Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 183
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 183
Saturday, March 24th 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Re: Say What ?!???
Re: Richard Murray information packet
Re: For Your Info
_Confrontations_
Science Fiction Come True
(none)
Photos that look like art objects
Re: School?
Re: Ufos
Re: Ufos
Re: Gulf Breeze
Re: Signals Leaving Earth; Book Publisher?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Date: 21 Mar 90 19:43:04 GMT
> Your comments about the photos are right on the mark. I find it
> very odd that the photos Ed is able to take with his cheap
> polariod can be so good, but the one he took with the sealed
> Nimslo were so poor and it is a much better camera.
What really threw me about the Polaroid was that Walters was getting
such good shots with Type 108 film, which is, I think, ISO 80. If he'd
been using Type 107, which is ISO 3000, the photos would be *much*
more believable.
> I also have
> a very hard time understanding how he gets such good polariod
> photos at night. I have tried taking photos with my polariod
> One-Step and once the sun starts to go down you can forget about
> it, it just comes out all dark. I even took a polo photo of the
> street light just across the street. All that came out was a
> little white dot and the automatic shutter on the camera was
> open for at least a second.
That aspect was a real biggie for me. I could take nighttime photos
that would look like daytime if I used a Polaroid 180 or 195, both of
which are manually-controlled packfilm cameras, but the shutter speed
would be several seconds at least. Most of the auto Polaroids will do
exposures of several seconds duration, but t'aint no way Walters could
hand-hold the camera, as he claims to have done.
> I also have to wonder why some of
> the rather obvious things that point to hoax are simply ignored
> by MUFONs supposed experts. I'm afraid that in this age of
> computer analysis they have lost sight of the objective and some
> of the more mundane analysis techniques.
I think it was a case of the experts wanting to be the firstest with
the mostest, and the Gulf Breeze case was a prime opportunity. When
Walters couldn't get a shot of his object with the Nimslo, they didn't
give it back because if his inability to get the shot continued, it
would have weakened the case.
A great weakness in the Gulf Breeze case is that no experienced
photographer was involved in the investigation. No one was involved
(that I know of) who would have known the difficulties involved in
producing the pictures in the manner Walters claims he did.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Date: 21 Mar 90 19:45:05 GMT
> However, photos will never prove the
> existense of UFOs.
You're probably right. If I took a photo of a UFO, it would prove to
me that I wasn't hallucinating, but that's really about all it would
actually prove.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Date: 21 Mar 90 19:46:06 GMT
> Gulf Breeze objects? Camera shy? They seem to be about as camera
> shy as Johnny Carson.
Nahh....they just have their favorite photographer. ;-)
Do you know if anyone else who took pictures of the object has ever
been identified?
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze photos
Date: 21 Mar 90 19:48:07 GMT
> John: Shame on you for thinking so objectively after reading
> The Breeze Bible! You aren't supposed to do that! Shut up and
> eat your grilled cheese sandwich! <big grin>
I know, I know. ;-)
I'm just doing something I learned to do in my newspaper
days....afflicting the comfortable.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f17.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Allen
Subject: Re: Say What ?!???
Date: 22 Mar 90 05:59:00 GMT
JD>If the only thing that came out of a UFO
investigation was a more open gvt, that alone would make it worth it.
As to
specific incidents, check out Jim Speisers list of the "Top Ten
@ Having a more open and honest govt would be a change..for the better.
Any sustaining investigation into the grey areas of the govt is bound
to get into the age old question of "who needs to know" and far too
often the response has been in the "interest of national security".
Which,in my mind,poses some interesting questions..
Like,how much and how far can a congressional probe go WITHOUT
invoking the sacred law of national security?
Would you consider that even if such a probe is launched...would
the outcome of the probe be revealed in whole to the general
public?
And if so, what kind of an impact would that most likely create?
I feel these are the kinds of questions that need to be put forth.
