How 'Mystery Space Orbiters' (F.A.S.T.) were filmed.

( post moved from buried thread )

Firstly, I believe that the images are of much less value than the method - or thoughts further provoked. I really don't care much about the 'Interstellar' video content - Mr. Walson's endeavouring to become a billionaire over this.... etc. And I truly don't want to become embroiled in the controversy of this debate. It is simply that myself - and now - daily, more around the globe are coming forth with simple images... taken over their homelands - that bear a certain simularity.

The equipment I used to get my modest little images - was a mere hand-held Canon Power Shot Digital Elph SD750. I don't know all of the specs of the CCD ... etc. I did 'zoom in' - which in my case - was a max of 12 X.

This object was located in the southwestern sky - approximately 20 degrees up on the horizon - below - and in the general vicinity of the constellation 'Orion.' It was completely visible to the naked eye. Time of the sightings were regularly between 2100 and 2300 hrs - EST, USA.


If folks go to the following ( and forementioned ) hyperlink - they can left-click on the images - and this will open up files that are 7.1 megs of digital information.

skymonsters.com...

-----

These aren't random chance sightings. There is a childishly-simple approach that we are taking to find what I refer to as 'Chameleon Stars.' I call them this... not because the hide against a background... but because they apparently change colors. They continue to be odd-looking & moving, relative to the rest of the 'ordinary' stars.

They are flashing reds, blues and greens - when all of the rest are pale white. As I look into a clear night sky - I scan across the horizon - investigating each azimuth - and always, with my naked eye - can I find 2 or 3 standouts - they are almost always literally in the four corners of the sky. As I watched them closer - I would sometimes see small specks of light seemingly jumping off of them. It almost appears as if they are spinning.

The first time I noticed them was back in 1994, over Los Angeles, california. When I looked at one through a telescope... it looked like a cardboard roll... like when the TP is all gone from the restroom. Not being funny really... that was the shape of it. Another time... I found one that looked like the 'Bat plane' - and I later saw the exact shape on a video taken by a space shuttle mission. Was odd coincidence.

This has been around for a very long time.

Actually, resumed shooting these images - a couple of months ago. I now have a catalogue of them for verification posted. I have also been posting a diary of my observations ( with pictures ) on a thread at UFOcasebook. Go down the following page about half-way... and look for the 'notched disk' image. The story will commence there.

ufocasebook.conforums.com...

So, in conclusion - it is my belief that all Mr. Walson is doing is; ( with the aid of a high-powered zoom lens - a 'High 8' or better videocam - [Fugitron would be perfect... but cost prohibitive.])

1) Visually locating the 'chameleon stars'

2 ) Aligning the object into his viewfinder --

3) Fully 'racking-out' the 'zoom' to 'infinity'- then disabling 'auto focus' function -

4) And pressing 'record'

After that, some manual camera tracking may be required as well.


I say that anyone can do this. I don't know.... or really care about Mr. Walson and his videos. I just know what I saw and recorded. I firmly believe - with similar images coming from across the world - that it is the same thing.

Nothing is truly debunked in a message forum. Topics can only be pro or con to the general concensus. Aggresive posters implying 'Because I said so' - means absolutely nothing.


Just my opinion

jb



admin edit: to make title more obvious relative to the topic


[edit on 1-12-2008 by Springer]

So are they stars or not? If they are stars they will have surely been catalogued
by other astronomers.
If as you say "because they apparently change colors. They continue to be odd-looking & moving, relative to the rest of the 'ordinary' stars. "

Since stars are massive in size, and billions of light years from us..to see them moving like this would not only be amazing, but not behave as huge nuclear energy furnaces do..thus I can't say what you are talking about are stars at all.

Click here for more information.

On a clear night, I can also walk outside and see "stars" that appear to flash red, blue, green. I've always looked up into the night sky as a kid and I remember stars pulsating, but pulsating only white in color. These colorful ones can be seen with the naked eye just fine. Far all I know, they are planets. There was one in particular that was mostly twinkling red. I asked what it could be on space.com and most said it was Mars. I thought Mars was off white with a faint oragnish tint and didn't blink like what I saw. But I'm no astronomer. These "colorful stars" I see are definitely something new to my eyes. Probably just the way the planets are aligned and I never noticed them before?

I was curious about them as well.

reply to post by Quazi176


I believe that's caused by atmospheric distortion/reflection. Kind of like the effect oil has on a water puddle. The oil reflects different colors of the light spectrum than the clear water does.

Thinking about the material that is in the atmosphere, it makes sense to me it would do the same thing with an exceptionally bright or large star or planet's light. I too have seen this many times out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and right here in Indian Territory.

Springer...

( I noticed that the post of SK was deleted - but I think it is only fair that I would respond. He seemed, if nothing else...quite passionate about the subject. )

To SK2 -


I really don't care what Walson is proposing. Jose.... Escamilla.... has 'proven' anything?? Perhaps you could reference 'History Channel's 'Monster Quest.' - 'Mysterious Flying Creatures' - airing a few days ago. If JE told me the 'sky was blue' - I would still have to verify it for myself. I have actually met Mr. Escamilla... and have 'butted heads' with him for more than a decade. You have no idea.

