It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Whatever Happened to John Lenard Walson?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mightymouth
 


Well if it was true and he was dumb enough to try patent it, im not surprised he dissappeared


Lets face it, if you had modified a telescope to take that kind of footage a LOT of people would not want that design becoming widely available to everyone, and im pretty sure you might well vanish or be threatened to all hell as soon as you tried to patent the thing




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


Just found this...you might be interested. Mike Tyrrell and Phil Masding have invented an apparatus for filming the ISS...with software they invented!:




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Just got a line on John's last video from August 2008 on you tube. He also has a channel you can subscribe to:




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
At the risk of repeating well discussed stuff about telescopes, I'll try to explain why the 'invention' claimed by Mr Walson is not only a hoax (or possibly a delusion), but impossible to achieve under the laws of physics.
The function of a telescope which provides detail is called resolution. The way to think about resolution is to imagine a picture or image that's made up of pixels, much like a ccd camera screen. So, it's pretty obvious that the smallest detail that can be seen is a single pixel. You can put that pixel under a microscope to make it bigger, but you won't see any more detail. There are no pixels within pixels. You simply see that one, bigger pixel. The images that all telescopes create can be regarded as made from optical pixels rather than electronic points. But light is a waveform and that means problems. Light waves interfere with each other and this limits the size of the optical pixels. Even though the thing you are looking at through the 'scope has great detail, what shows up in the image is determined by those pixels. The pixels recreate the detail. The more pixels you have available for the image, the more detail you can get. So how do you get more light pixels? Obviously you want them to be very small. The smaller the better.

The size of the optical pixels is determined by the diameter of the telescope's mirror or light gathering lens. Big telescopes produce smaller pixels. Big telescopes have greater resolution than small telescopes. It's that simple. It's got nothing to do with power, magnification or zoom capability. What ain't in the pixels can't be seen in the image, no matter how big you blow it up. That's why they built the 200" mirror at Palomar. It was to see more detail, not to see a bigger image (though that comes with it of course). You get at the details by enlarging the image. The pixels are small enough to allow it for things like planets and galaxies. But when they point Palomar at a star, what do they see? All they see is a point of light. It's very bright because of the colossal photon gathering capacity of the great mirror, but it's still only a point. Even this great telescope can't see details on a star. It's optical pixels are not small enough. And so they continue to build 'em bigger and bigger and bigger.

So, we have amateur astronomer Mr Walson with his 8" diameter Meade. This is cobbled to some supposedly revolutionary contraption that makes his pixels smaller than any 8" telescope is capable of making according the laws of physics. Oh, I forgot, it's apparently based on the 'Lucky' camera technology developed at Palomar. That's how those remarkable movies were captured. Unfortunately, the Lucky system doesn't work for movies. It's a still image technique based on selecting lots of near identical frames and stacking them into a high resolution, blur-free picture. They get lots of near perfect shots by vibrating the mirror's shape so it syncs with the shimmer or twinkle caused by the turbulent atmosphere. Brilliant stills camera. Movies impossible. How do you stack movie frames and expect to see anything at all? It's ludicrous.

So what is Mr Walson filming? Well some people say it's just stellar image distortions caused by a rubbish optical system. Personally I doubt that. I've watched Gridkeeper's videos at length and I'm convinced they are genuine images. The question is, images of what? Well they're not astronomical or anything else located at a great distance. Reason - they exhibit too much focal depth. Some videos show that the focus is being changed very slightly. Part of the image goes more blurred, other parts get slightly clearer. This is how the so-called morphing is achieved. It confirms the 'ship' is relatively close to the 'scope. It's probably hundreds of feet rather than hundreds or thousands of miles away.

They're not satellites and they aren't in orbit like the ISS. They aren't in geostationary orbit either and cannot possibly be 'parked' as is often described in the videos. Anyone with a basic understanding of gravitation and orbital mechanics will understand why. Reason - to produce real time video of any moving object using a high power camera (i.e. a telescopic camera) you have to know where to point it. The field of view of even an 8" Meade is so tiny, you must use a computer driven rig to keep the object in view. That requires known orbital parameters, hence a known object. No amateur can track an unknown object he just happens upon at the sort of resolution and magnification implied in these presentations. Physically impossible. Mr Walson blinds his devotees with pseudoscience and mumbo jumbo. He's good, very good at what he does, but it's not science as we know it Jim.

