Escamilla’s Fans Just Got Conned! Deny Ignorance!

Originally posted by secretnasaman
But now, will I also have to spread the word on my other blogs about ATS losing it's way?

OMG! So are you trying to threaten ATS by saying, "Shut the heck up with this thread or I'll haul you (ATS) over the coals on my blogs" or words to that affect?

I think you've lost your marbles.

Originally posted by free_spirit
Interesting remarks by OrionHunterX that reveal his contradictions.

QUOTE:

All debunkers on this thread should be banned for spreading falsehoods that there are no domes, towers and bases on the Moon! And it is a fact that there exists a Swastika fortress in that Moon crater.

SOURCE:



COMMENT: A Swastika in a Moon crater Mr. Orion? That's quite an imagination, and you are the one complaining of another crater in the Moon as a hoax? What a character.

How bad can it get free_spirit? Why did you indulge in SELECTIVE QUOTING? That's the worst thing one can do! But am I surprised that YOU did it? NO! Because you've turned out to be a fraud by quoting my post to make me look like a fool!

Here is the FULL post of mine on the other thread that you've linked to:

Begin quote...
"All debunkers on this thread should be banned for spreading falsehoods that there are no domes, towers and bases on the Moon! And it is a fact that there exists a Swastika fortress in that Moon crater, Schrödinger! Here it is....

That's the same one in the OP but zoomed. I believe Hitler's in there along with the SS!

The crap we have to put up with here

"
End of quote.

Did you even bother to read the last line? Do you even know what smilies mean? What does this smilie mean free_spirit? .....' ' It means LOL! For Laughing Out Loud!

Heck! The people we have to put up with here. This is getting excruciating! Clutching at straws to rationalize your false and hollow arguments, free_spirit? Better luck next time!




[edit on 12-3-2010 by OrionHunterX]

Friend Escamilla has screwed up again! So what’s new? This is getting tiresome! Listen to what he says in this vid:

“Apollo 8 photograph of Earth shows the Earth is blue-grey and white from farther in space. Even in close-up the land masses appear grey. THERE IS NO COLOR FROM THIS DISTANCE JUST LIKE NEIL ARMSTRONG STATED ONLY HALF THE DISTANCE FROM THE MOON.

“This should make you wonder. If the Earth is gray and blue from half the distance to the Moon, then how did it manage to magically turn into a highly detailed full color Earth in these photos?”


Video grab from Escamilla’s video. He contends the image is faked by NASA because it is not possible to see Earth colors from that distance!

Then he goes on to say, “How did the Earth do this?.....Because all these images have been faked!”

Huh? Does he mean NASA faked the images because the Earth is seen in full color? Ok, here’s what the erstwhile Soviet Union’s Zond craft sent back in August 1969, at the height of the cold war. Surely NASA and the Soviets weren’t in cahoots then?


Zond 7 flew past the Moon, taking this image of Earth setting behind
the lunar limb, on August 9, 1969.
Courtesy: Moscow State University of Geodesy and
Cartography (MIIGAiK) / Ted Stryk

Ah! The Earth in all its glory, in full color. From Moon orbit! You can even see some browns! And this one’s NOT from NASA!

What do you have to say to this Mr Escamilla? Oh yeah! I know! The Soviets faked their images too! Damn!



www.youtube.com...
www.planetary.org...




[edit on 13-3-2010 by OrionHunterX]

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by mcrom901
how about the japanese?

Originally posted by mcrom901
here is the infamous 'aristarchus crater' by jaxa's hdtv.......

does that look 'ok' to you?

It looks like a composite image with an area of higher resolution inside a larger area of lower resolution. I see things like this on Google Earth all the time where they get higher resolution images of the areas of interest and you can see contrasts in resolution just like this, are you saying that's not what we're looking at here? Or if it is what we're seeing, why would that be a problem?

Originally posted by mcrom901

..... are you by any chance suffering from childhood abuse....

mcrom901....

That would have to be one of the most uncaring, ignorant "questions" I've ever seen on ATS.

What if he is?

What of others on ATS who might be suffering from child abuse & then see you use that as a term of derision?

I believe you should erase that abusive & offensive "question".

