• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Allan Sturm Bowing Out?

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Hey Guys,

Remember that one rectangular anomaly from the image on the NASA man's desk during the LCROSS impact night? The image from the unknown probe?

Well my brother's pal has managed to do a perspective correction on it, so here it is - make of it what you will:



cropped from original image & perspective corrected

b8c395edcd649807e778d50.jpg

direct link - http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/8256/b8c395edcd649807e778d50.jpg
resized - http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/212/591401dc4907be8fb5e736c.jpg



perspective corrected overhead view

6ddf12b5b6ea765533c1f04.jpg

direct link - http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5817/6ddf12b5b6ea765533c1f04.jpg
resized - http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8551/02d51233c36efa1b07e1b64.jpg


cropped from resized image
2753fd9fffa1fa350649049.jpg

direct link - http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/319/2753fd9fffa1fa350649049.jpg


cropped from resized image - darkened

56e1ad6776ea6c5295a98c4.jpg

direct link - http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1798/56e1ad6776ea6c5295a98c4.jpg



If this rectangular thing was actually on the lunar surface, then it is in the target area of the centaur impacter that slammed into the moon that night and probably got damaged.

If this is the case, this would be a good example of hiding a mission in plain sight. And as The USA are the good guys, those moonies probably deserved it for some reason. Lord knows what kind of sick crap they got up there on the moon, without any supervision by decent, respectable people..... Yeah. :)
 
As an aside, I tried to contact Sturm on a number of occasions. I called his cell phone number that I had and left him about 3 messages. He never responded to my calls. FWIW.

Decker
 
Hey Ry,

Check this out - here are a few attempts at defunking that image that some people have done recently:









*The Clementine mission was a part of the Star Wars Program, so I don't think we'll be getting access to untouched image data.

.....I'm gonna get some other lunar anomalies and post them here.
 
The thing about these objects is they must be incredibly huge if they are machines. I'm no expert but I also have to wonder just how much real information is in the "blurred" section that can be used in reconstruction. Something that must be taken into account is that the blurred area may and probably does exceed the bounds of any real object that was to be airbrushed out in the original. Therefore the shape and size of the blur probably has little resemblance to the object of interest. Attempts like those shown in post 44 don't seem to take this into account.
 
trainedobserver said:
Something that must be taken into account is that the blurred area may and probably does exceed the bounds of any real object that was to be airbrushed out in the original. Therefore the shape and size of the blur probably has little resemblance to the object of interest. Attempts like those shown in post 44 don't seem to take this into account.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

But no one knows so, that is one of the reasons I decided to post multiple examples of those attempts. It shows the different results people are getting.

I highly doubt anyone will be able to reveal what is hidden, but that hasn't stopped 'em from trying. :)
 
There is the famous child pornographer case that was cracked by reversing some photoshop filter but I don't think these lunar airbrush effects were done digitally. I think its a bit of Rorschach test. And again, a lot of these mysterious lunar objects would have to so huge it just staggers the imagination. On the other hand there are people who attest to having seen high resolution original copies of these photographs that do show giant artificial structures. I don't know what to think.

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ----------
Anaximander said:
If this rectangular thing was actually on the lunar surface, then it is in the target area of the centaur impacter that slammed into the moon that night and probably got damaged.
Click to expand...

Look at that thing! It appears to be a shaft receding into the distance with what appears to be tiers or stair-steps. Again, how freaking huge would that thing have to be? Could that photo on the fellows desk been a practical joke?
 
