Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

An open challenge to Gridkeeper / John Lenard Walson

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I live in Southern California and I have a quality 10" Newtonian Reflector on a fantastic mount.

Since Walson apparently refuses to indicate time or coordinates (This is Purportedly to protect proprietary modifications although I don't see how or why this should be necessary to shoot what he does. Has he reinvented the telescope? The 2 most prominant telescope designs are 392 and 400 years old and he just figured out an important improvement that nobody else has come up with?) I seriously doubt it so I am thinking that it's an intentional or unintention hoax. I mean, he seems unable to even slew his scope to the moon/earth movement and is using low quality video on top of it but yet, he's some savant of optical physics? Not very likely, is it?

I'm willing to back up this hunch: I will offer you John Lenard Walson or Gridkeeper $5,000 cash if you can come over and point my scope at one of these things and prove they are there. You can even bring your own equipment.

I am not trying to be a jerk here, I WANT to believe but this refusing to share even non-proprietary data smells like a fraud to me. If, for the sake of argument there is something proprietary that he's developed then he is literally facing the choice of a.) undermining the Cabal and changing the world as we know it or b.), maybe making a couple of bucks. Well, here's your couple of bucks guys, lets see you prove it. I am willing to sign a legally binding non-disclosure statement and videotape the whole thing. If you refuse, it proves what I am saying and if you accept and complete the objective you not only get $5k, you get the increased credibility of winning the challange. PM me if you're willing to have a go at it.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by Star Ranger]

[edit on 12-5-2008 by Star Ranger]




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Great post. Walson's videos are the main reason I joined ATS after reading a thread that debunked them for me.

I don't think he'll take it up though, he gets some one else put up the videos to his YouTube channel. Heck, maybe Walson doesn't even exist!

My current working theory is that things he has filmed are brine shrimp.



[edit on 12-5-2008 by mattguy404]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Somehow I think that despite cash and a non-disclosure statement, they won't take me up on it.

I jsut want to be able to confirm this myself. It's standard practice whether it be UFO sighting or astronomical ones to note the coordinates and time. This allows someone else to confirm which you would think (if it's real) that he'd want to do.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
P.S.,

The scope is portable so I can also come and meet you somewhere.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by Star Ranger]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Star Ranger
 


I track satellites for a living using multi-million dollar telescope, camera and laser equipment (plus about a bazillion other high-tech gadgets most people will never get to see or use). I'm talking the seriously complicated stuff like deformable mirrors coupled to sodium guide stars. You can't buy this stuff off the shelf; you've got to manufacture it yourself!

We can't see the detail John Lenard Walson is claiming to see so easily.

The best an advanced amateur astronomer could hope to see (and be grateful to see), is a blob of circular light while the target is sun-illuminated at dawn and dusk.

But let's give John the benefit of the doubt. That he has some fantasic new system. He is still a fraud and the answer is staring everyone in the face in every single video he (f/t)akes.

In order to track an object, you must know where it 'will be' in the future and not where it 'has been'. Anyone that argues otherwise is a fool.

In order to track a satellite, John must be getting his satellite predictions from someone that already knows of it's existance, it's launch date, owner, payload, etc. and all of this will be encoded into the satellite ID in the first line of his two line elements.

Case closed. You heard it from a professional. Now can we move on please... there's nothing to see here.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by peterwilson_69]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
GridKeeper does not live in the USA. If he were to travel here for $5000 US? He would probably lose money on the deal. If you haven't heard...The American Dollar is useless.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by peterwilson_69
reply to post by Star Ranger
 


I track satellites for a living using multi-million dollar telescope, camera and laser equipment (plus about a bazillion other high-tech gadgets most people will never get to see or use). I'm talking the seriously complicated stuff like deformable mirrors coupled to sodium guide stars. You can't buy this stuff off the shelf; you've got to manufacture it yourself!

We can't see the detail John Lenard Walson is claiming to see so easily.

The best an advanced amateur astronomer could hope to see (and be grateful to see), is a blob of circular light while the target is sun-illuminated at dawn and dusk.

