the sky at night, it caught a planet. This seemed odd to me, as the moon was out (but not visible on the frame).. thought that was impossible



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by catlantis

Seriously? You do not believe that people here, at least at their kernel of being want to know what is true? Or do you mean that people here stick to what they believe unwavering to proselytize their position paying no heed to arguments and other beliefs contrary? Or something else?


Yup seriously... Why do I say this? Because most not all people here that demand proof NEVER follow any link to the data. This is from years of observation here.

If the 'truth' offered does not fit what is percieved as the 'truth' its ignored... and that goes for skeptics and believers. I have found that the hardest people to convince that many UFO's are plasma life forms are the UFO investigators who are convinced that its Aliens... they won't budge



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by catlantis

Seriously? You do not believe that people here, at least at their kernel of being want to know what is true? Or do you mean that people here stick to what they believe unwavering to proselytize their position paying no heed to arguments and other beliefs contrary? Or something else?


Yup seriously... Why do I say this? Because most not all people here that demand proof NEVER follow any link to the data. This is from years of observation here.

If the 'truth' offered does not fit what is percieved as the 'truth' its ignored... and that goes for skeptics and believers. I have found that the hardest people to convince that many UFO's are plasma life forms are the UFO investigators who are convinced that its Aliens... they won't budge





Re the paragraph above you are one of the people you mention!
Plasma lifeforms



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by catlantis

Seriously? You do not believe that people here, at least at their kernel of being want to know what is true? Or do you mean that people here stick to what they believe unwavering to proselytize their position paying no heed to arguments and other beliefs contrary? Or something else?


Yup seriously... Why do I say this? Because most not all people here that demand proof NEVER follow any link to the data. This is from years of observation here.

If the 'truth' offered does not fit what is percieved as the 'truth' its ignored... and that goes for skeptics and believers. I have found that the hardest people to convince that many UFO's are plasma life forms are the UFO investigators who are convinced that its Aliens... they won't budge





This is a very astute point, Zorgon. In many of the writings contained in the Ingo Swann database (you can find it on Scribd, if you would like...1300 excellent pages, of which i am currently around page 950), Ingo puts the concepts of "biomind superpowers" (i.e., being "psychic") into a context where he states that people who have "information processing grids" that are set will often ignore truthful and amazing things so as to not upset their "grids". Consider the parents who won't admit that their kid has a drug problem...it messes up their reality too much.

The same happens here quite a bit. Even right down to the "its just rocks" people. They are not able to percieve that which would disrupt their current "mind reality" (or, as Ingo calls it, Information Processing Grid). This block not only can prevent them from assimilating the proof they seek, it also prevents many other subtle elements of our functions, including matters pertaining to the psychic nature of our capabilities.

Prime examples on this website include information you have presented dealing with wave propagation, or your Pegasus Document Releases.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
How is Ingo's writing style? I have never read his stuff. (SRI, correct?)
I have read quite a bit from the Monroe side, however. At some point, I think both institutes meet up.

I know at some point Bob Monroe said the moon was boring and nothing there. I am not sure if Atwater or McMoneagle claim the same.

What does Ingo have to say about the moon? I recall reading somebody saying he wrote of mining operations or something.


often ignore truthful and amazing things so as to not upset their "grids".


Keeps us on our toes and fascinated as the next small thing unfolds, I guess.
I think Talbot wrote about a study of a sign that read "no Parkeng" and the researcher asked people to identify what was wrong with the sign. Some people pointed it out, but others could not see anything wrong with the sign. It is interesting the way the brain and mind process and filter things out.

How does one get a foothold on a new concept in a seemingly environment where we learn by association, and then sometime mistake our models for reality?
Wouldn't something a few steps away from our known association seem strange...even to the point of being blind to it?
Just wondering



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by catlantis
How is Ingo's writing style? I have never read his stuff. (SRI, correct?)
I have read quite a bit from the Monroe side, however. At some point, I think both institutes meet up.

I know at some point Bob Monroe said the moon was boring and nothing there. I am not sure if Atwater or McMoneagle claim the same.

What does Ingo have to say about the moon? I recall reading somebody saying he wrote of mining operations or something.


often ignore truthful and amazing things so as to not upset their "grids".


Keeps us on our toes and fascinated as the next small thing unfolds, I guess.
I think Talbot wrote about a study of a sign that read "no Parkeng" and the researcher asked people to identify what was wrong with the sign. Some people pointed it out, but others could not see anything wrong with the sign. It is interesting the way the brain and mind process and filter things out.

