Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 253
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 253
Tuesday, June 26th 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: CAMERAS
Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Satellites and secrecy
GB pix
Re: GB pix
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: CAMERAS
Date: 24 Jun 90 06:27:00 GMT
My understanding of the Mr. Ed cameras is that ED started out with an
older Polaroid with the pull apart film and latter got a newer
"instant" one part film type Polaroid. Since everyone pretty much
agreed that there were no controlls at all on the photos Ed was popping
out he was first given a Nimslo 35 mm and from what I have read, he was
unable to take any photos with that camera that showed anything onther
then some fuzzy lights unlike any previous photos he had taken. Then
he was given a jury-rigged contraption that is refered to as a SRS
Camera (Self Referenceing Stereo Camera). It sounds pretty impressive
but as I understand it it was simply two Sure Shoot (or similar)
Polaroid Cameras that were mounted on the ends of a stick; kind of a
giant Nimslo BUT unlike the Nimslo, the film was not nearly as well
controlled since the cameras could not be sealed the way the Nimsol was
plus it is possilbe that the stick could have been bowed either in our
out to change the "fixed" perspective that the SRS supposedly had. The
Nimslo was the ONLY camera and film that could not be messed with and
it was the ONLY time that Ed seemed to be stymied in getting pictures
of the "Classic" Mr ED UFO. If MUFON wanted to be a cheerleader for ED
they should have insisted that he only use a sealed 35 mm camera that
was preloaded by others and unloaded by others and processed by others.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 24 Jun 90 06:46:00 GMT
Why was Ed using a Flash to take photos of something flying in the
sky?? On my Polaroid, putting the flash on it completely changes the
photocell operation so that it would not properly expose anything in
the distance because it is expecting a flash exposure of something
within 20 feet or so. I have tried to take night photos with my
polaroid and all I get is Black. How do you suppose Ed manages to get
photos of something so far away and with a flash attached? It makes
absoultelly no sense to me. Has Mufon, or any one even tried to
duplicate these night shots that Ed seems so good at getting of UFO's?
I'm mystified that there seems to be no attempt at verifying that a
person can even take the kind of photos ED takes even if the subject is
simply an airplane, much less a UFO. If MUFON or Macabbe has done such
a study I have not heard anyone talk about it yet it would seem like an
absolute necessity if one is going to "rule" on the validity of the
photos.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Satellites and secrecy
Date: 26 Jun 90 04:58:57 GMT
James Roger Black and Michael Corbin:
According to my 'studies' with a multi-satellite tracker (I have 370
orbital elements of artifical satellites graphically displayed on either
a world map or local 'radar') at least 10 percent of all artifical satellites
are above your LOCAL HORIZON at any given time.
Futhermore, most earth-study satellites ARE in polar orbits. But satellites
can and do cross one's sky from literally any angle.
Finally, I witnessed (on my simulator) three satellites in tight triangular
formation pass directly overhead. And I have seen many 'twin' satellites
(orbits so close that the merge into one blip (30 miles wide) on my
screen and stay merged for long periods.) Some are actually rendezvouing
craft.
Gary Knight:
Stanton Friedman used to make a big deal of his work on nuclear rocket
engines. His big claim was that he was unable to reveal the actual
success they obtained due to security restricitions. He hinted that
they were quite successful. But he used this to illustrate that the
government CAN keep secrets.
John Finney (and everyone else):
A new book available from the Center for UFO studies is called Gulf Breeze
Double Exposed, by Zan Overall. Apparently, less than a year before the
first of Ed Walter's Gulf Breeze UFO photos, Ed would entertain the local
teenagers by taking pictures of them at birthday parties and seances
in which 'ghosts' would appear next to the "Chosen One." Apparenlty one
of these photos still exists and some of the teenagers have given
testimony. The 'ghost-demon' photo is included in Zan's book.
Someone (talking about triangular UFOs):
The May/June 1990 issue of IUR (International UFO Reporter) shows two photos
from a decade and a half apart by two different people (one in Japan and
one in Hawaii) that appear to be nearly identical and with a pronouced
diamond shape rim around a spherical body. From the proper viewing angle,
the diamond shape does appear triangular.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: GB pix
Date: 25 Jun 90 15:01:00 GMT
> We're then forced to conclude that the pictures are real, and that the
> person is sustaining a lie he told two years ago. To clarify, the person
> apparently took real pictures and then lied that they were fake, for
> personal reasons.
>
John, you are only forced to conclude that if you assume that Maccabee is (a)
infallible and (b) unbiased. Much as I respect Maccabee, I no longer think (a)
and (b) are supportable assumptions. Try as I might, I cannot see how a sane
person, especially a youngster, would take REAL UFO photos and then try to
pass them off as fakes. In the whole history of Ufology, I don't believe
that's ever even been claimed before. Its so against the grain of logic, that
I think its more reasonable to conclude that the photos ARE fake, and that for
some reason, Maccabee is not seeing the forest for the trees.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: GB pix
Date: 26 Jun 90 04:06:00 GMT
I'm afraid GB has reached the point with the "believers" that if a real
UFO were to land but it didn't look like the ones in ED's photos the
aliens would be accused of working for Klass and sent on their way.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@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************************
