Their launch vehicle didn't work. And by "didn't work," I mean "blew up."

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Technically correct, but in the interest of clarity I'd say that they had development problems, never had a successful flight out of three (?) launches, and the programme was canceled before the problems were rectified.

I think the LK / LOK would have been relatively problem-free though the L3 system might have had a few issues.

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

Four, according to Encyclopedia Astronautica.

They were also having trouble with re-entry with the moon orbiting Soyuz 7L-L1, with crushing 20+ ballistic re-entry on almost all the Zond circumlunar test flights.

__________________

sirjon, I'll add my agreement to the chaps above, there's no question really, the relevant launchers had some major issues. I may be wrong but the situation is described quite well at Astronautix

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/whynrace.htm

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

Thanks Mellow. I appreciate your effort by sending me that info. Thanks a lot again. As well to ravens cry...

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

ouch!

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

No - here is a website that is full of the barely coherent rambling of a pitifully deluded cultural vandal.

Please provide your one best single piece of evidence for an artificial structure on the moon.

They sorted that out, ending the programme with a run of three successful skip-lob re-entries, and though Zond 6 crashed for other reasons, Zonds 7 and 8 were successful.

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett

Again, it's all there, NASA originals. If you can't see what's there you may need to first understand how to look at blurry, low-res/out of focus pics (the kind NASA provided back then). Check the FAQ. Or, and I mean this without offense, you may need glasses. It's all there plain as day, anyone can see it.

The sample images are great or you could donate a buck and get the whole ebook, stunning stuff, hundreds of images.

http://www.lunomaly.com/

http://www.lunomaly.com/ulos-volume-...le-images.html

Now you've got it.

You could, but then you would be tasked to do something meaningful like Allan did and find stuff like he did after scrutinizing thousands of images.

If you look at Mr. Sturm's credentials you will realizes that he has you covered and beyond. Please read the FAQ.

Now he's got what exactly?

If you read the link that Mellow provided it answers sirjon's question...why did you choose to ignore that?

Also, djellison asked you if you could...

I'd like to see that too, so you can now consider that a direct question.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

So I should just ignore the fact that I see a questionable website promoted by questionable people?

Sorry, can't do that...

You can of course believe anything you want, but if you come to a science board, you will be expected to provide better evidence than "it looks like artificial structures to me."

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

JayUtah wrote:

The latter role has been almost entirely subsumed by U.S. Space Command.

Here's where I earn my "I corrected JayUtah" tee shirt. There is no US Space Command and hasn't been since 2002. That organization was essentially disbanded when the function was absorbed by US Strategic Command. The role that used to be Commander, US Space Command is now the Commander Joint Functional Component Command for Space (CDR JFCC Space). He reports to Commander, USSSTRATCOM.

As for NASA being part of the military, that simply isn't true. Almost all of the early astronauts were military pilots because they were the ones with high performance aircraft experience. Today, other than the Shuttle commanders and pilots, a significant percentage of the astronauts are civilians. When they flew military missions on the Shuttles, it took a lot of work to accommodate the security requirements. They don't have to do that any more. IIRC, the last military Shuttle mission happened around 1990 or so.

Nonsense, Shepard sat around the whole time setting up experiments. Sure he was out on the moon, but could you really call that a moon-"walk"?

Sorry....

__________________
Look at the BAUT banner, something fishy about it. Boxing gloves are probably not able to withstand the pressures involved in space. Another thing, look at the astronauts visor? See the sun? It's in front of him, but the illuminated ground that we see in the reflection is also in front of him when it should be behind him. Furthermore, the stars shouldn't be visible if the camera exposure was set for viewing lunar landscapes and astronauts. In all, I'm fairly sure the BAUT banner is fake.

Hehe.

ZERO experience with photo interpretation. ZERO experience with spacecraft instrumentation. But he sat on the Wall with binocs, somewhere pre 1990.. Real impressive.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

It's a direct question from me also.

I don't see that it's meaningful. He just fiddled with the knobs in Photoshop until he found something. Nor is it especially original. Lots of graphic designers trying to sell a book or web site have made exactly the same arguments as Sturm, using the same invalid methods.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

He identifies none of the original source photo's from NASA. Which indicates this person is intentionally hiding his sources, to make it more difficult for people to examine the originals before he had altered them.

A rather standard tactic when it comes to those that intentionally mishandle images to support their own misconceptions.

All i see here is a person that is trying to profit from intentional mishandling of imagery.

To quote officer Barbradey of South Park, "Nothing to see here folks. Move along."

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

He is VERY original to do this with original NASA photos, very elegant and simple- just highlighting what's there.


NO one has done what he has done in these ways. And it is extremely meaningful as it proves hands down that there are artificial structures on the moon...the consequences of that are quite large.



