Just how many space stations are there ?

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers


Don't feel too bad. Just because someone claims it's a hoax doesn't mean it actually is one.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on John Lenard Walson.

One interesting note, the other night I saw the space shuttle and station pass overhead my house. Both were very bright and I made a comment that you would not see that too many times....both traveling the same path a short distance apart.

But about 10 mins before they went over head something else that was actually brighter went by following a typical orbit. It wasn’t a flash that you may get from a solar panel catching the sun just right, it was extremely bright throughout its passing orbit. This just tells me what every it was extremely large….

Originally posted by Xtrozero
This just tells me what every it was extremely large…

Or just very reflective. For example, Iridium satellites are small, yet they can get bright enough to be seen in the day time.

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

They have mobile sea launch platforms, these can go anywhere on water and launch a rocket.

Yup.

And even when they show us the rockets they use, things like the Engines are blurred out because that info is still Classified:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48d3899f738a.jpg[/atsimg]


*The censoring of the classified engines begins at around 6:00:




Hidden in plain sight...

Originally posted by Exuberant1
And even when they show us the rockets they use, things like the Engines are blurred out because that info is still Classified:

It's classified? Are you sure about that?

blog.kievukraine.info...

www.scientificblogging.com...

4.bp.blogspot.com...

1.bp.blogspot.com...

1.bp.blogspot.com...

2.bp.blogspot.com...

I have no idea why it's blurred in the video, that makes no sense to me. It's not like you can get any valuable information about the rocket from seeing the engine bell.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by jra]

Originally posted by jra


I have no idea why it's blurred in the video, that makes no sense to me. It's not like you can get any valuable information about the rocket from seeing the engine bell.

You are in denial.

You also know why it is blurred - to hide something....

And just because you are unable "to get any valuable information" does not mean that someone else would not be able to discern something which we would rather remain a secret.







[edit on 14-9-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You are in denial.

I'm in denial?! Are you sure about that? Did you see the 6 uncensored images I linked to? If the RD-171 is classified, then why am I able to find photos and information about it very easily?

Originally posted by Kojiro
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

 

Don't feel too bad. Just because someone claims it's a hoax doesn't mean it actually is one.

As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on John Lenard Walson.

Why would the jury still be out? His widefield hand-held images showed a "fleet" of ships all identical in shape; an obvious trick done by shaking the camera during a long exposure to form the desired shape. His telescopic images claim to be showing space stations and ships through some secret technique that vastly improves a telescope's performance over the theoretical maximum resolution, yet he can't even produce a single clear picture showing the ISS (let alone one that looks way better than what an 8" telescope like his should see). He posts a video where he claims " this IS ISS" taken with his setup, but it looks nothing like ISS. That leaves only two possibilities; whatever he did to his imaging setup ruined its ability to see things properly, and therefore his "ships" are just imaging errors, or he's intentionally faked the entire thing from scratch and he's never even imaged ISS, let alone secret ships. Either way it's fake, and it's probably just a complete hoax. Neither possibility that should be left in a jury's mind would allow for these things he calls ships to be real images. Since some of his "secret space stations" look exactly like schmidt-cassegrain telescope bokehs from defocusing the optics, I'm calling it an intentional hoax.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by ngchunter]

John Walson has videos of many different giant space objects in Earth orbit...are they ours ???

www.abovespaceandtime.blip.tv...

Originally posted by KAKUSA
John Walson has videos of many different giant space objects in Earth orbit...are they ours ???

Where are the videos showing the known space station and space ships? If his technique is valid he should be able to easily beat similar equipment at imaging known spacecraft like ISS, yet his video showing ISS doesn't look anything like it should, why? You can't conclude that he's really capable of showing "giant objects in earth orbit" unless you first verify that he's really capable of showing satellites that every other amateur satellite tracker can see in great detail.

Originally posted by jra
why am I able to find photos and information about it very easily?

Because you are being disingenuous. I shall explain:

The video was blurred and so you could not discern which kind of engines were present, therefore you can only guess.

It is when you present these guesses of yours as facts that you start to become disingenuous.

*Perhaps you should have engaged in open speculation instead; which is really all this blurred video allows one to do.

Originally posted by ngchunter
He posts a video where he claims " this IS ISS" taken with his setup, but it looks nothing like ISS. That leaves only two possibilities; whatever he did to his imaging setup ruined its ability to see things properly, and therefore his "ships" are just imaging errors, or he's intentionally faked the entire thing from scratch and he's never even imaged ISS, let alone secret ships.

I've watched his videos for some time now, and I happen to think "his ISS" looks very much like the ISS, although more blury and in poorer quality than a telescopic camera should show us.

John Walson's ISS

ISS as seen through a normal telescopic camera

Ergo, you're very correct about the first possibility. Whatever he's done hasn't allowed for any decent imaging of what he's trying to film. What I've been able to understand is he's connected a regular telescope to some kind of digital camera setup, adding quite a bit of clunkiness and unnecessary awkwardness to his setup. Clearly he seems unaware that specialized cameras already exist for filming objects in Earth orbit.

