Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 263
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 263
Friday, July 13th 1990
Today's Topics:
Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Re: CAMERAS
Re: Ed Walters
Re: Ed Walters
Re: Skeptics and Klass
THEM (Tyson Mitchiner)
Re: Ed Walters/camera
Re: CAMERAS
Re: GB Photos
Re: GB Photos
Re: GB PHOTOS
Re: CAMERAS
Re: TNN UFO SPECIAL
Re: TNN UFO SPECIAL
Re: Traffic reports..
Re: Rep rips E.T.
_UFO_ Article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 24 Jun 90 02:56:03 GMT
re: Shoreline Park photos --
You've said that Ed & Frances were alone for only a few minutes and
that there "was no time for them to hang models, etc."
OK, here's another point made by Robert Boyd:
>... Ed had approximately four hours of elapsed time from when
>he first told Mr. Cook that he heard his "hum" (4pm) until he
>arrived on the scene at the park (8pm). This is plenty of
>time to prepare for his second set of pictures if he is indeed
>a hoaxer. Also it is clear that from his initial "hum" to his
>actual taking of the pictures at around 10pm, six hours had
>elapsed.
-- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Re: CAMERAS
Date: 24 Jun 90 03:09:56 GMT
re: The "Nimslo Object" (or "NO UFO") -- don't forget to point out
that Maccabee calculated this object to be approximately 2.5 feet in
diameter. Of course, if this were any other case, such a finding would
spell the end of it, since most people would cry "Model!".
But ... since this is the sacred Gulf Breeze case we must all "pay no
attention to that man behind the curtain!" -- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Re: Ed Walters
Date: 24 Jun 90 03:16:34 GMT
re: >Also that the father and son are anonymous.
That's not true. The father and son have been on the local TV station
(WEAR?). The father is a GB lawyer who is on the City Council. They
have polaroids that were taken with Ed's camera of the same models that
appear in Ed's Book. -- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Re: Ed Walters
Date: 24 Jun 90 03:24:59 GMT
John: On that radio show you heard, Ed Walters was lying his ass off,
as usual. First of all "the newspaper reporter" has a name; it's Craig
Myers. Craig Myers did no such thing as approach the current resident
of Ed's house and ask if he found any models. This is just another lie
from an ex-convict who served time for forgery and I can't believe that
so many people would believe his story over that of someone with no
criminal record.
According to Myers, the current resident came to the newspaper with
the model, saying that he "never would have found it" if he hadn't been
remodeling the house.
As for Ed's lies about his accomplice who came forward with the
pictures, see my reply to John Hicks.
-- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gene.Gross@f26.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Gene Gross)
Subject: Re: Skeptics and Klass
Date: 25 Jun 90 05:26:00 GMT
Hi Jim:
Well said! This brew is such a heady drink sometimes. I grew up
with the idea that extraterrestrial life could well exist. And it is
easy for me to fly off in that direction. But as I've grown older I've
come to prize evidence more and more without losing my innate belief.
Klass has made a number of statements which will weigh about his
neck like a millstone. His statement equating ufologists with Nazis is
one. In the UNL case, his mention of his credentials could only cause
problems--even if he wasn't calling in those capacities.
Some years ago, I was reading a pop-psych book by a fellow named
Jess Lear (sp ?). I don't recall the title right now, but I do recall
that he had some interesting quotes from his students in the back of
the book. One that I fell in love with was, "The only problem with
being open-minded is that your brains, might fall out." Some truth to
it. Still I would argue for the balance each time.
--
Gene Gross
--
Gene Gross - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Gene.Gross@f26.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tyson.Mitchiner@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tyson Mitchiner)
Subject: THEM (Tyson Mitchiner)
Date: 26 Jun 90 01:01:00 GMT
Whitely SStriebe wrote in, I think, Transformation, that it was
apparent to him that the aliens who abducted him were
interested/concerned about how fast we are developing.. how quickly
we adapt.. To Strieber, the aliens seemed slow and methodical, while
humans were quick.. maybe it's about the fact that we will
eventually reach a higher point than they are at.
--
Tyson Mitchiner - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Tyson.Mitchiner@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kurt.Lochner@p100.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kurt Lochner)
Subject: Re: Ed Walters/camera
Date: 26 Jun 90 09:51:31 GMT
> As for why not giving Ed a sealed 35mm camera for
> all the shots. The explanation was that no one had (or
> was willing) to, for all practical purposes, give away
> a personal camera that they owned. The Nimslo was
geezzz,
You mean the nobody has ever seen those $5.95 128mm
Fuji cameras with the built-in film. Rig two of those
together on some kind of dual tripod and wire release
for simultaneous exposure....
All the human error is forfeited in this way, why
aren't the easy ways to do this more readily apparent?
