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

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by ngchunter

 

I'd love to see that ngchunter.

Springer...

Ok, sounds good then. Have to help the wife pack tonight for a trip, but I'll see if I can sneak outside for a quick picture. If not tonight then definately tomorrow.

Here's the results; I got the best results using a tripod, here's the handheld attempt. I adjusted the curves on the image a bit since it wasn't really dark enough yet and I resized it, other than that it's untouched.



And here's the tripod result. As you can see, I can make "space ships" too. I slightly defocused the image, used a little zoom, not much, and gently shook the tripod's legs throughout the entire 5 second exposure (i think it was set to 5, check the exif for details). This leads me to believe that the photo was deliberately forged by constant shaking. Anything less would produces a pinpoint in the middle of the smudge. Here's the tripod shot, almost looks like the ISS to me lol:



There are "clones" of the spaceship somewhat hidden throughout; they're dim because of the combination of twilight and moonlight.

reply to post by ngchunter



Absolutely beautiful ngchunter! Thank you for the effort and you'll notice a little "Holiday Bonus" in your points total.

Now that you've done this, are you willing to create a three or four shot series that debunks this once and for all?

What I have in mind is for you to take a couple "non disturbed", REAL photos over a long exposure and then take a couple with the "shakes" for comparison.

If you can do this and keep the exif data pristine I'd say we are well on our way to putting this bollocks in the bin it belongs in.

What do you say?

Springer...

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Absolutely beautiful ngchunter! Thank you for the effort and you'll notice a little "Holiday Bonus" in your points total.

Now that you've done this, are you willing to create a three or four shot series that debunks this once and for all?

What I have in mind is for you to take a couple "non disturbed", REAL photos over a long exposure and then take a couple with the "shakes" for comparison.

If you can do this and keep the exif data pristine I'd say we are well on our way to putting this bollocks in the bin it belongs in.

What do you say?

Springer...

Sounds good to me. I'm out of time for tonight, gotta head off to the hotel airport, but I'll get on it over the holiday and hopefully be able to post it tomorrow or some time shortly. I'll try to take the shots later in the evening so I don't have to adjust levels.

looks like it came from here!

WilliamJKlopp

www.vegatransports.com.au...

[edit on 21-12-2007 by gauncents]

Not to belabor a point but here is what a handheld digital shot of the ISS looks like on the first try. Anything lower or bigger should be clearer as well. At this point I am making a differentiation between the supposed photos and the FAST videos. Apples and oranges to this viewer.

I cannot see how ngchunter's pictures look like the FAST ones. They are no where similar to my eyes.

[edit on 12-21-2007 by groingrinder]

A UFO is an unfocused object because of its electromagnetic power.

So you will forever be talking about blurry objects.
It can also look like a bright star.

Its brightness can be so strong that the camera will show blinking
when the light is constant.

What ever your complaint is, there is an EM reason.

A lot of it IS the camera reaction. But it is due to EM reasons.

You have strong and powerful control of EM energy from coils.

Tesla made the radio frequencies travel in the air and now we know he had
the ability to propel a metal craft in the air as well. He didn't do it but others
stole his design. If others did it with his parts, then he could do it.
If the FOO was true, Tesla would sue.

Does a million volts fly? I don't know, but it looks like it.

Bright lightning plasma flying around.... got to be millions of volts..
who created millions of volts first.

Knowing who is the latest also counts as finding the ufo secret.

Originally posted by stikkinikki
Not to belabor a point but here is what a handheld digital shot of the ISS looks like on the first try. Anything lower or bigger should be clearer as well. At this point I am making a differentiation between the supposed photos and the FAST videos. Apples and oranges to this viewer.

The reason your image looks like it's capturing the shape of the station is for the same reason my handheld shots come out with "shapes." At any magnification attainable by ordinary cameras you cannot see the station's shape. Even binoculars won't quite reveal it. The station is roughly the same size in a telescope as saturn. Unless you can reveal saturn's rings with the same setup, you can't actually reveal details on the station. I notice that this is a color picture too, if it were actually the station's details, you'd see copper colored solar panels, but yours seems to be consistent in color throughout, which is consistant with it being a "streak" on your CCD. Here's what it looks like at 400 magnification in an 8" diameter scope with a resolution of at least 1 arcsecond, notice how very small it still looks, about the same size as jupiter.

I'm crazy enough to get up early for this stuff, so here's my second attempt at duplicating the JLW photo. First off, here's the reference photo, shot from a tripod, 7 seconds, 200 iso, focus at infinity. As you can see, this is the constellation ursa major, also known as the "big dipper.":



Next, here's the same angle, but handheld with intentional shaking. It reminds me of JLW's "nebulon B cruiser":



Here's a closeup crop on that image:




Next, here's a shot from the tripod again, but with intentional shaking of the tripod legs:



And finally, after a little practice, I found I was able to deliberately draw shapes by shaking the tripod in the direction of the desired shape. Here's the "invasion of the X fighters"!



These photos are all completely raw, resized for the internet, but with the EXIF data intact.

*By the way, no flash was used, it's the local light pollution (parking spot lamps in the bushes) that give the appearance of a flash. This leads me to believe that JLW didn't edit the exif data (as far as I know the only reason people thought he had was because of the flash issue, right?) but I'm certain that he was trying to pull a fast one on people by intentionally shaking his camera to create "spaceships."

[edit on 22-12-2007 by ngchunter]

[edit on 22-12-2007 by ngchunter]

Here's a couple more to include for consideration, from the tripod with intentional shaking:

reply to post by ngchunter


Hey nghunter, this is GREAT work, this explains the multiple objects/srtifacts on the image provided by JLW to Jose.