I've always figured at the very least that he may be filming mundane satellites and mistaking them for something mysterious. Your latter suggestion seems much less likely, because if he was going to fake something with imaging software, he might as well make it look good instead of borderline crappy.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Kojiro]

Originally posted by jra

Or just very reflective. For example, Iridium satellites are small, yet they can get bright enough to be seen in the day time.

It could be, but they must be rather rare. I do see a flash now and then that I assume is a solar panel, but that is a few seconds of bright light. This one wasn't the space station or shuttle, but brighter than both and in the same orbit pattern. I know some spy satellites are as big as a bus too.

reply to post by Xtrozero

A possibility:

JAPANESE SHIP FLARES, CHASES ISS: Japan's new cargo ship, the HTV-1, is in Earth orbit and chasing the ISS for a rendevous on Sept. 17th. Sky watchers who have seen the vehicle say it is bright, orange, and best of all, sometimes it flares. Marco Langbroek sends this photo from Leiden, the Netherlands:

spaceweather.com...

Originally posted by Kojiro
I've watched his videos for some time now, and I happen to think "his ISS" looks very much like the ISS, although more blury and in poorer quality than a telescopic camera should show us.

John Walson's ISS

ISS as seen through a normal telescopic camera

Ergo, you're very correct about the first possibility. Whatever he's done hasn't allowed for any decent imaging of what he's trying to film. What I've been able to understand is he's connected a regular telescope to some kind of digital camera setup, adding quite a bit of clunkiness and unnecessary awkwardness to his setup. Clearly he seems unaware that specialized cameras already exist for filming objects in Earth orbit.

I've been viewing and imaging ISS for years now, and I fail to see how one could produce the first image using any kind of real camera setup while pointed at the real ISS. I do understand though that using a non-astro camera afocally attached to a telescope can produce spectacularly crappy photos and video though, my own first ISS video is proof enough of that. That's the only reason I'd be willing to give him the benefit of a doubt when it comes to pleading ignorance. My experience in failing at ISS images, and trying every conceivable camera setup I could manage, tells me that's not what this is though. The intersecting lines do not match any known configuration of ISS. The only time arrays were positioned perpendicular to each other was when there was only one array in its final position. The second array was then moved to its final position, eliminating the perpendicular intersection of solar panels. His image would also have to be showing ISS from a bizarre angle impossible to achieve from earth unless it was flying at an angle it's never been known to use before. It just doesn't add up to an innocent mistake, but I'm willing to concede that it's just my opinion and experience that leads me to that conclusion.

I've always figured at the very least that he may be filming mundane satellites and mistaking them for something mysterious. Your latter suggestion seems much less likely, because if he was going to fake something with imaging software, he might as well make it look good instead of borderline crappy.

My belief is that he fakes it by constructing and illuminating tin foil models and then films them using a series of mirrors to direct the distorted image into his telescope (waveguide replicated this technique and achieved identical results); the result is borderline crappy to give it an air of authenticity, as if it were filmed through our thick atmosphere. He claims to be using "lucky imaging" at times, but since he always presents raw footage either he's either completely ignorant as to what that really means, or he's just trying to use popular amateur language to fool the layman. I personally suggest outright fakery for more than just the above reasons, I suggest it because he clearly presents telescope Bokehs as UFOs in at least one video.
Look familiar?
i319.photobucket.com...

Here's JLW's, being passed off as another "secret space thingy":
i319.photobucket.com...

No one accidentally mistakes the reflection of their own optics as a "UFO."

[edit on 14-9-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Kojiro
I've watched his videos for some time now, and I happen to think "his ISS" looks very much like the ISS, although more blury and in poorer quality than a telescopic camera should show us.

John Walson's ISS

ISS as seen through a normal telescopic camera

Ergo, you're very correct about the first possibility. Whatever he's done hasn't allowed for any decent imaging of what he's trying to film. What I've been able to understand is he's connected a regular telescope to some kind of digital camera setup, adding quite a bit of clunkiness and unnecessary awkwardness to his setup. Clearly he seems unaware that specialized cameras already exist for filming objects in Earth orbit.

I've been viewing and imaging ISS for years now, and I fail to see how one could produce the first image using any kind of real camera setup while pointed at the real ISS. I do understand though that using a non-astro camera afocally attached to a telescope can produce spectacularly crappy photos and video though, my own first ISS video is proof enough of that. That's the only reason I'd be willing to give him the benefit of a doubt when it comes to pleading ignorance. My experience in failing at ISS images, and trying every conceivable camera setup I could manage, tells me that's not what this is though. The intersecting lines do not match any known configuration of ISS. The only time arrays were positioned perpendicular to each other was when there was only one array in its final position.

Well here's the mistake you're making. Those aren't the arrays. At least... it isn't both of them. It seems that the very shoddy manner at which he picks up these images pushes the solar panels completely out of light focus; i.e. they're not picking up in the image. I also notice that one of your "arrays" in his images actually looks completely translucent when compared to the other, yet identical, suggesting that the image is actually showing only one "array" (if that's what it is), but a lensing effect is taking place.