So what the heck is it? Well I reckon it's done with mirrors. Possibly there's a pane of glass involved and maybe a double-glazed window. Whatever he uses, these are multiple distorted images of a small reflective object or model illuminated with a torch/spotlight. There's a lot of specularity and blurring which generates a wide focal depth. Nothing is ever in focus no matter how hard you try. I've managed to duplicate this effect using my own 10" Meade and a CCD camera. I started off making tinfoil and wire models, but quickly realised that much of the imaginary detail seen in these vids is created by the way reflected light mixes as it passes through a windowpane or when reflected from a household mirror.

I have to say that the productions by Gridkeeper are brilliant as examples of video editing skill. He's clearly been doing this a long time and it far exceeds Mr Walson's telescopic prowess. Whether Gridkeeper is in on the hoax I don't know. Anyone without a science background will be readily fooled by the raw video footage dished out by Mr Walson. Maybe Griddy is as much a dupe in this saga as those who believe this stuff is real.

WG3



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Wow, interesting insight, thanks. I did ask John to give me co-ordinates for some of these objects so I could try and locate them myself but never got a straight answer.

Sometimes I use a service called Slooh.com (it's an array of professional telescopes in the Canary Islands) and was dying to get a look at them through one of their telescopes. Do we have any idea where to start looking??



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
John Lenard Walson is on youtube being helped by GRIDKEEPER
and was told by MIT he is seeing some of their Star Wars
satellites.

JLW thinks they are space ships anyway.
I say Tesla beams but he will hear none of it.
Which would be Star Wars stuff.

I also said space ships though.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I've imaged with telescopes for years. It's not a mystery nor does it take "secret, advanced" gear. For goodness sakes I use a Celestron C130 (130mm or 5.1" diameter) Maksutov scope and a Stellarvue SV809/D (80mm or 3.1" diameter) refractor for imaging. To capture the images I use a NON MODIFIED (caps for emphasis) Phillips SPC900NC webcam....about $50 if you can find one as Phillips has a newer model now. As far as having a "secret" modification to his camera...well I can tell you that there is a huge amateur astronomy community out there that would be more than interested in Walson's modifications. This stuff ain't secret folks. Check out www.cloudynights.com for all you'd ever want to know about webcam imaging.

I have quite a few images of the moon that I've made with my little 80mm Stellarvue and I can tell you the quality of my images with a non modified telescope and off the shelf webcam are much better than Walson's with his 8" Meade. I have an astronomy partner who happens to have an 8" Meade and believe me...if those blurry pics were the best quality he could get from a low earth orbit object he'd not be a happy camper.

Fraud plain and simple. I've asked Mr. Walson time and time again to provide me with coordinates so that myself and others can observe these objects with no replies.

PS: I'd be happy to provide some moon shots with my 80mm and 130mm scopes for those interested. And just for example I have a few images of Jupiter through my 130mm that clearly shows the cloud belts...so you can imagine what kind of detail I'd get from something in orbit.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
Fraud plain and simple. I've asked Mr. Walson time and time again to provide me with coordinates so that myself and others can observe these objects with no replies.


You didn't ask nicely


Here is one... published way back at the beginning at Imaginova



Now if its stationary, you should be able to find it... if its in orbit it still gives you an area to search. I have a few others from Gridkeeper(John) but lets see what you do with this...



PS: I'd be happy to provide some moon shots with my 80mm and 130mm scopes for those interested.


Well I would be interested. I am always looking for Moon photos. I am especially interested in four day old moon shots around petavius B

Here is our best shot... taken by Mike in London with a 10" scope



You can U2U me if you like for those images



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
That's a righteous moon shot zorgon! Please don't take my post as antagonistic...I just want to verify what is being presented for my own curiosity. No ugliness is implied.

And with all due respect I asked both Mr. Walson and gridkeeper both for coordinates with the offer of verifying these objects. My local astronomy club would be happy to do this as well.

The issue that I have is that every image that I've seen from Mr. Walson seems to be basically out of focus.

