Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 255
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 255
Sunday, July 1st 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
UFO VIDEOS
GB pix
Re: Ed Walters/camera
Re: CAMERAS
Re: Ed Walters/camera
GB photos
GB photos
GB photos
GB Photos
GB Photos
Re: Ed Walters/camera
Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Ed Walters
Ed Walters
Re: CAMERAS
Traffic
Traffic, again
Crop Circles Revealed?
Re: Ed Walters/camera
Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Re: GB PHOTOS
GB evidence chain
More GB
Re: GB PHOTOS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton
Subject: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 27 Jun 90 22:06:00 GMT
RE: Buy a camera and give it to ED
>>Would I be willing to do that?
Yes, if I was MUFON, supposedly a reasonalbly professional
organization, and I was investigating something that was supposed to be
one of the premier cases of the decade, I think I might be willing to
spring for a camera, say an autofocus, autowind for around $150. I
would think an antitampering lock could be added without much more then
some cosmetic degradation to the case. It's not like MUFON's
investment in the camera would be out the window, presumably they would
get it back at some future date.
I'm mystified by the light blasting explanation. I don't see how you
get detail out of ink black no matter how much light you shine on it.
Have you actually seen this technique demonstrated or is it just
something you have had described to you and you are passing it on. If
holding it up to the sunlight would bring out the details on a
photograph, they it ought to bring out the details right then and there
to the human eyes. I've never seen a dark picture that worked that way
when I've taken underexposed photo's. It also seems odd that the
extremely dark parts get so light but the already light parts don't see
to get that much brighter. It would seem that the already light parts
would become blindingly bright to the point of loosing virtually ALL of
the detail in that area.
As far as the Nimslo, what you have said convinces me even more that
the photos from it were hoaxed. If there was evident parallax and the
parallax would not be evident more then 30 to 50 feet away then the
object would have to have been withing 50 feet of ED. Hard to
reconcile that it was within 50 feet but had such tiny and dim lights.
Sounds very much to me like ED rigged up some christmas lights and took
a photo of them from across the yard or someting. Certainly doesn't
sound like a photo of a large object up in the sky since if that was
the situation there should be no parallax at all evident. It still
strikes me that the only camera ED had that he could not monkey with
points rather nicely to the whole thing being a hoax.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZAK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: UFO VIDEOS
Date: 28 Jun 90 15:17:48 GMT
I turned up the following films in a catalogue I have (which are
available on videotape [in VHS format only] from
Movies Unlimited, Inc.
6736 Castor Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19149
1-800-523-0823 (24-hour order line)
1-215-722-8398 (customer service; 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. [EST])
1-215-725-3683 (FAX)
The descriptions of the films below are verbatim from their
catalogue. I cannot personally recommend any of the films
because I haven't seen them. (NOTE--A videodisc
catalogue is also available.)
The Real E.T.
'Is anybody out there?' Peter Ustinov hosts an
engrossing documentary produced by Omni magazine
that looks at the search of life on other worlds,
the persistent claims of 'close encounters,' and
the possible colonization of space by Earth. 40
min.
64-3139 $12.95
UFOs and Channelling
Who better than Captain James T. Kirk to take you
into outer space and across the astral plane? Join
William Shatner for a video investigation into
sightings of 'flying saucers' and
extraterrestrials, and a look at the growing
interest in 'trance-channelling.' 60 min.
16-9013 $39.95
Overlords of the U.F.O.
Examine the incredible-but-true stories of men and
women who have been kidnapped by extraterrestrials
and the amazing reasons behind this frightening
secret invasion.
08-1438 $29.95
Who's Out There?
Are extraterrestrials really out there? Or are
they figments of sci-fi lovers' imaginations?
Orson Welles hosts this look at outer space life,
offering some amazing evidence you won't find
anywhere else!
50-1219 $19.95
UFOs: It Has Begun
Hosts Rod Serling, Burgess Meredith, and Jose Ferrer
present astounding evidence of the existence of UFOs
and examine the reasons behind determined coverup by
our government.
