not recommended. A patent lawyer is highly recommended for these processes, in order to protect your hard work,
and keep it out of the hands of those wishing to illegally use, or claim your work as there own.
The second form of protection a researcher, or technician needs to perform in order to protect there invention, and,
claim legitimately in the scientific community, is to publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. This paper should go
into great detail concerning the technical process and methods used in this new device. According to the rules of
scientific methodology, this paper should enable someone else, who has the technical ability, to duplicate the claims
made by the inventor in his or her own lab, using the information contained in the published paper. This means that
one cannot get away with just making claims about a process, or allege that others have observed this process. An
example would be a paper on a new type of engine. This new engine should be described in such a manner whereby
another mechanic of appropriate skill could build this new engine in his/her shop using just the information contained
in this paper, and demonstrate that it works as claimed. An example where this did not work was the so called “cold
fusion” research paper published by Rusi Taleyarkhan, a researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2002. The
paper outlined the experiment to the degree that it could be duplicated by other researchers in other labs.
Unfortunately, Dr. Taleyarkhan’s claims did not materialize as claimed, and he had to defend his data, in a peer review
process. Fortunately for Dr. Taleyarkhan, he was later justified by independent verification from Edward Forringer of
LeTourneau University in Texas and his colleagues last November (Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, vol
95, p 736).
This is an example of how new technology is introduced to the public, and although it can, at times by intimidating, it
ensures the technology is legitimate, and reproducible. This also protects the inventor, as it is additional proof that
he/she is responsible for the development of the new idea, and this kind of process would be iron clad in a court of
law. The claim that “we are not going to go through the legal process, or tell people how some new secret technology
works in order to keep it safe” is a bad idea at best, and a red flag that the “inventor” is not being truthful at worst.
This leads me to the review of APEP or Advanced Photographic Extraction Process.
In writing Mr. Nussbeck in order to obtain patent information and a reproducible description of how there new
technology works, I received a response from Mr. Nussbeck which was: “our patent is pending; this keeps our
process secret as you already know”. For a scientist who has developed a new technology, this answer was
somewhat confusing. According to the definition of “patent pending”, “Patent Pending is a phrase that often
appears on manufactured items. It means that someone has applied for appetent on an invention that is contained in
the manufactured item. It serves as a warning that a patent may issue that would cover the item and that copiers
should be careful because they might infringe if the Patent issues. Once the patent issues, the patent owner will stop
using the phrase "patent pending" and start using a phrase such as "covered by U.S. Patent Number XXXXXXX."
Applying the patent pending phrase to an item when no patent application has been made can result
In a fine".
As outlined at the beginning of my paper, I informed Mr. Nussbeck that the process of applying for a patent, through
a qualified patent attorney, would give ample protection over the intelligential property one has developed.
Additionally, summiting a peer reviewed paper outlining the methods of the process would also establish a type of
“chain of custody” which would also protect the intelligential property of the inverter.
With the assurance that the patent was in process, I went on to search for a patent application for this process
through The US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and through Google Patent Search. I could find no patent
applications for either Mr. Nussbeck, or Ron Stewart.
I was sent a plethora of antidotal material from “experts” who claimed to have verified this process. Regarding Mr.
Nussbeck’s use of expert consultants, I could nether find any information on who these experts were, where they
worked, or verify there qualifications. I searched for a Mr. Marcus A Wharton, and Mr. Robert A. Torres, I could find
no evidence for Marcus A Wharton from Austin TX. (One would think that a “Computer imaging Graphics Software
Engineering Consultant’ would have an address, or phone number, or web site). Additionally, the only Robert A
Torres I could find was a student who won a prize at CPS All City Art Festival in B/W Photography. This too is odd,
as one would think that this person would have a contact phone page, or web page. I was also offered a $10,000.00
reward for “proving this process doesn’t work”, by Mr. Nussbeck. This is a good example of sales technique, but a
poor one of science. Not only is it a logical fallacy to attempt to prove a negative, but the burden of proof is on those
who claim a new technology and not on the one challenging it.
One of the most disturbing claims made by Mr. Nussbeck was an article he forwarded to me via email entitled: “UFO,
Alien, Scientist Find Evidence Of Life On Planet HD189733B?”by Ronald Nussbeck Posted: 16:05 May 19, 2009
In which he claimed: “Scientist Ron Stewart using APEP-Advance Photographic Extraction Process successfully
extracted images beyond the Atmosphere surrounding the planet to reveal the surface and structures showing signs
of what is believed to be highly intelligent life. Not only oceans and land masses but green belt areas thriving in what
is considered a very harsh and hot environment”..
