Doco - The Greatest Story Ever Denied - Part II Moon Rising.

So i found this documentary regarding a few fascinating subjects from coloured photos of the moon showing spacecraft that look identical to the ufo teather footage, and logo's from NASA and other space companies sharing the same shapes and symbols. The only problem is the video res is poor and has asian subtitles. Other then that, its nothing short of ground breaking.

The doco revealing coloured moon photos implies there is an entire reality out there that's been sealed from public view for some reason or another. One can speculate the reason behind the cover up, the doco proves there is an active settlement currently existing on the moon. Perhaps photos of the other moons and planets in our solar system have been altered to the same extent, if so, anything America or Russia or really any country as discovered has been concealed and can not be trusted. This further implies a worldwide collaboration of secrecy. What that may be i can only speculate from other ufo books and films.

While watching the film, you will see artificial structures that are miles in diameter, and photos that have clearly had skies and backgrounds removed and blurred, to photos being flipped upside down showing proper perspectives and lighting. The Director requests anyone who sees this, to help them continue to what is still an on going process of photo manipulation recovery.

a reply to: andre18

I am only part way through but so far I am impressed. Some of the enhanced photos are revealing things that seem to be impossible. I am still not quite sure what to make of the moon and the alleged moon landings, there is so much conflicting evidence out there and this video is just adding to the pile. (in a good way though) Star and flag my friend.

a reply to: andre18

Back in the day I thought both The Greatest Story Ever Denied and Moon Rising were great documentaries , I even had copies saved to my HD.
Unfortunately Jose Escamilla is big on claims and accusations but falls well short on evidence , The Greatest Story Ever Denied and Moon Rising are fun to watch but shouldn't be taken seriously.

It appears quite obvious in Figure 3 that the object being possibly considered a UFO by Mr. Escamilla in his trailer is actually just a crater. This leaves me with considerable doubts regarding the validity of the movie in its entirety. Draw your own conclusions
greymoon.hubpages.com...

As with most things related to this subject it's all about perception and belief.

originally posted by: gortex

Unfortunately Jose Escamilla is big on claims and accusations but falls well short on evidence ,

Rod @ 17:20!!!

:-))

a reply to: gortex

I would not venture into disbelief simply because one crater was mistaken for a ufo. The body of his work demonstrates the moon is alit with aliens structures. To completely compromise the entirety of someones work due to one error isn't intelligent thinking. Who ever wrote that is obviously trying to discredit him.

If you are one to be gulled into disbelief because one person finds a mistake and then claims that's enough to subject everything to error, realise that's the mark of an employee paid to find any holes that can be used against him, so to keep this info out of viral spreads.

a reply to: draknoir2

Even in some of the most hard core of well documented ufo films, there's always unknown fakes the director wasn't aware of at the time. What's important, is the implications of the moon photos for all the world to know. Also, the first doco was made in 2009 before the rod case was figured out and debunked. Criticism unfounded.

originally posted by: andre18

a reply to: draknoir2

Even in some of the most hard core of well documented ufo films, there's always unknown fakes the director wasn't aware of at the time. What's important, is the implications of the moon photos for all the world to know.

Oh, Mr. Jose is quite aware of the B.S. he's still peddling to this day.

www.roswellrods.com...

a reply to: draknoir2

Fair. However, my main point of this topic is the second film. I was hesitant in embedding the first film because of this irrelevancy and of course here we are. What is to be focused on is nasa's moon photos. Anything else is diverging.

a reply to: andre18
Just a few notes on the film:

830 - he chastises nasa for manipulating images and then does it himself... when they highlight photos, they light up more than is actually depicted to create an impression

14 mins - all people interviewed are certain of alien contact and "civilizations" on the moon - certain

2205 - they "quote" neil armstrong: I can’t go into details, except to say that their ships were far superior to ours both in size and technology – Boy, were they big!… and menacing! No, there is no question of a space station

but it turns out, this alleged quote was from an anonymous interviewer at an unnamed nasa symposium at an unnamed time. another website I looked into claimed it was "overheard by a former British intelligence officer" at an unnamed hotel


