The Interstellar Case Files: by Jose Escamilla

Looks like web cams are proving to be the best way to shoot through telescopes! I was just sent this:

www.astro.shoregalaxy.com...

WebCam Astrophotography!

Forget this apparatus stuff! You know what? Lenard told me in so many ways, it's about "finding the sweet spot" between the camcorder and the optics of the lens of the scope!

So (I am free to state this), Lenard was "taking the lens off the camcorder, making the CCD open to accepting the telescope lens as being it's "camera lens" so-to-speak.

So the idea is to find the "sweet spot" between the naked CCD apperture opening and using the optics of the "throw of the scope lens" to become the "lens attached to the CCD" of the camcorder.

This way you have eliminated the lens in front of the camcorder that would cause an artifact, and you have the telescope lens becoming your main lens. It's a matter of finding the optical focal length, I guess in broad terms.

So there it is. That's all I know of this apparatus. I've released it and whether or not Lenards' thing turns out to be the hoax, or simply a form of him filming basic stars and satellites and mis-identifying them that are giving us this effect, we may have very well gotten to the bottom of it.

BUT, I still want Lenard and Gridkeeper to come here and this thread is far from over.

Sincerely,

Jose Escamila

Originally posted by williamjklopp
I thought I had seen this story before. Ufo's around the big dipper with
backyard telescopes.

I'm looking too. Just want all of this to end

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread81678/pg1

[edit on 17-12-2007 by williamjklopp]

Good find williamjklopp. After giving this site a rest for while

someone has finally come up with something to add some light here.

ty.

Must be some pretty big ships to be seen from a telescope on earth at that distance and with a hell of an internal light source also ?

Not saying that isn't the case or some other astronomical discovery hasn't been made.

Mr Escamillo, have you seen the level 10 pics this gentleman claims to have ?

If not I fail to see why you would have anything to do with the claims, if you have what did they show ?

Surely a modicum of due diligence would have halted any contractual arrangements.

Originally posted by Jose Escamilla

Forget this apparatus stuff! You know what? Lenard told me in so many ways, it's about "finding the sweet spot" between the camcorder and the optics of the lens of the scope!

Sincerely,

Jose Escamila

Thats what this is all about???????????
I have the gear for that in my closet at home for many cameras. There are at least two companies selling them and probably many more. The reason the camcorder is better is due to the high optical zooms on them but the stills from them will NOT be very good. I have a small scope at home I can hook many cameras too but I don't use it because the quality of telescopes is usually so inferior to a good lens. They require too much light and exposure time.

If this is the big find someone needs to try an Internet Search for adapters. You can even go to any Pro Camera shop and find all sorts of hardware for that. I have one that adjusts like a slide so I can adapt to many camera's simply by having the correct rings for it which are threaded inside and out to reduce or enlarge the standard attachments for this.

Here you go. I bought some gear from these folks and others.
Link to buy the adapters.
Edited to add a link to their gallery
Gallery

[edit on 12/17/2007 by Blaine91555]

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by Jose Escamilla

Forget this apparatus stuff! You know what? Lenard told me in so many ways, it's about "finding the sweet spot" between the camcorder and the optics of the lens of the scope!

Sincerely,

Jose Escamila

Thats what this is all about???????????
I

What it is all about is that there is aparently one person in the entire world that we know of that has figured this out. (finding the objects). He apparently only knew of one person in the entire world he could tell that would make a movie out of. and apparently one person in the entire world that would sell this to the world before he knew if it was true or not. Is there a mathamatician in the house that can figure this equation out for us?

Also a vegas odds maker please.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by williamjklopp]

Originally posted by Jose Escamilla
So I am contacting this person to get more footage from himas it seems he is "on the right track."

LOL that's Jack he is with Pegasus I can send you his email . He most likely already read this

Originally posted by Jose Escamilla
Looks like web cams are proving to be the best way to shoot through telescopes!

I am going to second that...

Here is our 'famous' image from Mike Deegan with a 10" and a webcam

Greetings! I am new, but I do have a telescope. A pretty nice one, its four feet tall. And on one special occasion, I did stumble onto the space station. It was a while ago, and I am not sure what time or season it was when I was out looking at the stars. But I can say this. Finding it alone, was like a needle in a haystack. Good luck to those searching for strange things, if any, I will try myself. I can tell you I saw what looked to be a spiral galaxy at one time. But again, without a built in navigation system and built in motor to move with the stars, don't forget the stabilizer, its complicated and requires patience. I have been star gazing with my telescope for 4 years now, and I haven't stumbled on weird objects.

My telescope is not operated by a computer yet, but it will be. Star gazing can be expensive but awesome.

Cheers!

Originally posted by Jose Escamilla

My first action in bringing "everything to light" is this challenge:

1). John Lenard Walson, I want you to reveal the (alleged) apparatus construction, so that we as interested researchers and investigators can have access to the 'very same' objects you are claiming to be real star ships orbiting earth. If indeed this is not a hoax, then you have nothing to hide right? Gridkeeper, this goes for you too! You seem to be acting all true blue with all the right motives. Well here you are your chance to really shine!