Well, you all were somewhat right. Follow The White Rabbit was a reference to The Matrix... but sadly, after 4+ years of stepping out of this narrow sliver of pop-science research, I have to say I've never seen so much B.S. and so many opinions touted and promoted as fact... Over the 2013 holiday season, I decided to dip my toes back in and have a look around and I just shook my head in disbelief. I left a treasure trove of various objects of interest, with my take on what they could be for anyone to follow up on, validate, invalidate, or even have no opinion and I come back to a slew of idiots such as this one guy attempting to convince us for two hours that a digital artifact smudge on a Clementine photo is a really giant insect-shaped mining machine. And it's not just him. Other YouTuber's that claimed to have found volumetric shapes (as defined by their shadow) when they completely ignore the sun angle in the photo. As a result, they've inverted the shape from shadow and claim towers and buildings. So, I've stepped back in for the moment - my website Lunomaly.com is back up and alive, and over the last few months, I was the Associate Producer of the upcoming SyFy Special Documentary "ALIENS ON THE MOON: THE TRUTH EXPOSED" airing Sunday July 20th, 9pm (EST). For the show, I mostly focused on guiding other production teams on how best to show these strange objects on a television as well as working with other graphics teams. Oh, and I got tired of ignoring requests for my first book, so that's back online and available for download - but this time, not for "donation". Come to find out, people don't value free things so I set a fair price to keep the riff-raff away. And why anyone thinks that this kind of research is invalidated because there's a fee associated with the work is nothing more than a freeloader. And to my critics on this site I can only say that I've thrown out and disregarded ten times the number of "ULOs" I presented in the first book (there's over 390 images in the book) - in fact, I am my biggest critic of my own research and have extremely stringent requirements for what gets shown. Some objects or collections of objects don't look anything like what we would normally consider "structural" but I found that they told a story so to speak in that region when looked at collectively. And as always, I don't care if there is, was, ever was or ever will be a conspiracy about any of this. I really don't care and here's why: if there really are odd things on the moon such as ancient structures and they never ever wanted us to ever ever know, they would've set the archive on fire long ago as the digital age approached and that would've been the end of it. So, either there are some things that went unnoticed, some things that they didn't care about "hiding" or... are you ready for this?... maybe it's just a big fractal Dr. Seuss landscape and we are all wishing there was something there more than there is! The fact is, NO ONE is really doing any true research on the topic yet everyone wants to speculate on it. We've got critics that claim there is nothing on Moon other than Moon rocks - and they've never been there themselves to make that a fact. We've got others that believed there were things on the Moon before ever being shown more than one photo. And what do these two do about it? Argue and debate never research the data or spend enough time looking at the photos themselves to form their own opinion. Follow the white rabbit... don't follow the debate.
 
Okay, nothing chaps my jimmies more than these Moon hoaxers... Okay, unless they admit it, I guess in theory, the image(s) could be "real" and from a whistle blower but I'm doubting it in this case.

I found the matching NASA photo for the claimed Chang'e 2 "extraterrestrial base".

Every Apollo era photo has a visual signature and it didn't take me but 15 minutes of looking at 3 photos to find the match.

I'm challenging anyone else to find the matching image - and if they don't already have a copy of my eBook, I'll send them one for free!

Check it out on my website:

Comparing Chang’e 2 ‘s Extraterrestrial Base Photo to it’s Matching Original NASA Photo
 
Allan Sturm said:
I found the matching NASA photo for the claimed Chang'e 2 "extraterrestrial base".
...

I'm challenging anyone else to find the matching image - and if they don't already have a copy of my eBook, I'll send them one for free!
Click to expand...

Challenge accepted. :) I don't have a copy of your eBook but would like to add it to my collection...

The source for the "Chang'e 2" image is on Lunar Orbiter Frame 3085 (a little bit up from the middle of the page):
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/3085_med.jpg
 
It's nice to see a 4-years-dead thread resurrected in such a calm and reasonable fashion. Firstly, Mr. Sturm, there's this:

"Oh, and I got tired of ignoring requests for my first book, so that's back online and available for download - but this time, not for "donation". Come to find out, people don't value free things so I set a fair price to keep the riff-raff away. And why anyone thinks that this kind of research is invalidated because there's a fee associated with the work is nothing more than a freeloader."

(I realize that should be different-colored text in a quote box, but I can't find the buttons to do such things on this site, which seems to be configured in a different and less convenient way than just about all others.)

Allan, dear chap, putting up a free e-book and hoping people will pay for it, especially when you're a marginal author writing obscure self-published books on a fringe subject, is exactly the same as having a donation button on your website. It's there for those visitors who feel kindly towards you, but don't be too surprised if most people have a quick look and move on without paying you a penny. You should be grateful to everybody who bothered to read it at all! Ranting about the "freeloaders" who accepted something you offered them for free in the first place and saying that anyone who doesn't want to pay to learn your somewhat eccentric views is "riff-raff", and indeed saying that your first book is only available again because you "got tired of ignoring requests" for it, doesn't make you sound like a calm and reasonable person. Or indeed a pleasant one to know. Neither do comments like this:

"...but sadly, after 4+ years of stepping out of this narrow sliver of pop-science research, I have to say I've never seen so much B.S. and so many opinions touted and promoted as fact... Over the 2013 holiday season, I decided to dip my toes back in and have a look around and I just shook my head in disbelief. I left a treasure trove of various objects of interest, with my take on what they could be for anyone to follow up on, validate, invalidate, or even have no opinion and I come back to a slew of idiots such as this one guy attempting to convince us for two hours that a digital artifact smudge on a Clementine photo is a really giant insect-shaped mining machine. And it's not just him."