I shoot short video clips (AVI format) of my targets with my webcam and then use K3CCD Tools to pull stills from the videos. I then use Registax to "stack" multiple images together to get as much detail as possible. I sometimes use Photoshop to do some final processing (contrast, sharpening, etc.) to pull more detail out as well. I'm trying to provide all the steps that I can as to how I capture images so that if there is any kind of issue with my statements then they can be pointed out



Again that's a freakin' awesome moon pic!!!!





[edit on 29-1-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I think it's pretty obvious why he's (Walson) "disappeared".

[edit on 29-1-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
And with all due respect I asked both Mr. Walson and gridkeeper both for coordinates with the offer of verifying these objects. My local astronomy club would be happy to do this as well.


So would several others I know that have access to the 'big scopes' but I have a feeling they don't even know what a coordinate is....

But as long as they/he is not going to cooperate we will never know

Now judging by this image I would say something is fishy... because if you can see this with the naked eye in this photo then anyone could find it

Looks like the Pleiades just above Venus





posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
Again that's a freakin' awesome moon pic!!!!


Hehe Thanks We have two letters from NASA that agree



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Well that is Pleiades but I don't know what that smear is. It wasn't there last night when I took a look but clouds were moving in and out. I know it's not something that is normally visible in that area of the sky....I'm out with my scopes a few times a week. I would suspect it's just some Photoshop work. My local astronomy club has a number of large scopes and I know that somebody would have spotted these same objects if they were real. But it's fun to wonder anyways, huh?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Zorg - I tried to find my posts on youtube with Gridkeeper where I asked over and over again for coordinates to verify these objects. But alas the comments have been deleted...go figger. But I did ask nicely. I'm all for finding an object that has no obvious explanation. But when a situation can be broken down and found to be fraudulent then that is what needs to be done. I'm certainly no expert and don't claim to be. And I honestly have no animosity here...the problem with forum posts is that the "tone" can be taken any way an idividual wants it to be taken.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrlMy local astronomy club has a number of large scopes and I know that somebody would have spotted these same objects if they were real. But it's fun to wonder anyways, huh?


Robert Bigelow currently has two large sections of his space station in Orbit... Genesis 1 and 2... I can give you the tracking info on them... Can your group capture them?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


We can definately try. The clouds move in after sundown here the last few nights but with just visual obsevation and using binoculars I didn't see that smudge in your photo. I'd certainly be willing to give it a shot



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
i think because he didn't reveal his process/method ,,,,some have wrote him off because no one can duplicate his study and verify he's not cheatin and that this is the real deal
and,
how come no news media picked it up???

if his footage is true,,it's amazing

but my biggest question
is it true and legit???



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by shortywarn
 


Simply put shorty there are thousands of astronomers...amateur and professional both who observe the skies every night. Only 1 individual being able to find and track these objects is just unreasonable and illogical.

A Meade Cassagrain telescope is exactly what it is..period. There are no "special modifications" to be done. Anyone who has experience with this gear (and I do) can attest to that. And if there were said modifications an individual could most likely make money just selling this info to any telescope manufacturer. I just think it's someone who underestimated others knowledge of telescope technology and astronomy. Simple as that and it came back to bite him.

Believe what you like...that's everyones right and I wouldn't ever try to take that away. But you are more than welcome to come by my place anytime and use my scopes and cameras as much as you like


JLW disappeared because he was found to be a fraud...simple as that. You can bet that if I found something like he claims I'd be all over the media in a heartbeat...not selling videos off of youtube.



[edit on 31-1-2009 by griffinrl]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by griffinrl
 



n o i agree with you,,, i'm saying if it's legit,,prove it,,,show someone

i figure another hoax,,,
but hey,,, he,wilson, can prove me wrong and i'll apologize if i am

and i doubt i'll be apologizing



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by shortywarn
 


I'm with you shorty. One thing that I try really hard not to do is come off as antagonistic and I hope you don't take my comments as so


I only state the things about my astronomy gear so that maybe I can come across as at least having some experience in the area. I'm no expert but heck I do get out there and try. I think many folks who believe JLW have never even seen a telescope or even spend any time looking at the night sky (I'm not directing that towards you my friend). Just one man's simple opinion. Heck if you want to see great photos talk to ngchunter. I bow down to his experience and expertise


[edit on 31-1-2009 by griffinrl]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join