Moon Rising - The truth about the moon revealed

reply to post by Nonchalant


You are missing the point of the OP, Non.

Please review it. The 'filmmaker' alleges that the photographic evidence OF THE MOON landings was altered to hide signs of ET activity.

THAT is his, Jose Escamilla's point. He is not claiming that the photos were faked, here on Earth. This is the wrong thread to make those kind of silly claims.

Now, from the excerpts, I still think Mr. Escamilla is incorrect in most of his assertions, and is reaching rather incredibly. Using false-color images of the surface of the Moon that we can actually SEE from our vantage point on Earth seems pretty unusual. I mean, anyone, even an amateur astronomer can see the Moon for themselves!!! And, isn't it odd that with all of those eyes scrutinizing the Moon no one sees the ET activity?? No flying discs, no buildings that are miles long.

(First person to capture such images, and prove them real, would be wealthy and famous nearly overnight!).

Originally posted by Spoonz
This gets so tiring year after year some new "breakthrough" evidence
Comes to the surface. Personally i think that Jose Escamila is a quack
People, this is entertainment! And this is how they make a living.
I personally know a few astronauts from the Apollo missions and I'm telling you it's pure B.S. Unfortunately when you want to believe something bad enough you refuse true facts and replace them with your own sci-fi fantasy.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by TortoiseKweek]

Originally posted by DGFenrir
Did you even read my post? I don't think so..

I even provided a link and an explanation to why it can't photograph the flag.
People just don't read on this forum..

Sure i read your post. You stated:

Originally posted by DGFenrir
Hubble wasn't built for that kind of stuff.
Don't think it could even take any clear shots of the moon..

That is why i wanted to point out to you that Hubble CAN take clear shots of the moon. Further, in the article i linked, it discussed the resolution of those shots of the moon:

"Anything left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any Hubble image," According to the Space Telescope Science Institute, which operates Hubble for NASA. "It would just appear as a dot."

In short, you are correct that they could not resolve something like the flag, however you are incorrect in that the Hubble cannot resolve the moon, and cannot be used to take images of the moon.

There is no need to be snide. People DO read, and beyond that I am also capable of full comprehension. Fine product of the educational system of Coahoma High School.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I mean, anyone, even an amateur astronomer can see the Moon for themselves!!! And, isn't it odd that with all of those eyes scrutinizing the Moon no one sees the ET activity?? No flying discs, no buildings that are miles long.

From the Moon, when viewing Earth, how many flying aeroplanes can be seen?

From the Moon, when viewing Earth, how many buildings can be seen?

Put it into perspective, weedwhacker and ask yourself why such small objects can't be seen on Earth from a sufficient distance.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I mean, anyone, even an amateur astronomer can see the Moon for themselves!!! And, isn't it odd that with all of those eyes scrutinizing the Moon no one sees the ET activity?? No flying discs, no buildings that are miles long.

From the Moon, when viewing Earth, how many flying aeroplanes can be seen?

From the Moon, when viewing Earth, how many buildings can be seen?

Put it into perspective, weedwhacker and ask yourself why such small objects can't be seen on Earth from a sufficient distance.

consider:

The environment of space is vastly different to that of Earth. Zero G (or, near, anyway), extreme heat/cold, radiation, no moisture, no atmospheric pressure....

What are the possibilities that elements could form strangely? Or, even more, that there were particles put in our farthest reaches of atmosphere by some other life form? Consider that "cloaking" is not as difficult as it would seem, especially when you consider that zero-g environments are what are used currently to develop cloaking tech.

Yeah, seems fantastical. I have heard some whispers of information from unnamed sources that point to similar possibilities. I, personally, have little doubt as to the veracity of it as a possible reality. But, instead of trying to prove it or provide evidence, instead i will just ask you to consider it when postulating.

It would be amazing, indeed, if cloaking tech was used in our atmosphere to obfuscate the truth regardless of who put it there.

reply to post by tezzajw


You're correct, tezza. Works both ways. Meaning, a large telescope, were it to be built on the Moon would face the same obstacle at seeing objects on Earth as we do from here.

It comes down to the ability to magnify to the resolution needed.

For example, government (formerly secret) satellites are said to be able to resolve as small as 3 inches (7.6 cm). Now, this is from their altitude on orbit of just a few hundred miles (let's say 150 SM = 792,000 feet).

The largest man-made Apollo relics are likely the descent stage of the LM Landers. About 14 feet/4.27 M. Distance from Earth to Moon about 1.3 Billion feet. (give or take a few hundred thousand(?).

Several orders of magnitude different.

Nevertheless, the premise of this filmmaker is that unmanned and manned photos taken by vehicles from Lunar orbit, along with photos taken by Astronauts whilst on the Lunar surface have been altered in order to "deceive" and hide ET activity.

However, several ATS contributors have posted alternative explanations.

I'll go with phage and ArmaP on these, versus dubious shenannigans by a sketchy filmmaker.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


BFFT, those are indeed intriguing and, given the already-shown propensity for the Black military projects to have a focus on 'stealthy' tech (and given that what was de-classified in the 1980s was ALREADY likely over a decade old, by then) and knowing your research, there are incredible technologies that wee are not privy to.

And, certainly, the intriguing new sorts of manufacturing processes that could be accomplished in a micro-gravity environment lend themselves to speculation.

But, as to the OP: Again, based only on the 'trailers' from this upcoming film by Jose, it is difficult to tell whether he is referring to a 'cover-up' on the Moon of ET, or Secret Human Military operations. However, since Jose refers to Apollo-era potential photo altering, I'd guess that WE didn't have 'cloaking' abilities in 1969.

