Wow, so all we have to do to see the evidence is pay you?

This was the moderators idea to start a whole thread with that as the title. My original point was to to point to their secret-keeping capabilities.

Anyway it is stated in the charter as I provided, that they are a defence agency of the USA.

The photos are black and whites. As for size, why should there be criteria placed on that?

Pay me?

There are plenty of examples on the site that are free, just click on the main pic there with the wheels.

If you wanted to donate a dollar, you could get the whole book and thus the whole project. I mnow many scientific journals cost money to get online, it's totally not a big deal, the guy is asking for a donation that you choose...

Realitydesign, show us a picture so we have a basis for discussion. I will not go looking through a website to find something to talk about. Present one picture here that you think shows good evidence for structures on the Moon and let's talk about that.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

I already did, the pictures speak for themselves.

If you want lost get the book, otherwise again here are the pics:

blatant wheel type objects: http://www.lunomaly.com/

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

How about if I "donate" a negative number of dollars...cause the only way I'll be reading that ebook is if I'm payed for my time...

Comparing that "junk" to an actual science journal is laughable.

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

Let us examine Allan Sturm's work on this page:

http://www.lunomaly.com/en/other-ima...ellanious.html

The first section contains four photographs. The bottommost is an original image. Moving up, we find the same image desaturated presumably to obtain density information. Then we have a pair of detail images taken from roughly the center of the source images.

The first error Sturm has committed is to have failed to control for the obvious chromatic errors in the source digital image. This is an artifact of the scan that produced it from the original transparency. It will not produce a usable density map.

The source image displays coarse spatial resolution. It does not support the resolution at which Sturm has made his interpretation.

It also displays coarse, stepwise luminosity information. This is usually the result of an uncalibrated scan, or possibly exposure problems in the original transparency. However in Sturm's massaged copies, smooth gradients are suddenly available. There is no explanation for why that information suddenly appears when the appropriate detail is clearly blown out in the source image.

The problem is that those mysteriously created gradients then become contour cues. That coupled with the loss of spatial detail drives Sturm's interpretation of objects such as spoked wheels, that are illustrated in his annotated detail.

Ordinarily an interpreter would apply global illumination cues and automated (not subjective) contour-extraction techniques here. Instead Sturm has simply drawn lines on his heavily massaged image based on his imagination.

The red annotations at the top unfairly regularize structures. In one case the spatial resolution does not support Sturm's interpretation of a foreshorted straight line and right angle. If you return to the larger image, there is no supportive alignment with the global environment. Further, Sturm unfairly regularizes features that are clearly not so, even at that coarse resolution. That is obvious cheating.

The orange annotations in the center merely subjectively outline interpretations of contour. They do not fit any spatially coherent structure or arrangement. In the case of the "wrench" shaped feature, Sturm has simply made that up -- it does not appear in his source images.

The red annotations present the spoke-and-wheel interpretation, but again there's no case for a coherent structure. The "contours" arise simply from Sturm's misguided requantization and smoothing of coarsely discrete data.

Elsewhere on the site Sturm gives an example of a detailed aerial photograph that has been coarsely resampled and then filtered back out to a higher pixel resolution. He argues that it is still valid to perform interpretations on the filtered image. This is not correct. The validity of his interpretation depends on presuming the fine detail that is lost does not contradict the interpretation. This is what we saw with the Cydonia photographs. The filtered image with low spatial resolution conveyed a sense of regularity that was simply not valid when more detailed photographs were obtained.

Sturm simply falls into the same trap as have all prior novices: he ignores the perceptual effects of the smoothing that is inherent to both digital and photochemical photography. One cannot presume the absence of contradictory detail just because one cannot see it. This is elementary photographic interpretation.

The next section is entitled "Some miscellaneous early finds."

Judging from the subject matter and the inclusion of a reseau fiducial, the first photo is from an Apollo lunar surface EVA. It appears motion-blurred along a path inclined roughly 40 degrees to the right of vertical.

No interpretation is presented, but we can surmise that the object at the center is the one Sturm purports to be interesting. At first glance it may seem to be a cylinder protruding from the regolith, with an inset cap. However, we see that the long edge of the "cylinder" does not continue, and we see that the "cap" is not sufficiently regular to be an elliptical foreshortening of a circle. It fails the test of uniformity.

The following photo is simply a blob with no context.