How does one get a foothold on a new concept in a seemingly environment where we learn by association, and then sometime mistake our models for reality?
Wouldn't something a few steps away from our known association seem strange...even to the point of being blind to it?
Just wondering





i really like Ingo's writing style. Funny, it is VERY similar in style and vernacular to Lobsang Rampa, and i really enjoyed Rampa's books, be they fiction or fact.

I would recommend you reading some Swann. Especially given the latter part of your above post. His "database" really provides some solid groundwork in the psychology behind things like "Consensus Reality".

When i am done with the database, i will likely make a thread to discuss it. In the meantime, if someone beats me to it so much the better. If you are interested in reading about 1400 pages of his writing:

www.scribd.com...

If you are interested in what he says about the moon, you would definitely want to read the first half of "Penetration". If you cannot find it, U2U me for help.

The one thing that I am beginning to realize is that when you discuss the role of the human (or "observer") in quantum physics, it actually runs deeper than that. Swann discusses one instance where a group of natives in Patagonia watched Darwin rowing ashore in a small lifeboat, with the crew of the Beagle. The natives were amazed that Darwin had crossed the ocean in such a small boat, which puzzled the crew of the boat as their large, ocean worthy vessel was anchored a few hundred feet off shore.

It appeared that, even after it was pointed out by the ships crew, the natives were still unable to see the ship. The shaman intervened and described the ship to them using terms that they were familiar with (Swann refers to it as the Mental Information Processing Grid), and they then expressed wonder and amazement at the ship.

Not sure if that is a true story or not, as i am still reading the book and will do fact checks afterwards. But he claims it was entered into Darwins journal/diary.

Regardless, it would seem that without a point of reference, we are unable to process certain bits of information. Worse, even if one were to want to shuck off societal dogma to try to have greater understanding, we are limited by the language we speak. People have a VERY difficult time conceptualizing that which they have no words to describe.

Even more, many people have an aversion to understanding things which would upset their view of reality. For example, someone who believes that life never existed on the Moon would be unable to detect traces of life. It is like a defense mechanism.

One thing to remember: what you see, hear, feel, smell...you cannot know if it is real or not. All you CAN know is that your sensory organs are detecting it. The things you see, you aren't "seeing", but rather you are sensing the light that was reflected from those things, which your brain then constructs into what many deem "reality". Unfortunately, this means that we are possibly missing large pieces of information about an object, either because our senses are not able to detect it, or we have created so much mental "noise" that the information is discarded (think of the term "Garbage in, Garbage out" in computing) and we are not able to process it.

Edit to add: found "Penetration" on Scribd:

www.scribd.com...

[edit on 3-6-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by catlantis
How is Ingo's writing style? I have never read his stuff. (SRI, correct?)


Ingo's website
www.biomindsuperpowers.com...

Joe's website
mceagle.com...

A lot of what John has told people about the moon come from these two. Then there is also Ron Blackburn and the PSI-TECH conection
created after congress forced stargate to shut down in 1995... seems the files from stargate vanished... hmmmm

www.psitech.net...



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Thanks for the links, I will check them out shortly.

I did order the moon movie last night.
Unfortunately, it transfer rates cut near to nothing around 25 minutes and continually disconnected. I tried to navigate windows media player to the stopping point, but could only get it to start from the beginning each time.

From what I saw, the movie needs a bit more polishing especially concerning the audio. Jose's part, in particular should be redone. He seemed a little stiff and unrehearsed and the cuts and quality of the audio did bother me. (but maybe that last part is due to the media format
)

Not being able to see the whole thing, I do not know if these questions are answered later on.

He says he colorized the moon, using some technique based of comparison to earth photos from approximately the same distance from the ground.
Later (and to my surprise) he started talking about how the natural color of the moon has been washed out/greyed out by NASA. It seemed to me that he started treating his artificial coloring as the actual color of the surface. And that was confusing to me, as it seemed his colored documents were treated as the real thing.
I will grant that I missed something (it was late), but it seemed odd to me that he said they were colored by photo shop, then later talking about how the photoshopped pics were the actual color of the moon.

Also and so far, there has been nothing presented here that is new. He said he took all the old known photos with certain anomalies, and applied his coloring technique. If there are new item in this work, they are farther in the movie, which I could not access.
At the beginning he show the clementine web site where viewers themselves can go too see these pictures.

Mentioned so far in the interviews is the "non terrestrial officer", Faked moon landing (was unclear on that, we went but we faked it too ... not making a judgment on that one, just did not follow the logic). He did quote Lovell when he said the surface of the moon was gray and looked like plaster of Paris... Am not sure if we were to conclude that Lovell was giving a clue or what.
Also they talked about NASA telling astronomers Hubble could not take pictures of the moon, then presenting pictures of the moon from Hubble.