But let's give John the benefit of the doubt. That he has some fantasic new system. He is still a fraud and the answer is staring everyone in the face in every single video he (f/t)akes.

In order to track an object, you must know where it 'will be' in the future and not where it 'has been'. Anyone that argues otherwise is a fool.

In order to track a satellite, John must be getting his satellite predictions from someone that already knows of it's existance, it's launch date, owner, payload, etc. and all of this will be encoded into the satellite ID in the first line of his two line elements.

Case closed. You heard it from a professional. Now can we move on please... there's nothing to see here.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by peterwilson_69]


"Case closed"? For a science guy, that's pretty closed-minded! Your points are good and illustrate exactly, why I believe that (if they're real) they're stationary. With his narrow field of view, the only motion that seems to be occuring is adjusting for Earth's rotation. I was thinking that because he was (allegedly) able to even see it, it must be much further out than say, Irridium or the normal constellation satellites that surround us. He says that he just point's ithe scope at a "dim star". Well of course, you'd never be able to hold it in that small of a FOV if it were moving so using Occum's razor, I am assuming that it must be stationary.

You're right about it being a blob, there are people that shoot the ISS though (but that's further out).



[edit on 14-5-2008 by Star Ranger]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by gauncents
GridKeeper does not live in the USA. If he were to travel here for $5000 US? He would probably lose money on the deal. If you haven't heard...The American Dollar is useless.


I assume that it's Walson that allegedly filming these and Gridkeeper is only editing the video so Walson woulld be the one to come I guess.

I'll fly him out then.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by peterwilson_69
 


Hello again Peter. My point was not one of affordability but that the technology already exists and that there is nothing "patentable" about what he is doing. Besides, IMHO, there is no need for a nearsighted telescope. They already have them and they are called Field or spotting scopes.

It's strange that you can see atmospheric disturbance in the lunar videos but not in the ones of the "Mystery Machines".

You look at this stuff, should we see stars behind the "Mystery Machines" as well?

What do you use a guide star for when tracking LEO objects? I understand autoguiding but don't know how this would be pertinant to your application.

Thanks.



[edit on 14-5-2008 by Star Ranger]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattguy404
Great post. Walson's videos are the main reason I joined ATS after reading a thread that debunked them for me.


That wasn't for you, that was for me! How very self obsessed of you!

I'm sure this has already been said, so I'm no doubt repeating someone else's thoughts here but, would you (Star Ranger - StRanger) be willing to pay Gridkeeper's travel expenses from London to Cali? And maybe put him up for a night or two?

If so and if you really are legit, then, good on ya! It really is an offer he/they cannot refuse, well, I suppose they can refuse it if they think they would be exposed but... well... that well, they wouldn't so much as have to consider that... would they??

For the record, I always thought GridKeeps vids were fascinating and I don't actually believe he is taking part in hoax, at least not purposely. I think the objects have maybe been mislabelled.

EDIT: Also mate. You may want to clear up for him exactly what the reaction from you will be if he proved wrong/fake.
GK could be worried about the outcome of that, for all he knows, you and your mates might put him on his arse.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by triplesod]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by triplesod

Originally posted by mattguy404
Great post. Walson's videos are the main reason I joined ATS after reading a thread that debunked them for me.


That wasn't for you, that was for me! How very self obsessed of you!

I'm sure this has already been said, so I'm no doubt repeating someone else's thoughts here but, would you (Star Ranger - StRanger) be willing to pay Gridkeeper's travel expenses from London to Cali? And maybe put him up for a night or two?

If so and if you really are legit, then, good on ya! It really is an offer he/they cannot refuse, well, I suppose they can refuse it if they think they would be exposed but... well... that well, they wouldn't so much as have to consider that... would they??

For the record, I always thought GridKeeps vids were fascinating and I don't actually believe he is taking part in hoax, at least not purposely. I think the objects have maybe been mislabelled.