So you admit that you're doing "research" in "a narrow sliver of pop-science", yet you bad-mouth everybody else doing the exact same thing because you disagree with their interpretations of the exact same photos you've reached your own conclusions about, using the exact same methods? As you say yourself:

"So, either there are some things that went unnoticed, some things that they didn't care about "hiding" or... are you ready for this?... maybe it's just a big fractal Dr. Seuss landscape and we are all wishing there was something there more than there is! The fact is, NO ONE is really doing any true research on the topic yet everyone wants to speculate on it."

Does that apply to everyone except you, or everyone including you? If the former, your proof needs to be pretty spectacular to put you so high above everybody else attempting to prove very similar things in almost identical ways. And if the latter, you have exactly zero justification in calling everybody else in your "narrow sliver of pop-science" an idiot unless you're willing to admit that you yourself are probably an idiot too, but you're also an optimist. Oh, and how about this:

"We've got critics that claim there is nothing on Moon other than Moon rocks - and they've never been there themselves to make that a fact."

Exactly 12 people have ever been to the Moon. If you're saying that nobody can criticize your "research" unless they've actually walked on the Moon (this sentence is rather oddly worded, but I assume that's what you're trying to say), obviously I can't criticize you at all, because I'm not one of those 12. On the other hand, neither are you. So by your own rules, you have no business saying anything whatsoever about conditions on the surface of the Moon until you've gone up there and had a look. So I guess we all have quite a while to wait for your definitive conclusions.

Quite frankly, if this post is anything to go by, your book isn't worth paying a penny for because it's written by somebody who has a very poor writing style, a lousy grasp of grammar and proper sentence structure (yes, I know it's a major breach of internet protocol to criticize posters on a forum because they cant spel 2 wel, but I think it's justified in the case of somebody who is trying, somewhat ungraciously, to sell a full-length book for actual money), doesn't know what paragraphs are for, isn't particularly good at logical reasoning, and has a vindictive attitude towards anyone who does the same thing as himself ever so slightly differently. I might have had a quick look out of curiosity if it was still a free download, just in case you wrote the above comment when you were drunk or whatever, and the book wasn't really that bad. But if I have to pay to find out? Not so much.

I look forward to a reasoned rebuttal of all of the above. But somehow I don't think I'll get one.

PS - If "Allan Sturm" is a pseudonym, I take it you were inspired by the phrase "sturm und drang"? And if it isn't, all I can say is that, under the circumstances, it's rather a happy coincidence.
 
What's the line between paranormal research oneupmanship and actual critical comparative analysis? It's all about tone isn't it.

The problem is that wordsmiths are just too tempted by satirical and sardonic responses to stop themselves from being diplomatic. I know, as I suffer from this terribly myself. But, we can all grab our stress ball, hug it and try to change.
 
Wisty,

If you're going to be a grammar nazi, try not to use run-on sentences that require parentheses to get your point across. And a simple copy and paste of your post to an online grammar checker is quite revealing... apparently you too are not an English major.

Regarding your other comments, it is my opinion that there is a lot of bs out that is being presented as fact. My opinion and fair game on this forum. You were definitely right to suggest that personally attacking me on the forum is bad form. At that point, instead of proposing a justification for doing so, you should've just deleted your post or taken a different approach.

As far as the rest of your comments are concerned, it's pointless to jump in the mud puddle with you here on the forum. You are welcome to call me to discuss your discomfort with my position on the topic and if you happen to find yourself in Tucson, I'll gladly sit down with you for the same --- and if you like, share with you what I've found.

P.S. That goes for anyone else that lives in, near, or are willing to visit Tucson as well!

