[HOAX]Found New Video- large Space Objects-F.A.S.T. [HOAX]

Hey GridKeeper !!!!!!!!

Like the others are saying, things have to move to the next level.
Surely there must be a way to get the HD images onto the net.
Can't you list equipment you need to do this? Maybe there is someone in the UK that can help you with this.
If you guys are at the stage of being buzzed by helicopters and the like, isn't it time to spread the burden by letting others in on this? There are people from many countries here on ATS and the Controllers can't follow everyone if there are many working on making similar videos.

Originally posted by Gridkeeper
This is very old news as usual.
final message... If you hadn't noticed I just got off, and yes I did have a lot more to say...but to be threatened by a moderator is not on at any standard.........end...........

We're all heartbroken GK.

Why don't you come back when you have more substance to your claims. You're running because you know in your own heart your defeated on ATS. Your trying to make out your the one thats walking, but in reality if you didn't walk you'd be pushed. The reason things have shaped up this way is because you haven't bought forward the evidence to back your claims up.

I feel sorry for the next forum you're going to spam the life out off.

Originally posted by Gridkeeper

Originally posted by Orion437
Gridkeeper

maybe if you don´t want to share the supposedly level 10 information in the thread, for your own reasons,at least provide it to the mods.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Orion437]

I have said many times that the footage is on HD Tape. So how do I supply it to the MOds? Would you like me to air mail it to them?

Gk.

Well i asked that in respectfull manner i guess

Wasn´t expecting such an irony

I think you may have misunderstood the word "irony" mate. Don't worry though, you speak great English and to be honest, I have never, ever met someone from the USA who has actually understood what irony is, so you aren't doing bad considering English isn't even your first language

Could we try and keep Gridkeeper here until it is proven without a shadow of a doubt that this is a hoax?

If this is legit then it is us that are going to lose out.

Can the mods not speak to him privately, explain what is wanted from us and maybe offer to help him meet those requirements or come to some agreement?

[edit on 22-12-2007 by triplesod]

reply to post by triplesod


Nope... GK Has had more than double the time I allowed him to provide what was asked. If he wants to continue to post on ATS he'll have to submit the requirements through the "Contact us" button on the bottom of every page in order to have the ban lifted.

Springer...

[edit on 12-22-2007 by Springer]

Fair enough.

I don't think you are being unfair, I think you are being firm, for the right reasons. I would just hate for us to lose out on this if it is legit.

As I said though, you are doing it for the right reasons and if he isn't fulfilling the criteria for his membership here in return of constant spamming, then of course you must wonder what he has to hide.

I know that if it were me, I would be very eager to have this proved and have as many people as possible able to see what is going on.

This, if real, could be one of the biggest ever events to hit society and he could easily claim full recognition for being the person who brought this out in the open (what better protection than the whole world knowing who he is and looking out for him?) and be internationally famous.

It's a shame.


I do think it is a bit unfair though to make him click the "contact us" button on every single page, if he does want to get intouch with you. That just seems spiteful!

[edit on 22-12-2007 by triplesod]

reply to post by triplesod


I said the button is on every page for ease of finding it, he only needs to click it once to create an email that will go directly to the three owners of this site which I am one of.

Springer...

[edit on 12-22-2007 by Springer]

I have not followed this thread, only clicked on it again when I saw HOAX.

I say good show for ATS. Put up or shut up is the way it should be. We all know that anyone real, with ANYTHING "real" would be willing to do whatever it takes to get to the truth.

Good job Springer, I'd give you a star or an atta boy award, but in your case, I'll just thank you for telling a poster to prove it or scoot on down the road.

Signed.... So freaking tired of the same ole UFO Pic/Video song and dance.

HD tape? That's it? I'm assuming if he's talking abt HDV tapes, all he would need for playback is a HD Camcorder and those things are relatively cheap nowadays.

Hell, there are some places that offer to do HD tape to dvd conversions for you.

I'm a bit perplexed here. So help me get this straight.

You're saying that GK needs to provide proof when I thought John Lenard Walson was the guy doing the recording with his telescope.

Springers says the same thing can be produced with slowing down the shutter speed by other Astronomers, do we have video of showing how the hoax was done?

Can someone show me how this is done via video of the same type of satellites and NOT a star. I think I seen one type of video where it shows a star fluttering from the Atmospheric disturbance, but still looked nothing like JLW videos.