Interesting he quoted Chatelain and Armstrong. I have to go back and look, but he did not use quotation marks around Armstrong's comment on aliens on the moon just listed Armstrong's name below, but I believe he did use quotation marks on Chatelain (again, have to check...)

Then there seemed to be some interviews reused from the first movie. The woman (Carol, dont remember her last name) talking about what Von Braun told her..

And then it cut out.
I will try to watch it again later today. Not sure if this PPV, has time limit, or will always be available.. seems Jose is changing his offerings for the movie quite frequently. Probably lost my money


Scattered, I know. Sorry



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by catlantisI have to go back and look, but he did not use quotation marks around Armstrong's comment on aliens on the moon just listed Armstrong's name below,


That may be because the original conversation about the aliens on the moon was recorded by a Ham radio operator in 69 and since then all documentation of this has all but vanished. All that survives is the 'quote'

I would like to find more data on the original HAM recording but no luck so far... all I get is mirrored website stories

You might also have a look at
www.lunomaly.com...

Allen Sturm was originally involved in the Moon Rising project but after receiving 'phone calls' he pulled out. That is all I can say on that but he was spooked and never did make volume two

The original coffee table full color book went for 60.00 but now you can download a pdf for a small donation...

As I say he was really spooked by the phone calls


[edit on 4-6-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Good News! Mr. Escamilla has just uploaded Moon Rising Part One on You Tube, Disclose TV, Vimeo "For Free", in an effort to get enough people to vote to have it made available entirely for free on these and all other web sites. He is trying to get a million votes in order to be able to satisfy his investors and to get sponsors for his online broadband channel. If he is able to get this done, he told me he will make all his current and future films available for free forever. He read one of you posting that he colorized all the photos. He did at first, but the "full color photos" he presents later in the film, are those from the "natural color" section of the USGS web site that now has a black square where it once had a color skin. I don't even want to attempt to add part 1 here, so here is the link if anyone else is inclined. www.youtube.com... - Jimmy2theR



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

"where is my autographed DVD"


He has been trying to send you emails the past three weeks and getting returned mailer errors. So you might email him. He wishes to connect with you. Jimmy2theR


[edit on 4-6-2009 by zorgon]


[edit on 7-6-2009 by Jimmy2theR]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jimmy2theR
He has been trying to send you emails the past three weeks and getting returned mailer errors. So you might email him. He wishes to connect with you. Jimmy2theR


Dang it
Okay will fix that first thing in the morning. Haven't had trouble in the past but someone else mentioned this as well yesterday.

Thanks for the heads up



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jimmy2theR
 


Here is where you can add your vote to have the whole film put on Youtube, free.

VOTE HERE!

As a Mac user who wants to see the film but isn't able to download the film pay-per-view (Windows only. They missed some of the market there) I'd appreciate you all voting


Actually I think this voting drive should have it's own thread



[edit on 7-6-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Slightly off topic, but i have to:

The whole computers thing...

What you guys are actually saying is:" 60ies computer cases weren't grey enough to do the necessary calculations."

Wich is of course pure nonesense since we all know that red computers are the fastest.

I once read a manual for a 1950ies university computer. Fascinating! I skipped the part on wich forms to fill out to get computer time. It then read something like this "Our computer knows 16 commands. The first is called "1" it adds register 2 and 3, and puts the result in 4. The second command is called "2". it inverts the bits in register 4. If you don't know what to do with that, you can get books on boolean algebra at the library"

And then in the appendix the sample program... the only appropriate reaction to that would be:

Obviously the "Hello World" traditon wasn't established when that manual was written. It dealt with zyclotron radiation and the math involved went about 50 feet above my head.

See, the thing is this: Your Iphone *CAN'T* do *ANYTHING* a 60ies computer couldn't do. Your desktop computer can't either. They can only do it faster and display the result with more colors.

I would like to challenge each and every proponent about that "computers weren't good enough in the 60ies" nonesense to show me One, just ONE! calculation a current computer can do that a 60ies computer can't. I am even nice enough to not demand said calculation to have anything to do with orbital mechanics.

That said let us not forget that Kepler was able to do orbital mechanics and he didn't even have a sliderule.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

PART 1 Intro - released free on Youtube







[edit on 8-6-2009 by warrenb]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb

PART 1 Intro - released free on Youtube







[edit on 8-6-2009 by warrenb]




7:00 to 7:20
giant humanoid in space suit
no wonder joe has scam in his name



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join