posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:15 PM
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 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
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
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.