Now this is really starting to make sence.

Your droplet rulez

Why are there stars on the building ? If you ask me, this image is either merged with another image, or the photograph has taken a picuture wit a slow shutter and aimed it at the buildning at first, then paned in on the starts while the image burns it self on to the chip.

reply to post by tep200377


Stars on the building? There aren't any. There are stars over the building, but not on it. There's fuzzy noise from the CCD, is that what you're talking about? That's a natural consequence of not having a strong enough signal to noise ratio due to the low light *and/or thermal noise* combined with shaking the camera and a relatively cheap CCD.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by ngchunter]

**If you were talking about the JLW photo, those are hot pixels. The only reason my photos don't look like that is because my camera has automatic dark frame subtraction for long exposures.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by ngchunter]

reply to post by tep200377


Exactly, your second opinion would seem to be the correct one - slower shutter speed/longer exposure and then moving the camera/tripod slighty.

If it was intentional or not, hmm. I guess JLW knew exactly what he was doing. If he is an amature astronomer that is both playing with add-ons and apaparatuses being attached to his scope, he must know his work.

So I am not saying the videos are a hoax, oh god know how I would like them to be true. But the images might have been intentionaly altered/nudged to produce the effect of "starships" and than screaming about it to the whole world.

But wait a moment. Do we really know it came from JLW? Some say that they can recognize his house compared to the one in his videos of the harasing choppers. But anyhow, JLW didn't provide these images him self or htrough Gridkeeper. So is this Jose Escamila's way to draw more attention to his movies?

You be the judge. Just add the evidence that Jose provided in his thread together and make your own conclusion. I my self am clear about these photos of "spaceships".

reply to post by iohen


I never did see the original source for the alleged JLW photo. Who did it come from? Are you saying Jose posted it claiming it came from JLW?

I'm trying really hard not to draw my own conclusions and remain objective about it, it's the scientist in me. I want to be as fair and impartial as possible, especially since I'm contributing material in order to get to the bottom of this. The truth, of course, is that it's not possible to be completely impartial, we all draw our own conclusions in our heads, even when we try not to. The best I can personally promise in this case is that I'm willing to change my conclusion if new evidence comes to light, and I'm even willing to continue experimenting if someone believes I made a mistake, but based on what I've seen up through today I have to conclude that whoever took this photo and posted it with the claim of spaceships knew that they had only photographed stars. Personally I find it very hard to believe that this photo was an honest mistake by the person who took it.

reply to post by ngchunter


Hi there, ngchunter,

here is the post where Jose Escamila mentioned the link to the images.

Take care

[edit on 22/12/2007 by iohen]

Hi everyone. You're right Springer, I called my old photog co-workers and directed them to this post for their opinion, and there are definite fluctuations in the CCDs of various cameras both cheap and expensive. Our old print editor remembered using a very expensive Calumet Cambo Digital Back view camera and getting nothing but square light refractions off of a bowl he was shooting for an advertisement. He ended up using a smaller format Nikon just to avoid the square light blooms produced by the Calumets CCD. And I've had problems of my own with diamond and star shaped reflections from cheap lenses (thank god for Carl Zeiss optics).

All of us seem to think it is either flurries (very light snow) or a very light rain.

It has been drizzling since I woke up this morning so I will attempt to capture some shots tonight. I only hope my "not cheap" 12 megapixel Canon DSLR can capture the same distortions. I'll also try my iPhones camera and maybe even a lower rez webcam too just to see the difference between CCDs. I'll see what I can do.

reply to post by ngchunter


Sorry but you are wrong. The pictures were taken with a fuji F480 8.1 MP digital camera and then zoomed in on the computer. They were taken North of Mount Washington in very clear air in early October.
Here is another photo that I have zoomed in on. No it was not drizzling.




[edit on 22-12-2007 by stikkinikki]

[edit on 22-12-2007 by stikkinikki]

Here is the first image I posted of the ISS zoomed way in. Hopefully the pic is big enough that you can see that there are indeed different colors and the background stars are visible as smaller blurs.



[edit on 22-12-2007 by stikkinikki]

reply to post by Fugue


Excellent work. I think the body of evidence strongly points to this whole business being a hoax. To be honest, I've thought the guy (JLW) just didn't understand what he was shooting was nothing more than a long shutter time anomaly but after looking at all this again it's getting pretty obvious he's nothing more than a typical hoaxer trying to make a buck.

I also have information that the "Spook's Van" in his pitiful "Harassment Video" belongs to a property management company. Someone ran a check on the license plates (ID Tags) on the van and got the registration information.

I imagine the reason JLW and Gridkeeper went silent on Jose Escamilla is because he was demanding the evidence he needed to raise the money for more "research" and they knew they couldn't provide it because all they were doing was taking images of satellites and stars with a slow shutter speed and jiggling the tripod.

Naturally the above is only my opinion based on my perception of the evidence at hand. I don't know what, if anything, we should actually do about all of this since it seems the "FAST" thread has died a slow death into the realm of obscurity anyway.

I guess the "ATS thing" to do is keep working until we have irrefutable proof this is a scam. I would also mention it appears as though "Gridkeeper" has failed to meet our demands in the "FAST" thread where we asked for two images, one with slow shutter speed and one with fast shutter speed, taken seconds apart of the same patch of sky with pristine exif data to support them.

By all rights I should disable his posting privileges but I notice e hasn't been around much since the proverbial cat was let out of the proverbial bag as it were.

All thoughts and opinions on this are welcome.

Springer...