Did I miss something, is ATS banning GK for not providing the type of proof requested when he was not the one taking the videos in the first place?

Can someone point this out to me so I can understand?

I note that my initial impression that this was a hoax appears to have been vindicated, but would still like to respond to one of Gridkeeper's last comments, which I think further supports this contention:

Originally posted by Gridkeeper

Tags: military helicopters black op's milab crop circles uk 2007 government ley lines stonehenge wiltshire medicine wheel ufo

Military aircraft filmed flying over Salisbury Plain? Isn't that about as unsual as filming a warship sailing into Devonport? *

I have footage of helicopters over my house and I live in a no fly zone.

I'm not aware of any 'no fly zones' in the UK? There are restrictions on low level flying by military aircraft over densely populated areas, but this is usually in respect of jet fighters. Helicopters can and do fly anywhere (and remember the police use helicopters a lot these days - these might easily be confused for military aircraft, especially as they're often painted black)

There seems to be nothing in your claim of unusual military aircraft activity, other than perhaps an over-active imagination.



* largest naval base in Europe. Salisbury Plain is the UK's largest military training area.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by Essan]

I'm not sure if this is on topic or not, but I don't think I care. I hope someday I do see a UFO and happen to have a camera along. One thing ATS has taught me is if you film a UFO, don't post it on ATS.

Let me repeat that, if you film a UFO DON'T POST IT ON ATS. As it is a waste of time, NO MATTER how good it is they will label you a hoaxer, end of story.

Vas

reply to post by Vasilis Azoth


You miss the point.

If you photograph a UFO and want to know what it might be, then post it on ATS. You may not know what it is you've seen, but chances are, someone on ATS will. It's what we do well: find explanations for the seemingly inexplicable.

Thus, a mystery is solved. Ignorance denied

However, if you photograph what you've decided is an alien spaceship and under no circumstance will you ever consider any other explanation, then, and only then, is it not worth posting it on ATS

This is the part I don't understand.. if the evidence is on 'HD tape', I thought HD is DIGITAL? By that, I mean, it's 720p (1280x720 resolution) or 1080p (1920x1080 resolution), recorded onto a hard drive or a disc, not analogue tape? If it's preserved digitally, then it should be possible to quickly encode the footage as a DivX or mp4 file and upload it to Rapidshare, even if you have to split the file into pieces.

The evidence should be easy enough to provide, at a level of clarity acceptable for our intents and purposes.

After reading about this subject for every spare moment the last week i feel like making a reply.
I havent read or posted in a forum like this for at least 5 years, nowadays it seems theese forums have become mainstream and so has the sceptics.
My reading of this subject 3 threads in this forum and one in "open mind" + having seen all of gridkeepers movies, has convinced my that if the story is true and theese guys found each other and the belived machines, it would by an impossible secret to find, nobody would belive it, not even here at ATS.
I have put together their plausible machine, not that i know much about optics but this is my find.

to be able to film these objects you need:

a computer controlled scope (at maximum 8" because of atmosphere).
a ccd- camcorder, preffered High Definition with as many frames/sec pos.
a computer program to sort out the "Lucky" frames and combine as video
a computer program to track objects in space
a method to track find and track these obj. (excluding not identified sattelites etc)
a filter to be able to see these objects
or another optic method to be able to see these objecs

you need to modify the ccd camcorder and fit it directly to the scope

i dont really want to open this discussion again, but the forum is still open, even now that both Gridkeeper and Jose have been banned.

so i should actually not feel anything more about this, having seen some prof that some of this is fake, gridkeepers videos tend to be dramatic, he could be a guy who fakes a little to make the grand appearence and shoots himself in the foot doing so.

By watching the chemtrail program in a country where nobody knows of it is convincing a person that big things are possible to orchestra, this one is big, but because of all this debunking its impossible to even think about what these things are doing there.

What about a great city for the elite to be in and watch as the earth goes bang in a man made apocolypse of 2012..

i think these objects... (not to open the discussion again) look a lot like those on the quite common refferenced egyptian heiroglyph (dont have the link here) The one with helicopters etc.

Sorry for the spelling but im not native anglis speaking

Comet Holmes did look really odd with the naked eye, very big and sort of like it had a star in it shining blue.

Good hoax if it is so, but still the UFO's are flying, have been here in scandinavia on 2 occations this year, clearly seen by 100's of people, but then again who belives the hype even its their own eyes.
-in this land, -none.
here airplanes fly just above the people heads and spray noboddy care even when it hangs just 50meters up in long chemical streaks, so the UFO's fly low too..