The third photo in this section appears to be a highly-expanded excerpt from an orbital image. There is clear evidence of smoothing and interpolation. This will naturally introduce a false sense of regularity.

It appears Sturm has attempted to connect the two dark patches in the center as a single object that is punctuated by the somewhat vertical feature. In fact the two dark patches are unrelated; they are individual shadows of two roughly parallel ridges. Because the spatial quantization and subsequent smoothing has eliminated the detail in these shadows, they are incorrectly assumed to be smooth-edged, round, and perhaps connected.

The next section entitled "Lunar tumbleweed with grid" presents Sturm's isolation of a feature which he colors green in his annotated version.

With absolutely no argument or justification, Sturm seems to claim that this feature is standing up from the surface. He simply mistakes coloration as contour. This clearly violates his admonition to "look through" the photograhph, since he has made no confirming argument that this "tumbleweed" is in the geometric configuration he seems to purport.

The next section is entitled "Another grid example" and purports to show a regular square pattern of crater-like features. Presumably uniformly or regularly spaced features were also to be seen in the prior "tumbleweed" image, but I failed to find any.

There is a huge difference between objects that only seem somewhat regularly spaced at first glance and objects that are indeed regularly spaced according to a simple pattern and measured at an appropriate tolerance. Here no attempt is made to establish that rigor. No consideration of surface contour occurs. No deference is made to the low angle from which these features are photographed, which would tend to obscure gross differences in distance along the line of sight.

The final section "Interesting geometry in Lunar Orbiter Image" is the coup de grace. The feature Sturm has isolated in his insets is simply the extension of an imaging artifact that is clearly visible above it in the dark portion of the image.

In short, Allan Sturm is clearly an amateur at photographic interpretation. He commits nearly the all the errors an untrained amateur would be expected to commit. This "analysis" is worthless.

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

Let me clarify your obligation here. This is the Conspiracy Theories forum. Under our rules, CT assertions in this forum must be supported and proponents must answer questions in a timely manner. If you do not wish to be bound by this rule, you may withdraw your assertions and this thread will be closed. If you continue this discussion, you will be held to the rules.

As for the title of the thread, I based that upon your first assertion, that NASA is a military organization. If you have another title in mind, let me know and I can change it for you.


Edit to add: You've posted the website link more than enough. Do not post it again unless you are linking to specific text or images to support your argument. If you continue to post links to the entire site, it will be viewed as promotion.

</moderator mode>

As for evidence of secret-keeping...you presented two bits of evidence: (1) that certain patent-related information/technology with national security implications will be kept secret; and (2) that classified information may not be included in reports to Congress without proper authority.

Not exactly high intrigue, is it?

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Too right, they do. They are yelling "bogus" at the tops of their voices.

My original point was to to point to their secret-keeping capabilities.

Every organization has the ability and need to keep some secrets. Please show that NASA's needs or practice is inconsistent with their stated mission.

Anyway it is stated in the charter as I provided, that they are a defence agency of the USA.

No, that charter was interpreted for you in terms of NASA's actual missions. You have failed to address those interpretations.

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

Excellent

And what is odd (not) is that I can see all sorts of other lines and "structures" that has ignored. So it obviously completely subjective.

...just click on the main pic there with the wheels.

Please address my criticism of the "wheels" picture.

If you wanted to donate a dollar, you could get the whole book...

I don't wish to pay to review his work as you've asked us to do. You contacted us asking us to address his findings. You have an obligation to provide those findings to us. Otherwise how do we know you're not simply drumming up business for the project?

Designated reviewers typically do not pay to obtain the reviewed material. It is customary to provide

I mnow many scientific journals cost money to get online...

I will happily pay to obtain a copy of a journal with an established reputation.

I will not pay to obtain material of unknown and uninspectable quality simply because I am asked to render an opinion on it. If you wish to make a donation yourself and then present the material to us for our opinion, go ahead.

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

I've already made all the points I will make, everyone has the right to dismiss outright or begin delving into Sturm's ebook.

I can already see how much interest this thread has generated. Fantastic!

