Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 259
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 259
Thursday, July 5th 1990
Today's Topics:
Traffic, again
Traffic reports..
More GB
Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
GB evidence chain
More GB
More GB
Re: More GB
Re: More GB
Re: GB PHOTOS
Re: CAMERAS
Re: TNN UFO SPECIAL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Traffic, again
Date: 4 Jul 90 20:15:00 GMT
Valid point, Jym. At one point I had suggested a new echo just for newcomers,
where no one would feel "dumb" (there's actually no reason to feel dumb in
this echo, and I think for the most part everyone's been very polite and
accomodating).
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Traffic reports..
Date: 4 Jul 90 20:19:00 GMT
Oh, come on, Kurt, I didn't mean for the veterans to shut up! :-)
IUR is the International UFO Reporter, the official organ of the Center for
UFO Studies. It comes out bi-monthly, and while its slightly flawed, its still
a damn sight more credible than most other publications.
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: More GB
Date: 4 Jul 90 20:24:00 GMT
>
> Makes me wonder- why are people going to such lengths to call Ed's
> picture a hoax, while not even giving thought to the possibility of the
> model being a "hoax" itself, designed to discredit Ed?
I'd give it some thought, if it weren't for a couple of things. First of all,
I keep hearing how the model is so far off the mark, that it bears little
resemblance to the object in Ed's photos. That's just not true, at least not
from the pictures I saw! It looks just like it to me! If its off in certain
details, they are not immediately obvious. So I am immediately suspicious of
anyone who tells me to ignore what I can see with my own eyes.
Second, I need a motive. I can't see why anyone, other than the government,
would want to discredit a UFO sighting. And if the government were involved,
don't you think they have the time and resources to come up with an EXACT
MATCH (assuming for the moment that this model is NOT an exact match)? Can't
have it both ways, gang!
On the other hand, if the construction drawing IS genuinely dated after the 87
sightings, maybe - MAYBE - we have a reverse hoax on our hands, and I'm
certainly willing to look at further evidence.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 4 Jul 90 20:54:00 GMT
Thanks for the thorough explanation of the light blasting process. I
don't think I have any Polaroids handy right now but I will take some
soon and try what you said. I'm not familiar with the "zone" business
but your explanation seems to make sense. Tis a pleasure to chat with
you on the subject.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: GB evidence chain
Date: 3 Jul 90 18:09:00 GMT
> 1) Do you happen to live in the area.
No, I live in central Florida. About 450 miles away.
> 2) Have you met Mr. Ed.
Yes, and we've had a few long conversations.
> 3) What was your impression of this whole situation in general.
My real impression is one of 'exceedingly high strangeness.'
Any number of hoax methods are workable, but no 'smoking gun' has
been found. And quite a few people are looking for that gun.
One factor that's not really commonly known is that now we have 140+
sighting reports in that area. A number of those are recent reports of
events that occured many years ago.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: More GB
Date: 3 Jul 90 18:12:01 GMT
> Is there anyway YOU can confirm this?
I suppose I could find the site plan numbers on the paper used in
the model, go to the Santa Rosa County Planning & Zoning office and
find the corresponding files, and check the dates. Another step would
be to find out who the house was designed for and ask that person when
the design was commissioned.
This stuff has been done by others. I believe what they say about
these things simply because they'd have to know the information would
be checkable by anyone willing to do the legwork.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: More GB
Date: 3 Jul 90 18:14:02 GMT
> Makes me wonder- why are people going to such lengths to call
> Ed's picture a hoax, while not even giving thought to the
> possibility of the model being a "hoax" itself, designed to
> discredit Ed?
Beats me. That's what debunkers do, I guess, for whatever reasons
they feel they have to debunk.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Komar@f26.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Komar)
Subject: Re: More GB
Date: 4 Jul 90 08:31:00 GMT
In a message to John Hicks <07-01-90 18:46> Tyson Mitchiner wrote:
TM=>Makes me wonder- why are people going to such lengths to
TM=>call Ed's picture a hoax, while not even giving thought to
TM=>the possibility of the model being a "hoax" itself,
TM=>designed to discredit Ed?
TM=> * Origin: ParaNet ALPHA-EPSILON(sm) WASHDC (1:109/134)
I'm with you! It's very easy to take shots without factoring in all
attributes of the situation.
Regards, John
--
John Komar - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Komar@f26.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: More GB
Date: 4 Jul 90 17:37:01 GMT
> It is possible that Tommy Smith thinks it is the same model but
> is mistaken. After all, it was two years ago when he would have
> last seen it wasn't it?
Possible. All we have to go on is what he said. I'd guess that now
he'd say it wasn't the same model, but that wouldn't do much good.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: GB PHOTOS
Date: 4 Jul 90 17:40:02 GMT
> The shutter on the Nimslo (the real one not the Nashika that is
> out now) is automatic exposure. I don't have the manual handy
> but I think it drops to 1/30 max.
That explains why the Nimslo got relatively sharp lights rather than
blurry blobs. Thanks.
> speed recording I have is 2564 (or was it ??? Kodak) and a
> surplus roll from the USAF. Both are grainy, and can be pushed
> quite far.
Kodak made 2475 and 2483, which was faster. P3200 pretty much
renders them obsolete.
BTW, I once had similar water problems, and a Culligan water
softener tank was the answer. Back then, it rented for $8 a month.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: CAMERAS
Date: 4 Jul 90 17:44:03 GMT
> Meanwhile the main point is that one person can get good photos
> almost whenever he want, yet it's very difficult to get one good
> one for most other people.
The point I was making about his cameras is that in the first case,
he was unconciously setting a shutter speed which, as luck would have
it, was in the ballpark. The other two types of cameras were limited
in long shutter speed and he couldn't have gotten a blurry blob no
matter how hard he tried.
Note that with an entirely different type of camera (the Canon) that
*can* automatically set a several-second exposure, he's getting the
same blurry blobs everyone else gets.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff.Ballard@f20.n3607.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jeff Ballard)
Subject: Re: TNN UFO SPECIAL
Date: 4 Jul 90 22:28:00 GMT
I'll get back with you after the weekend...I have to edit the segments down
to one tape.....
As for a source of good videos, get Jerry Woody to tell you about the UFO
Video Clearinghouse.......
--
Jeff Ballard - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jeff.Ballard@f20.n3607.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************************