--
Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kurt.Lochner@p100.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: CAMERAS
Date: 25 Jun 90 18:39:28 GMT
Interesting about the calculated diameter of the object. As for streaking
photos, I guess the automatic cameras are mindless. I still have a few manual
Canon FT's which are my favorite since I have lenses to fit them, and don't
have a few thousand dollars to upgrade. Sure thing if a person takes a photos
for long exposure, (after 1/30 at best hand held) there are going to be all
sorts of shakes, streaks, or blurs. On the other hand take a normal exposure
of a bright object against the sky, and most likely you'll get a dot. Not
very interesting either. For those who doubt the difficulty in photographing
a UFO try the moon which is fairly constant, sitting sort of still etc. An
automatic camera will probably give you a nice dot on a black negative, no
detail. Now imagine something traveling at 400 mph (just for example a normal
jet aircraft) you would have to pan with the object and make a precise photo
exposure, or get some white, green and red streaks on a film. No lets examine
a UFO, (wouldn't that be nice???) a hypothetical UFO for discussion. It's
going to be hovering a couple of hundred yards away (great closeup) lights on
the object, sky is dark. What would I expect the object to look like? Either
a pattern of dots of light, or a spinning one would produce a swirl of lights
against a stationary background. For those of you who want to have some fun
and run a roll of film through a camera experimentially, just photograph
lights. Small lights in the dark, street lights, (use short exposures)
because lights will be dots, no soft windows like we have seen on some
photos. That sort of exposure would take a film with high speed and great
latitude.
What's this all about? 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 Porro - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Re: GB Photos
Date: 2 Jul 90 17:01:00 GMT
> I have tried a couple of times to get any kind of decent photo
> of a light in the sky at night and that seems to be at least as
> hard as just hoaxing something.
I've got it wired. ;-)
For aircraft lights, try 1/60 at f2 with ISO 1600 film, if the
airplane's fairly far away. Of course, unless you use a long lens, you
won't see any seperation between the running lights and the landing
lights; you'll just see a big blob.
If we suppose that the lights on Ed's Nimslo object were as bright
or brighter than the usual aircraft running lights, it's perfectly
feasible for the Nimslo photos to be real, as far as film exposure
goes. If the object was as close
as it appears to have been, the lights wouldn't have been dimmed by
haze and cloud.
About the Nimslo photos......
I got a shot of an aircraft complete with illuminated windows. It
looks *really strange*, but unlike the Nimslo photos, the cockpit was
not illuminated and the running lights were *much* brighter than the
window lights. Also, no large bright areas were visible.
The only way I can figure that Ed could have photographed an
airplane with the Nimslo is that he would have to have been flying
alongside, and the pilot of the subject airplane would have to have
turned off the running lights. That doesn't seem very likely.
No one's been able to think of an airplane that has three rows of
windows.
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: 2 Jul 90 17:31:01 GMT
> Without knowing the "right" way
> to take a night photo they just don't come out and I have a hard
> time seeing how ED does it so easily.
I think we're seeing hardware limitations that we may not know
about, and by chance those limitations cause the exposures to fall
within the film's latitude. In no case has Ed produced what would be
considered a properly exposed picture.
I originally thought his first Polaroid should be giving long
exposures on the order of several seconds, but that's not the case.
It'll automatically set shutter speeds until the dimness of the light
exceeds the capability of the metering system. Then it holds the
shutter open as long as the photographer holds down the shutter
button; sorta like the B setting on other cameras.
Observation of Ed taking other pictures showed that he was
unconciously holding the shutter button down for a time within a range
of 1/2 to 1 1/2 seconds. I saw him shoot pictures with his new Canon
camera in the same manner. That is, instead of quickly punching the
shutter button, he held it down, but of course the Canon didn't just
let the shutter hang open like his old Polaroid.
It's very common for completely non-technical photographers to hold
a shutter button down for a long time. It's as if they're trying to
make sure the picture's taken, or something like that. My wife does it
with her point'n'shoot.
So, because of the limitation of the hardware, the exposure was
about 1 second at about f4 on ISO 75 film. If the hardware had not
been limited in that way, we may very well have seen
properly exposed blurs of the objects and background.
In the case of that camera, the flash attachment has no effect on
the shutter speed of the camera.
As for the Nimslo, I suspect its autoexposure system has a minimum
shutter speed of 1/30 or 1/15, and that would prevent the camera
setting such a long shutter speed that would result in streaks of the
lights rather than points. Someone who has specs or a manual on the
Nimslo should be able to tell us if this is so.
The Polaroid 600 cameras used for the SRS are similarly limited. The
specs for the camera state that the minimum shutter speed that camera
can set is 1/3 second, and if the light's dim enough, it's going to
fire the flash no matter what. The flash doesn't really count. The
distance from the camera to the object would be such that the flash
would have no effect.