Here are some quotes pertaining to the original discussion...for the weekend:

I believe, and I scientifically am certain, that there are endless other living forms out there, including intelligent sentient beings. I do know that there are entire universes of living forms out there.
--Dr.Story Musgrave NASA scientist-astronaut


"I believe that these extraterrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets which obviously are a little more technically advanced than we are here on Earth." --Colonel L. Gordon Cooper (Mercury 9, Gemini-5 Astronaut)


"Mission control, We have a UFO pacing our position, request instructions!"
-- Astronaut Cady Coleman NASAtransmission shuttle mission STS-73


"I've been asked about UFO's and I've said publicly I thought they were somebody else, some other civilization."
--Commander Eugene Cernan, Commanded the Apollo 17 Mission. (LA TIMES, 1973)


"We have contact with alien cultures."
--Astronaut Dr. Brian O'leary


"In my official status, I cannot comment on ET contact. However, personally, I can assure you, we are not alone!
--Charles J. Camarda (Ph.D.) NASA Astronaut


"UFO sightings are now so common, the military doesn't have time to worry about them - so they screen them out. The major defense systems have UFO filters built into them, and when a UFO appears, they simply ignore it."
--Lee Katchen (former atmospheric physicist with NASA)


"In my official status, I cannot comment on ET contact. However, personally, I can assure you, we are not alone!
--Charles J. Camarda (Ph.D.) NASA Astronaut


We all know that UFOs are real. All we need to ask is where do they come from, and what do they want?"
--Apollo 14 Astronaut Capt. Edgar Mitchell


"All Apollo and Gemini flights were followed, both at a distance and sometimes also quite closely, by space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin - flying saucers, or UFOs, if you want to call them by that name. Every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control, who then ordered absolute silence."
--Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems.


"At no time, when the astronauts were in space were they alone: there was a constant surveillance by UFOs."
--NASA's Scott Carpenter


When asked if he believed that UFO's were real;"Yes as a matter of fact I do." He was also asked if he had ever seen a UFO and he said he had, on his Gemini mission. He went on to say that he tried to take a picture of it, but it did not come out.
--Brigadier Gen. James Mc Divitt command pilot of the Gemini space craft. (This interview can be seen on a video tape called Beyond Belief, from United Entertainment, Inc. 1986.)


On May 11, 1962 NASA pilot Joseph Walker said that one of his tasks was to detect UFOs during his X-15 flights. He had filmed five or six UFOs during his record breaking fifty-mile-high flight in April, 1962. It was the second time he had filmed UFOs in flight. To date none of those films has been released to the public for viewing. During a lecture at the Second National Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Space Research in Seattle, Washington, he stated:
"I don't feel like speculating about them. All I know is what appeared on the film which was developed after the flight."
-- NASA Pilot Joseph A. Walker


"The evidence points to the fact that Roswell was a real incident and that indeed an alien craft did crash, and that material was recovered from that site. We all know that UFOs are real.All we need to ask is where do they come from, and what do they want?"
--Capt. Edgar Mitchell Apollo 14 Astronaut


"I was testing a P-51 fighter in Minneapolis when I spotted this object. I was at about 10,000 feet on a nice, bright, sunny afternoon. I thought the object was a kite, then I realized that no kite is gonna fly that high." As I got closer it looked like a weather balloon, gray and about three feet in diameter. But as soon as I got behind the darn thing it didn't look like a balloon anymore. It looked like a saucer, a disk. About the same time, I realized that it was suddenly going away from me -- and there I was, running at about 300 miles per hour. I tracked it for a little way, and then all of a sudden the d**n thing just took off. It pulled about a 45 degree climbing turn and accelerated and just flat disappeared."
--Mercury Astronaut Capt. Donald Slayton


"Let there be no doubt. Alien technology harvested from the infamous saucer crash in Roswell, N.Mex., in July 1947 led directly to the development of the integrated circuit chip, laser and fiber optic technologies, Particle beams, Electromagnetic propulsion systems, Depleted uranium projectiles, Stealth capabilities, and many others! How do I know? I was in charge! (A matter of public record)I think the kids on this planet are wise to the truth, and I think we ought to give it to them. I think they deserve it.
--Colonel Philip Corso Army Intelligence officer, former head of the Foreign Technology at the U.S. Army's Research and Development department at the Pentagon. Four years director of intelligence on President Eisenhower's White House National Security Staff

For reference, here is what you said:

And once again, here's the part you seem to have overlooked: chapter 17 covers "SECRECY OF CERTAIN INVENTIONS AND FILING APPLICATIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRY".