EDIT: Also mate. You may want to clear up for him exactly what the reaction from you will be if he proved wrong/fake.
GK could be worried about the outcome of that, for all he knows, you and your mates might put him on his arse.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by triplesod]


Sorry, I've lost you, Are you saying that the first reply on this thread that I've initiated wasn't intended for me / this thread? If not, I don't see what's so self-obsessed about assuming that it was... Obviously, I didn't author the thread that he's referring to as the reason for joining but logically, the "great post" bit was directed at the initial post.

I am not certain what you are elluding to with "STRanger" but this is my first and only account here. I too joined because ot the JLW/Jose Escamillia thread.

If Gridkeeper has the technical know how then sure. However, since he's been clear that he only posts and edits them, I doubt that he doeshave this expertise but you never know.

Listen, I have no ill will towards anyone so yeah, he' or John would be completely safe. Not interested in blood, only the truth and violence would not do anyone any good in a case like this - what purpose would that serve? Didn't think about losging but yeah, sure. I will not be happy if I am getting scammed for a free vacation though so he's got to be essential to the process or know the process. Also, if he CAN'T replicate it it would let JLW off of the hook (unless he's GK) so then, there's that....

I am just not fond of the huge unanswered questions surrounding this whole thing and for me (and I'm sure, others) it really clouds the air around it. If I can confirm it, then all are served and there would be the benefit of having two observers which would allow the distance and size of these "mystery machines" to be ascertained. If not then he joins the ranks of Billy Meir and the other hoaxters.

From my more recent understading though, he's only editing and diseminating the video and not the one that is creating them (unless he is also JLW) so I don't know if he'd able to successfully replicate the process.

My feelings are the same as yours regarding complicity (if it is a hoax) and they certainly could be mislabeled but the aforementioned details (location in the sky, observing position, time) must be had in order t osee if there's anything else known to reside at that place or in that orbit.

P.S. Then again, I have been strongly longing to see Wales so it's possible that I would go there too.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by Star Ranger]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
For once a man who is "putting his MONEY where his mouth is..." a quite refreshing stance and I applaud you.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
WOW, this sounds like a AWESOME deal, i wonder if they will take the bait
. Good luck fishing

The last one of these challenges I read about on ATS was a guy willing to buy a digital camera, taking pics of UFO's and sending it onto Springer, what ever happened to that???

[edit on 15-5-2008 by crackerjack]

[edit on 15-5-2008 by crackerjack]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   


For a science guy, that's pretty closed-minded!

I keep my mind open, but not so open my brain falls out. Besides, I'm allowed to say case-closed because I have the equipment to track and verify everything he claims. I say put up or shut up.



It's strange that you can see atmospheric disturbance in the lunar videos but not in the ones of the "Mystery Machines".

The atmosphere is always a problem no matter the height. His tracking of the moon indicates cheap equipment and an incorrect setup. The moon usually fills up the entire frame, so it's easier to see the atmosphere disturbances.




there is nothing "patentable" about what he is doing... He says that he just point's ithe scope at a "dim star"

Perhaps he is using the dim stars as reference for video equipment that overlays another image of his choosing. I think there's already a consumer device on the market that does something like this... certainly not new technology by a long shot.



I am assuming that it must be stationary

Stationary with respect to what? It raises the difficult issue of needing to know where the satellite will be in the future, and not where it was in the past. Otherwise how do you keep your target in the centre of the frame. When you see 'corrections', you have to ask yourself, how did he know the exact amount of correction to apply. You only know this, if you know where the target will be in the future. Yes you can extrapolate from the past, but only if you also have range to target. So unless he's using radar to get this, or is bouncing a laser beam off the target, he's only got Azimuth and Altitude to work with. Not enough information even for a professional station such as ours.

The space station is only about 400Kms up (250miles), and that's about as low as you'd want to park anything in orbit. Technically that's touching the atmosphere. Satellites at this altitude (and a bit higher) are easily seen at dawn/dusk with the naked eye, but because of their speed can be difficult to track. Don't quote me, but I think you can see up to about 2500Kms with naked eye dependng on the satellite. (Do a Google image search on "ajisai" - get John to track this for comparison and let's see what he gets).