Allan Sturm
AllanSturmPhotography.com
LoveSmackStudios.com
Facebook.com/allansturm

...and many others. I don't hide behind pseudonyms.
 
Allan Sturm said:
Yes! IasscKoi found it and a fresh digital copy of ULOs goes to him!

I'm soooo not a fan of hoaxers and gross misinterpretation - like turning Aristarcus upside down and calling it a dome when it can clearly be seen from earth that it is not.
Click to expand...

Great. I look forward to receiving the copy of your eBook.

As for hoaxers, I am (and have for quite a few years) been interested in the many hoaxes that circulate for decades within ufology - even after a confession by the hoaxer and/or clear evidence of the hoax. It's sometimes hard to know whether certain UFO researchers are hoaxers themselves or just VERY gullible.

Generally, I find this state of confusion and low standards amusing.

Sometimes, I get a bit frustrated and wonder why some obvious steps have not been taken to improve the standards of ufological research (and sometimes take a step or two with the objective of improving those standards, e.g. seeking to make more primary source material/documents available for free online in an easily searchable format) - but generally am fairly pessimistic about the prospects for improvement.

By the way, my focusing of efficient searching for previous discussions (online and offline) to avoid reinvention of the wheel meant that I found the relevant matching Lunar Orbiter image that was the subject of your challenge in about a minute. :)
 
Last edited:
IsaacKoi said:
Great. I look forward to receiving the copy of your eBook.

As for hoaxers, I am (and have for quite a few years) been interested in the many hoaxes that circulate for decades within ufology - even after a confession by the hoaxer and/or clear evidence of the hoax. It's sometimes hard to know whether certain UFO researchers are hoaxers themselves or just VERY gullible.

Generally, I find this state of confusion and low standards amusing.

Sometimes, I get a bit frustrated and wonder why some obvious steps have not been taken to improve the standards of ufological research (and sometimes take a step or two with the objective of improving those standards, e.g. seeking to make more primary source material/documents available for free online in an easily searchable format) - but generally am fairly pessimistic about the prospects for improvement.

By the way, my focusing of efficient searching for previous discussions (online and offline) to avoid reinvention of the wheel meant that I found the relevant matching Lunar Orbiter image that was the subject of your challenge in about a minute. :)
Click to expand...

Mr. Koi,
I have a question for you, if you don't mind. What has the most serious, rigid, and disciplined study of UFOs gotten mankind so far with respect to a factual understanding of their origin, occupancy, and ownership? I am asking this question of you due to your aforementioned amusements which seem to definitively point away from such a disciplined practice of UFO investigations.

I am NOT defending, nor am I attacking, any position here. Rather, what I am doing here is considering the animal human as it considers and investigates UFOs via an inherent form of awareness.

Personally, I think it's impossible not to be gullible when considering UFOs due to human observation alone. On any level, no matter how disciplined or "scientific" our methods might be. Our observation's subsequent analogous and derivatory language based speculations only seem to reinforce contextual relativity with respect to UFO identity.

If we attribute differing opinions and practices concerning the UFO phenomena to human psychological pathologies that bear out mythomaniacal underpinnings, do we not have an obligation beyond mere consensus to provide a factually undeniable alternative? In other words, shouldn't we have "something" by which to falsify such crazy and half cocked notions if we are going to pretend to be scientific about the matter in the least?

IMO, and possibly you may agree, UFO investigative cliques are really no different than various sects of a central religious belief system that dogmatically argue matters that can neither be proved or disproved. What say you to this elucidated pretense of Ufological religiosity?
 
Jeff Davis said:
Mr. Koi,
I have a question for you, if you don't mind. What has the most serious, rigid, and disciplined study of UFOs gotten mankind so far with respect to a factual understanding of their origin, occupancy, and ownership?
Click to expand...

To be frank Jeff, I'm not aware of much "serious, rigid, and disciplined study of UFOs" that has taken place. Almost everyone in this field is involved in their (often very limited) spare time, generally with limited resources, with limited co-operation between UFO groups/researchers and often with pretty significant biases affecting their work/publications.

There have been several interesting PhD dissertations which relate (directly or indirectly) to ufology - largely from a sociological/psychological viewpoint. But those are generally studies of ufologists rather than of UFOs.

Basically, I think there is a lot of room for improvement within ufology. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top