On July 11, 2007, a science team lead by Giovanna Tinetti published the results of their observations using the
Spitzer Space Telescope concluding there is solid evidence of significant amounts of water vapor in the planets
atmosphere. A follow up observation made by Giovanna Tinetti using the Hubble Space Telescope confirmed the
presence of water vapor and organic compound methane. Methane at high temperature should cause water and
methane to react, replacing the atmosphere with carbon monoxide.
In reviewing the original article by Giovanna Tinetti, she is quoted as saying: “Giovanna Tinetti of University College
was quick to rule out any biological origin of the methane found on HD 189733b. “The planet’s atmosphere is far too
hot for even the hardiest life to survive — at least the kind of life we know from Earth. It’s highly unlikely that cows
could survive here!”
Dr. Tinetti’s comments stand out in direct contradiction to Mr. Stewart’s, and one if left with a confusing paradox.
In conclusion, I hope that both Mr. Nussbeck and Mr. Stewart will bring forth their complete technical process in order
that this amazing claim can be duplicated and corroborated. I hope they are published in any number of respected
journals such as: Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, or Digital Journal of Photography, or any
number of peer reviewed science technical journals, and receive the fame and fortune they would so richly deserve if
these claims prove to be valid.
and keep it out of the hands of those wishing to illegally use, or claim your work as there own.
The second form of protection a researcher, or technician needs to perform in order to protect there invention, and,
claim legitimately in the scientific community, is to publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. This paper should go
into great detail concerning the technical process and methods used in this new device. According to the rules of
scientific methodology, this paper should enable someone else, who has the technical ability, to duplicate the claims
made by the inventor in his or her own lab, using the information contained in the published paper. This means that
one cannot get away with just making claims about a process, or allege that others have observed this process. An
example would be a paper on a new type of engine. This new engine should be described in such a manner whereby
another mechanic of appropriate skill could build this new engine in his/her shop using just the information contained
in this paper, and demonstrate that it works as claimed. An example where this did not work was the so called “cold
fusion” research paper published by Rusi Taleyarkhan, a researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2002. The
paper outlined the experiment to the degree that it could be duplicated by other researchers in other labs.
Unfortunately, Dr. Taleyarkhan’s claims did not materialize as claimed, and he had to defend his data, in a peer review
process. Fortunately for Dr. Taleyarkhan, he was later justified by independent verification from Edward Forringer of
LeTourneau University in Texas and his colleagues last November (Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, vol
95, p 736).
This is an example of how new technology is introduced to the public, and although it can, at times by intimidating, it
ensures the technology is legitimate, and reproducible. This also protects the inventor, as it is additional proof that
he/she is responsible for the development of the new idea, and this kind of process would be iron clad in a court of
law. The claim that “we are not going to go through the legal process, or tell people how some new secret technology
works in order to keep it safe” is a bad idea at best, and a red flag that the “inventor” is not being truthful at worst.
This leads me to the review of APEP or Advanced Photographic Extraction Process.
In writing Mr. Nussbeck in order to obtain patent information and a reproducible description of how there new
technology works, I received a response from Mr. Nussbeck which was: “our patent is pending; this keeps our
process secret as you already know”. For a scientist who has developed a new technology, this answer was
somewhat confusing. According to the definition of “patent pending”, “Patent Pending is a phrase that often
appears on manufactured items. It means that someone has applied for appetent on an invention that is contained in
the manufactured item. It serves as a warning that a patent may issue that would cover the item and that copiers
should be careful because they might infringe if the Patent issues. Once the patent issues, the patent owner will stop
using the phrase "patent pending" and start using a phrase such as "covered by U.S. Patent Number XXXXXXX."
Applying the patent pending phrase to an item when no patent application has been made can result
In a fine".
As outlined at the beginning of my paper, I informed Mr. Nussbeck that the process of applying for a patent, through
a qualified patent attorney, would give ample protection over the intelligential property one has developed.
Additionally, summiting a peer reviewed paper outlining the methods of the process would also establish a type of
“chain of custody” which would also protect the intelligential property of the inverter.
With the assurance that the patent was in process, I went on to search for a patent application for this process
through The US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and through Google Patent Search. I could find no patent
applications for either Mr. Nussbeck, or Ron Stewart.
I was sent a plethora of antidotal material from “experts” who claimed to have verified this process. Regarding Mr.