A month ago, JE was in a movie deal with JW. Then it all 'went south.' What do think his reaction was going to be?? And... JE... has been banned from here - for how he has conducted himself. And what are his 'qualifications' for being your 'scholared spokesperson' of choice?? He played piano on the soundtrack of a 'Rods' video?? ( which you can purchase for only $19.95 + tax + shipping and handling ) Surely, you jest.

I really have no use for Walson either. I think him trying to sell this is simply deplorable. A child could literally do this.... and he alledgedlly wants $1 mill?? I am simply here to tell people 'the trick' to it - and maybe save them a buck or 2 in the process.

IMO - selling this - is the spirit - and the attitude / type of behaviours - that most cast a laughable-doubt on the hobby/busines that is UFO research. Say what you will - it still is not bonafide science.

Whether or not - what we are seeing - is ordinary man-made satellites - 'Star Wars' tech... 'Mysterious Space Orbitorss' - or what-have-you.... - people are noticing 'something' - that was not so self-evident before. Maybe this 'F.A.S.T' stuff just got the ball rolling.

'Because you said so... ' - well, huff & puff - big, bad wolf. I am not selling books or videos. Simply posting my observations here. 'Losing all credibility at ATS' .... means.... what to me?????? If you are representative... of what is general consensus here - it will no more effect me than.... if it is raining in Chicago today. So what?? There will still be a select few.... that find it, if nothing else.... entertaining.

I am just sharing what I have found. If you don't like it.... just go to another thread. OR... post more venom here. Makes no difference to me, really. You seem severly lacking in 'background' of what you allegate.

Cheers,.... M8t

reply to post by Johnbro


I for one appreciate your candid and informative post and have to agree with your view on selling this information.

Those that doubt this subject matter can, as you have pointed out, simply go out and try it themselves, I know I will.

I'm still convinced that some of what Walson/Gridkeeper/santamonicajohn and his 50 other identities took pictures of are just models of craft from Star Wars and Star Trek with a mixture of the ISS and Photoshop.

Too many of them looked exactly like Destroyers and X-Wing ships from Star Wars and Klingon ships from Star Trek. Others were the ISS and some were just plain photoshopped. I believe someone here on ATS pointed out in a few of the F.A.S.T. images where you could see stars overlapping a house. Showing all they did was slap a layer of stars on the image and forgot to delete the ones covering the house.

Jose got into it too much and shouldn't have believed everything he was being shown without asking the obivous questions first like "how and where were the images being taken?" before trying to make a movie about it. He went straight into wanting to make a movie about it without investigating the images and the person taking them. Now it seems like the person who started this whole thing is nothing but some guy with a long list of mental issues and he's apparently a thief (referring to the thread that shows that Walson was using another persons images and saying they were his on the Rense website) and it's pretty obvious to me and probably 95% of this forum, that "Walson" just wants money.

Also a little more than tired of all these people who say things like "people who write books or make videos on the subject of UFO's are just out to make money" that's a BS statement IMHO. Obviously some are out there just to make a few dollars, but there are the genuine ones who don't care much for the money and just want to get the information out there and it takes money to do that. So they'll write books and make videos to make that money to put into their research.

If someone puts out a video that's 3 hours long and they only charge around $10 or $15 dollars for it and another puts one out that's only an hour long and they want $30 dollars for it. I'd say the one charging more for less material is the one out just to make a dollar.

Wanted to get that off my chest

I see 'both sides' of this, ND. I can 'spout off' with some of the best of them - but really just find it painful in the end.

Selling something of merit - well, with that - I have no issue. The problem there is... if you or your work are not excepted by the people 'inside' -or if yours works against their agenda - you will have a very tough go of it. My belief... and greatest fear within this genre' is - if anyone here - were to extrapolate something truly phenomenal - that the rest of us would never get to share it - or... it would be plaguerized... corrupted - and simply made into something that it was not intended to be. One can only wonder what we have lost due to similar disfunction. Where would we be.... and what we now know... if the Library of Alexandria had not been burned to the ground? I am not comparing this subject to something of that scale - except metaphorically...

I only started this thread... to point out 'the ellusive trick' to how the 'anomolous space objects' were located. I still don't know the true nature of the 'space objects' - anomolous - or quite mundane. I am merely stating that several witnesses have recently reported seeing things that were not so easily explained. And they are selling nothing.

I am also aware of the 'light effects' that the earth's atmosphere will impose upon a sighting. However, I have also found that focusing on the 'subject' with good optical equipment does eliminate much of the problem. For this, I greatly suggest that people simply test it themselves.

I am not 'pro-Walson' - Actually, I believe if he were to read this thread - he would be none to happy with me. But I promise... over the past decade... I have observed through quality equipment.... a couple of stars... that weren't actually stars.