2350 - they mention werner von braun's fake enemies list yet ignore the fact that he said "and all of it is a lie"... his quote alleges that aliens, asteroids, soviets, terrorists, and rogue nations are not actually a threat but rather a phony threat to justify militarization. A la The Watchmen, where Ozymandias has the US and USSR united into a one world government by genetically engineering fake aliens and faking an invasion


2726 - guard given photos and told to burn them but not look at them. WHY not get the guard in green fatigues to burn them? for god's sake, logic goes out the door. give the man who's forbidden to see something the very thing he's not meant to see.

2913 - towers?

38 - as mentioned in the comments, ccd smear

4211 - vector logos... perhaps the more obvious answer, the other countries copied nasa's?

4636 - religious paintings, discredited as proof of ancient aliens countless times... eyes of god and providence and such

52 - real flying saucers - except that they are unidentified and we dont know if they are flying - plus wouldnt one assume a motion blur if they were flying?
If these things were the same moving "creatures" from that "ice crystals" video, wouldnt they surely be kilometres long?

There's a lot of interesting looking things on the photos, but jumping to conclusions and calling them "civilizations" and "artificial structures" is a damn far jump to conclusions...

a reply to: andre18

I would not venture into disbelief simply because one crater was mistaken for a ufo

Absolutely. Lets venture into calling this what it is: Utter poppy cock, sprinkled with yesterdays BS with a side of hooey topped with balderdash in a plush gobbledygook sauce and for desert, wacky wanger fanger.

a reply to: andre18
I am unable to watch the video at the moment. Would anyone be kind enough to embed some of the pictures talked about? Thanks

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: draknoir2

Fair. However, my main point of this topic is the second film. I was hesitant in embedding the first film because of this irrelevancy and of course here we are. What is to be focused on is nasa's moon photos. Anything else is diverging.

Looking at the preview of the first I see:

"we lied about everything"

-- BellCom/NASA insider



So when a NASA [Never A Straight Answer] insider says that he lied, is he telling the truth, or is it counter-disinfo?

Or is it only the truth when it supports the ET narrative? Does our resident NASA insider lie about telling the truth?


So confusing...

a reply to: draknoir2

So confusing...

Not really. If I tell you enough lies, one is bound to be true and most likely that lie will be about aliens so aliens are probably real and on the moon right now based on the simple probability that its impossible to lie about everything.

a reply to: andre18

I would not venture into disbelief simply because one crater was mistaken for a ufo.

Neither would I , I would however venture into disbelief if I researched the guy and found him to be unreliable ....which I did and he is.

The body of his work demonstrates the moon is alit with aliens structures.

Yeah I used to think like that too .....Ah the good old days.

Also, the first doco was made in 2009 before the rod case was figured out and debunked. Criticism unfounded.

So because this was made before another of his claims was shown to be false that makes it true ? , and you accuse me of unintelligent thinking .
Believe as you will it makes no difference to me , the facts are the facts.

a reply to: andre18

If it's Jose Escamillia - it's crap.

originally posted by: Ridhya
830 - he chastises nasa for manipulating images and then does it himself... when they highlight photos, they light up more than is actually depicted to create an impression

There's a fair difference between tampering photos to airbrush out structures, hair crosses and stars, as a posed to what i would preferably call photo recovery of black and white restored to its original colour. How would you know what is an apparent impression and what is an actual depiction?

14 mins - all people interviewed are certain of alien contact and "civilizations" on the moon - certain

Are they biased, or simply convinced by the evidence....

2205 - they "quote" neil armstrong: I can’t go into details, except to say that their ships were far superior to ours both in size and technology – Boy, were they big!… and menacing! No, there is no question of a space station.