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It looks like a composite image with an area of higher resolution inside a larger area of lower resolution. I see things like this on Google Earth all the time where they get higher resolution images of the areas of interest and you can see contrasts in resolution just like this, are you saying that's not what we're looking at here? Or if it is what we're seeing, why would that be a problem?

i dont know what you're talking about

my question was concerning the linked jaxa video.... the rest of the materials in that quote are just for reference purposes....

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
What of others on ATS who might be suffering from child abuse & then see you use that as a term of derision?

i dont know.... maybe they would respond with different contexts based on their own individual perceptions..... but i presume would mainly be addressing similar issues which you have already mentioned....

in any case.... just to clarify your misunderstanding.... i was not being derisive... but rather was just asking a simple question out of curiosity...

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
What of others on ATS who might be suffering from child abuse & then see you use that as a term of derision?

i dont know.... maybe they would respond with different contexts based on their own individual perceptions..... but i presume would mainly be addressing similar issues which you have already mentioned....

in any case.... just to clarify your misunderstanding.... i was not being derisive... but rather was just asking a simple question out of curiosity...

mcrom901

It is obvious you are a very intelligent person & I respect that, albeit I agree with very little of what you post.

You clearly understand that you have done the wrong thing with that "child abuse" post.

If you withdraw the comment, you will continue to enjoy the respect (even if diminished) of the members who read that comment , including me.

If you don't withdraw that post, you will lose the respect of those who read it.

I believe you have an interesting & noteworthy "position" in the ATS community.

I think you will seriously compromise that "position" if you don't withdraw that post.

I hope you are a "better person" than to leave things uncorrected.

Regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 14-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Wow, I take a few days out of interweb range, and it all goes pear-shaped.

In vague order...

mcrom, your images were discussed and information given - why did you not make any comment? I'll take it that means you accept you were wrong and now withdraw your claim - thanks. If you wish to make any other relevant point, please feel free to do so in your own words.
ADDED - Actually, having now read that sickening quote from you, your further input here will be ignored by me.

free_spirit, I'm a little puzzled by your statement "I don't endorse Jose Escamilla"..
- Does that mean you see some/many flaws in his dvd, or do you now disavow the entire thing?
- Why do you still offer no specific examples of his 'brilliance'?
- Do you think it is appropriate for involved parties to declare their 'conflicts of interest'?
- Have you had any direct involvement with the Escamilla ventures mentioned on this thread? Specifically, his 'Rods..' movies? I know you aren't much into answering questions put to you, but a serious researcher would. So why not have a go at quoting and addressing all of them, and show us your true abilities. If you believe any of them are unfair or not relevant, I'm happy to elaborate.

And can you explain HOW, in all seriousness, you could post that interpretation of Orionhunter's joke? That effort suggests a reading comprehension level that must be in negative figures (there is another possible reason you did that, but it isn't nice..). I would suggest that you now tell us you were "just jokin'" too, but it is a little late.

secretnasaman, I tried to find any worthwhile point to address in your rant... but it contained nothing of any substance.

Finally, there's quite a nice critique of Escamilla's creation here:
www.bautforum.com...
for anyone interested in a summary of where exactly he gets it wrong (pretty much everywhere), and why. Look for the DD4skyart posts. Mr Escamilla seems very reticent to take part in any further discussions there. Far be it from me to suggest that it might be because of the learned nature of his opposition..(oops, did I say that out loud?)


This has to be one of the most amusing threads I've seen here for a long while. Keep it up, guys!

Originally posted by CHRLZ

This has to be one of the most amusing threads I've seen here for a long while. Keep it up, guys!

I also find your posts entertaining.

Welcome back to the fray!





You said:

"Mr Escamilla seems very reticent to take part in any further discussions there."

As you know, Mr. Escamilla is banned from ATS.

We do not discuss banned ATS members.

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by hellfrozeover

 

As for what you mentioned, it is not acceptable to discuss Banned Members, but I can tell you this; anyone that was Banned was done so due to T&C violations and nothing more.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by Exuberant1]

Chrlz:
"Mr Escamilla seems very reticent to take part in any further discussions there."

Emphasis mine. 'There' being BAUTforum. NOT here.

Exuberant1:
As you know, Mr. Escamilla is banned from ATS. We do not discuss banned ATS members.

If you believe that, report my post. Reread what I said earlier. As long as Escamilla continues to promote flawed information, then I will discuss/debate that information. If that's against the rules, then the moderators will do what they believe right and I'll wear it.