Geostationary satellites are approx. 38000Kms away, they still move, just more slowly in weird pattenrs but generally staying put. It's possible to video tape them when sun illuminated using very sensitive cameras, but your telescope must be absoluetly rock solid and have a very high pointing accuracy... better than say, 10 arc seconds (For people that don't understand, lower is better. Most backyard telescopes can probably do anywhere from 500 down to 30 for a real professional setup). Of course I'm generalizing here.


You look at this stuff, should we see stars behind the "Mystery Machines" as well?

It depends but the short answer is yes. Any camera good enough to detect the surfaces of a satellite that is not sun illuminated (ie. in shadow), would certainly be good enough to show backgroud stars streaking by depending on the integration time [shutter speed] of the camera. Some times we've tracked a satellite (with stars streaking by), only to see a second shadow or buddy satellite stalking the main one. Now there's a mystery to solve!



What do you use a guide star for when tracking LEO objects?

You are correct. Guide stars for tracking satellites is not needed and does not make sence. We get prediction files from NORAD (or whatever they want to call themselves these days)... just like everyone else. They use radar to track millions of objects and give away the unclassified stuff to anyone that asks nicely for free.

A sodium guide star, is an artifitial star created by us in the sodium layer of the atmosphere about 100Kms up. It's used to help determine the amount of atmospheric disturbance.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
quote]Originally posted by peterwilson_69

The atmosphere is always a problem no matter the height. His tracking of the moon indicates cheap equipment and an incorrect setup. The moon usually fills up the entire frame, so it's easier to see the atmosphere disturbances.

True, and some nights are better than others as well. This effect is called "seeing" and it can mess with your image under even under the clearest of skies.

I think that the scope is probably a Newtonian or Catadiatropic reflector. I should expect to see at least some distortion on at least one of the "space machines" video's though. Oh well, it's not really at issue for me. Whatever the scope is, it's either got problems or the setup hasn't been performed. Perhaps it’s the eyepiece or the eyepiece selection (VERY likely, IMO). As you pointed out, the mount is not properly aligned or it might even be a simple Alt/Az mount.



Perhaps he is using the dim stars as reference for video equipment that overlays another image of his choosing. I think there's already a consumer device on the market that does something like this... certainly not new technology by a long shot.


I heard that he just selects the subject by focusing on a what would visually appear to be a “dim star”. He must live in a sort of rural area but jeez, how many “dim stars” are they? What’s dim, magnitude 5 or 6? The sky is bloody peppered with so called dim stars.



Stationary with respect to what?
Stationary either on a celestial or a local grid. He’s gone back and shot the same ones in daylight. Then again, they could be in geo-stationary orbit. Some look like the Keyhole Sats but I haven’t seen on in at least 20 years. Most of these space images DO look like satellites only stretcched out. I have a program called Starry Nights that will supposedly track satellites but of course, it has a dataiase and can calculate an ephemeris and track it.

I just watched Level 10, episode 35 - Saturn and it's pretty telling. You can hear the mount slewing. You can also see that all he is doing is zooming the video camera in the eyepiece. You can see him zoom in and then back off when the digital zoom kicks in on his camera. You can also see how this additional lense skews the perspective because he's getting excited over what is more than likely a moon. You can't just change the focal plane like that and expect everything to be hunky dory. It probably would explain the chromatic aberration that is apparent on some of the space machine images. Gotta get this mrror isue settleed on my new scope and then try with my JVC HD and see if I can replicate these.

The Sodium guide star sounds pretty cool.

P.S. just read that it's an 8" Meade. I saw an image on a Level 2 video that IIRC showed Polaris lower in the sky than I'm used to so I'd guess that his latiude would put him in south Texas or Florida if that helps with the position calculations. Could any of these be Satellite TV? I'm guessing that if that's his latitude, these are in an equatorial position.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by Star Ranger]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Geostationary orbits are a long-ass way away! You can't see any detail at that range (nor up close). I'm using a 2 meter primary mirror with sub arc-second tracking accuracy (basically the best telescope in the world) and about $90000 worth of camera equipment (at least), plus I'm tracking a relatively new JAXA satellite that is one of the largest ever put in geostationary orbit (in fact it's so big, solar radiation is pushing against it to destroy it's orbit)... and it STILL looks like a small blob of light... and that's if I'm lucky and the seeing is good.

