John Lenard Walson: Biggest discovery ever?, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 25 times

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 02:17 PM by IgnoreTheFacts

Why not at least tell people where in the sky to find these things, and leave his "ubber secret" device for detecting them hidden? Why? Because he is a complete and utter fraud, or an ignorant imbecile. Neither of which is excusable when your asking for money.

Again, he could make more money by going public with everything, rather than try to patent his goofy crap to sell to a very niche market, which would leave him far from rich. Now if he went public and his crap was verified, he would be cashing in on book deals, interviews, you name it. Far more than he would get for some stupid telescope apparatus which less than one percent of the public would purchase. Think about it. The guy is a complete and utter FOOL and so is anyone who falls for his pictures without stopping to use common sense.

Sorry to be so angry over this, but if you just stop and think about it you should understand where I'm coming from.

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 03:18 PM by rhombus24

It all looks real but I can guareentee it is fake...

First if it were real why just go ahead and show the object right away why not show the apparatus and then setting it up in one single piece of film. This is the problem they all make.

The spaceship shown could be the ISS from space.com and sent through a couple of photoshop filters. Put that against a black backround and tada. Also wierd how we don't see any stars. Can anybody show me a picture from space without stars?

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 03:42 PM by TheInfamousOne

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

HA. HA, LOL. How convenient for him. Let's not worry about verification, let's hold onto the best stuff for "chapter 2", lol. Starships" He must have much better evidence and pictures than what he is showing in this video.

People, stop giving FOOLS like this your money and attention. There is NOTHING here. They are nothing but snake oil salesmen. Go ahead, give them you money because you want to believe, the rest of us with a modicum of common sense will wait until their OUTLANDISH claims can be verified IN THE LEAST before jumping on board with you.

I understand why are you skeptical and I appreciate your insight on how people just like to make a quick buck which supports the old saying "There's a sucker born every minute."

I like to sit on the fence and look at all the evidence before I make a judgment of my own reality. I do not believe on making quick judgements based on video footage.

Plus 1.99 is not a lot of money to watch a 27 minute video that I find interesting. I am an amateur star watcher and I can appreciate the work of recording these objects. (whatever they are)

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 04:10 PM by kindred

This invention seems quite similar to another one I came across over a year ago called "the angel light".

www.baytoday.ca...

Basically this device could see through solid objects by using electro magnetism and the detail that can be captured is unbelievable.

I shall look at the videos later on when I have time. Interesting thread though MetisElara.

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 04:16 PM by Areal51

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

You know, maybe Walson doesn't want to make a whole lot of money on his discovery. Maybe he doesn't want fame. Maybe his collaboration with Escamilla has more to do with shared interest in discovering evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence rather than money. All this money talk is the subject of your and others speculation. No one who is thinking clearly is going to excuse your anger. Your anger is misplaced. You, and others who are saying the same thing, don't even have the first bit of information about the guy. You have nothing except what he has offered so far. And what he has offered so far is just as much evidence as others who have claimed to have seen things have offered. This whole tirade against someone who is not present to defend himself is ludicrous.

The other thing is that he didn't bring his story to this forum. I'm inclined to say that it's a good thing that he didn't. No doubt your attitudes wouldn't be any different. Maybe it would have been, but I doubt it. He doesn't owe anybody anything. It's his choice and he has made the choice to post images that are available to the public at its convenience. He has chosen to tell his story of discovery through a medium and collaboration with another seemingly like minded individual. Maybe you do not agree with his choice, well, his choices are not yours to choose. I cannot blame Walson for avoiding the trap of Internet forums that would distort and destroy his story. The OP expressed that this thread be available to consider the evidence. To leave all other particulars out of the discussion. And one of the first things that someone insinuates is that Walson is a money grubbing scumbag. That's just the worst display of behavior. None of you who are on that kick know anything for certain. Your whining about that which you do not have the right to isn't going to make the situation any better, or dispose Walson more to your favor. All of you really need to drop this nonsense.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by Areal51]

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 04:28 PM by sherpa

I thought this might be usefull for comparative purposes. ISS taken I believe by an amateur astronomer:

Source:

www.astronomycameras.com...