08-1439 $29.95
Encounter With the Unknown
Rod Serling ('Twilight Zone') narrates this dramatization
of three frightening real-life events. 90 min.
08-1204 $59.95
U.F.O....The Unsolved Mystery
Tens of thousands of people have seen then, including
a former president of the United Staes. Host Mike
Farrell takes a look at the history of unidentified
flying objects using actual government reports,
eyewitness accounts, and purported photographs and
film footage.
54-5048 $19.95
UFOs
Part of the series _Secrets of the Unknown_ hosted by
Edward Mulhare ('The Ghost and Mrs. Muir'). Is Earth
regularly visited by beings from beyond our world? Are
we the subjects of alien scientific studies?
50-6339 $14.95
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: GB pix
Date: 27 Jun 90 06:35:02 GMT
> John, you are only forced to conclude that if you assume that
> Maccabee is (a) infallible and (b) unbiased.
The story, as yet unconfirmed but from several sources, is that the
kid's parents are Bible-thumping religious fundamentalists.
The kid apparently first told them he'd photographed what Ed had
photographed, and when the parents freaked out, the kid changed his
story.
So now he has to decide whether to support that first lie, or what.
So the story goes.
I understand what you're saying about Maccabee. Remember, though,
that he's talking on the sorta-straightforward technical level. He
said that the kid said the ufo was supported on a black pole through
the center, but there's no gap in the 'power ring' as there would be
if the back side of it was blocked by a black pole.
See what I mean?
He said his study on the kid's claims will be available at the
symposium, so I'll be sure and get a copy.
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: Re: Ed Walters/camera
Date: 27 Jun 90 06:36:03 GMT
> You mean the nobody has ever seen those $5.95 128mm
I truly hope you're kidding. What are the manufacturing tolerances
of _cardboard_?
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: Re: CAMERAS
Date: 27 Jun 90 06:43:04 GMT
> Lucas Axhandle with an instamatic couldn't get a
> good photo of a semi driving past in a lighted highway, how can
> we be getting so many UFO photos with details like windows? I'd
> believe a pattern of dots as being real before anything with a
> cabin, landing gear, or all that sort of feature. The point is,
> it's not easy to get a good UFO photograph to start with.
I've been fiddling shooting aircraft lights at night. ISO 1600 film,
350 f2.8 lens on a fluid-head tripod. 1/60 gets enough exposure for
the lights, but my hit-rate for sharpness is about ten percent. Of
course, we're really pushing the limits here.
With a shorter lens, that hit rate would be somewhat better.
Of course, with a normal lens, they'd just about all be sharp tiny
dots.
Even caught illuminated windows in a few shots. Looked very odd, but
*nothing* like Ed's Nimslo pictures.
Don't get the wrong idea now, folks. ;-)
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!p100.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Kurt.Lochner
Subject: Re: Ed Walters/camera
Date: 27 Jun 90 17:34:56 GMT
>
> I truly hope you're kidding. What are the
> manufacturing tolerances of _cardboard_?
>
> jbh
I'm pretty sure that the tolerances involved in using
a couple of those cheap box camera are well within
usable ranges, they're not easy to tamper with and
could be used effectively for a stereo pictures.
No, I'm not kidding, I'm taking Optics this summer.
--
Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kurt.Lochner@p100.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: GB Photos
Date: 27 Jun 90 18:12:00 GMT
> You mentioned on CompuServe that you might have come up with a
> method whereby photos 36L and 36R could conceivably have been
> faked. You said that you didn't want to waste everyone's connect
> time there with a lengthy explanation. Would it be possible for
> you to go into detail here, perhaps in an upload?
Yep, I did figure out a workable way. I talked with Maccabee about
it voice and he agreed that, yes, it would work. Both of us agree that
there's no proof, though.
I'll try to put it in a coherent form and post it.