The phrase "for the purpose of" is actually pretty important to that paragraph. You may not parse that to mean that NASA is considered a defense agency for any other purpose. You'll need more evidence for that.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

No, they do not.

Sturm clearly states that his "structures" appear in some cases only after manipulating the images. Therefore the methods by which Sturm manipulates the images becomes a premise in his argument. Sturm has briefly outlined his methods, but has not explained how they differ simply from subjectively manipulating the images using consumer tools. Nor has he substantiated any adjudicated training or experience in those methods.

Sturm clearly states that his images must be interpreted according to spatial reasoning skill in order to discern the images. He admits that not everyone is able to do this, and that it requires a combination of innate ability and acquired skill. Hence the images do not speak for themselves; they must be interpreted according to ability. Since that ability varies from person to person, Sturm then has the obligation to prove that he has those skills, and to present arguments intended to minimize the subjective aspects of that interpretation. Sturm not only fails to establish that, he displays no special ability in spatial reasoning or discernment in the interpretations he offers for free.

If you are going to argue that Sturm's interpretations have merit, then you must be prepared to engage the arguments presented here. You many not simply point to the claim and say its proof is self-evident.

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

I've already made all the points I will make...

You have the obligation to address disputations of your points as a condition of your continued participation here.

...everyone has the right to dismiss outright

No one is dismissing anything outright. We are presenting specific reasons why Allan Sturm's interpretations are not acceptable. You have failed to address a single one of them.

...or begin delving into Sturm's ebook.

If you wish us to comment on the book, please provide it.

I can already see how much interest this thread has generated. Fantastic!

Specifically we are interested in whether you will substantiate your claims.

Here are some quotes pertaining to the original discussion...

No, they largely give people's personal opinions. You said you would provide evidence that NASA insiders were revealing what NASA knew about supposed alien contact. Where is that?

I'll isolate one quote:

--Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems.

If you had paid attention to my previous post, you would have learned that Maurice Chatelain has been thoroughly discredited. Since the post of "Chief of NASA Communications Systems" is a high-profile, public position, it is relatively easy to see who has historically held this position. Chatelain has not.

After some investigation, it has been discovered that Maurice Chatelain was a low-level electronics technician who briefly worked for a contractor at the Mission Operations Control Center in Houston installing some communication equipment. He deliberately overstated his role in order to give inappropriate credence to unfounded claims.

Since you clearly have not made any personal effort to vet the quotations you reproduce here, I'm going to ask how you know any of them are true, valid, and applicable.

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

How can anybody get excited about some fuzzy photos?

Seems more like an exercise in reading tea leaves to me...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

The same goes for Col. Philip J. Corso. Nobody gives him credit, not even "ufologists" like Stanton Friedman, and that is saying a lot...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Because the larger a feature is in affine terms, the less likely it is to be an engineered structure. Sturm admits this. Yet his argument simply sidesteps the problem.

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

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. On this board when someone makes outragous statements it will draw attention.

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

None of these passes any sort of regularity or uniformity test. Please explain why they are here interpreted as "structures."

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

Already dealt with here.

The real story isn't so exciting.

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

Again - no - you have not.

Present your single most convincing image here - explain what you think it is, let's have a discussion about it.

Furthermore, James Oberg wrote about many of your cited astronauts here:
http://www.debunker.com/texts/astronaut_ufo.html

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Maybe this link will help realitydesign understand why simply seeing with your own eyes isn't good enough, it's a famous Irish landmark:

http://www.giantscausewayireland.com/

Now that's the entirely natural product of geological forces, yet it appears quite artificial, thus realitydesign to demonstrate structures on the moon you need something a little better than Photoshopped images.

Saying 'nobody' gives him credit is meaningless. He has the credentials and the friendships, he wrote the book...you can choose to believe it or not. You need to prove he is lying, do that...but now declassified files back up his story. (Twining memo)

Besides, why even bring up a point about nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman who does himself believe in the UFO coverup?

The sample images on Allan's site that I linked up look NOTHING like that very nice rock spread.

I never mentioned those so I can't yet comment but again these are what I see as structures:

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

and the wheel one here:

http://www.lunomaly.com/

I never said it was high intrigue, it elegantly shows that they classify things that have to do with national security and that makes them non-transparent and secretive- WHICH WAS THE REASON given to a poster asking why people suspect NASA of keeping information. Then you guys made it into a thread about NASA being a military organization.