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 04:52 PM by TheInfamousOne

reply to post by Areal51

The other thing is that he didn't bring his story to this forum. I'm inclined to say that it's a good thing that he didn't. No doubt your attitudes wouldn't be any different. Maybe it would have been, but I doubt it. He doesn't owe anybody anything. It's his choice and he has made the choice to post images that are available to the public at its convenience. He has chosen to tell his story of discovery through a medium and collaboration with another seemingly like minded individual. Maybe you do not agree with his choice, well, his choices are not yours to choose. I cannot blame Walson for avoiding the trap of Internet forums that would distort and destroy his story. The OP expressed that this thread be available to consider the evidence. To leave all other particulars out of the discussion.

Area51, I agree with you 100%. Good post.

I can appreciate the work that went into finding these objects and recording them.

Like I said, 1.99 is not a lot of money and I hope any additional money would go to him so he can purchase better equipment on a higher end scale. Jose Escamillia said these videos and images were on the low end scale of telescopes.

I look forward to paying for the next movie.

Cheers!

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 05:20 PM by Bunch

reply to post by TheInfamousOne

But after pay the 1.99 and watch it, what are we supposed to do?

There are going to be obvious question that are going to be raise for the material presented.

I have not seeing, just the bits and pieces posted on this thread and others, but it seems to me that he is trying to present this as undeniable proof that something is out there. Big claims are going to raise big questions and them both should make themself available to answer them. I was quite entertain by it and would likely see more, but unless they provide their methods for scientific scrutiny is nothing more than cool videos showing something that we don't know what it is.

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 05:26 PM by anti72

I read that these fotos show CLEARLY satellites ..
do you know how much tons of these circle around?..

this is highly commercial BS..

greetz

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 06:01 PM by IgnoreTheFacts

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

You know, maybe Walson doesn't want to make a whole lot of money on his discovery. Maybe he doesn't want fame. Maybe his collaboration with Escamilla has more to do with shared interest in discovering evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence rather than money.

Then my case has been made, if you read and understood my previous posts. If not, let me sum them up for you: if he was interested in furthering the cause of Ufology or proving aliens or these "spaceships" exists then he would give up the pertinent data for independent verification. But he has not done that.....why not?

The other thing is that he didn't bring his story to this forum. I'm inclined to say that it's a good thing that he didn't.

It's a good thing he did not. I'm inclined to believe that most around here would have asked for details about his "discovery" that he has yet to reveal. Then again, those who asked for more information would have been attacked by all the fools that are so eager to believe they can't see past the end of their nose.

He doesn't owe anybody anything. It's his choice and he has made the choice to post images that are available to the public at its convenience.

Am I the only one that thinks something as ground breaking as taking pictues of "deep space galactic vessels" might require a LITTLE bit of verifiable evidence? If your going to make such an outlandish claim in a documentary that you got money out of, you should be able to put light onto the process of discovery. If not, it is a complete mockery of people who want to believe. Sorry you fall for this stuff, but the rest of us want some common sense questions answered. As I stated previous, he could give enough information without violating his stupid "patent" pending status to at least prolong people finding out he is a complete and utter fool.

He has chosen to tell his story of discovery through a medium and collaboration with another seemingly like minded individual. Maybe you do not agree with his choice, well, his choices are not yours to choose. I cannot blame Walson for avoiding the trap of Internet forums that would distort and destroy his story.

Who said anything about revealing his "discovery" among internet forums? I did not. But revealing his discovery and methods to the scientific public at large would end this debate. He did not do that for an OBVIOUS reason.

The OP expressed that this thread be available to consider the evidence. To leave all other particulars out of the discussion.

I did. The evidence is blurry, out of focus pictures of something that the guy claims are space ships. When someone claims that, you need more data than the pictures themselves. He does not give that out, yet. How convenient for him, lol.