BTW....I ponder nano-tech as a potentially promising cloaking device. I want one for myself!!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
However, since Jose refers to Apollo-era potential photo altering, I'd guess that WE didn't have 'cloaking' abilities in 1969.

No, we didn't. But you are tantalizingly close to what i believe to be the truth: that we discovered nanotech during the earlier years of the space program. Like I said, i am not able to give my entire theory as it would jeopardize the trust given to me by a man whom i respect immensely.

I have spoken all the way around this subject in the past. In my "Cloaking" thread there is even an example of a rudimentary form of the cloaking system i refer to. Is it "Top Secret" or anything? I don't believe so (at least, not from the sources that i have discussed this with). It is hidden in plain site, so i don't fear legal reprisals insomuch as i don't want to betray trust.

However, such a system would not find too much difficulty. Consider that space is not only micro-gravity, but also extremely cold. Regular materials, when exposed to temperatures seen in space, become superconducting.

BTW....I ponder nano-tech as a potentially promising cloaking device. I want one for myself!!!!

not gonna happen. At least, not using the method used by the DoD. I would suspect, however, that at some point in the somewhat distant future (20-30 years) we may see the "metamaterials" approach to cloaking being used by the private sector.

However, i feel i have digressed too much. My apologies to the OP for taking this off track. If you are really interested, just U2U me. We will see what we can flesh out.

reply to post by warrenb



A few questions.....

They found all this by overlaying a 2d map of the moon on a 3d base?

Also wasn't Jose a former ATS member (and Conspiracy Master) who was banned for sending threatening emails to members?

I agree that this is interesting but I would like more info than what is presented. This adds nothing new to the already existing threads and website articles on a Moon civilization.

reply to post by warrenb



A few questions.....

They found all this by overlaying a 2d map of the moon on a 3d base?

Also wasn't Jose a former ATS member (and Conspiracy Master) who was banned for sending threatening emails to members?

I agree that this is interesting but I would like more info than what is presented. This adds nothing new to the already existing threads and website articles on a Moon civilization.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan



Agreed, cloaking technology has also been confirmed by my source, in which I have two threads about. Besides that space is very cold, actually around 2.7 Kelvin(according to WMAP). Space is an excellent environment for superconductivity, which would supply any amount of power to a device that would use adaptive camouflage (cloaking). A lot of people would be surprised to what we had in the 60's and especially 70s. I have always said that since 1947 every year we publically advance in tech, our government advances 47.

I thought the white glowing appearance of the craters was due to the reflectivity of the type of rock exposed when meteors hit.

[edit on 5/9/09 by MoothyKnight]

Originally posted by MoothyKnight
I thought the white glowing appearance of the craters was due to the reflectivity of the type of rock exposed when meteors hit.

[edit on 5/9/09 by MoothyKnight]

If that were so, then you would expect a relatively stable amount of brightness. This is not occuring however, with what appears to be random brightning and darkening.

Albedo can only account for so much.

Oh come on guys....this is a Jose Escamilla film.
You know, the "rods" guy.

Absolutely the moon is full of life, seems like its hollow - and that being hollow is a fairly natural way for planets to form.

I personally have enough evidence to convince me the moon is not natural - no way it could be where it is by accident - the conclusion is therefore it was put there.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Amagnon]

reply to post by Amagnon

What life would that be?
Joe's space rods?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Sorry. I should've been more precise. Didn't think it was necessary because I edited that post and added a link with hubble's moon images.

If you ever stumble upon any of my posts again then just ignore the negativity in it. I seem to be part of that "Culture of negativity"..

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic



I haven't read the rest of the posts as I am working right now, but the video you posted linked to this video , and the person claims to have created this footage himself as a hoax?
Interesting.

www.youtube.com...

Sorry if this has already been posted.



Anyway as for the OP as soon as I get some extra cash, god knows when that will be ill defiantly order the DVD.
Thanks for posting, some really interesting stuff I was hooked on this subject after I saw the "Santa Clause" and other strange audio and transcripts.

Jose Escamilla is the kind of person that gives anyone pause to consider. He is a known liar and video manipulator. You can go back to threads on this site and search the internet. he has found his audience and is in this to make a quick buck. There may be a small fraction of truth but you would never know where to look for it because it is all manipulation and lies. He is infamous as a charleton and know thief of others hard work in this genre of film. I would not bother downloading a free version if it had his name associated with it.

Originally posted by clock1
The question here is "Did anyone watched this movie?". We can talk about trailer, pics or authors credibility but I want to see comments from someone that actually watched this movie. Greatest story.... was OK for me but it have some technical problems with sound (music is too loud in some places and you cant hear what people are talking about).

YES! I have seen the whole movie. Do not judge this based on any past problems people here have about Jose E. I watched it like any other movie & did not expect to
believe it's premise that the NEW moon pics are altered! And when I finished watching...wow was I surprised at some of the amazing evidence using NASA's own High Resolution pics. I thought it was going to go over old "we never went" stuff..

But it was all new. No Watson stuff, no Rods... all very good. I had to pause & ask myself, if I could have found the NASA "blurring" etc. without a great belief that it was possible to do! And the film succeeds as you will find, like me...that there are some things in it that truly cannot be explained & you will keep thinking about these
new moon anomalies.

This is not my area of expertise, so that's all I can say...but to knock down a good film, made by a lot of people...just because of 1 person... is just wrong. The content is the only thing that counts as debatable...not a person's character. And I wish I had some way to get clips because the trailers don't show the killer evidence. For instance, I was amazed at the obvious blurred 'structure' on the moon that is larger then all L.A. & the valley! ... this one is different than any other MOON movie & we ATS members should be happy that these indie hot Docs. get made at all!