There's more I could tell you... but my boss probably wants to keep the good stuff 'under his hat' for defence demonstrations/customers etc. He's a nice boss, so I won't spill the beans... but suffice to say it's very obvious that Walson is not using any secret methods.

I suggest you get your own scope polar aligned, train the gears/controller, do a mount model (using T-Point... or whatever), get an account at space-track.org, download some well know satellites and see what you can get.

I'd show you some of my videos, but there just little blobs of light.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
The YouTube 'Space Machine' videos produced by John Walson/Gridkeeper have been discussed at length and determined as a hoax. You may care to read my post on Page 19 of This Thread.
The videos I created to demonstrate the technique I believe is being used are no longer available from YouTube. Should you wish to view them I'll have to upload them again. I deleted them because I'd included some commercial sound track/music to accompany the show, but am conscious of copyright issues. In my view, the sound track is the essential element. Gridkeeper may be a lousy astronomer, but he certainly knows how the edit video flim flam.
Personally, I don't believe Walson is achieving a telescopic zoom. I think the mechanical implications of doing this using a video camera attached to a Meade 8" are just too complex. All the zooms I've seen have been created at the video edit stage by Gridkeeper. Whatever Walson purports to be, he's not the genius as his followers believe. His interview with Dr John Mason confirms that.
Anyway, people will postulate for ever about Walson's technique and you'll never get the truth from the man himself. Gridkeeper has referred to Walson's use of the 'Lucky' camera technology developed at Palomar I believe. This is of course completely bogus. You can't apply it to movies anyway. It's just another smoke screen to protect the leader of the cult. Indeed, Walson seems to regarded as a God by a lot of the addled brainers.
What amazes me much more than his camera techniques is the sheer volume of stuff these guys produce. They really do work hard at it.

WG3



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I'm still wanting to know if anyone here that has purchased "Interstellar" from Jose Escamilla. Jose himself said that he would refund every person who bought it if in fact it has been determined a hoax.

U2U me if you in fact bought it and want to pursue this further.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by gauncents]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
If he really said that, then he is indeed the utter fool I think he is. I mean, what was he thinking, lol?

Do you have a link or something that can confirm that he was stupid enough to put something like that out there?

But then again, idiots like him ,and anyone who even gives stuff like this the attention it does not deserve, need to remember, its not up to us to prove a negative, right?

Why should I spend the money to prove he is a complete tool, when he should spend the money to prove he is not? That the problem with this community, they have it all backwards and are always more than willing to preform the role of the "enabler" when it comes to outrageous claims and complete idiocy. Seriously, look at the majority of the thread titles in this very forum. If that does not convince you, click on them and you will quickly see that Ufology deserves the stereotype it has earned, and that common sense, reason and logic are DEAD.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by IgnoreTheFacts]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by waveguide3
 


I'd love to see the videos you've made if and when you have time to upload them.

I'm sending my new scope back for an exchange tomorrow but should have it back late next week or early the following. I want to try using a video cam to see what effect it has. If you watch episode 35 of level 10 you can see exactly what his technique is and I don't think that there's anything more to it than that. Probably not even an eyepiece in the scope.

Looking at the Saturn video's of his, I an see no signs of his super-magnification.

LOL, I was grilling him a bit on the comments of one of his videos and presented some pretty good points I thought and of course, he addressed a minor part of it and ignored all of the facts I presented and then he banned me from commenting in the thread. Doesn't sound like someone who is not haoxing to me! A little too defensive for someone that is supposedly not the originator of the videos as well so I'd lean towards Griddy actually being JLW although he states that he has somehow mysteriously proved that he is not JLW but I fail to see how someone can do that online... I think that Ican safely say that Griddy's definitely full of it.


[edit on 16-5-2008 by Star Ranger]





new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join