And one of the first things that someone insinuates is that Walson is a money grubbing scumbag. That's just the worst display of behavior. None of you who are on that kick know anything for certain. Your whining about that which you do not have the right to isn't going to make the situation any better, or dispose Walson more to your favor. All of you really need to drop this nonsense.

I'm not attacking the fool personally, nor do I give a crap about him. But absent of ANY verifiable evidence of his astounding breakthrough, you have to wonder why the hell he went about it the way he did? Come on man, don't be so freakin gullible. Your making all of us look like fools.

I'll say this once, and once only. I will revisit this thread months, years from now and see how this fool changed the world, lol. Here's a preview, nothing this idiot says or does will shed any light on anything. Wanna wager on that one do ya?

There are plenty reading this that agree with me that will not post. You know who you are, I encourage you to post in order to show people like this that in the absence of evidence common sense prevails.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by IgnoreTheFacts]

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 06:09 PM by Unisol

this is indeed huge if its ture
so far away some objects orbit the earth?
well that either an invasion or the more possibly
scout stations forming a earth defence alerting of incoming ships

possible armed with weapons
so u see no one tells u how advanced we are^^
no one tells u that we can build ships that can fly this far^^
no one tells u we have a complete planet defence

thx usa and russia u rock when u combine power^^

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 06:20 PM by sherpa

Of course they could be similar to one of the things the crew of Apollo 11 saw.

Google Video Link

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 07:50 PM by Areal51

reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts

Your case has not been made, though you have attempted to make one. I've read your posts and nothing you could say would compel someone else to offer up something that he or she does not not wish to offer. Walson doesn't have to do anything. Your demands are out of place. You're not his employer and nor are you the benefactor of his work. Maybe you are a consumer of Escamilla products, but until you have directly supported Walson, you have no recourse for your demands. The question of "Why not?", why Walson has not done what you say needs to be done, is rhetorical and it's ineffective rhetoric at that.

All you seem to have, as far as this case is concerned, is your contempt for others whose beliefs and patience are different than your own. A contempt born out of anger and disgust because that person does not agree with your views or submit to your demands. And that is something that you have made evident in the clear.

"I'm not attacking the fool personally..." Contemptuous and oxymoronic.

Further your entire argument is based on your speculation and the speculation of others. It is weak in the extreme. Whether or not you would desire a certain outcome of an event is nothing more than your preference. Your preference or the preference of others does not support the rationale that another's choice was made for the "OBVIOUS" reason that you suspect.

All of your conclusions that you have decided to draw about Walson and his motives seem to come from one source, and one source only. They seem to come from the source of one who believes that he or she is right. That puts you in the position of needing to demonstrate that others are wrong in relation to what you believe to be right. The only person that is gullible with regards to you and I is you. You, who are not in possession of any conclusive evidence, one way or the other, of the case we speak of, have drawn your conclusions and declared Walson a fraud. How gullible is that? That you would believe yourself without providing yourself with the evidence that you require. That's hardly what I would call scientific method. You've heard it before: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You are in fact arguing from a position of ignorance, IgnoreTheFacts.

If you want to state your opinion, fine. If you do not think that the photos are enough evidence of something worthwhile, fine. No one has forced you to consider even that. But if you are going to go on about scientific method and draw conclusions based on criteria that are crucial to determining the validity of something, then you have to hold off on your making conclusions until you have the criteria that you need. Otherwise concluding positively or negatively in the absence of crucial data renders your conclusions invalid.

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 07:52 PM by lonemaverick

I'm going to approach this from a perspective of just facts here, you draw your own observations.
1. Atmospheric distortion is impossible to compensate for with a regular of the shelf telescope. With a huge, multi-mirror array that's controlled by a computer, yes, but not an off the shelf telescope. The distortion limits the resolution and clarity of images seen through the telescope.
2.Imperfections in the mirrors limit clarity and resolution.
3. Angular resolution is limited by the diameter of the telescope used. Basically, the larger the lens the higher a resolution you can achieve. Most off the shelf telescopes don't get any larger than 8-10 inches unless you want to spend thousands of dollars. So, with a 10 inch telescope the maximum resolution will be roughly 5 arcseconds according to the rayleigh equation.
4.Even if you could get a perfectly smooth mirror, no atmospheric distortion, etc, you will still get distortion from spherical distortion, parallax, etc.
5.Modern astronomers use CCD's and HUGE telescopes. If this guy can make out a "space ship" with some 12 inch cassegrain telescope and a ccd, why can't astronomers using 20 foot ones see actually planets orbiting stars?

