Opinions please?

[DarkAntenna]

Hello, I would really appreciate as many opinions as possible.

First two photos are from NASA/Chandra

Third photo is from my 'Experimental Telescope' - during daylight observation

Last two are overlays of my photo and Chandra/NASA's for comparison

Please feel free to be honest no mater how critical.

I'm presenting the telescope and data to academia for technical analysis soon.

So just trying to pick the best examples for an introduction/presentation.

[ronin]

No got any comments to make just a question, you do realise that Chandra is an X-ray space telescope, what it detects and what you can image will be totally different to the extent that they would appear different objects.

[DarkAntenna]

Yes thanks Chandra is X-ray but I was combining the two to make a composite image.

The new features in my picture and how they fit into Chandra's voids and bright areas is more what I'm looking at.

Similar to how NASA combines Hubble/Spitzer/Chandra etc.

Gives a different view to a target often with more depth and detail.

[AndyUK]

I'm really interested in seeing what your "experimental" telescope looks like and how you image in daylight... Do you have any pictures / further info on how you're getting images like you have in the 3rd posted image...? What signal are you picking up...?

[DarkAntenna]

I'm in the patent process right now so I can't give too many details. I can say that if you are interested in owning one I will be donating several to astronomers so they can personally begin cataloging their findings. All I would ask in return would be to post some of your data and photos online like here at StarGazersLounge.

This is all of course IF the patent makes it through all the hurdles.

All patents are rejected at first for no real reason in particular. But with academic support and support from other astronomers it might just make it.

Thanks much for your interest

[DarkAntenna]

Caterpillar like companion galaxy behind M87

and the Galactic Center Chandra/Puttenham/Puttenham Overlay

First is Chandra X-ray

Second Putenham observation date time 7/5/212 16:32 CST

Third Puttenham observation date time 7/8/2012 07:44 CST

The two Puttenham photos were obtained with different antennas

I assume I'm picking up visual to radio signal maybe more.

[gkec]

Caterpillar like companion galaxy behind M87

and the Galactic Center Chandra/Puttenham/Puttenham Overlay

First is Chandra X-ray

Second Putenham observation date time 7/5/212 16:32 CST

Third Puttenham observation date time 7/8/2012 07:44 CST

The two Puttenham photos were obtained with different antennas

I assume I'm picking up visual to radio signal maybe more.

You ASSUME you are picking up visual to radio signals. You don't know? And that is a very wide spectrum. Also there are nine images not three. I have no idea which is which apart from maybe the top row is Chandra. You present that you will be laughed at.

[Guest]

I am getting more and more confused by your posts. You seem unsure of what you are seeing and I have never heard of ALL patents being rejected first time for no real reason.

What lambda is your scope looking at? How can we know if it can be sensibly integrated. You are providing a lot of information but NO DATA!

[cantab]

My opinion is that you've found something that produces interesting output (might be an astronomical signal, might just be pretty noise) but don't understand it yourself. Which would explain why the patent application got rejected. If you want to avoid being disregarded as a crank, you need to have someone with a better knowledge of physics actually see your equipment, and you would also do well to lay off the secrecy.

[gkec]

I know what my opinion is!

[jonathan]

I think the guys at NASA would be able to make more sense of your pictures.

[gkec]

I think the guys at NASA would be able to make more sense of your pictures.

I don't think they would.

[RikM]

It's great thinking about what sort of images you can get with non-standard equipment. I bought a 300mm lens specifically for astral-projection imaging on an EQ3-2 but even in daylight I was able to capture this image.

[Andymac79]

I just dont understand how we are supposed to get excited about the images when we are given no data or details on what they are. ?

[gkec]

I just dont understand how we are supposed to get excited about the images when we are given no data or details on what they are. ?

I think OP should try the David Icke forum. They might find it exciting.

[davew]

If you're asking for my honest opinion then it's incredulity. Sorry.

Amongst the claims made are high resolution x-ray , gamma ray and uv detection. This kind of stuff is normally conducted off planet as far as I know. Asteroid and exoplanet discovery. Not easy. Satellite discovery. Could come in handy if one's lost.

If even half the claims are true then the Nobel prize is in the pocket. I wish you the very best of luck.

Dave.

[Andymarrison]

It's great thinking about what sort of images you can get with non-standard equipment. I bought a 300mm lens specifically for astral-projection imaging on an EQ3-2 but even in daylight I was able to capture this image.

Wow Rik! When you get the guiding; exposure etc spot-on you can really see why so many of the constellations are named after animals. First time I've seen "The Otter" in so much detail. Those filaments of nebulosity almost look like whiskers!

[Kai]

It's great thinking about what sort of images you can get with non-standard equipment. I bought a 300mm lens specifically for astral-projection imaging on an EQ3-2 but even in daylight I was able to capture this image.

Rik , is that the Otter we were talking about ? , the one that is only seen when it smells a troll

[RikM]

Rik , is that the Otter we were talking about ? , the one that is only seen when it smells a troll

They also tend to turn up when something smells 'fishy'

[badgerchap]

It's fairly impossible to know what we're looking at without knowing something of the equipment being used, its sensor types / specs, and what settings were being used. From a purely geometric perspective I can see a correlation with your data and that of NASA, but that could be purely coincidental for all we know without further information. I can understand you being cagey about divulging the details of an unpatented system, but it's impossible to know what's going on here without some kind of basic outline of the equipment used. Throw us a bone!

[Cornelius Varley]

I have read through some of your old posts and videos on Youtube and have come to the conclusion that your images have no scientific foundations. It appears from your own words that you are only able to reproduce the "effect" with a light source ie daylight or the moon. I suspect that the images you have produced are no more than an interesting effect created by the holographic projector gizmo and are not astro related. Unless you can independently verify that the images are of the objects you claim and not some sort of random noise pattern created by your equipment you should only consider them as such.

[martin_h]

Can people stop replying to this thread its only going to encourage him to post more.... The bloke is obviously doing it for a wind up, either that or he's totaly bonkers.