Please refrain from using the royal "we" unless you are a moderator, or are a declared representative of some organisation. It's VERY unbecoming.

As is:
- making substantial changes to posts via editing.
- quoting from *other* threads on other topics, without clearly pointing that out.
- quoting and not including the context - it seems to me that the posting in question from semperfortis relates to the *reasons* that a member was banned..


But I'll happily accept correction on that.

reply to post by CHRLZ


You neglected to use the external content or quote buttons.

Perhaps you should do that next time.

Unless of course, you think you do not need to use the external content and quote tabs whilst discussing banned ATS members?


Re: the quoted post by semperfortis - there was a link that takes you directly to the post. Click it and you will find all the context you require.


Edit:

I will add that there is also another interpretation that I have found re: discussion of the banned:

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
II then wonder why they got banned, especially if it just happened recently. When someone gets banned, is there an explanation somewhere, or do they just.....go away quietly? I admit I am very nosy, and thanks for any answers.

As a rule, we do not discuss the reason for members being banned. On very very rare circumstances has the banning of a member been discussed on the board. In my tenure here (almost 4 years) this has been done exactly once.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

*So have you contacted Jose to challenge him on any of his claims?



[edit on 14-3-2010 by Exuberant1]

Exuberant1:You neglected to use the external content or quote buttons.
Perhaps you should do that next time.

First up, I simply posted a link to another forum, and explained my take on it. I did NOT quote any text from that forum. If you mean something else or some other post, then please QUOTE what you are talking about.

And you seem to agree completely with me, judging by your new quote -

"we do not discuss the reason for members being banned"

Yes, it is the reason for banning that should not be discussed. If you are suggesting I did that - please quote me in context. Thanks.

*So have you contacted Jose to challenge him on any of his claims?

Here is a link to one of a series of posts of mine challenging his claims in some detail in a public forum (apologies to other readers for having to repeat this):
www.bautforum.com...
Recognise me? I'm a little surprised (ok, not really..) that you do not appear to have followed any of the relevant links given here or indeed even googled the topic, which would have turned up that thread.

Do you have any contrary remarks to the information contained in that rather lengthy (sorry!) post? Like to begin a discussion here on image processing techniques and the methodology required to analyse images properly? After all, the topic of the thread, namely the validity or otherwise of Escamilla's claims, seems to be being ignored by all the 'point scorers..'

Again, may I suggest you post some of what, in your opinion, is Escamilla's best work? Then perhaps the thread could have some actual usefulness, and your research skills and knowledge of the topic can be glowingly exposed to all. I'm ready - have been for several days... but on that score? Just crickets chirping.

reply to post by CHRLZ



Did Jose's banning from BAUT result in you not getting satisfaction?

Jose Escamilla has been suspended for inappropriate (adult) language and attacking other members. So don't expect responses for several days.
www.bautforum.com...

If Escamilla cannot respond to you there (or here), perhaps you should create a forum in which to challenge him to debate - one where he could reply without being banned.

With the amount of material available and what you have wrote so far on various internet sites, you would be able to put together a devastating blog.

Then after drawing him out with emails and links to the blog, you can proceed to destroy him point-by-point in your blog's comments section. And as he cannot be banned, he will have no excuse not to reply.

The hardest part would be to get him engaged, but once you do that and he starts to debate; any withdrawal from that debate will or could be viewed as an admission of defeat.

What do you think, would that idea work?





[edit on 14-3-2010 by Exuberant1]

i do believe you'll find the flying crater theory was initially posted in one of the threads here at ATS a couple years ago, either the color moon photos thread posted by zorgon, or the john lear moon thread. it was my initial belief, after pouring over all the color photos from the map-a-planet site at arizona state, that something was really odd about some of the craters, particularly the cone-shaped ones. it may be that jose saw the same thing and came to a similar conclusion. it's easy to make because of things like light and shadow and the odd cone shape of some of the bottom lighted examples. theoretically, however, it's just as likely that the objects are not hovering but rather laying on a top layer of what could be sheets of ice or a similarly transparent substance.

regardless, in addition to hypothesizing that the cone shaped, bottom lighted craters were hovering, i also noticed some rather odd dotted anomalies that appeared to be ejecting in long lines from the cone craters and i assumed at the time that rather than ejecta from a meteor crash, that it was potentially little puffy trails of steam or the ilk. but these anomalies ONLY appear in the color photos. i'm not sure why that is, but it was an interesting research project while it lasted.

i apologize in advance, if it was my wacky theory that lead jose to believe the same thing, i was just enjoying the discovery process and it seemed so odd to have cone shaped craters with the same white and blue colored surface, bottom-lighted as they were in the color images. clearly the color photos are BIZARRE. everything pops when it's in color like that, although some of the colors are clearly over saturated.

didn't mean to upset the apple cart, was only exercising my visual acuity.