To discount this is one thing, quite irrelevant though, because at least 2 other apollo astronauts claim they saw things during their time in space. I would say you're too picky.

2350 - they mention werner von braun's fake enemies list yet ignore the fact that he said "and all of it is a lie"... his quote alleges that aliens, asteroids, soviets, terrorists, and rogue nations are not actually a threat but rather a phony threat to justify militarisation.

Further research upon Von Braun indicates he was a die hard nazi until his death. All of the scientists helping america that were transported to NASA from project paper clip were in fact tampering with the project, as well as sending blue prints back to Germany. I wouldn't trust what a nazi said...would you?

2726 - guard given photos and told to burn them but not look at them. WHY not get the guard in green fatigues to burn them? for god's sake, logic goes out the door. give the man who's forbidden to see something the very thing he's not meant to see.

Yeah im not going to defend this, it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me either, however... you nor me know how the military works. Maybe that's just how things are run. Who knows.

4211 - vector logos... perhaps the more obvious answer, the other countries copied nasa's?

I thought that too, however, there's symbols and shapes go beyond one basic design. Plus a lot of those companies and groups have nothing to do or be influenced by nasa but still have that basic symbol due to their involvement in space. There's a depth there I'm sure you can see.

52 - real flying saucers - except that they are unidentified and we dont know if they are flying - plus wouldnt one assume a motion blur if they were flying?
If these things were the same moving "creatures" from that "ice crystals" video, wouldnt they surely be kilometres long?

Maybe they're hovering stationary. Maybe they're there landed. In the ice crystal video they come in LOTS of sizes. some being kilometres some much smaller. But that's irrelevant, the size of these ufo's are pretty much of that diameter anyway. Scaled to the environment, these shining ufo's a massive regardless.

a reply to: gortex

So because this was made before another of his claims was shown to be false that makes it true

No it means it's in the past. it's irrelevant information.

originally posted by: stargatetravels
a reply to: andre18

If it's Jose Escamillia - it's crap.

Probably some of highest quality crap you will find anywhere. honestly, if anyone is actually thinking about selling their feces, his "docos" are a must watch. I mean a little colorization, some dramatic music, really cool trailer and some randomly unverifiable quotes and your poop is an alien.

What NASA would rather you didn't know is how much mocking laughter is aimed at these kinds of videos by ordinary space workers [and I was one], who are just gobsmacked by how wrongly some idiots can misinterpret ordinary space images. They get questions from weird old uncles and from eager-eyed snot-nosed kids lost on the internet, at holiday dinners, and are baffled by their impenetrability to reality-based prosaic explanations. To save time and effort I've tried to summarize what the spaceflight professionals believe, here -- www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html

I suggest you start with the 99 FAQs.

There seems to be some reason people find this to be suspect:

"2726 - guard given photos and told to burn them but not look at them. WHY not get the guard in green fatigues to burn them? for god's sake, logic goes out the door. give the man who's forbidden to see something the very thing he's not meant to see."

The reality is that this is common practice outside of the military, and I have personal experience with a similar procedure in the electronics industry. There were a number of times when I was instructed to destroy (by crushing) electronic devices/parts while under supervision of security personnel. Another example is "cell-phone recycling"- a similar procedure is used to ensure that cell-phones that have been submitted for recycling are no longer able to function (due to destruction). This prevents (unauthorized) sale or theft/transfer of WHATEVER it is that the people in charge don't want others getting their hands on. Having one employee watched by security or having one soldier being watched by another soldier with a gun is just a way for companies/military to help maintain control over whatever they want.

So, it does not seem at all suspicious to me that the military MIGHT follow such protocol to destroy stuff.

As far as the rest of the claims, I am unable to comment at this time because I need to spend more time with the material.

originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: gortex

So because this was made before another of his claims was shown to be false that makes it true

No it means it's in the past. it's irrelevant information.

It's in his present, as he still promotes what he "now knows" to be false.

Relevant to his reliability.


Stumbled across this glowing review.