• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

John Walson

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Yippee ... someone has started a thread about John Walson's "discoveries"!!

I've been looking at his wee films for some time now, and I've still no idea what I'm looking at, and why these blurry unknown unknowns are not in focus and are all blurry and stuff like that ... or is that the whole point??

But my biggest question remains: why are his images copyrighted??

And to expand on that, are you allowed to copyright pictures of alien technology?? Doesn't that break their copyright? since they're the ones who hold the patents for their own technology etc etc etc

Oh well ... maybe I'm missing something ... no hang on ... if you squint ... you'll see something blurry and out of focus ... bum ... nope back to square one.

[to be serious for one minute ... sorry, blurry things just don't do it for me i'm afraid ... maybe he has got something, maybe not ... who knows ... he's going to have to come up with something a bit more in focus before I will really be able to pass some sort of judgement. You just can't do much with such blurry thingies (technical term :P) ]
 
Okay, he's got a telescope and he's got a high definition camera to record what he finds. If he's really recording things within the distance of real satellites, anywhere from about 500 miles to 23,000 miles, wouldn't he be able to get clear images?

His images of the moon, a lot farther away, are certainly more clear, though the moon is well lit by the sun. So is that the difference? These suspicious satellites are not lit? Even though their distance can't compare to that of the moon?

I'm not ready to rule his stuff out completely because we've poured trillions into black budget projects for too long. But I honestly don't understand why Walson couldn't get clearer photos. I've seen his ISS stuff and it looks like the real deal, but blurry as hell. Is it possible to get distinct photos of the ISS in orbit? If so, then the rest of his stuff should be distinct.
 
I'm guessing the post is actually meant to be sarcastic. Or at least to see how gullible this crowd is.

Kind of like "What do you think of these incredible photos shot by this man in Switzerland??"
 
People are probably ignoring him because he's associated with Jeff Rense. He's a certified whack job. Seriously, that guy has lost it.

Nonetheless I'm looking at the images—don't see anything yet ...
 
I think what's important is what this guy did—not what some people thing they see in it. It's pretty cool what you can put together with various technologies these days.
 
icculus said:
I think what's important is what this guy did—not what some people thing they see in it. It's pretty cool what you can put together with various technologies these days.
Click to expand...

What he put in it? I just see a few bumps.
 
Back
Top