Is the whole "F.A.S.T." Interstellar project a hoax? Some evidence provided here

Hello guys,

I've had this idea in my mind all day today. I am following Jose Escamila's Interstellar Case Files thread and on page 19 (sorry, I don't know how to quote ) he has submited images sent to him by John Lenard Walson. The images were taken by a low-tech digital camera and clearly show the spaceships in orbit.

Well I said to my self, this is kinda weird if the an ordinary digital camera can pick these up this clearly, the pictures from the scope-mounted camcorder must be way better than this and way better than those being shown to us. OK, I admit the camcorder might be some old piece of junk, but if JLW has a scope mount for his camcorder he surely must have one for his digital camera, which would in turn produce very sharp pictures and close-ups of the spaceships (I am still comparing it to the images taken by JLW and forwarded to Jose Escamila).

OK, this is my first statement, well and I kinda followed on this when preparing this post when I looked at the pictures with 300-400% detail I found something strange about a few of the starships. Well compare the images yourself and make your own decision.

This is the original provided by Jose Escamila




This is the original with marked spaceship locations...




...and these are the close-ups of the three spaceships



I really think its kinda strange, huh? Well it could be starships from the same model/type, but even their rotation and size is the same.

So my guess is:

a) this particular image has been doctored with and the ships were added afterwards into a clear night sky

b) not a genuine JLW image

c) this whole Interstellar project is a hoax, no spaceships, no nothing



admin edit: to made the title more accurate/obvious.

[edit on 12-21-2007 by Springer]

Ask NASA and CSETI. Also big lying hoaxers.

Judging by that photo, those ships could be seen with naked eye? What's up with that? I thought u needed a telescope or something?

BTW, one part of the story seems to be debunked: the alleged flyovers of aircrafts. Since he lives near the airbase, those are pretty normal and prove nothing.

reply to post by Breadfan


Yeah, things are starting to add up here Also notice he was using flash to take those pictures of the night sky with the starships. I think even an amature wouldn't do this basic mistake.

Been to Croatia many times myself. Very beautiful country, but your police is all about blackmailing

Originally posted by iohen
reply to post by Breadfan

 

Been to Croatia many times myself. Very beautiful country, but your police is all about blackmailing

What you got fined or something? I actually work with them and I personally don't have any issues so far.

Originally posted by Breadfan
What you got fined or something? I actually work with them and I personally don't have any issues so far.

So far...

I just sent them a letter describing your subversive activities here at ATS.. I would be expecting a knock soon..



Nice work Iohen. I was hoping someone would take on the task... My first impression when I posted it in Jose's thread was it was all wrong... The one looks so close... closer than an airplane and if it was a real spaceship it would be huge... and everyone in the country would have spotted it...

Now unlike all the other images this does not have the copyrights all over it... so I will have to see if we can find it in one of the videos or on a website..

Good work picking them out... they do look the same huh? And I am sure an invasion fleet of THAT size would have raised a few eyebrows at NORAD

reply to post by iohen


So this is where the action is.

I get it, its like these fleet pictured but high up in the night sky:
UFO Fleet in the Bronx, NYC:
www.youtube.com...

Your close up of space ships I've seen before:

i54.photobucket.com...

You got a bunch of triangle craft up there.

Wait a minute did people actually fall for those star ships....really?! REALLY?!

Those are the same thing copied and pasted somewhere else on the image...it is the same image. Man people will fall for anything.
OH BTW I am Jesus back to haunt everyone for their sins! Beware!

reply to post by Equinox99


Thats because all light sources look the same.

Even the same angle might be OK do to the excelent celestial navigators
you and I paid for with our taxes.

But the flatness might indicate the Belgian triangle type UFO (star ship
because its up high -- get it, just a UFO up high so its an interstellar
star ship ).

I think this is Jose's greatest break though since filming saucers
at rosewll.

For him that is.

Except for photos I found in 2006 and the Bronx videos
on youtube which are better.

I'll say he has triangles up high, if he calls them star ships I'll know
what he is talking about.

You are kidding me right? All those little photoshop images or as you might like to think triangle UFO is the same image spread out through the same photo.
I believe aliens exist don't get me wrong! But this is the worst fake picture I have seen in a loooong time.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I get it, its like these fleet pictured but high up in the night sky:
UFO Fleet in the Bronx, NYC:
www.youtube.com...

That one is foil balloons... we see that a lot here in Las Vegas when the car dealers have a special event

Originally posted by Equinox99
Wait a minute did people actually fall for those star ships..

Its obvious to me that you haven't followed the drama over Jose Escamilla and John Lenard Watson in the other threads which is what this image is all about

[edit on 20-12-2007 by zorgon]

Hello iohen,

I have been following the whole Jose Escamila show from a distance and the name of your thread just hits the neail on the head.

Those 50 pages on Jose's threads are all junk than? Your photo analysis is great, and as a reply to one of the posts above, yes, I have fallen for that image too and was lazy to have a second, closer look at it.

I will try to investigate other pictures submited by Jose and have everyone know if its a good hoax/work or a bad one.

Anyway, good work from you, iohen

Take care

reply to post by zorgon

www.youtube.com...

00:37 it looks like an elf face


www.youtube.com...

00:44 airplane

I think there is an elephant in one video..
And some have the bright plasma glow and black parts which are camera
sensitivity reactions I am not up on. All from reflected light?

Do you have tests of camera reactions to bright lights that cause black
images to appear? I see many so called ufo images with that effect.


ED: Well those star ship do look like this:






[edit on 12/21/2007 by TeslaandLyne]

Hi everyone. I haven't posted in a long time but after looking at the picture provided I thought I had to.