Unidentifiable Flying Objects... thats for sure!

Now i got a camera phone... come come to daddy..

And im still gonna make me a very cool lucky telescope now that i am kind of an engineer, i think its thrillin just to be able to film on the moon in high detail..

PS. Has anybody a guess of what kind of filter method they could be using for seing these objects or, -if you were a big spaceship how would you cloak yourself, -sending out light would be one method, manipulating light another, all the film seem to have some sort of color, also the films made of the shuttle/iss can anybody verify the films are not in natural color. Somebody even mentioned a filter that uses the same technique as in aural photography.

Last summer i was tracking a sattelite when suddenly a star lightered up only a few "millimeters in the sky" from the sattelite and moved at approx same speed at an angle of 90 degrees away and then turned off again, after reading about the "MISTY" sattelite it could be that.. -or..

hmm.. still hope somebody else will have the luck to find something there, the weather is really cloudy though, and i proberly want have any working equipment before next spring.

Nice forum!
Hope to find truth!

[edit on 23-12-2007 by skywatch]

Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth
Let me repeat that, if you film a UFO DON'T POST IT ON ATS. As it is a waste of time, NO MATTER how good it is they will label you a hoaxer, end of story.

You absolutely will be called a hoaxer if you claim ETs took you to Venus or something without anything at all to back it up but a 10 second video. Or if you claim that aliens come to visit you every Friday night at a secret location but you won't say exactly where and when so that other folks might be able to check it out for themselves. This is not a court of law. Because of all the previous hoaxes, around here, it's guilty until proven innocent.

But there have actually been quite a few people who have posted images here that we've looked at and said, "Hey, we can't identify it." We can't do anything more than that. Even a crystal clear photo of a flying saucer can only tell us so much. Could it be ET? Maybe. But without additional information, it could also be any number of other things, too.

So please feel free to post your images. Just be willing to understand that unless you give us a lot more information than just the photo, we're going to take it with a grain of salt about the size of the Rock of Gibraltar.

Those weren't stars or sats...it was the headlights on chevy nova on a rainy day....I got nothing. I'm just glad justice was served.

Hi, I hope this thread is still open for comment. I just joined the forum after attempting to get a dialog going with Gridkeeper over his now infamous YouTube videos. That proved futile as you may probably expect. Having only recently stumbled onto them, I was unaware of the debarcle running on ATS. Anyway, I've read most of the theories about how Mr Walson makes his videos and am intrigued by his reported imaging equipment and by many of the suggestions made here on the forum regarding his assumed technique. There are also unaddressed questions about the location of the alleged objects and the system Walson uses to locate/track them. Having considered the physics and done a couple of experiments, I'm satisfied that they are indeed bogus. I also think I can show how they could be made. I believe I can create something similar to Gridkeeper's videos using my 10" Meade and a CCD camera. I will run some trials and report back if I succeed. Being an open minded amateur astronomer, I tried to give Walson the benefit of my doubt. I wanted to repeat the experiment. Unfortunately, Gridkeeper won't permit that, as members of this forum have found. Also, many of the statements he makes simply don't stack up under the laws of physics as they must if these objects are real. Here's my thoughts.

Of primary interest is whether the alleged objects are in Earth orbit or not. Several of the videos refer to objects 'parked' in orbit. That term seems to imply they are stationary. But stationary relative to what? In my opinion, the importance of this cannot be overlooked. Many of Walson's objects are said to look like 'stars' to the casual observer. If this is so, then they cannot be in Earth orbit, even a geostationary one, for their motion against the starry background would be easily detected. And yet in most of the live action videos, the objects appear to be moving. This is suggested by the regular tracking shifts applied to the telescope/camera to keep them in view. Of course, this camera shifting may a ruse to create an impression of movement. Gridkeeper says the motion we see is due to the Earth's rotation. So, if there is no movement of the objects relative to the background stars, then they must also be located at stellar distances. That conclusion alone holds serious consequences for Gridkeeper's arguments. It's also bad for the alleged new video technique pioneered by Walson. For similar reasons, the idea that some of these objects 'hide' amongst the thousands of 'ordinary' satellites is not supportable. Photographing satellites at high magnification without their orbital elements to drive a GoTo telescope is impossible. By definiton, UFOs don't have orbital elements. I doubt Walson would actually know what to do with them if they did, in spite of the 'brilliant astronomer' accolades. Gridkeeper told me that orbital data weren't needed because 'the objects are stars'.