Sincerely - Jose Escamilla

If I'm not correct, Jose said forget about the apparatus above on this page.

I would assume That The Interstellar Case Files: by Jose Escamilla...is closed.

reply to post by Jose Escamilla


Uh... That's the method? That isn't patentable as it is being done by hundreds of astrophotographers as I type this. I can't think of any reason why the objects would magically appear because of this. At this point, it's either they're at the coordinates or it's a complete hoax.

Are you sure that's all? I'm just completely astounded.

reply to post by Donoso


Inspite of Zorgon persuading me to buy a 10” LX200R, I’ve been thinking of the enormous torture that one’s got to go through!!

Like collimating and polar aligning the scope, calibrating the guidescope, selecting the right film for the object to be imaged, fixing a cable release contraption to open the camera's shutter, getting hold of a GPS, a guide scope, tracking motor, a CCD camera, dew heater controller etc, etc, etc!! Probably I’d have to use infrared film too!

Heck! Rigging all this up is mind boggling! So I’ll leave all this dirty work to experts like you!!
I'm heading for the bar instead!

Cheers!







[edit on 18-12-2007 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by Jose Escamilla

I am waiting to hear from my attorney on whether or not to release what I know about the apparatus. Just don't want to get in trouble by doing this.

Good morning. Don't worry about your lawyer or to release what you know
about the apparatus. I'll do it for you.

Here it is. Submitted by John Lenard Walson himself. All the equipment he
uses to film. The telescope, lenses, videocamera etc. Also the telescope
with the adaptor. But not apparatus as you can see. Sorry but not the
" magic " apparatus. That is for sale and you know the price.
Or maybe there is no apparatus after all, what do you guess ?
Maybe there is a bigger secret and the apparatus is just a distraction.
Click on the image to see it complete.




This is a picture composed by John Lenard showing the components in
different small pictures. But there is a problem, these pictures look like
stock photos .Why would John Lenard show stock photos instead of
showing his own equipment ? Make your guess.

Hi everyone,

Thank you Free-Spirit for sharing that info' with us.

Off course, I think the all story is crap, Jose Escamilla if you ask me seems to be here on this forum just to promote his video (nothing wrong with it) and I bet he won't pull it out no matter what happens.. That's just my first reaction after watching the videos and reading this topic.

But there's more to it...

What got me hooked is that one of the photos seems to be showing some known satellite(an ATS member noticed it as well). That's the only positive aspect & fact I see in this story.

What is left is just plain bulls-it I think. I am an amateur astronomer and let me tell you that there's no unknown apparatus used to film this stuff besides maybe a filter of some sort. The quality is fairly poor and I watched some much better videos and pictures of the ISS or other man-made vehicules. So which apparatus are they talking about ?

The colors seem to be different that's why I am thinking of a filter. (and sometimes in the videos when you look at the close ups, it reminds me H.R GIGER's work for some reason) I am really thinking that the use of a filter could be resulting in distortions of real satellites filmed on earth's orbit.

That could be the trick but who knows, a couple of pretty good astronomers I know will tell me what they think soon, I'll translate & post their comments.

Anyway, if you wanna see the "real #", juste type "pasto ufo astronomer" and you'll watch a video of some Columbian astronomer filming during 1 hour a plasma ball like UAP. The guy took 400 pics of this phenomena, NASA is on it...


Excuse my English as I am French.

Peace.







[edit on 18-12-2007 by Europa733]

[edit on 18-12-2007 by Europa733]

Originally posted by Jose Escamilla
Looks like web cams are proving to be the best way to shoot through telescopes! I was just sent this:

www.astro.shoregalaxy.com...

WebCam Astrophotography!

Forget this apparatus stuff! You know what? Lenard told me in so many ways, it's about "finding the sweet spot" between the camcorder and the optics of the lens of the scope!

So (I am free to state this), Lenard was "taking the lens off the camcorder, making the CCD open to accepting the telescope lens as being it's "camera lens" so-to-speak.

So the idea is to find the "sweet spot" between the naked CCD apperture opening and using the optics of the "throw of the scope lens" to become the "lens attached to the CCD" of the camcorder.

This way you have eliminated the lens in front of the camcorder that would cause an artifact, and you have the telescope lens becoming your main lens. It's a matter of finding the optical focal length, I guess in broad terms.

So there it is. That's all I know of this apparatus. I've released it and whether or not Lenards' thing turns out to be the hoax, or simply a form of him filming basic stars and satellites and mis-identifying them that are giving us this effect, we may have very well gotten to the bottom of it.

BUT, I still want Lenard and Gridkeeper to come here and this thread is far from over.