--
Don Allen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@f17.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f17.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Allen
Subject: Re: Richard Murray information packet
Date: 22 Mar 90 06:21:00 GMT
JS>Now, think of the situation in your
typical Congressman's office. He or she probably has about 15 to 20
letters
on his desk right now, DEMANDING a probe into everything from
abductions to
underground bases to George Bush's Trilateralist connections to the
Hole to
Hell. Lear and Cooper's "indictment" document is in that stack, along
with
Murray's letter and a few others I'm aware of. Congress simply can't
investigate every wacko claim that comes along, and the bigger the
stack, the
more they are probably laughing at us.
@ Good point Jim. There's just too many concerns and too little
time or resources to push in between all the *other* groups
demanding attention. Still,I feel we must continue to push fro
greater credibility,and use this time to "get it together".
Again,I will assert that I do understand the real need for some
quiet and work behind the scenes.
I also feel that at a later time, when things have formed up better,
that we *could* involve more people openly.
It's my belief that people want to be involved,and know what's going
on. And maybe act upon it.
The REAL power of this medium here is the ability to draw all of
that together. Look at the kinds of readership and coverage you
have now and in the future and the opportunities are endless.
Have you ever read or posted on the Libertarian echo? Lots of
people are active in that conference. It could be a good
sounding board.
--
Don Allen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@f17.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!John.Burke
Subject: Re: For Your Info
Date: 23 Mar 90 01:26:34 GMT
Jim: I read the review in the _IUR_ and it sounded great -- so I bought
te book. Looks like Jerry Clark picked up a trick from Willy Smith with
his Jaques Vallee/Jaques Vee dichotomy. Now we just have to find out
which Jerry Clark wrote the review <g>. Thanx! -- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!John.Burke
Subject: _Confrontations_
Date: 23 Mar 90 01:39:05 GMT
Clark: Thanx for the mini-review! (Good one, BTW!) I just picked up
the book & I'm going to start right into it. I'm only up to about pg.60
of Mr. Ed's book which I will continue to use as the wonderful cure for
insomnia which it is. (Let's just hope I don't drool on it before I send
it to Jim!) Thanx again -- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gene Gross <gross@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Subject: Science Fiction Come True
Date: 24 Mar 90 01:46:53 GMT
Howdy ya'll,
The following goes into the "For What It's Worth" column. The following
article comes from the April, 1990, issue of 'AI Expert' magazine's
Insider Notes column. I post it only for your consideration and make no
claims about anything.
RATS IMPLANTED WITH "NERVE CHIP"
Stanford University researchers implanted into a laboratory rat a
silicon chip riddled with tiny holes; nerve axons growing through these
holes can be individually accessed. The "nerve chip" is part of a
continuing project to create a chip containing active circuitry that
sends biological signals to artificial limbs. Researchers say
implantation of such a chip in humans is at least 10 years away.
Think of the possibilities. A rat with a computer enhanced brain!
Wonder where all of this will lead? Could we eventually find ourselves
offloading some of our brains "mundane" functions to a micro-minature
computer implanted within our bodies?
What does this hold in the way of discoveries for brain/mind
functioning? Will the mind grow to unheard of proportions with far
greater powers?
Science fiction is about to become science reality once again. Are
personality implants just around the corner?
Gene
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: isis!well.uucp!ddrasin (Dan Drasin)
Subject: (none)
Date: 24 Mar 90 03:17:54 GMT
Ballooning Speculations
-+ GB UFOs as hot-air balloons
Conceivable, but it sounds like a strategy guaranteed to attract an
awful lot of attention, and the righteous wrath of any number of
skeptical neighbors, police, etc. I'd also like to know how that
flame-like effect on the underside might have been produced -- kind of
like a downward-pointing, ring-shaped gas burner, with the flames
aimed in at about 45 degrees toward center. Very unusual, and in a
broad sense consistent with observations elsewhere of luminous forms
of energy unlike common light beams, etc. On the other hand, could it
in fact be a gas burner -- as in hot-air balloon? Possibly, although
the usual kind is *very* much smaller. Real flames that large would be
more hazardous than useful.
I, too, have noticed that most of the GB UFOs seem to pose at almost
the same relative angle to the camera. I haven't seen the book, but I
don't remember ever having seen a shot, say, straight up at the bottom
of one of the alleged craft. Proves nothing one way or another, of
course, but seems highly suspect. The shot that intrigues me most is
the road shot, in which the light from the bottom of the craft seems
to be reflecting off the road surface.