In the SRS series we see that the pictures are somewhat more
underexposed than those of the original Polaroid, but this is
consistent with the faster film along with a faster minimum shutter
speed. The faster film to some extent accomodates the faster shutter
speed.
Also, I think the 600-type film is more contrasty than the
108-type film, which would tend to make dark areas appear darker.
The point of all this is that none of the cameras were capable of
making the kind of exposure an averaging metering system (which they
had) would call for. The meter would "see" the entire frame, and all
that blackness would fool it into setting an exposure of several
seconds duration, but the limited hardware couldn't set exposure times
that long. Therefore we have relatively sharp pictures rather than
blurry blobs and streaks.
Now, to further the point.
Ed recently bought a Canon A1 camera, which *is* capable of
automatically setting exposure times of several seconds duration.
In a recent incident in which he used that camera, and another
witness used a similar camera, both cameras "saw" all the dark sky and
automatically set shutter speeds of three to five seconds duration. Ed
got a large red blurry blob, and the other witness got a long winding
streak. These photos were of a point-source red light.
To further belabor the point, I think autoexposure systems are why
so many other witnesses get just blurry blobs and streaks. This is
demonstrated by Ed'd and the other witness's photos of the red light.
Could be that if the other photographers manually set a shutter
speed instead of letting the camera set a long exposure, we'd see
point-source lights or sets of lights.
That's exactly what I'm doing with airplanes. I manually set a
shutter speed (by guess) and it's slow enough/fast enough that the
exposure falls within the film latitude.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: GB PHOTOS
Date: 2 Jul 90 16:39:53 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. Both cameras are limited in capability, but make nifty photos if
you want some fun effects. With four lenses two are set eye width, so a good
ufo photo would give minute differences in the location, which would give
reference for judjment of the distances. I'll mention it again for anyone
else, after about 12 feet (maybe 20 max) the stereo effect is lost. So long
shots of scenic mountians, and not very 3d. Get a group of people from 3-12
feet and each one looks like they are standing behind the next. Really good
effect!
The high 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. It all
stopped 17 years ago when I moved into a place that has well water instead of
Municipal treated water. Iron and Calcium made me stop developing my own film
temporarly (cough) until I can get some clean water again.
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: CAMERAS
Date: 2 Jul 90 19:53:03 GMT
Yes your comment about the double edged argument makes sense. I guess I was
looking at both sides, and not trying to make conclusions. I just know how
hard it is to get a good photo under these conditions, and at the same time
one person seems to be able to get all he wants at will? If someone shot 36
photos at various settings and one or two worked, I would be likely to
believe that bracketing did the job right. If someone gets a blury photo, it
could be anything, but an honest photo would probably look more like that
than a clear one. Seems self contradicting logic.
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. Is that a better explination of the conclusion about GB photos? As
for any other photos, each case on it's own merits.
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
Subject: Re: TNN UFO SPECIAL
Date: 2 Jul 90 20:02:03 GMT
I am one of those poo folks who spends all his money on computers, Paranet,
and VCRs, but I don't have cable! Is there any possiblility of getting a copy
of the series from you after it has been aired? (or anyone else?) V8, Beta or
VHS format are all acceptable. I have another reason for no cable, three
teens who are already glued to the set. MTV is nice, but I'd like them to
have something else in their life. (evil dictator step-father speaking)
This brings up another comment, I spoke with someone who says they have over
180 hours of UFO related tapes. Unlikely that I'll get them to copy much of
it. I can only find about five tapes and most of them are crud. Any
suggestions on getting some more "good" videos?
--
Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff.Ballard@f20.n3607.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jeff Ballard)
Subject: Re: TNN UFO SPECIAL
Date: 10 Jul 90 06:47:00 GMT
Who knows, I'm getting where I'm not real suprised by most stuff!!!
--
Jeff Ballard - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jeff.Ballard@f20.n3607.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f876.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Re: Traffic reports..
Date: 11 Jul 90 07:29:00 GMT
Jim:
CUFOS is $25 per year, or $1000 for life. -A good deal if you
live for at least another 40 years. -- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f876.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f876.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: Re: Rep rips E.T.
Date: 11 Jul 90 07:40:00 GMT
Ed: Why don't the Greys ever abduct a guy like Conte? :-) -- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f876.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Burke@f876.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke)
Subject: _UFO_ Article
Date: 11 Jul 90 07:49:00 GMT
Don: I think that you should tell TS that you want to do an article in
_UFO_ about his trip to Dulce and what it revealed. After all, he did
say that he was going there in June '90. :-) -- John
--
John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Burke@f876.n115.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************************