In a recent YouTube video, Mr Walson discusses one of his videos with the well respected astronomer Dr John Mason. I understand Dr Mason was unaware he was being filmed, but that doesn't affect anything from the scientific perspective. Indeed it probably conveys more information that way. Just before the editing glitch at 17 seconds, Walson states that his UFO was video'd at 3.30 AM looking 'straight up', to which Dr Mason expresses surprise. This is because of the Earth's shadow. The Earth's umbral shadow is a cone of total darkness cast into space. The apex reaches out some 250,000 miles opposite the Sun. While the apex would have rotated westward slightly at 3.30AM, a vast depth of space around the zenith would still be in the umbral shadow. This is why objects like the ISS are never seen within certain periods of the night. The ISS may be passing overhead, but you can't see it. That's also why Dr Mason exclaims that it (the object) must be 'pretty high'. The object shown by Walson is apparently bathed in sunlight, as are all the UFOs seen in his movies.

Continued from above.
So, I put it to Gridkeeper that nothing orbiting within 50,000 miles could be seen 'straight up' at that particular time of the night. His response was 'Nobody said it was within 50,000 miles'. Another dimension was thus added to the story.

Getting back to the interview, in my opinion Dr Mason was being duped by Walson into confirming that the UFO was not the ISS. That appears to be a key facet in some of the movies. While Walson's images of the ISS look superficially like the real thing, I suspect they were created using his 'special technique'. Walson's is the only video of the ISS on YouTube not showing the characteristic aspect rotation as it passes the viewer. His ISS 'hangs' stationary in the telescope eyepiece. The ISS simply doesn't do that. However, the endorsement of his image by a famed astronomer adds credence to the hoax. Half way through the discussion, it looks to me like he's been rumbled (notice Mason's head shaking). Most telling however, is the unconvincing way Walson seeks advice on his images and 'wished he brought his laptop'. This is not a 'brilliant astronomer' talking. And the only advice he gets is to use a lower power and blow it up on the computer for crisper results. Cutting edge stuff!

As to the Walson imaging technique. There is no doubt that whoever compiles and edits these videos is very competent. I have no argument on that point. They are quite brilliant in many ways. It all falls apart when the subject of CCD cameras and telescopes is considered. Walson uses a Meade 8" telescope. To suggest that such a small scope with certain modifications can produce resolved images of 'stars' with such detail simply defies the laws of physics. Another ATS member has already described the optical limitations of telescopes and that Walson's has a theoretical resolution of around 5 seconds of arc. Whether you understand this doesn't matter, astronomically speaking, it's not very good. The point is any sophisticated CCD camera attached to this scope will still have the same resolution. Considering the distances these objects are purported to reside (apparently more than 50,000 miles), you'd need much higher resolution. This can only be achieved using a large diameter telescope. Also consider that the largest telescopes in the world can only see a star as a point of light. That's because star light rays are effectively parallel. There are no seconds of arc to provide image resolution. So, zooming in on the UFO doesn't provide finer detail. You just get a bigger version of the same blury image. The idea that Walson uses some form of the 'Lucky' imaging system is also laughable. You can't make live action videos with that technique. The Lucky system rapidly selects individual frames from a long series of faint images generated by a high speed CCD camera. Their combination achieves very high quality stills. The software selects the most similar frames from hundreds of others which have image shift due to atmospheric turbulence. By necessity a movie requires each frame to be different, thereby conveying movement. What would be the point of applying Lucky principles to that? There is no Lucky software available to the public anyway. However, the use of still image selection and stacking is widely used by amateurs to generate high quality astronomical photos. You can freely download software to do this (eg. 'Registax'), but none of it is applicable to movies. On the other hand, you can produce quite respectable movies using nothing more than a webcam attached to a telescope. More upmarket CCD cameras like Meade's Deep Sky Imager series have been mentioned as possible methods. Unfortunately, these do not come with movie making software. While it's possible to create time lapse images of Jupiter for example and compile these into short movies, you can't do Walson's UFO trick with a DSI.

I'm looking at ways in which these images could be tricked and will post anything interesting.

Wow, that post was amazing. I understood the explaination very well.
You pretty much blew this claim out of the water. Welcome to ATS and I look forward to your future contributions.