Another strange thing is the apparent evenness and flatness of
illumination on the GB craft's surface -- although who knows what
unheard-of qualities of illumination might be provided by a genuinely
extramundane technology? -- (or, for that matter, by putting a strong
lightbulb dead-center inside a large balloon).
One bad apple in a barrel of seamlessly fabricated pictures does sound
rather damning. (Just for curiosity's sake, contrast this with the
Meier case, in which the two "batches" of photos (mid-1970 and post-
1980) are in stark contrast with one another: the earlier ones have
all the characteristics of legitimacy and have never been successfully
debunked despite much technical and circumstantial research. The later
ones are so incredibly crude as to make any kind of sophisticated
analysis quite unnecessary.)
-+ Edmund's saucer balloons
I haven't seen them but I'll bet they look more like your typical
saucers than those "pressure-cookers from outer space" in the GB
photos. (Hmmm... maybe the *are* pressure-cookers from....)
=dd=
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: logajan@pnet51.orb.mn.org (John Logajan)
Subject: Photos that look like art objects
Date: 24 Mar 90 11:18:01 GMT
It just occurred to me that just because someone can produce a light fixture
that looks "exactly" like a UFO photo does not NECCESSARILY prove the UFO
photo is of a similar fixture. Obviously, just as a UFO photo can be faked,
so can a light fixture be created in the image of a UFO -- to discredit it.
This only holds (for probability reasons) if the light fixture in question is
a "one-of-a-kind" article and its manufactor cannot be traced. If there are
multiple copies of such fixtures, or it can be shown to have existed pre-UFO
picture etc, then the UFO picture is highly probable fake.
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!logajan
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!logajan@nosc.mil
INET: logajan@pnet51.cts.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f204.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Kurt.Lochner
Subject: Re: School?
Date: 22 Mar 90 09:12:00 GMT
SB Tell me a little more about it.
It ain't easy, but it worth the rewards....
*that's pretty little*
--
Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kurt.Lochner@f204.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Karen.Henderson
Subject: Re: Ufos
Date: 21 Mar 90 12:37:39 GMT
Thanks for the speech, Clark. Your welcome is appreciated.
--
Karen Henderson - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Karen.Henderson@f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Karen.Henderson
Subject: Re: Ufos
Date: 21 Mar 90 12:40:47 GMT
They believed that UFOs were our government's own secret planes. I
believe that like I believe the stealth story! I didn't plumb their
religious beliefs. They seemed pretty secure and narrow-minded in them.
Besides, it was a family gathering, and I didn't want to start
something I couldn't finish!
--
Karen Henderson - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Karen.Henderson@f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Novak
Subject: Re: Gulf Breeze
Date: 23 Mar 90 07:17:00 GMT
I happen to agree with you about the photos. They do look rather
shady.(sorry). However, so many people in the community seemed to be
involved, I can't just chalk it up to mass hysteria. Something was
going on there...unfortunately the photos don't prove it. Especially
the photo with the power lines and street light. Good observation
there.` (Earlier post). The story had interesting aspects and I guess
I'm saying shouldn't be written off because of questionable photos. I
think the remark the Mr. Maccabee made to you about the above mentioned
photo does cast some serious doubt on the situation, however.
--
John Novak - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Novak@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Novak
Subject: Re: Signals Leaving Earth; Book Publisher?
Date: 23 Mar 90 07:33:00 GMT
Hi, Linda. There is a book on the Philadelphia Experiment by William
Moore in consultation with Charles Berlitz called "The Philadelphia
Experiment:Project Invisibility. It is in paperback, published by
Ballantine Books (a Fawcett Crest Book). ISBN 0-449-21471-0. It does
include photos, but none of the S.S. Andrew Furuseth. It does have a
picture of Carl Allen's seaman's certificate with his photo.
--
John Novak - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Novak@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
'infopara' at the following address:
UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
ADMIN Address infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
{ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
