Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 252
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 252
Monday, June 25th 1990
Today's Topics:
CAMERAS
Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Ed Walters
CAMERAS
Stan Friedman
Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Ed Walters
Re: Arizona UFO's
GB pix
UFO DOCUMENTARIES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Pete.Porro
Subject: CAMERAS
Date: 20 Jun 90 16:14:33 GMT
I read one account that Ed used a twin 35mm camera rig for the paralax and
pseudo stereo. I have seen references to the Nimslo camera but is this in
fact one of the types he used? If so it gives the best effect on close
photos, after about 20 feet there is not much stereo effect. For anyone who
does not know what is happening here, the Nimslo type camera takes four half
frame photos at one time, processing is done only by them, it is sliced and a
lens (thin sheet of plastic) is placed over the photo. Nice trick! If you see
one of these it looks like you can stick your finger into the photo etc.
Meanwhile back to GB photos. I know I read that there were assorted cameras
tried, I believe the Polaroids provided the good clear photos. If anyone can
add to this, I wondered if anyone else has any knowledge of any other clear
photos provided by anyone other than ED?
Possibility: Whoever made the model, had it hidded in the roof structure and
forgot it was under the insulation when they moved out. Didn't anyone ever
hide something inside their own place and forget where they hid it? Did
anyone ever move and discover they left things up in the rafters? Oh well
just some thoughts.
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 22 Jun 90 17:02:01 GMT
> John: The thing that really makes me suspicious about those
> "Shoreline Park" photos is that even though there were
> "witnesses" in the area (Duane Cook from the Sentinel -- and his
> wife -- and at least one other person) *noone* saw the UFO that
> Ed photographed. I think it was Duane who had occaision to
> actually see the camera flash -- without seeing *any* UFO.
> So we have "eyewitnesses" but what did they witnesses? --
We have six witnesses in addition to Ed and Frances. Duane and Dari
were driving away only to turn around and head back, while the others
were for all practical purposes *hiding* behind a restroom building.
Ed was hiding in a clump of bushes so that anyone who wandered up
wouldn't pester him.
Anyway, based on where the witnesses said they were, and where Ed
said he was, they couldn't see him or the ufo because their view was
blocked by the building and trees. They could, however, see the
treetops above Ed.
When he fired the flashes, they saw the flashes against the
treetops. All the witnesses said they saw the flashes light the
treetops, but didn't see a ufo.
All they actually witnessed was the film being loaded into the
cameras, the flashes going off, and then the pictures developing. That
the pictures they saw developed was the same film that was loaded into
the cameras was verified. There's no way to swap a previously-prepared
filmpack for what was loaded without resetting film counters *and*
having a different serial number.
According to the witneses, there was only a couple of minutes Ed and
Frances were alone, hence no time to hang or otherwise fiddle with
models etc. Placement of models or turning the tripod would have to be
*exact* or the stereo effect of the two cameras would give it away.
So, although the witnesses didn't see a ufo, they do provide
confirmation that the film loaded into the cameras wasn't prepared in
advance, that the filmpacks weren't switched, that there was no time
to mess with models etc., and that whatever appeared in the developing
pictures is what Ed photographed when he fired the cameras.
Either that or all present were in on a hoax, and there's no
evidence at all toward that.
If you can figure out a feasible way to hoax that incident, we're
all listening. My brain's tired. ;-)
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Ed Walters
Date: 22 Jun 90 20:50:00 GMT
> drawings are of was not designed or built until about 2 years
> after the pictures were taken. He says that he can prove this
> by statements by the house's owners.
Anyone have independent confirmation of this?
> After having his son
> tell him all this stuff, the father goes and tells the
> athorities that the pics are fake based on what he has been told
> by his son.
Same story I've heard. Also that the father and son are anonymous.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: CAMERAS
Date: 23 Jun 90 07:33:03 GMT
> I read one account that Ed used a twin 35mm camera rig for the
> paralax and pseudo stereo. I have seen references to the Nimslo
> camera but is this in fact one of the types he used? If so it
> gives the best effect on close photos, after about 20 feet there
> is not much stereo effect.
A Nimslo was in fact used. Maccabee used the images from the outer
lenses as the baseline for his parallax measurements.
He reached the conclusion that the baseline was long enough for
calcualtions of distance out to about 20 feet, but no farther. He did
calculate, though, that the object photographed with the Nimslo was
more than 20 feet away.
As far as clear photos, I've noticed one thing in common among many
of the other folks who've taken ufo photos which show blurs and
streaks.
They usually have their cameras loaded with fairly slow film; that
is, ISO 400 or slower. Also, since they don't have the foggiest idea
of what a proper exposure would be, they just leave the camera's
autoexposure system set on automatic. The camera meter "sees" all that
black sky, ignores the tiny light, and automatically gives an exposure
of several seconds duration. Also, the cameras are just about always
handheld.
The result is a large blur and/or a streak. Ed got the exact same
results with his new camera, which is a Canon A1 with a long zoom
lens.