P.S. Link me up to any others who have taken NASA originals and zoomed in to then highlight carefully artificial structures in such a crisp and elegant fashion. I'd love to see. It was always just a matter of time before public sector tech reached NASA's.

Every single image is labeled in the ebook. There is no hiding of anything.

I have looked at Mr. Sturm's credentials. Training in graphic design and digital arts is not even remotely appropriate education for someone doing the work he purports to do. I also have graphic design training and experience, having worked for national publications. I also have training and experience in photography; I own and operate my own studio. But unlike Mr. Sturm, I have additional training in photographic analysis in conjunction with my training in forensic engineering. And from that basis I can say that Mr. Sturm is not appropriately trained. I know what expertise he lacks, even if he doesn't.

When asked to describe his method, he tries to avoid saying that all he's doing is fiddling subjectively with knobs in Photoshop, but in fact that's all his image processing methods amount to. And if you search our forum, you'll find numerous examples of graphic artists fiddling subjectively with Photoshop and trying in vain to argue that they've uncovered something. Sturm has the burden to prove he's not just another anomaly-hunter.

When asked to differentiate between his method and pareidolia, he takes Michael Bara's approach: don't be surprised if you don't see what I see; I'm specially skilled in that area and not everyone can do this. Unfortunately for Mr. Sturm, I am an engineer. I am also trained in both engineering and architectural rendering, physical radiometry, classical art, and photographic analysis. I'm also a pilot and part of my business is the taking and interpretation of aerial photos (although when I'm photographing, my friend Matt flies). I also taught computer graphics at the university where the Photoshop creators obtained their degrees. If Sturm wants to turn it into a chest-beating contest, my spatial reasoning scores off the charts. I don't agree at all with his interpretations.

He doesn't get to weasel out of his burden of proof by claiming that it's an art only he possesses. There are techniques for assuring the interpreter that he has found a legitimately variant feature in the photograph. I see no evidence that Sturm knows about them and has applied them.

Sturm can't even answer basic questions like why his "structures" are so very large and suspiciously the same color as the lunar surface itself. He speculates that these immense structures have been covered in lunar regolith either by a natural process or intentionally as a means of protection. He alludes to "form follows function," but is only speculating on function based on his selective, subjective interpretation of form.

My friends in the petrochemical industry can go out to the refineries north of my town and tell you the function of every tank, pipe, tower, and structure on that site. My basic engineer's understanding of that process allows me to identify the elementary components of a fractional distillation operation. A graphic designer wouldn't be expected to make head or tail about of any of it. Hence he wouldn't be able to differentiate an oil refinery from a jumble of abstract pipes -- or objects that vaguely resemble pipes.

Suspiciously lacking also is Sturm's training in planetary geology. He purports to be able to distinguish artificial structures from natural ones. But given his inability to discern the purpose of his "structures" (and thereby positively identify them as artificial), he has to rely on eliminating geological possibilities. He doesn't appear to know what those possibilities are.

In short: Allan Sturm is clearly unqualified.

The most parsimonious explanation is that the "anomalies" are merely features of the lunar surface that do not meet Allan Sturm's narrow expectations, and which he augments by misguided ad hoc image manipulation techniques.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

P.S. Link me up to any others who have taken NASA originals and zoomed in to then highlight carefully artificial structures in such a crisp and elegant fashion.

Search the forum. Three or four people just this year have attempted to do so, just here on this forum.

Richard Hoagland and his associate Michael Bara, whose testimonial appears on Sturm's site, have been doing this for years.

As I have begun to explain, Sturm's technique is neither valid nor especially novel. Fiddling with Photoshop knobs does not make you a photographic interpreter.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

All one has to do is look at the photos and decide for oneself. Allan did a lot of work to narrow in on those areas of the moon, tremendous work went into the ebook.

If you don't agree that there are structures there, simply move on.

Trying to discredit Allan won't work. Everyone gets to look and decide critically themselves.

I am familiar with Hoagland and Bara's work, it's not the same thing.

It's not about just fiddling with knobs, you have to first locate the structures. Needle in a haystack.

But you seem more interested in discrediting before LOOKING into the ebook. THAT's your choice.

IMO I cant see why NASA would be a military organization.

__________________
"The trendy doomsday people… should be treated for what they are: under-informed opportunists and alarmists who will move onto other things in 2013,"
- John Major Jenkins

I will ask you again. This is the second time I have asked you a direct question which, under forum rules, you are obliged to answer.

What is the single best piece of evidence for artificial structures on the moon. Present it - HERE. The way this forum works is that you bring the evidence to show us - you don't just say "Here's an entire book".

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I'm sure the same can be done with any arial photograph of any wide open expanse (such as desert) on this Earth.
So; if this can be done clearly on areas that can be proven to have no structures, why is it not possible for it to be true of moon pictures?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)