> Also, you mentioned that you believe Maccabee, simply because it
> would be possible for you to duplicate his measurements and
> procedures. Have you made any attempt to do so, and if so, what
> were your findings? If not, would it be possible for you to
> check a few of his calculations, just for safety's sake?
I'm not enough of a mathematician to duplicate his calculations, but
I do understand the principles involved. However, he does present his
work in such a way that anyone who knows how could verify or
invalidate his results.
For the parallax calculations, for instance, he's figured distances
within a range. The range is necessary because of the non-rigidity of
the SRS. To me, what's important is that the center of each image is
wider apart than the lens axes. If the centers are very wide, we're
looking at an object up close, while if the centers are very close to
the axes, we're looking at an object far away. Exactly how close or
far away, I don't have the math knowlege to figure, but given the
distance between the lens axes and the distance between the image
centers in relation to the lens axes, someone who knows how *could*
calculate it.
So far as I know, his calculations haven't been called into
question.
From eyeballing the image pairs, I can say that we're not looking at
something really close or extremely far away. In no case are we seeing
something too far away to measure parallax, and with the SRS that
range is out to about 2,000 feet. With the Nimslo, parallax is
measurable to about 60 feet, but not with any precision past maybe 40
feet.
Any of these image pairs could be faked, though, by someone who can
figure out exactly how far to move a model for each photo of the pair,
or who can figure out exactly how far to rotate a tripod for each
shot. The margin of error for model movement or tripod rotation is
very small for the object size at the calculated distance to be
consistent with the object size as determined from other photos. And
the size of each object seems to be consistent from photo to photo at
varying calculated distances.
Since I've mentioned models, I've been fiddling around.
I've been photographing a variety of airplanes, from Cessnas to 747s
at various distances. I got some odd-looking stuff, but all are
clearly recognizable as airplanes. Also, it's mighty hard to do and
get reasonably sharp.
My real point is that whatever appears in the Nimslo photos probably
isn't an airplane, as has been suggested. In order for it to be an
airplane, its lights would have to be *much brighter* than the lights
of any airplane coming into Orlando Executive Airport or Orlando
International for several nights running.
The closest I've come is a 747, but the landing and running lights
are *much brighter* than the cabin lights, even when the airplane is
going away, and we don't see that in the Nimslo photos.
I've been using ISO 1600 film with a 350 f2.8 lens, while the Nimslo
was loaded with ISO 1000 film and has normal-focal-length f2.8 lenses,
I believe.
I think that in order for Ed to have photographed an airplane, he
would have had to have been flying alongside, and the subject airplane
would have to have running and landing lights turned off. Feasible,
but not very probable.
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: GB photos
Date: 27 Jun 90 19:11:00 GMT
Know what just occured to me?
In order to photograph a model, we need a large (at least 30 feet
long) dark area.
How about a house under construction out in the boonies?
Large empty room, no electric lights nearby (darkness), no one
wandering around, and if Ed is caught there, so what. He's the
builder.
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: GB photos
Date: 27 Jun 90 19:15:01 GMT
It finally occured to me what the Nimslo object resembles. A
twin-rotor (fore 'n' aft) helicopter.
And if I was actually photographing a model (from a hobby kit) of
such a helicopter, I could put a light inside, and cover up what I
didn't want light to shine through or put a hole where I want light.
Why a model kit? Easy to get basic shape, window holes already there
etc.
And if I do this out in the boonies, no one will notice, and there's
no extraneous light.
Interesting the the color of the lights that appear in the photo is
rather yellowish-orange, roughly the same as if you photograph an
incandescent light with daylight-balanced film.
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: GB photos
Date: 27 Jun 90 19:17:00 GMT
I've just been kind of rambling. The fact is that *every one* of
Ed's photos has a workable hoax theory now, but there's no proof of a
hoax.
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: GB Photos
Date: 28 Jun 90 01:54:00 GMT
> You mentioned on CompuServe that you might have come up with a
> method whereby photos 36L and 36R could conceivably have been
> faked.