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 09:43 PM by IgnoreTheFacts

reply to post by Areal51

We'll see. But unfortunately we might have to wait until.....INTERSTELLAR part 2, LOL. I hear he is going to take all the money he gets and upgrade from his hobbytown telescope to a real nice Meade with that cool "goto" feature and show us some really cool stuff. Once he does, I'll buy the same telescope so I can "goto" his spaceships and see them for myself.

reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 09:59 PM by RiotComing

I'm gonna be cautious here, I'm on the fence, though I found the video clips / pictures fascinating. What I will say though, is sure $1.99 may not be much.. but if the film gets thousands of hits and that money comes tumbling in, there's a tidy sum to be made there. I just think it's time for real disclosure. As someone else said, he should be going into extensive detail on how it's set up, the process, and get the real evidence out there in the public realm. Otherwise, as ignorethefacts said, the thread and his film and his pictures will sink into oblivion a year from now and in the meantime he would have bagged some tidy chump change for his next venture.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 01:51 AM by Areal51

The glaring problem in this case is that unless any of us are able to hire a spaceship and take a flight to see any of those objects first hand, we most likely are never going to reach the most satisfying conclusion that the objects of Walson's photos are not of this Earth. We already know that he has captured something. I hope he isn't a fraud. He may be. But even if he releases his technique publicly we will still be in the position of making up our own minds about what we would see. That Walson could make an observation on any given night and someone else, at least several more people, would be able to independently verify it is of great importance to this case, in my opinion. So even though I have the feeling that not every photo he has captured is of a terrestrial satellite, I need more than that to come to the belief that something extraordinary are orbiting the Earth. And I need tangible evidence to know that extraterrestrials are that something extraordinary that's orbiting the Earth. I don't want to believe that extraterrestrials are orbiting the Earth, I want to know that they are, if in fact they are. But I'm not beyond taking a leap of faith under the right conditions. At the same time if Walson's credibility is to be destroyed, then let him be the one to do it. All I want is the evidence, and so I wait.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 02:17 AM by weatherguru

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
It's called common sense, people. Use it and half the threads in this section disappear.

Some of us, do not wish for half the threads to disappear.
Some of us, do not wish to only see or hear one side of an issue.

If I wanted that, I would just pick up a newspaper or turn on the tv.

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 02:48 AM by weatherguru

Originally posted by WASTYT
If in fact these things are not distortions created by zooming and are in fact real structures in or around our orbit, then I think it behooves us to learn more about these things. What they are, where they are, and why they might be here....

This thing filmed in Israel immediately came to mind when I saw the pics and vids in this thread...

www.youtube.com...

This is off topic, but can you really believe anything from Youtube or Google?

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 5-9-2007 by weatherguru]

reply posted on 5-9-2007 @ 11:37 AM by Atlantix

Amateur astronomer John Lenard Walson claims to have devised an "apparatus" composed of a common CCD camcorder and a commercial grade telescope that is capable of zooming and focusing in on deep space objects (which appear to the naked eye as regular stars) in such a way, that their shape and structure becomes clearly visible.

This summer, I went in vacations at Cuba. At night, around 9-10 pm, there was a thing looking like a star, moving in the sky. I figured it was maybe a satelite, but then it moved largely right, then left, so I knew it could not be a satelite. Finally it stopped, and it looked exactly like a star, so much that I wondered if I had seen correctly.

And he says that those things look like stars to the naked eye? Maybe what I saw was a spaceship.