CELESTIAL - a JOSE ESCAMILLA film of the Moon

[rdunk]

I have just watched this, and, with me just being a plain guy, I thought it was very good! I did a search here, and did not find it as having been posted previously. This was put up on Youtube on July 21, 2012.

I don't know really very much about the Moon, so to me this is very interesting, and I thought it might be to some of you also.

I am not sure which is the most right place to put this, so, I selected "Moon Anomalies", and if it should be at John's place, or somewhere else, then please move it.

Enjoy, as it has some very beautiful color pictures of the Moon, besides a lot of other "extremely interesting" detail.

Edit: I have watched this again, and I just want to express my thought a little differently - - - To me, this is a "stunning" video about the Moon, and some of the music is so very good, in accompaniment with the photos! Also, don't give up, because Jose doesn't start talking for several minutes into it.

Yes, it is HD, so watch it at its highest level (720P) if you can, and at full screen if possible.

[burntheships]

I thought it was very good!

Well, the evenings watching just brightened up!
Thanks, going to watch now!   

[ArMaP]

I only skimmed through the first minutes (I don't have the time to watch it now), but it looked like another movie that presents Clementine photos as showing the same colours we would see if we were there, which is not true.

[rdunk]

I only skimmed through the first minutes (I don't have the time to watch it now), but it looked like another movie that presents Clementine photos as showing the same colours we would see if we were there, which is not true.

Well ArMaP, I am sure you have reasons for saying that about the color, and I certainly have no knowledge to dispute what you said. However............Bill Brison, novice amateur astronomer, pretty much testified to the moon being colorful, early on in the video. He has a telescope, with a video cam, and he is narrating live, with color video, about the color he was seeing on the moon.

In addition to the revelation of a colorful moon, Jose also discusses several very significant anomalies, and includes specific photo numbers for reference. Of course, some of the anomalies he points out, he did not take the time to discuss. He also mentions to the viewer that as the video scans, all kinds of anomalies can be seen including towers, structures, statues, and etc.

Jose is also speaking about both the front side and back side of the moon.

 

[ArMaP]

However............Bill Brison, novice amateur astronomer, pretty much testified to the moon being colorful, early on in the video. He has a telescope, with a video cam, and he is narrating live, with color video, about the color he was seeing on the moon.

Yes, the Moon has several colours, but not those seen on the colour Clementine photos, that's why they look different from all other photos taken in colour or greyscale but only in the visible spectrum, as adding ultraviolet changes completely the way things look.

That's why they use ultraviolet, as it shows some minerals in a different way and makes it easier to see what areas have what minerals.

In addition to the revelation of a colorful moon, Jose also discusses several very significant anomalies, and includes specific photo numbers for reference.

Yes, I saw some of those, and the ones I saw (I saw a little more of the video) are a result of three things:
1- apparently, he doesn't understand perspective.
2- wishful thinking
3- he already has his mind made up

I will post some more about those "anomalies", as I already participated in a discussion in another forum of at least one of those.

[Pimander]

I will post some more about those "anomalies", as I already participated in a discussion in another forum of at least one of those.

Off topic I know but.... Did you ever work out an explanation for those Lunar pictures that showed that looked like machine parts?  I can't find them right now, does anyone know which ones I mean?

[ArMaP]

Did you ever work out an explanation for those Lunar pictures that showed that looked like machine parts?

If I'm thinking about the same thing you are thinking, then the answer is no.

I can't find them right now, does anyone know which ones I mean?

I suppose I do, I will try to find them.

[ArMaP]

When he talks about photo AS16-121-19407 and says that it shows a "tower with a cross", I wonder why he shows the worse version of that photo I could find, while I found several other versions, both in NASA sites and private sites, that are much better and show that there's no "tower with a cross" there. Then it talks about the "structure" seen in photo AS17-150-23085, and about the "tentacles" or "cables" that appear to come out from the "structure", but those "tentacles" are the vertical marks on the side of the crater that can be seen on the photo he was talking about before, but only on the higher resolution versions.

Then he shows that he doesn't understand perspective, when he says that what was visible in the Apollo 16 photo, as he says that the "structure" appeared "suddenly", when it was visible on the other photo. Then it compares it with the Clementine photos as if those photos show a different version of the "structure", ignoring, once more, perspective, as the Clementine photos were taken from as close to a 90º angle to the surface as possible, like all mapping missions do, and not from a much lower angle, like the ones taken on the Apollo missions.

Then he talks about a "disc shaped object" (a crater like any other), and appears impressed that the "disc shaped object" (crater) is still there. What did he expected, that the crater had flown away?

Then a "glowing area" (it's only brighter, not glowing) that is also still there 22 years after the Apollo photos. So what? So are the large majority of the craters, hills, etc., those type of things do not usually move from their place.

Next, he talks about a "cut away rim area", something that, like all other things, appears on all other photos.

Then he talks about a "blueish white smoke". That's what happens when people look at an image made with ultraviolet light thinking it shows the same things as a visible light photo. That's not smoke, that's an area of the ground that appears in a different colour because of the ultraviolet light.

Then he speaks of "smoke trails", once more looking at things that are only visible (or more noticeable) in the ultraviolet. For him, everything is a "structure", so now he sees "water tanks" (I wonder how does he know what's inside those "structures" that look like common small craters).

When he speaks of "structures" that look like they are under water, that's another effect of looking at a photo that was taken with invisible wavelengths, besides the visible ones, it looks unreal because it is.

We can see another example of not understanding perspective when he says that the "fish looking object" is casting a shadow, as for that to happen the perspective would need to be completely different. The light also comes from the wrong direction for that to be a shadow.

