It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Nola213
NG, I believe Johnbro was shaking the camera on purpose to reproduce the effects the F.A.S.T. people we getting, and trying to make money off of. You have to admit there are some striking similarities in a few of his pictures, at least imo I think there are. BTW, Very nice shot of the ISS you got there btw, excellent.

Ah, gotcha. I really wasn't trying to imply that Johnbro was doing anything wrong intentionally. It's easy enough to accidently get pictures like that just by trying to take "normal" photos of stars while hand-holding the camera. As far as reproducing the "effects" the FAST pictures show, I think he did a great job. Thanks for the compliment, I'm still tweaking things to perfect my satellite photography techniques. I should be able to get much clearer pictures of ISS here in a few days if the weather's good *fingers crossed*.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:57 AM
Once again, i feel, people are reaching and looking in the wrong places for would seem to me that, contrary to how people normally process information, countless people seem to lean toward the fantastic to explain away clearly explainable scientific situations. I dunno, but i would first eliminate ANY feasible scientific explanations before leaning toward the Hollywood fantastic, christ especially after the decade long search for evidence that CLEARLY doesnt exist.

anyway thats my opinion.

this post is PURELY in regard to ufo/alien conspirators

[edit on 16-1-2008 by blueyedevil666]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:31 PM

Originally posted by nightmare_david
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. /quote]

You would be hard-pressed in this society of ours today, to find ANYONE, not "in it for the money". Regarding anything.
Sad, really.
Not trying to disagree with you, per se.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 09:09 PM
Seems sad. But that is an added motivation for amatuer researchers to persist.... as if we were getting paid for it.
I do believe that we must go through quite a period of trial and error. I have been told that I by posting the truncated version of the article here.... that I sometimes have both sides of this issue believing I am on the other.

To clarify my intentions of attempting the experiment... I have posted the following webpage... with the full article. Hope it clears some things up.

Chameleon Stars - full article

I have a personal interest in getting to the real truth here. Sorry for the misunderstandings.


posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:41 PM
let me explain this in laymans terms as best as I can, when you take a digital camera that uses digital zoom, and in your case, you stated that you were at a maxed out zoom of 12x, your camera has a 3x optical zoom, and a 4x digital zoom, by you using your digital zoom you have added 9x the amount of pixels that do not exist, these pixels are ficticious and have been made up by your cameras software. they do not exist anywhere but were created by your camera using different algorythums to guess what would be there if something really would have been there.

I hear so many people wondering what they are seeing, and then the culpret always shows it's ugly head as they state that they were zoomed to the max using digital zoom.

the only true picture you can achieve with your camera is through your optical zoom and then at the most it will be dependant on the quality of your lense, the ccd chip itself and your ability to take a photograph.

You see it's kinda like when I tell a story to someone, then they add their bits to it when reltelling it, the next person adds their bits to it when they tell it. Now when it gets back to me the story has some of what I may have said but now it has a bunch of stuff that was never in the original story that I told.

This is what digital zoom does to a picture, your camera has added pixels to the original picture so for every 3(optical) pixels your camera took it added 9(digital) make believe pixels to the final picture

posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 12:04 AM
In the full version of the article... this was addressed. Chameleon Stars Alright... alright... you win!! Nothin' to see here!! Everyone go home!! Wouldn't want you to have to repeat yourself...

In response to blue... I appreciate your comment about '10 years... Hollywood.' shows me that you did some background checking. ( probably was more like fishing for flaws) The 'pursuit' of that you speak of... was actually 3 years.. then was turned into 'Sci-Fi' and art... -- mostly because... in this 'genre' - even if evidence is true... people will make it false. Concerning this subject... courting 'cons' or 'fence-sitters' is a complete waste of breath. Mostly, their 'opinion' is provided to them from an outside source.

I agree with you about those 'feeble' types... that believe in stuff like UFOs, conspiracies... etc. As it is clear by reading your posts... that we truly are alone... obviously the ultimate being in all of creation...

posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 08:12 AM
There is no doubt that whoever compiles and edits Walson's 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. A simple calculation shows that Walson's scope has a theoretical resolution of around 5 seconds of arc. Whether you understand this doesn't matter, astronomically speaking, it's not high enough. The point is a CCD camera attached to this scope will display the same image resolution. It cannot create detail that isn't collected by the scope in the first place. Considering the distances these objects are purported to reside (apparently orbiting more than 50,000 miles out according to Gridkeeper), you'd need much higher resolution. This can only be achieved using a larger diameter telescope. You need to reduce the resolution angle to a few hundredths or even thousandths of a second of arc. 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 using the most sophisticated camera available wouldn'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 as such.

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 06:00 PM
Some of you have very intelligent responses. Others just seem destructive. I guess if a person doesn't possess creativity, they must go about the business of destruction.

Some of you don't recognize sarcasm, that is for sure. I always stand by; if nothing else, the merits of attempting to unravel mysteries. True scientists and inventors are wrong constantly. But, they only have to be right once, and - well, people's opinions are fickle, to say the least. It is oft times referred to as; 'Trial and error.'

Last but not least... the 'greatest minds in history' - were more often than not... considered 'crackpots' in their own time.

We're only 'idiots' when we stop trying.


posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:40 AM
reply to post by Johnbro

Hello to all from a first-time poster.Regarding the infamous F.A.S.T. videos,I couldn't help but wonder what the motivation was (besides money)for in perpetrating the whole deal. Well,I kept looking and soon the name"michiokaku" appeared. This guy Steve(?),JLW,Gridkeeper,etc.,or whatever his real name is, went way over the line. Why? Because a very young man-a child-believes he's actually in contact with the real Dr. Kaku.Now,people can believe anything they want(who cares,right?)but to foist a load of you-know-what on a child is bad news...for everyone.So Mr. Imposter is trolling for kids,apparently. I've also followed the trail regarding certain pseudo-religious organizations(both in the U.K. and U.S.) through google and it appears there are numerous "kooks"(for lack of better description) who are really eating up his hoax.Now(if you google his name)there's even sites proclaiming him as the "great" JLW. Too bad "instant hero" status is so easy to achieve in this day and age. I commend anyone(especially Waveguide)for attempting to show the technical method used to create the hoax, but it seems to me there is a bit more to this story....btw,as of today(1-21-08) the "young man" is still out there,believing in HIS new hero.

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:53 PM
Well, good post, btw.

I fear this story is far from over. Your statements are upsetting, to say the least. I for one... am quite interested to see how this all turns out. Unfortunately, it may loom for years.

Time will tell.


posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Springer
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.

That's correct. It's also caused by atmospheric dust particles, and the actual 'thickening' of the atmosphere as you look towards any horizon - ie. you're looking 'along' the lengh of the atmosphere, as it were. So the distortions become greater nearer the horizon. An optical illusion basically.



[edit on 29-1-2008 by jimbo999]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 06:16 PM

Originally posted by sneakerset - - - I commend anyone(especially Waveguide)for attempting to show the technical method used to create the hoax - - -

Initial results were pretty good matches to the Walson images.
Here's a couple of vids to prove the theory.
Note that S.L.O.W. = Shedding Light On Walson

Hoax Video Number 1

Hoax Video Number 2


posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 08:19 PM
So it looks like finally all this "Interstellar" crap has come to a close or is almost there. There still is one last question to be answered about this.

In the "Interstellar case files" thread started by Jose, He stated that if this whole thing ended up being a hoax, he would refund every single person who purchased the Interstellar film.

So I as this:

Do we Petition a class action lawsuit?

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in