I've had an extensive background in multimedia in the last 8 years or so. I started by going to college for Photography and Graphic Design which later lead me into doing film for a time before returning to school to pursue my current field of Audio Engineering.

The first thing I thought when I looked at the original unmarked photo posted was... "where the hell are the space-ships?" To someone with a photography background it was honestly hard for me to figure out what he construed as "space-ships" because to my eyes it was clearly a shot of the nights sky with flash.... and a very light drizzle.

Yep. Rain.... Very light drizzling rain....

I live in Florida and it rains here often. I can think of several times I would start shooting not to realize that a light rain had already interrupted my shots. It's merely the flash reflecting and refracting off of the individual rain droplets.

If you take a shot straight up you end up with big blooms of circular light. If you take another shot at a more reduced angle you'll end up with the above effect, rain drops that look like faint meteors falling as the flash strikes them.

I could be wrong. I always hold the right to be wrong. However, as someone very familiar with photography and photoshop on a professional level, it looks like a very light drizzle captured on an otherwise nice evening. And before someone says, "Where are the clouds then?" The shot is not straight up so the clouds may not be visible and honestly rain doesn't require clouds. That may sound odd, but it's true.

Thanks for the consideration of my humble theory.....

reply to post by Fugue


This is a great insight from you Fugue, I would like to see this effect on another image. Could you provide one for us?

It would make some sence and explain why the "spaceships" look so similar, but on the other hand, it still leave them being much more complex than a plain droplet reflection. Or did you mean the flash can really make the drops look like crystals of having complex shapes?

Thanx for your info

I'll keep my eyes on the weather and try to get some shots. The important parts are the flash, the angle, and the time of night/location of ambient lights and rain droplets.

In regards to "Or did you mean the flash can really make the drops look like crystals of having complex shapes?"

Yes, there are so many variables involved in a water droplets reflection and refraction that it could give more complex shapes. The waters temperature determines the type of refractions. The colder the water the closer it is to it's crystalline ice structure which is very complex and refracts light in various directions.

With that being said there is a chance it could be snow or freezing rain, or simply cold rain.

Also, the fact that the side of the building in the photo is illuminated by what appears to be ambient light, be it a streetlight or whatever, further leads me to believe this is either his flash or even incidental ambient light refracting/reflecting off of a light drizzle/snow/freezing rain.

I'll make sure to have my cameras handy in case it starts to rain. If it's freezing rain or snow I'm not going to be of much help here in Florida.

reply to post by Fugue


I've been told that different digital cameras will process light "blobs" in pixels differently, thus creating diamonds in some and squares/rectangles in others...

FWIW

Springer...

Originally posted by iohen
reply to post by Breadfan

 

Yeah, things are starting to add up here

Also notice he was using flash to take those pictures of the night sky with the starships. I think even an amature wouldn't do this basic mistake.

Been to Croatia many times myself. Very beautiful country, but your police is all about blackmailing

I've been doing astrophotography for years now and I've made all kinds of "noobie" mistakes while learning. This photo reminds me of several "noobish" mistakes rolled into one. Ok, a couple points based on my own experience and what I see here:
No flash was used, the yellow light all over the "nearby" objects almost certainly comes from a nearby street light or other severe light pollution source. This can also be seen to some extent by the amount of dull "red" in the noise of the sky background (probably taken in small to medium sized city). The "spaceships"? Those are stars. That's all. Here's how I came to my conclusion:
The little white specks all over the place are hot pixels from a cheap CCD being shot at a fairly long exposure setting > 1 second. I haven't confirmed this in the EXIF but I'm certain that's what you'll find, it's also why the street light seemed to make everything so bright. It also explains why all the "ships" look very similar; they were all distorted the exact same way by shaking the camera a little. This effect can be seen in how blurry the building looks. By shaking the camera, the stars that should be dots trace out irregular but similar shapes (not necessarily identical due to slight aberrations of the optics of the camera) and become "strange objects." I could recreate a very similar image for you all tonight if you wish to see a demonstration? I live under very heavy light pollution (really stinks since astronomy is my favorite activity) so my "duplication" effort will have far few "space ships" than this one. If anyone wants, just say the word though and I'll take some time tonight or tomorrow night to give it a shot.

*Rain wasn't far off, but that really bright "space ship" near the edge of the building in the picture just screams "shaken star!" to me; I've seen that exact kind of jumble too many times, unfortunately (it means I accidently kicked the tripod during the exposure).

**Just to not sound too accusatory of fraud, such a picture doesn't necessarily have to be deliberately "shaken" to produce this result, just trying to do a handheld 5-10 second shot produces this kind of anomaly, and that's the first thing I'll try to replicate.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by abovetech
Ask NASA and CSETI. Also big lying hoaxers.

I am right with you on this statement.

Although I don't believe that John Lenard Walsons videos are fake, it seems more like a conspiracy theory when I hear people trying to debunk something that can't prove is fake. It's still a theory but the title of these types of threads always reads like it's a hoax.

Who really knows how or when these photos have been tampered with to debunk what they have to say. I go to the FAST website and enjoy the show and come to my own conclusions and decided myself what I believe.

So I suppose it's a judgment call, as for me. Until I see something fishy about these videos to make me believe they are fake, then I'll figure it out on my own.

I rather not read someones else's Theories on the possibility of it being fake. I guess some people expect me TO NOT believe what I see.

So (IMO), John Lenard Walson's videos are the real deal.

And the KEY PEOPLE at NASA has been lying to Americans and the World for the past 60 years.

I have to side with Richard Hoagland on this one.

That's my two cents, so flame away Skeptics.

reply to post by ngchunter


I'd love to see that ngchunter.

Springer...