OK, here goes. I've loaned out my copy of the book, so I'm
more-or-less running on memory of what the pictures look like. I do
have a copy of Maccabee's analysis. My goal is to fake 36L and 36R. I
have show witnesses developing Polaroid pictures of a ufo that they
didn't see.
First, I need three cameras. The two Polaroid Sun 600 cameras on
the SRS, and a third similar camera that we don't see. Also, I need
four filmpacks; two of one emulsion batch and one of another batch.
The batch numbers can be found on the boxes and on the back of each
picture.
One night, whenever I feel like it, probably late so I can
be sure I won't be seen, I pick my spot at Shoreline Park and then,
using one of the cameras, doesn't matter which, I take a shot of the
dark sky with a bush in the foreground. This will be my L camera
shot.
(note: since I don't have the pictures to look at, I can't
remember if the bush is in the L or R shot, but it doesn't make any
difference)
I don't let that picture be ejected and run through the
rollers, therefore it just stays in the camera and doesn't get
developed.
When I get to wherever I'm going to photograph a model or
whatever, in the dark, I pull that filmpack and reinsert the
cardboard cover sheet. Now I can handle the filmpack in the light.
Now, in my..er..studio, I set up the SRS rig. I've calculated how far
I have to turn the tripod away from perpendicular to the model to get
the proper amount of parallax effect. (not me personally, but it can
be done)
I insert the filmpack which includes the pre-exposed bush in
the L camera and the cover sheet is automatically ejected. If I
hadn't stuck the sheet back in, the bush photo would have been
ejected. I insert another filmpack in the R camera.
I rotate the SRS counterclockwise and take the L picture, and prevent that
one from ejecting. I then rotate the SRS clockwise and take the R picture and
prevent that from ejecting. I now have a stereo pair of ufo pictures
which display a reasonable amount of parallax (reasonable distance)
and one even has an overexposed bush in the foreground to lend credibility.
In the dark, I pull out both filmpacks, noting which
emulsion batch was loaded into what camera. I slide out the R
picture, put it into the L filmpack, and slide the cover sheet back
in. I can now handle this pack in the light.
Now, sometime later, I
go to my spot at Shoreline Park with an assortment of other people to
look for ufos. As luck would have it, it's a cold windy night, so
they probably won't hang around very long. A witness opens two new
film packages (which I brought) and notes the emulsion batch numbers.
I make sure I insert the pack in the L camera that has a matching
number with the L photo I already made, and the other pack goes into
the other camera. The reason for the care with the numbers is that
all prints in a filmpack have the same number, which matches the
number on the box. Any number of boxes of film with the same batch
number can be purchased. However, the ufo photo I show as having come
out of the L camera must have the same batch number of the pack that
was loaded, or I'm caught.
So, anyway, I'm sitting there with the SRS cameras loaded, and all
these people are hanging around. I take a couple of test and souvenir
pictures and one of the witnesses keeps track of the film counter of
each camera.
Eventually, since nothing's happening, the extraneous people decide
to leave.
Here's where the third camera comes in. I have disabled or covered
the flash, and I've covered the lens, so all I'm using this camera for
is to run the film through the rollers and start development at the
proper time. The third camera is hidden in a box, bag or in my wife's
large purse. After all, who's going to insist on looking in my wife's
purse?
Two of the witnesses have gotten in their car and headed away. I
didn't hear any other car, so the other people are still around
somewhere. They walked? Well, they couldn't have walked very far yet.
I'm so well-concealed that I know they can't see me directly.
I fish out the third camera and fire it twice, starting the ufo
pictures to developing. I then fire each SRS camera once, just for
the flashes. I stick those resulting blank pictures in a pocket so no
one will see them.
I figure the witnesses are nearby, so I run out of the bushes to my
truck and turn on the headlights. If the witnesses are nearby, I've
attracted their attention.
ThThe witnesses gather and watch the pictures develop before their
very eyes. They saw the flashes, and since the pictures are
developing, the pictures were just taken, right? No one has seen a
third camera, and no one will.