I've always figured at the very least that he may be filming mundane satellites and mistaking them for something mysterious. Your latter suggestion seems much less likely, because if he was going to fake something with imaging software, he might as well make it look good instead of borderline crappy.

My belief is that he fakes it by constructing and illuminating tin foil models and then films them using a series of mirrors to direct the distorted image into his telescope (waveguide replicated this technique and achieved identical results); the result is borderline crappy to give it an air of authenticity, as if it were filmed through our thick atmosphere. He claims to be using "lucky imaging" at times, but since he always presents raw footage either he's either completely ignorant as to what that really means, or he's just trying to use popular amateur language to fool the layman. I personally suggest outright fakery for more than just the above reasons, I suggest it because he clearly presents telescope Bokehs as UFOs in at least one video.

That's even more complex a theory and explanation than having very crappy focus on a bunch of mundane satellites. Occam's Razor, dude.

Look familiar?
i319.photobucket.com...

Here's JLW's, being passed off as another "secret space thingy":
i319.photobucket.com...

Only slightly. His looks like a more solid object.

Originally posted by Kojiro
Well here's the mistake you're making. Those aren't the arrays. At least... it isn't both of them. It seems that the very shoddy manner at which he picks up these images pushes the solar panels completely out of light focus; i.e. they're not picking up in the image. I also notice that one of your "arrays" in his images actually looks completely translucent when compared to the other, yet identical, suggesting that the image is actually showing only one "array" (if that's what it is), but a lensing effect is taking place.

When you look at his ISS image in motion it's clear that it isn't just a blurring double image effect in a single frame. If those aren't arrays then the configuration makes even less sense from an ISS standpoint.

That's even more complex a theory and explanation than having very crappy focus on a bunch of mundane satellites. Occam's Razor, dude.

Considering that the vast majority of mundane satellites barely look like anything larger than point light sources, even with an 8" SCT's 2 meter focal length, it seems a much less likely explanation for most of these objects. Here's the hubble space telescope at moderate magnification (12mm eyepiece) in a scope identical to his:
speur.tripod.com...
Crappy image, I know, but back then I was excited to get anything. Now I don't bother to save videos of the hordes of star-like satellites I track for practice.

The tin foil theory, on the other hand, has been independently confirmed to produce identical results.

Only slightly. His looks like a more solid object.

The brightness of the object being filmed as a bokeh (in conjuction with how far out of focus it is) determines its apparent opacity. I don't have any extremely bright star bokehs just laying around on my hard drive. Why? Because for very bright stars I can look straight through the camera's viewfinder and reduce the focus error far enough to make the bokeh shrink to a ball before doing the "trial and error" method to refine the focus. For dim stars like the above, it's impossible to spot the bokeh by eye and so you must use trial and error from the start. I could easily produce a bokeh just as solid looking though by intentionally defocusing on a brighter star. Would that satisfy you?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

A possibility:

JAPANESE SHIP FLARES, CHASES ISS: Japan's new cargo ship, the HTV-1, is in Earth orbit and chasing the ISS for a rendevous on Sept. 17th. Sky watchers who have seen the vehicle say it is bright, orange, and best of all, sometimes it flares. Marco Langbroek sends this photo from Leiden, the Netherlands:

spaceweather.com...

Thanks Phage,

I bet that is what I saw since its orbit was basically in line with the shuttle and ISS.

The skys have been very busy lately...

-

Originally posted by peacejet it is impossible to operate an secret space station. With the peoples eyes in the sky it would have been easily detected.

Impossible yup sure whatever you say...

But watch this first

www.pbs.org...

If they did that and we are only now hearing about it it's not hard to figure out what is going on now

Originally posted by zorgon
Impossible yup sure whatever you say...

But watch this first

www.pbs.org...

If they did that and we are only now hearing about it it's not hard to figure out what is going on now

And this proves your point how? None of these guys were launched into space undetected, let alone set up an undetected manned space station. The only launch of the program, which was unmanned, certainly did not go undetected either. The only thing hidden about the program was the exact objective; it was known to be a program to test putting men in space for military purposes. The soviet version actually flew, but even then the presence of the space station was not at all unknown. In fact, we even knew they were trying to keep the true purpose secret; that in itself was no secret. Aviation Week had this to say at the time:

"Soviet penchant for secrecy within its own space program has lead to a widespread, but erroneous, belief that a Salyut spacecraft failed while in orbit. The spacecraft, which the Soviet press and information agencies called a Salyut, was launched Apr. 3 and apparently suffered a catastrophic failure on Apr. 14. However, the spacecraft transmitted on a different frequency than previous Salyuts and now is believed to have been a different spacecraft. The reports initially issued by the Soviets apparently were incorrect because of an attempt to keep secret the actual nature of the spacecraft. Telemetry transmission from the spacecraft were similar to those monitored earlier from Soviet reconnaissance satellites"
Aviation Week September 3, 1973

In fact, amateur trackers alone learned quite a great deal about the space stations and even who was on board!
www.svengrahn.pp.se...