Originally posted by Unity_99
It doesnt take away from what we see, can capture and whats really there. It proves nothing.
The problem is that you need to prove you're actually capturing what is there. That is why control images of known satellites are important, as well as publishing the orbital elements and/or coordinates and times observed of the "unknown spacecraft." That is the only way to prove the claim, and in this case none of it has been done or what has been done has shown the claimant to be lying (stealing Paul Rix's photo after attempting and failing to produce a recognizable photo of ISS).
Shutter speed on camera allows capture of unseen activity
The shutter speed on my camera for my telescope goes up to 1/120,000th of a second and I have proven the ability to track satellites of all kinds (including classified sats such as the X-37B). Where are these so-called "spacecraft?" What are their orbital elements?
I think its way overdue, that we start to create our own telescopes and avoid the makes and models the mason controlled suggest and start to create grassroots one with alternative features.
I'm using the same optical design of telescope as what Walson showed he was using. Exactly what "features" does an 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope on robotic mount lack that Walson's telescope had?
