Originally posted by sgtpro7
In addition you could even add a sound receiver attachement (the same one they use in spying on people) it operates on the same principle via sound being pointed through the scope probably using a amplifier.

And ummm this "sound receiver attachement" would then pick up the sounds of the spaceships?

And you call us names

Hi all its just real fact!!! simple is that other astronomers never show or tell or even look at these things, this man is just a bit more intelligent than those astronomers are and he seessss whats out there, satellites, weapon platforms and so on, its clear that he sees things that the military does not want him to see, else they would not buzz him over the head above his house, hes seeing something and that is a fact no bull no # he sees these UFOS only thing i would advice him is to tell how and what frequency he is using so more amateur astronomers can check and see these things simple as that. if it would be mine discovery the whole world would have know already by now.and all could share their findings of the night and day here on this site, the more people there are with this knowledge how to see these objects and what type of hardware is being used, the better it will be, and the more difficult it will be for the government to keep things silent and secret from us. i mean if an enemy would like to know what the government is doing, they can anyhow with their resources, we civilians need to have it from people like John Lenard Walson. also why would it not be that some FBI or other BLACK agency wants to smear mr Johns name it has happened in the past with the Roswell incident. why not now, its simple for them to smear someones name in the dirt and the people walk away with it thinking ooh this is closer to home i will believe this.

peace to ya all

[edit on 17-1-2008 by newworldnews2007]

Originally posted by newworldnews2007only thing i would advice him is to tell how and what frequency he is using so more amateur astronomers can check and see these things simple as that.

Your right its as simple as that but he refuses to share that information. If he wanted to be 'safe' from the MIB's the more people that know how to spot it the better... but with no info he has no credibility...

its as simple as that

Those shapes remind me of the Prometheus class battle cruiser on Stargate SG-1. Anyone else see that? I hope these are real...But they are very suspiciously distributed.

Take a look at some of the Satellite Photography sites and you will see exactly what is being video'd.
Nothing more amazing than the ISS, Hubble and any one of hundreds of other satellites out there.
The ISS on its own is responsible for half the Junk that the alleged JLW posts on Youtube. It can be captured to look like many things depending on time of day, angle, sun position etc etc etc. Thats why he wont give out any co-ordinates.....because he cant.
Same reason he wont post his stuff on any of the reputable sites that examine stuff like he posts as he would be told exactly where to go.
Gridkeepers posts are now mostly marginalised to crackpot, sheep believer type sites like Icke.
He also posts as Thefallguy, muchiokaku GK and others
His real name by the way is Simon Anderson of Chichester UK.

Hi, I've been following several different threads covering Mr Walson/Gridkeeper's UFO videos and have tried to get details from him about the mystery technique he uses to create them. Knowing a bit about astronomy and telescopes I was really intrigued to learn how I too might capture and verify his images.

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. 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'. The object shown by Walson is apparently bathed in sunlight, as are all the UFOs seen in his movies.
(Continued below)

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!

As for 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. (continued below)

[edit on 18-1-2008 by waveguide3]

(continud from above)
I also checked out the trailer being used to promote the commercial video 'Intersellar' 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.

I've done this by setting up a small reflective model UFO in a dark place and illuminating it with a spotlamp. The target must be located some distance from the telescope, ideally 100 metres or so. Unfortunately I don't have that much space to work, but by using a very small model, a similar image can be produced. Notice that most of Gridkeeper's videos show multiple superimposed images, slightly out of key. This effect is due to refraction and reflection through a glass plate or window. Anyone who's tried using binoculars or a telescope through glass will understand. I've also set up a large mirror to create multiple images and to enhance the distance between scope and model. This worked surprisingly well. The telescope drive can be switched on to cause it to track at siderial rate. Obviously, the UFO moves out of frame. Using the manual controllers allows you to retain the UFO in view and give the impression it's in outer space.

What I am impressed with is the range of models Mr Walson has contrived. While they needn't look very impressive close up (the optical skullduggery does all the 'detailing') they do require a physical structure to be made of wire/tinfoil and stuff that can mounted as a fixture somewhere distant from the scope. When the weather improves around here, I'll run a bogus ISS video to prove my theory.