Nussbeck’s use of expert consultants, I could nether find any information on who these experts were, where they
worked, or verify there qualifications. I searched for a Mr. Marcus A Wharton, and Mr. Robert A. Torres, I could find
no evidence for Marcus A Wharton from Austin TX. (One would think that a “Computer imaging Graphics Software
Engineering Consultant’ would have an address, or phone number, or web site). Additionally, the only Robert A
Torres I could find was a student who won a prize at CPS All City Art Festival in B/W Photography. This too is odd,
as one would think that this person would have a contact phone page, or web page. I was also offered a $10,000.00
reward for “proving this process doesn’t work”, by Mr. Nussbeck. This is a good example of sales technique, but a
poor one of science. Not only is it a logical fallacy to attempt to prove a negative, but the burden of proof is on those
who claim a new technology and not on the one challenging it.
One of the most disturbing claims made by Mr. Nussbeck was an article he forwarded to me via email entitled: “UFO,
Alien, Scientist Find Evidence Of Life On Planet HD189733B?”by Ronald Nussbeck Posted: 16:05 May 19, 2009
In which he claimed: “Scientist Ron Stewart using APEP-Advance Photographic Extraction Process successfully
extracted images beyond the Atmosphere surrounding the planet to reveal the surface and structures showing signs
of what is believed to be highly intelligent life. Not only oceans and land masses but green belt areas thriving in what
is considered a very harsh and hot environment”..
On July 11, 2007, a science team lead by Giovanna Tinetti published the results of their observations using the
Spitzer Space Telescope concluding there is solid evidence of significant amounts of water vapor in the planets
atmosphere. A follow up observation made by Giovanna Tinetti using the Hubble Space Telescope confirmed the
presence of water vapor and organic compound methane. Methane at high temperature should cause water and
methane to react, replacing the atmosphere with carbon monoxide.
In reviewing the original article by Giovanna Tinetti, she is quoted as saying: “Giovanna Tinetti of University College
was quick to rule out any biological origin of the methane found on HD 189733b. “The planet’s atmosphere is far too
hot for even the hardiest life to survive — at least the kind of life we know from Earth. It’s highly unlikely that cows
could survive here!”
Dr. Tinetti’s comments stand out in direct contradiction to Mr. Stewart’s, and one if left with a confusing paradox.
In conclusion, I hope that both Mr. Nussbeck and Mr. Stewart will bring forth their complete technical process in order
that this amazing claim can be duplicated and corroborated. I hope they are published in any number of respected
journals such as: Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, or Digital Journal of Photography, or any
number of peer reviewed science technical journals, and receive the fame and fortune they would so richly deserve if
these claims prove to be valid.
PEER REVIEW by Robert King of paper entitled:
UFO PHOTOGRAPHED BY WORLD'S LEADING IMAGING SCIENTIST REVEALS EXTRATERRESTRIALS: PART II
by Ronald Nussbeck
UFO PHOTOGRAPHED BY WORLD'S LEADING IMAGING SCIENTIST REVEALS EXTRATERRESTRIALS: PART II
by Ronald Nussbeck
ADVERTISERS
ASK ABOUT
ADVERTISER RATES
AND REACH YOUR
NEW CUSTOMERS!
ASK ABOUT
ADVERTISER RATES
AND REACH YOUR
NEW CUSTOMERS!
| WANTED Frontier Science Researcher Writers |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
On October 20th, 2009 I wrote Ronald Nussbeck in order to obtain more information about the process claimed as
APEP, (Advanced Photographic Extraction Process), and developed by Mr. Ron Stewart. I did this as part of the peer
review process in order to establish empirical evidence of this digital enhancement procedure. As a researcher, I must
be skeptical, but open minded. This is what separates scientist form so-called “debunkers”. As an UFO enthuses, I
am hopeful that Mr. Nussbeck’s claims are true and correct, as this would lead to historic proof of life outside our
planet, and even give us a glimpse of what these life forms look like. One of the benefits of publishing in a journal
such as JFS, or other legitimate journals, is the peer review process, where by any claim is laid out there for all to
read, and critique. One must become somewhat “tough skinned”, in this community, and realize that our research will
be questioned, and our methods scrutinized. The only rules to this process, is that we stick to the data in question,
and do not resort to the use of logical fallacies. When defending a paper, or challenging the same, one should not
resort to fallacies such as post hoc, or false cause, Appeal to authority, Ad hominem, tu quoque, or ad populum. In
other words, we argue the science and mathematics, and leave any personal attacks, or appeal to emotional
completely out of our review.