When, at 27:25, he says that the photos look different he is only showing how incapable of analysing a photo he is, as he appears unable to understand the difference between a high and a low resolution photo, with all that it implies. At 30:15 he says that the Clementine and the Apollo AS17-151-23172 photo are identical except for the glow, that's, once more, because Clementine photos are not what we expect to see, as it shows things that are invisible to us (and common photos).

Once more, at 31:05, he thinks it's strange for the two photos to look the same, when they were taken 22 years apart. Why would it be strange? Because he is expecting to see some kind of digging going on, so he isn't capable of understanding that there's nothing going on, that's why the photos look the same.

Then he says that he spent 8 hours looking at the photos, searching for a photo that would show Guyot crater (it took me 15 minutes, I just had to look at the maps that show the areas photographed), and that he then looked at the Clementine photos of that area and didn't see the "fish" looking "structure". Once more, he didn't see it because he is expecting to see something that he has on his own mind, so instead of looking at the area to see what he finds he is looking specifically for what he saw on the other photo. Unfortunately for his success as an investigator of these things (but I guess fortunately for his success in promoting movies like this one), he is, again, unable to understand perspective, so he doesn't see the "fish structure", although it's present on the Clementine photo, but only as a ground feature, not some kind of "structure" that projects a large shadow.

Then he talks about "domed craters" (another perspective flaw), then there's a "tall object" that is as flat as possible on that area (another perspective flaw).

The "giant statue" will be the topic of another post.

[Littleenki]

How about that giant statue, ArMaP? I thought the film was if anything, thought provoking, if not totally accurate, and as I have no experience beyond my own telescopic observations, I cant shoot it down nor confirm it.

What I do find interesting is to watch it without commentary and to make my own mind up, and several of the clips within there showed things that really got me going, such a s the mineral deposits that seem to glow, and some of the perfectly geometric structures all over the surface.

As for Aristarchus, it doesnt light up like that all the time, and from what someone told me it goes on and off like a light bulb.Hmmmm?

In my opinion, the whole thing smacks of cover up, and for anyone to say there isnt a chance that either weve been or others are there on the moon, is shaky opinion at best.

Personally I think theres a lot more to the moon that we ever have been shown, and NASA's clear effort to alter and change images is clear evidence that Im right.

Cheers!
Dave

[ArMaP]

How about that giant statue, ArMaP?

The giant statue, as far as I understand it (I haven't looked at photos of that area yet, give me some more minutes ), is just another example of his lack of understanding of perspective. If that was ever a statue, now is fallen down, as Clementine photos were taken as close to perpendicular to the ground as possible, as it was a mapping mission (besides other things).

As I said, I haven't looked at that area yet, but I think it's possible that it's something like Rainer Gamma (at least partially), what they call an albedo feature (meaning that's just a different coloured area and that they do not have the slightest idea why it looks like that). I say this based on the colour, I have to look at the Clementine and other missions' photos.

What I do find interesting is to watch it without commentary and to make my own mind up, and several of the clips within there showed things that really got me going, such a s the mineral deposits that seem to glow, and some of the perfectly geometric structures all over the surface.

I also think that's the best way to watch it, as the images are very good (even if the colours are not real), and even in greyscale the Moon is always interesting, at least to me.

As for Aristarchus, it doesnt light up like that all the time, and from what someone told me it goes on and off like a light bulb.Hmmmm?

The brightness of many areas is exaggerated for a visible light photo, I guess they are very reflective to the ultraviolet, and brightness variations surely are an interesting and mysterious subject.

Personally I think theres a lot more to the moon that we ever have been shown, and NASA's clear effort to alter and change images is clear evidence that Im right.

As I have said many times, I have never seen any signs of attempts at hiding something, only alterations to make something look better in someone's opinion.

Now I will look for photos of that area.

[Littleenki]

Thanks ArMaP, Looking forward to learning more about our moon!

Le

[ArMaP]

It too longer than I thought, so I can only post what I found tomorrow.

Meanwhile I can say that the "statue" is not an albedo feature.

[ArMaP]

Well, it took even longer than I said it did.

Now, back to the "statue".

This is what it looks like in the video.



This is my version of the above image. As it was done with the original images, the colours are not really the same, as I don't know how they turned the five photos from the five filters (415, 750, 900, 950 and 1000 nm) into a RGB image.



Neither looks like a statue to me, but I looked into the Kaguya/Selene archive, as they have recent and very good photos.

This is what I got. First, what they call "morning" and "evening" photos of that area.




And now a colour version done with the images from the photos taken with the  414, 749 and 901 nm filters.


Not a statue.

PS: something strange that I found out while looking for photos of that area, the maps that show the areas photographed by the Apollo missions do not have that area.

[rdunk]

Hi ArMaP! Probably a lot of work for you to do these other pics.

Of course, I see no relationship of any of these pics to each other, except for your #2 and #3 pics. These seem to be the same pics, with one being displayed negatively, and the other positively.  That would at least explain the opposite for black vs white, and also the craters vs mounds in those two pics. That would also make someone a case for "morning and evening" photos that looked different..


I guess the "jury" will stay out on this, as on so many others, until we can get someone on the moon, with real-time video, that we can trust to be the truth! And it is so sad for that to be the case!!!

To me it is somewhat amusing, that in many instances, a lot of people see a lot of stuff on the moon, and others, with the same photos, see absolutely see nothing but dust, rock, and craters! 



   

[Littleenki]

Excellent breakdown, ArMaP!
It appears to be an anomaly which could be seen as a statue of the observer was at just the right time and location, but clearly the photos you have show it being a statue shaped surface feature.

Whats up with Jose? Is he trolling for donations, or what?

We all know there are better finds right here on TLM, so Mr Jose can have his video, and label this one as another money grab for a filmmaker who needs to pay the investors off!

Thanks, ArMaP!
Le