Q - "How come we didn't see the ufo?"
A - "You weren't looking in the right direction. Besides, it was there
only for an instant."
I've had plenty of time in my "studio" to photograph a model or
projection at my leisure. Since I or someone I know has enough
mathematical knowlege to calculate the appropriate parallax I need to
show, I can either move the model the right distance parallel to the
film plane or I can rotate the tripod the appropriate number of
degrees. This is important so that the object won't appear too big or
too small.
I don't need the collusion of any of the witnesses, so I know none
of them have any beans to spill. I only needed for them to leave me
alone for at least 15 seconds.
If they hadn't remained around, I just would have had two more
pictures to show the next day, so nothing would have been lost.
The emulsion batch number of the L picture matches the L filmpack,
and the R number matches the R pack, so that lends credibility.
Since I actually shot two blank pictures with the SRS and hid the
pictures while presenting two more, the film counters show two shots
exposed.
Why did I run out to my truck? Well, my flashlight didn't work. Why
not? That's a mystery, isn't it.
********************
I talked Maccabee through this a couple of times, and he agreed that
it would work. We both, however, are in agreement that the fact that
36L and 36R could have been hoaxed are all it shows. It is not in any
way proof of a hoax.
Opinions?
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: Re: Ed Walters/camera
Date: 29 Jun 90 07:04:00 GMT
> I'm pretty sure that the tolerances involved in using
> a couple of those cheap box camera are well within
> usable ranges, they're not easy to tamper with and
> could be used effectively for a stereo pictures.
I'll try to remember to bounce it off Maccabee for his comments. I
talked with him about using a Stereo Realist camera for the same
thing, and he was very interested, but the cost of the camera is a
definite factor.
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: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 29 Jun 90 07:28:01 GMT
> Yes, if I was MUFON, supposedly a reasonalbly professional
> organization, and I was investigating something that was
> supposed to be one of the premier cases of the decade, I think I
> might be willing to spring for a camera, say an autofocus,
> autowind for around $150.
Interesting. You've just suggested a camera that would either be
limited in long-exposure capability (as some are) or would
automatically give a very long exposure (seconds). You'd either get
nothing (drastic underesposure) or you'd get what lots of folks have
gotten; blurry blobs and streaks.
The usual wide-angle lens wouldn't help.
What I think you really want is a camera (autofocus ok) with at
least a medium telephoto and a manually-set shutter speed. The vast
exposure latitude of modern negative films would cover overexposure
well, and you'd just have to pray in the case of underexposure.
> I would think an antitampering lock
> could be added without much more then some cosmetic degradation
> to the case. It's not like MUFON's investment in the camera
> would be out the window, presumably they would get it back at
> some future date.
That is perfectly reasonable.
> I'm mystified by the light blasting explanation.
Anything above d-max is going to become visible if enough light is
passed through the print material. In fact, any print emulsion is
actually a transparency on a reflective substrate, such as the print
paper.
If there's enough exposure to get any of the emulsion grains to be
developable, they will develop density (or lack of density, in the
case of Polaroid positives) and that density difference can be made
visible by shining a bright enough light through the back of the print.
Forget neg/pos printing and think in terms of positive
transparencies, in which exposure causes *less* density than no
exposure.
> Have you actually seen this technique demonstrated
> or is it just something you have had described to you and you
> are passing it on.
Maccabee told me how it was done, then I tried it myself.
> If holding it up to the sunlight would bring
> out the details on a photograph, they it ought to bring out the
> details right then and there to the human eyes. I've never seen
> a dark picture that worked that way when I've taken underexposed
> photo's.
Think transparency positive originals! Take a dark slide and look at
it against reflected room light. Mighty dark, right? Now project it and
see if you don't see lots more detail.
> It also seems odd that the extremely dark parts get so
> light but the already light parts don't see to get that much
> brighter. It would seem that the already light parts would
> become blindingly bright to the point of loosing virtually ALL
> of the detail in that area.