For those interested... I am simply telling you what we did to find 'them.'
And I am quite certain the tactic is parallel to the recent videos.

For all others... I simply 'beg your pardon' - and say 'Good day.'

...I'm confused. This thread has 30 flags, little responses, and I don't understand what's going on. Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a mindless sheep?

From what I gather, OP took pictures of orbs in the sky and put him on his website. Certainly there's something more that's presented that has attracted so many flags to the topic.

John I looked at your photos and as for the objects seen in the yard I might have an explaination. One question though. Did you use a flash photography or capture on video the orbs and apparent mists? If you used flash still frame photography the orbs could be flying insects but the distances seem to be farther than that. Many paranormal investigations have shown orbs and mists to be energy caught in the light spectrum of the flash. Some of these orbs and mists could very well be spiritual phenomina...yes ghosts! I feel if some are so inclined to believe in UFO's, why cant ghosts, spirits, or even 4 dimensional beings manifesting. Just my thoughts and experience with the same things I have seen and studied.

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
From what I gather, OP took pictures of orbs in the sky and put him on his website. Certainly there's something more that's presented that has attracted so many flags to the topic.

The OP makes no claims as to what the objects are, only the method used to observe and record them, I believe the flags are respecting such.

Perosnally I have no real opinion on orbs but I am interested to see if there is anything to these large orbiting objects numerous people are claiming to capture.

I know that these latest images are not earth-shaking, but these objects were seen with naked eye. Images were merely posted to collaborate that we are seeing something. Pictures in question were taken without 'flash.'

Method here is the key. If enough people investigate - I am confident that we will get collaborative witnesses - and maybe even some answers.

A private citizen - acting as a conscientious observer here, folks. Just trying to get to the bottom of it.

www.Johnbro.com...

reply to post by Quazi176


Well, stars do come in different colors. I would have thought this is common knowledge but apparently it isn't.

It's related to the star's surface temperature. Basically, cooler stars tend to be more reddish while hotter stars tend to the blue. Really hot stars are whitish. Stars in the middle of the temperature range are yellow, like the Sun.

Famous reddish stars include Antares in Scorpio, Aldebaran in Taurus, and Betelgeuse in Orion.

Famous blue stars include Vega in Lyra, Spica in Virgo, and Rigel in Orion.

Check out these APOD entries that beautifully show the different star colors in the Southern Cross and Orion. It is also explained how to make these kinds of photos for yourself.

apod.nasa.gov...

apod.nasa.gov...

In addition to the intrinsic color, a star's color can vary as it twinkles due to atmospheric effects, as Springer already mentioned.

These aren't random chance sightings. There is a childishly-simple approach that we are taking to find what I refer to as 'Chameleon Stars.' I call them this... not because the hide against a background... but because they apparently change colors. They continue to be odd-looking & moving, relative to the rest of the 'ordinary' stars.

That's called a "star". If it's color is constantly shifting and "twinkling", it's probably a star. If the light remains a constant color, it's probably a planet.

Not sure how it's a reasonable topic for a thread, but it's still something you can go out and see dependably every night of your life, so that's cool, right?

reply to post by IAttackPeople


I was about to post that, but you beat me to it. It would be common knowledge for anyone who has studied stars - which would also most likely be anyone that had a hint of college education.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by benign.psychosis]

reply to post by IAttackPeople


IAP, but stars do not come in different, definable shapes.

If you had visited the OP's linked site, you'd see the photographic results of the capture method he explains. Really, the topic is not star twinkle, but how to photograph these nonstellar objects.

Now that, and the objects themselves, are extremely interesting; not so the nature of star twinkle.

As to what they are, I have little doubt we're getting a blurry glimpse of the whole array of the world's various satellites and space platforms, from mundane communications satellites to black DoD/starwars platforms.

Fascinating and well-handled posts, OP, btw.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by gottago]

Hi, this is only my second post and I'm basically repeating what I said elsewhere. It concerns the images made by John Lenard Walson and distributed by 'Gridkeeper'. I joined ATS after attempting to get into dialog with Gridkeeper over his now infamous YouTube videos. That proved futile. 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'. (Continued below)

(Continued from above)
The object shown by Walson is bathed in sunlight, as are all the objects in his videos. 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 looks 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!

This leads us 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 produces 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.


[edit on 13-1-2008 by waveguide3]

(continued from above)
I also checked out the trailer being used to promote the commercial video 'Interstellar' by Jose Escamilla. This is a compilation of Walson clips, one of which shows an interesting effect that I have reproduced in my own tests. This particular sequence starts at 1min 24sec. Superficially, it suggests the object is either moving or morphing, but in reality it's just the result of focus changes. If I'd produced this stuff, I'd have left that piece out, it's a give away in my opinion. Anyway, I'm reasonably sure I can generate very similar video sequences using standard equipment and will post anything promising.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by waveguide3]