Originally posted by realyweely
Take a look at some of the Satellite Photography sites and you will see exactly what is being video'd.
Nothing more amazing than the ISS, Hubble and any one of hundreds of other satellites out there.
The ISS on its own is responsible for half the Junk that the alleged JLW posts on Youtube. It can be captured to look like many things depending on time of day, angle, sun position etc etc etc. Thats why he wont give out any co-ordinates.....because he cant.
Same reason he wont post his stuff on any of the reputable sites that examine stuff like he posts as he would be told exactly where to go.
Gridkeepers posts are now mostly marginalised to crackpot, sheep believer type sites like Icke.
He also posts as Thefallguy, muchiokaku GK and others
His real name by the way is Simon Anderson of Chichester UK.

Great response and it's pretty much what my initial reaction was. Especially since I was able to, in one of the picture, see the structure of what I thought was most likely a satellite. And the other elongated ones looked too much like starships I'd seen on stargate. Oh and the first image I clicked on just looked like a blurry galaxy... But if you don't mind me asking, I had heard that there was a rip off involved in all this. Is it true?

I think I've seen him use a clip of an out of focus star or light source as a "ufo" in one video, not sure if it's the same thing you saw at 1m24s. Typical donut shape, evenly illuminated, dead give away.

Originally posted by waveguide3
I also checked out the trailer being used to promote the commercial video 'Intersellar' 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.

Brilliant well-informed post waveguide. I think you're right on the money. I've been trying to figure out how to recreate JLW's videos and the thought of reflecting an image of a model off a mirror never occured to me. One very minor nit picky point - I would argue that Meade's envisage software can function as a rudimentary "lucky" imaging system since it tries to pick out the sharpest frames automatically when stacking images. Like you said though, it's no good for making movies and it certainly won't give an 8" scope the power to see detail in even large structures at 50,000 miles away. Still, I had to wince through your post a little bit since I own and love an 8" meade, so to hear it get slammed in comparison to light buckets is painful for me . Great post though, very illuminating.



[edit on 18-1-2008 by ngchunter]

@nghunter
Hi, my comment on the 8" scope was in reference to its 5 second of arc resolution compared with that needed to produce Walson type images from 'stars'. Meade's 8" scopes are great instruments!

The video event at 1min24sec is in Jose Escamilla's 'Interstallar' trailer. It shows one of Walson's UFOs focussing from a defocussed multiple image. The large extent of image separation shows that the object is relatively close to the telescope i.e. not at stellar nor at orbital distances (seconds of arc and all that).

Most of the stuff showing out of focus lights is just that, lights. His Comet Holmes videos are entirely bogus. I watched this comet closely during its expansion and it never ever had the outline shown in Walson's videos. There are thousands of images available showing every minute of this event and none even resemble's the Gridkeeper's.

Yes Meade's DSI Envisage software does similar things to Registax, etc. etc. but no movies as such. Some members were suggesting that Walson uses a 'Lucky' style camera/software to create the movies. Since Lucky was developed specifically for rapidly adaptive (deformable) mirrors, I don't see that Walson is relevant.

Originally posted by realyweely
Take a look at some of the Satellite Photography sites and you will see exactly what is being video'd.
Nothing more amazing than the ISS, Hubble and any one of hundreds of other satellites out there.

I don't think any of Walson's stuff is a genuine satellite, not even his ISS videos. People try to image the larger satellites, but the best they get is a blurred box or cylindrical shape. Most satellites are too far away or too small to be resolved by typical amateur equipment. You also have to keep them on the camera's CCD chip throughout the movie. That's a VERY VERY difficult thing to do, even with a GoTo telescope and control software using NORAD's 2-line orbital elements (TLEs). By definition, UFO's don't have orbital elements, so how does Walson keep track? Answer, he doesn't. Only the ISS is near/large enough to image with any degree of recognisability. It's just possible to snap stills of ISS using hand tracking. You need the software and the TLEs to create movies. Similarly, Hubble can only be imaged as a point of light by amateurs, it's too far out. It would have been more convincing if Walson's 'technique' had included Hubble. At least then we would have recognised what we were being spoon fed.
Considering how long and how many launches it's taken to construct the ISS to its present form, some of Walson's 'giant UFO platforms' would require launches on a prodigious scale. It's physically untennable. If they were extra-terrestrial and spoofing as stars, they would soon be picked out by more than a single amateur astronomer.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by waveguide3]

[edit on 18-1-2008 by waveguide3]