APEP, (Advanced Photographic Extraction Process), and developed by Mr. Ron Stewart. I did this as part of the peer
review process in order to establish empirical evidence of this digital enhancement procedure. As a researcher, I must
be skeptical, but open minded. This is what separates scientist form so-called “debunkers”. As an UFO enthuses, I
am hopeful that Mr. Nussbeck’s claims are true and correct, as this would lead to historic proof of life outside our
planet, and even give us a glimpse of what these life forms look like. One of the benefits of publishing in a journal
such as JFS, or other legitimate journals, is the peer review process, where by any claim is laid out there for all to
read, and critique. One must become somewhat “tough skinned”, in this community, and realize that our research will
be questioned, and our methods scrutinized. The only rules to this process, is that we stick to the data in question,
and do not resort to the use of logical fallacies. When defending a paper, or challenging the same, one should not
resort to fallacies such as post hoc, or false cause, Appeal to authority, Ad hominem, tu quoque, or ad populum. In
other words, we argue the science and mathematics, and leave any personal attacks, or appeal to emotional
completely out of our review.
ROBERT KING retired
from Federal Government
service after managing
infrastructure of Northern
Colorado 43 acre research
station and field
stations. King was
awarded the DOE Energy
Savers award for federal
facilities engineering,
along with developing
strategies for managing
energy in federal
buildings.
King holds two
undergraduate degrees
and is currently at
Colorado State University
pursuing advanced
degrees in Chemistry and
Physics. He is a member
of ASHRAE, Electronic
Technician’s Association
(ETA), and the American
Chemical Society.
King became interested in
the UFO phenomenon
after hearing first hand
experiences from
seasoned veterans who
wished to remain
anonymous due to
damage such information
would do to their career.
A member of MUFON
since 2008, Robert’s
focus is in bringing the
UFO question out of the
realm of pseudo-science
by means of rigorous
experimental
methodology, using
current, publicly accessed
technology in order to
demonstrate to the
mainstream scientific
community the physical
validity of these
occurrences.
King’s contact email is
bking@rams.colostate.edu
from Federal Government
service after managing
infrastructure of Northern
Colorado 43 acre research
station and field
stations. King was
awarded the DOE Energy
Savers award for federal
facilities engineering,
along with developing
strategies for managing
energy in federal
buildings.
King holds two
undergraduate degrees
and is currently at
Colorado State University
pursuing advanced
degrees in Chemistry and
Physics. He is a member
of ASHRAE, Electronic
Technician’s Association
(ETA), and the American
Chemical Society.
King became interested in
the UFO phenomenon
after hearing first hand
experiences from
seasoned veterans who
wished to remain
anonymous due to
damage such information
would do to their career.
A member of MUFON
since 2008, Robert’s
focus is in bringing the
UFO question out of the
realm of pseudo-science
by means of rigorous
experimental
methodology, using
current, publicly accessed
technology in order to
demonstrate to the
mainstream scientific
community the physical
validity of these
occurrences.
King’s contact email is
bking@rams.colostate.edu
The Journal of Frontier
Science is looking for
intelligent, informed,
talented Writer-
Researchers in the
fields of:
furthering the study of
Ufology.
JFS is an excellent
format for publishing
your own research for
peer review and
education purposes.
See the Submissions
page for information!
Science is looking for
intelligent, informed,
talented Writer-
Researchers in the
fields of:
- Ufology
- The Paranormal
- Cryptozoology
- Parapsychology
- Etc.
furthering the study of
Ufology.
JFS is an excellent
format for publishing
your own research for
peer review and
education purposes.
See the Submissions
page for information!
| Copyright © 2009 JFS |
I thought that I would preface this article by explaining the
process that inventors, technicians, and scientist go
through in order to claim credit for a new invention, and
ensure that the technical innovations are not stolen by
others.
To begin with, let’s define our terms. Intellectual property
consists of items that you have developed and that you
consider unique. This property has the potential to provide
you with an economic benefit. Intellectual property includes
inventions, designs, original works of authorship and trade
secrets.
Additionally, there is the copyright process, which will
provide protection for original works such as photographs,
audio and visual recordings, and software, and other
intellectual works. These processes are complicated, and
while most intelligent people can do this on there own, it is
process that inventors, technicians, and scientist go
through in order to claim credit for a new invention, and
ensure that the technical innovations are not stolen by
others.
To begin with, let’s define our terms. Intellectual property
consists of items that you have developed and that you
consider unique. This property has the potential to provide
you with an economic benefit. Intellectual property includes
inventions, designs, original works of authorship and trade
secrets.
Additionally, there is the copyright process, which will
provide protection for original works such as photographs,
audio and visual recordings, and software, and other
intellectual works. These processes are complicated, and
while most intelligent people can do this on there own, it is
| TODAY IS |
| See original article by Ronald Nussbeck entitled UFO PHOTOGRAPHED BY WORLD'S LEADING IMAGING SCIENTIST REVEALS EXTRATERRESTRIALS: PART II |