Why would the light detail vanish? You're looking at sunlight
through a piece of white paper. If you're making a copy photo, use
low-contrast duping film. BTW, a long dupe exposure would accomplish
much the same thing.
> As far as the Nimslo, what you
> have said convinces me even more that the photos from it were
> hoaxed. If there was evident parallax and the parallax would
> not be evident more then 30 to 50 feet away then the object
> would have to have been withing 50 feet of ED.
Maccabee said more than 20 feet and less than 60.
> Hard to
> reconcile that it was within 50 feet but had such tiny and dim
> lights. Sounds very much to me like ED rigged up some christmas
> lights and took a photo of them from across the yard or
> someting.
I don't think so. It has some light features which clearly aren't
point-sources. More like reflections. What, I don't know.
I can think of a way to photograph an airplane so it would look
similar, but sunlight and weather conditions would have to be exactly
right, and it still would be more than 60 feet away.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f701.n362.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Finney
Subject: Ed Walters
Date: 27 Jun 90 00:15:35 GMT
> > 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.
Ed was naming names in the radio interview, but i don't remember what they were.
john
--
John Finney - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Finney@f701.n362.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Ed Walters
Date: 30 Jun 90 06:38:00 GMT
> Ed was naming names in the radio interview, but i don't remember
> what they were.
Tom and Tommy Smith, I think. At least one of them is named Tom
Smith.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: Re: CAMERAS
Date: 29 Jun 90 05:14:00 GMT
> > Lucas Axhandle with an instamatic couldn't get a
> > good photo of a semi driving past in a lighted highway, how can
> > we be getting so many UFO photos with details like windows? I'd
> > believe a pattern of dots as being real before anything with a
> > cabin, landing gear, or all that sort of feature. The point is,
> > it's not easy to get a good UFO photograph to start with.
Pete, that's a double-edged argument, which makes it unwinnable. On the one
hand there are those who ask, "How come after all this time nobody's got any
clear pictures of a UFO?" Then when someone produces some, we get asked, "how
come when everyone else is getting blurs and blobs, this guy manages to come
up with something so sharp?" Obviously I'm skeptical of Gulf Breeze, but not
because the images are so clear. To me, its inevitable that someone's bound
to come up with a clear photo of a TRUFO at some point. I just don't think
it's Ed.
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: Traffic
Date: 30 Jun 90 05:51:00 GMT
What the heck is going on here, people? Here we have the largest network of
its kind in the world, we have new events taking place every day in the field,
we have the most interesting subject matter of any BBS network, yet in the
last 24 hours there was only one message, network wide? Come on! Let's get a
real debate going.
Bill English has posted something on that other UFO echo about a major
sighting in Russia, so big that the Ministerski of Defenski went on TV about
it. Why is that not posted here? Has anyone else heard anything *reliable*
about this sighting?
The latest IUR features a story on two UFO photos taken 15 years apart that
look strikingly similar. One of them is the recent Japan video. Am I the only
one here that gets the IUR? Issue: The story was written by Bruce Maccabee.
Has his work on the Gulf Breeze case made anyone suspicious of his work on
other cases? Depends on how you view Gulf Breeze, I guess. I'm just trying to
get things stirred up here. And let's not see all the same hands....
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: Traffic, again
Date: 30 Jun 90 05:55:00 GMT
I've just perused the UFO echo. In the past 30 days, 351 messages have come
in from 35 people, not including the InterNet people. Are there only 35
ParaNet users on three continents? And roughly half of those are sysops or
staff members. I think its time we started rewarding the best message-writer
of the month, or something.
--
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: Crop Circles Revealed?
Date: 30 Jun 90 08:04:00 GMT
I dunno, Mark....what do you think? I was never excited about the vortex
theory, because why only in England, and only in the last few years? But
now it appears that they DO appear elsewhere, and they do go back to
antiquity. And it does seem to explain why they only form overnight. ON THE
OTHER HAND, its my understanding that whirlwinds can only spin one way,
depending on the hemisphere, and these circles are flattened in either
direction. And I sure don't buy the "electrical charge" bit to explain the
lights and humming. Not that I buy the lights and humming to begin with....