According to Maccabee, Ed was unconciously setting an exposure of
about 1/2 to 1 1/2 seconds with his old Polaroid simply by the way he
was pressing and releasing the shutter button. The shape of the
Polaroid makes it fairly easy to handhold for those durations. The
pictures aren't all that incredibly sharp, but not bad. That is,
they're not as sharp as the camera is capable of.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Tim.Hamewka
Subject: Stan Friedman
Date: 23 Jun 90 18:09:07 GMT
If anyone has been wondering what ol' Stan has been up to, you can call
1-900-USA-UFOS. It seems that he is the spokesperson for a toll line
called THE UFO LINE. It's president is someone named Ryan Wood.
According to the newspaper article, you can call up and hear about some
of the latest sightings and other UFO related material. I'll try to get
the entire article typed up and put on some of the BBSs in case anyone
is interested.
--
Tim Hamewka - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Tim.Hamewka@f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 22 Jun 90 06:34:00 GMT
>
> I was sure I'd figured it out a few times, but I wasn't as smart as I
> thought I was. ;-)
> I'm willing to admit to not being smart enough. The real problem with
> Ed's pictures is that most of them could have been faked while some are
> real head-scratchers, and no smoking gun has turned up. Just about once
> a day I think I've figured it out, for about five minutes.
You seem to be at the stage I was at only a few months ago. "It CAN'T be
true...no, wrong attitude, it COULD be true, I'm only saying that because
we're not used to getting so many close-up shots....but these look fake...but
how did he do the road shot?...but why didn't he get any shots of the
aliens?...On the other hand, what about the other witnesses?..." and on and on
and on. I sympathise with ya, John, its a tough nut to crack. I think you have
to take a step back and look at the whole thing, especially Ed's overall
behavior and demeanor, and the consistency of his tale and the reports from
the investigators. Something is definitely not right here. Just the fact that
MUFON came out with that mickey mouse position statement only two days after
the model was discovered, tells me that something is rotten in the state of
Denmark. They didn't sound like anything approaching objective investigators,
they sounded more like President Bush expressing support for John Tower.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Ed Walters
Date: 23 Jun 90 07:31:00 GMT
Thanks for that report, John.
The only thing I can add at this point is that I talked to the reporter, Craig
Meyers<?> and he said he went to the house on a lark (and NOT on a "tip") to
see if the owners might have found anything. The owners had ALREADY found the
model in the attic a few weeks before his visit, and they produced it for him
immediately.
Much can be read into this scenario, but for now I am taking it at face value.
I have been given no reason to suspect the reporter or the homeowner of any
duplicity.
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!Mike.Wheeler
Subject: Re: Arizona UFO's
Date: 23 Jun 90 15:07:00 GMT
Yes, I have, although I haven't heard that much about him. One of the
reasons I am most interested in the Childs area is that one time I was
traveling in that area with my wife and a friend, and we were looking out at
a large, deep canyon called Fossil Creek. Right at the bottom of this
canyon was a large brown circle in the middle of a very green field. To
this day we have wondered what that was, and I wish I had had a good
telephoto lens on my camera, as it was I took a picture but it can hardly be
made out. It was after this that my mom reminded me of some of the stories
about Childs and this area in general, and of some of the things my dad
talked about.
?
--
Mike Wheeler - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mike.Wheeler@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: GB pix
Date: 23 Jun 90 21:35:01 GMT
I have come up with a method by which Ed's pictures 36L and 36R
could have been hoaxed. There is, however, no evidence that points
toward a hoax.
I had a very long conversation with Bruce Maccabee this morning, and
he agrees that my hoax method is workable. We now have a situation in
which every one of Ed's ufo pictures could be hoaxed. Not very easily,
but could be.
I'd also discovered a factor that may have nailed an unwitting
hoaxer dead, but concrete evidence satisfied the requirements of that
factor to *not* prove a hoax.
Recently a person has said publicly that he helped Ed hoax pictures,
and the person has, at least privately, shown some ufo pictures.
Maccabee said he has some of the pictures. He said that he has
disproved the hoax method described by the person on eight technical
points. In other words, the pictures the person presented *could not*
have been hoaxed the way the person said they were.
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.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZAK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: UFO DOCUMENTARIES
Date: 25 Jun 90 19:18:45 GMT
-+From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Pete.Porro
-+ Speaking of films, I know there are many ufo films and videos out there. I
-+ have not seen more than 10. Is there a list or a clearing house for maybe
-+ circulating some of these from person to person for viewing? I saw the ad for
-+ the Billy M films (three parts?) in an American Express flyer. The price was
-+ too much for my budget, has anyone got some reviews of the best films or
-+ videos to look for?
I have a monster catalogue from a video store in Pennsylvania. When I was
at the store, I noticed a number of UFO documentaries on the shelves, and
I've been trying to remember to either photocopy the page or write down the
titles and the ordering address for my father for some time.
Thanks for reminding me! I'll send the info along soon!
********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************************