Sincerely,

Jose Escamila

Soooo... his big secret is to interchange the lens with the telescope? That's it? I hate to sound condescending, but there's no need to find a "sweet spot" as long as you can adjust the focus of your telescope.

*edit: I think I initially misunderstood what was meant by "sweet spot," I thought you meant he needed to find the sweet spot with the lens off, with the lens on and trying to peer through an eyepiece I understand that finding the "sweet spot" where the two sets of optics properly project into each other is difficult. With the lens off of course there's no need for that and I guess that's his technique.*

All you need to do is adjust the focal point to be able to project a clear image onto the CCD. It could be done using a webcam, but a webcam's advantage is in being able to rapidly collect, select, and stack frames over a long period of time. The result is a crisp image, but if you look at the raw video you just have a standard webcam feed that looks noisy and nasty. I've used the webcam technique before on satellites and you just can't get a pass to last long enough to get a really clear image. See here for an example:

For the best quality satellite pictures I recommend using a digital SLR - you can still remove the lens and capture using the telescope's optics only, but the quality of the CCD is MUCH higher and results in MUCH better images. For comparison, the same telescope but with a DSLR camera instead:



His stock photos indicate he's using the same type of scope as me, only a lesser model, the LX90 instead of the LX200. Optics should be the same though. Will he now provide the coordinates and/or orbital elements of these things he claims to have found?

[edit on 18-12-2007 by ngchunter]

[

[edit on 18-12-2007 by Jose Escamilla]

reply to post by Jose Escamilla


Gridkeeper verywell may have had permission.

I am new here as well as yourself Jose, I think the mods do a pretty good job themselves, besides, they have been around here a whole lot longer than you or I combined.

They don't tell us how to do our jobs.

Hi, I'm Jack at Pegasus and have been following this with hopes of the other party showing the "technique".
I also have my own web site with video outside the atmosphere.
This is the scope, camera and software I use to astrovideo the Moon:
www.boomslanger.com...

The Cam has a CMOS sensor (no lens). The scope is the lens.
The scope is mounted on a controllable equitorial mount and can "track" the Moon or a celestial object.
But I mostly prefer to manually control the speed and direction of the scopes movements with it's hand controller.

Sometimes, when I'm "tracking" the Moon, the scope is gradually moving at the same rotation as the Earth's to keep the Moon in one place.
And sometimes an orbiting satellite will pass by the Moon.
Orbiting LEO satellites and the ISS are travelling at 17,500mph and they are in and out of the field of view in a split second.
In my area on the West Coast, the longest duration the ISS can be viewed is 4 minutes. trying to locate and track it is very hard.
I can connect the equitorial mount to my laptop and have the astro program called Starry Night ($350), try and find it.
The problem with this is having the placement of the scope "exactly" in my terrestrial location. If you're .001 degrees off, you miss tracking anything.

The objects JLW shows are in HEO or geo-stationary. A much higher orbit to be moving at the same rotation as Earth. So all that has to be dealt with is the Earth's rotation. Easy enough but we have to find them first.
If they are there, I'll find them. And let everyone know the results, location, etc.
Im also the person who recorded the Arcturus video. And have a much better version on my site at the bottom of this page:
www.boomslanger.com...

A little tip: Some of these videos are very large, up to 90Mb's.
Be patient, if you have a slower machine.

Here is the index page to access all the videos:
www.boomslanger.com...

Good luck to everyone doing what I do in astrovideo.

Well it looks like Gridkeeper and Lenard will not be showing up. Klopp is still here? Wow, and he's brought something to the table instead of his "off color / off subject" remarks.

I am not quitting on getting Lenard to bring out his apparatus to us. This "sweet spot" business may be one of Lenards' ways of messing with my head making stuff up.

A friend of mine and I bought this Meade scope and we're testing it this coming Saturday to see if we can figure things out. I am totally new to scopes and he knows about as much as I do. So we will be trying things including this camcorder test, etc.

Let's see what happens today. I will check in later.

Jose Escamilla

Originally posted by Jakman

Jack, welcome to the thread. If Lenard had been more open and on the level with me and everyone else involved we might all be seeing an enormous amount of awesome results of what is out there as captured by yourself on the scope.

I would like to thank you for coming here and posting your links. What caused the Arcturus star to look the way it does in your video clip? That Giger looking thing? Is it a filter that caused it, out of focus of the star? I am trying some things with this Meade scope this weekend and will be trying to locate this star and see what it looks like in ours as well as trying to find some of Lenards' objects. He sent me stills of the locations, but man there millions of stars and who knows if he sent me the real sections?

I will upload all the stills I have on the locations and will also send them to you Jack, to see if you can pinpoint them. One thing Lenard always said was that his tracker had been zapped and he was unable to tell me the actual coordinates. My not knowing a thing about names of stars, locations, etc., I set all these stills aside.

So I will post them here sometime later today as my time permits and will email them to you. I feel if anyone can find them it would be you.

Sincerely - Jose Escamilla