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: Re: Ed Walters/camera
Date: 30 Jun 90 08:05:00 GMT
John, if you talk to Maccabee again in the near future, ask him if a complete
analysis of the Kanazawa video will be available soon, and whether he
classifies it as a TRUFO.
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: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 1 Jul 90 02:49:00 GMT
The suggested camera wouldn't be a whole lot different from the
polaroid's Ed was using would it? I believe you said his was
autoexposure autofocus.
If I follow your light blasting expo correctly then the original
polariods were ripped apart to do the light blasting??? Can you send
me one of your "test" photo's of the light blasting...I'm not entirely
clear on just how you are describing it.
I would expect the light detail to vanish due to the overexposure of
the camera being used to take the "new" photo of the original photo
that has the extremely bright light shining thru it. The light parts
are going to let a tremendous about of light thru and it seems to me it
would overexpose the new photo.
So the object was 20 t 60 feet from ED but only 2 feet wide. Pardon
me if I find it odd that, again, this new UFO only showed up for the
times it was "needed", when ED wasn't able to use the single polaroid.
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Pete.Porro
Subject: Re: GB PHOTOS
Date: 29 Jun 90 16:44:11 GMT
Interesting topic since I enjoyed low level photography when I was in
college. My fun at night? Anyway, the Nimslo camera has meter setting for 100
and 400, how did the high spped film get exposed properly? I still have a 100
foot roll of high speed recording film in the frig. it's probably getting old
now. Used to use it at 3200 asa and process in Acufine. I don't even know if
the current processes are better for souped up photos.
--
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: GB evidence chain
Date: 1 Jul 90 04:26:00 GMT
I just talked with Don Ware regarding the chain of possession etc of
the model.
Ware said that the homeowner found the model in March and *didn't
tell anyone*. He said that the reason the homeowner said he didn't
tell anyone was that the model didn't look enough like anything that
he though much of it.
About a month ago now, according to Ware, Craig Myers (sp) of the
Pensacola News-Journal went to the house and asked the man a few
questions. One was whether the man had ever seen a ufo, and then if
the man had found a model.
The man gave Myers the thing, and a couple of days later, the news
story appeared.
Ware said that the first the investigators knew of the model was
when they read the news story.
So, these points:
The man found the model in March.
He did not tell anyone.
Myers appeared and asked him if he'd found a model.
The man handed over the model.
The MUFON investigators learned of the model via the news story.
According to Ware's story, the investigators did not sit on or hide
evidence. BTW, I didn't let him know what I was looking for in
advance.
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: More GB
Date: 1 Jul 90 04:29:01 GMT
Don Ware said another little bit of info.
According to him, Tommy Smith, who claims to have helped Ed fake the
pictures, said that they used the model that was found to fake the pictures.
A couple of problems.
The model supposedly doesn't look much like Ed's objects, or at
least doesn't have matching details.
The model was made of material from house plans that have been
confirmed to have been drawn about two years after the photos were
made.
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: Re: GB PHOTOS
Date: 1 Jul 90 05:17:00 GMT
> meter setting for 100 and 400, how did the high spped film get
> exposed properly?
I'm not sure about the film used. Actually, it could have been that
someone told Ed he should have used ISO 1000 film. I've loaned out my
copy of his book, so I can't look for the reference.
Do you have any idea what is the slowest shutter speed the Nimslo is
capable of? Meter system coupling range? Any tech specs?
What I'm wondering is why it didn't set a shutter speed according to
all that black sky the meter would have seen. Unless it set the
slowest speed it could.
> I still have a 100 foot roll of high speed
> recording film in the frig.
Ah, yes, I remember it well. Grain city. Kodak T-Max P3200 (at EI
1600 or 3200) looks like, get this, Tri-X of a couple of years ago
developed normally. At two to three stops higher speed!
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.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************************