Exuberant1, may I gently suggest, in the most helpful way, that you take a little more time before posting.

First up, I notice you couldn't substantiate my supposed lack of 'external quotes', nor could you quote me discussing the reasons for his ban HERE.. May I suggest words like "Sorry, Chrlz, I was mistaken.". Good for the soul.

Did Jose's banning from BAUT result in you not getting satisfaction?

?
Read the following carefully and slowly. Jose Escamilla was NOT, I repeat NOT, banned at BAUTForum. He is free to continue posting at any time.

What is it about the words "SUSPENSION" (that's not a ban) and "don't expect responses for several days" that you don't understand? He was briefly suspended from posting, and that was over a month ago. His account is not, and was not, banned.

Let me repeat, as you seem to be having problems with this. Jose Escamilla is NOT banned from BAUT. He has CHOSEN not to return.

Why am I wasting time correcting you on such BASIC stuff? You claim to be a researcher?

(And did anyone spot the irony of the exuberantly posted reason for Escamilla's ban at BAUT... Nice one!!

you would be able to put together a devastating blog

Blogs are for those who wish to censor replies and sell stuff. I don't blog.

The hardest part would be to get him engaged, but once you do that and he starts to debate; any withdrawal from that debate will or could be viewed as an admission of defeat.

You mean exactly like what happened at BAUT, where he isn't banned (is it getting through???) and yet has refused to return?


And I see you are still avoiding the challenge to post any good Escamilla stuff, or to debate the topic. Why is that?

(Sadly, that appears to be a rhetorical question..)

Originally posted by CHRLZ

And I see you are still avoiding the challenge to post any good Escamilla stuff, or to debate the topic. Why is that?

(Sadly, that appears to be a rhetorical question..)

Indeed.

Why do you think that is?

Jose E. & I made the film "UFO: The Greatest story Ever Denied"...

It was (and still is) given away free these past few years on Google Video by Jose.

It has been downloaded millions of times. It is a wonderful work by Jose & many others who got no money from it. I have admiration for this gesture not to sell it. He is making a contribution. This is who he is...a generous person.

When I called him years ago about this he said he wanted this movie to continue to be free & available to all & that was that.

So how is this a bad thing??? How is this not good?

What have the smear-mongers given free? Any movie about how honest NASA is for instance ... or ANYTHING???

Mr. Escamillia ...now why would he bother talking to a basically an ignorant skeptical nobody...If anyone wishes him to engage in a debate...you must come clean...

..tell him (& all of us) who you really are & we will do our homework on you..& then the debate is on...but never from this ski masked unknown..

A debate on personalities needs full disclosure..so for this you must unmask.

Otherwise what you are doing is WWE...all for entertainment only! Right now all you have presented is heckling from an unknown masked bum... & all we can do is listen to your 'best thread ever' rants, as we watch you use ATS to bully a hard working filmmaker who is not getting a chance to know the iD of just who is doing this slander..

Jim Oberg attacks me consistently..& that is OK because he tells me who he is...thus we have a playing field that is fair. He shows other skeptics that if you want to go after someone... then don't hide, like this threads unknown grandstanding types...

reply to post by secretnasaman

Jose E. & I made the film "UFO: The Greatest story Ever Denied"...

Good film and very enjoyable. Although the footage is still being debated (ice particles or craft), if it wasn't for your efforts we'd know zero about it. Thank you very much!

Your loyalty to a friend is cool. At the same time, we are on a discussion site and criticisms are par for the course. I've had my ass chewed up a few times. Perhaps some of the critics would be less likely to be as hostile or comedic if their names were out there? On the other hand, forums wouldn't exist if anonymity wasn't possible. Not everyone on ATS knows your real name or history...so you are in essence using anonymity also.

I haven't attacked Escamilla in this thread, although I'm not a fan. I'm just pointing out that forums are forums are forums...they're all like this.

Again, thanks for your efforts to upload NASA videos.