Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 257
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 257
Tuesday, July 3rd 1990
Today's Topics:
SETI
Re: More GB
Re: Traffic
Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Traffic, again
Re: Ed Walters/camera
Traffic, again
GB evidence chain
More GB
Traffic reports..
More GB
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Roger Black <jrblack@shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Subject: SETI
Date: 3 Jul 90 15:53:10 GMT
-+ From: Don.Ecker@f22.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
-+ Date: 30 Jun 90 08:36:00 GMT
-+
-+ I just got a lead on a former radio astronomer that was connected
-+ with the NASA SETI program that has some very amazing information
-+ in reference to SETI and what has alledgedly really been
-+ occuring. I am trying to trace it down.
Several years ago I heard the following story from a guy who used to work for
one of the supersecret three-letter-acronym agencies: It seems that one of the
big defense/aerospace contractors put out some glossy literature about a
communications satellite they were building for the government. The literature
included an artist's rendition of the satellite on orbit, with the earth
hanging majestically in the background. Only problem was, the satellite's
antenna wasn't pointed at the earth, but out into deep space. This elicited
lots of hearty guffaws from the aerospace techies, who caught the error
immediately. But according to my friend, it wasn't a mistake. The satellite
was in fact intended as a military SETI platform.
Of course, my friend had a tendency to mix lots of BS with his data (apparently
a common problem with these former intelligence types!) so he may have been
pulling my leg. For what it's worth.
Also several years ago, National Public Radio ran a story about the NSA buying
a bunch of Crays to decrypt the Roswell 'hieroglyphs'. The story claimed that
the project also involved hiring a number of linguists with expertise in Mayan
and Egyptian. Has anybody else ever heard of this? It sounds an awful lot
like a 'Hangar 18' ripoff, but NPR is usually more careful than that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: More GB
Date: 3 Jul 90 03:54:00 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?
--
Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton)
Subject: Re: Traffic
Date: 3 Jul 90 03:59:00 GMT
Don, I thought your article in UFO was excellent. I saw timmys
diatrabe in FIDO as I'm sure you did and it was the usual cowpies. HE
seems to be mainly interested in defaming as many people as he can;
have to give him credit though, as assholes go, he certainly is one of
the best!!
Keep up the good work, the SETI stuff sounds very intriguing.
--
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: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 2 Jul 90 07:08:03 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.
It wouldn't be all that different than the Polaroid 600 cameras used
for the SRS, but those photos are *much* darker than those shot with
the original Polaroid. With neg films, I don't think there'd be much
of anything usable except maybe the lights.
> If I follow your light blasting expo correctly then the original
> polariods were ripped apart to do the light blasting???
Nope.
> 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 could, but it wouldn't show you anything. I used an old dark
Polaroid photo of a cat. When I held the photo up to the sun, I could
clearly see detail in areas that were so dark I couldn't see the
detail in ordinary room light.
Remember, now, that a Polaroid photo is a positive transparency
(similar to a 35mm slide) on a light-reflecting paper. We can't
increase the reflectance of the paper, but we can do so, in effect, by
shining light through the *back* of the print. Take any print and hold
it up to the sun (be careful) so that you're blocking the sun with
the print, and you're looking at the front side of the print. You
should see the dark areas of the print dramatically lighten up, but
you can still see detail in the light parts. Make sense?
O ---- | --- >
/ / /
Sun Print Eye
Get 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.
Quite logical, but remember the light's coming through a fairly
thick sheet of paper. To photograph the print, you'd use an interneg
film (for a neg) or an Ektachrome designed for duping slides. The main
points about both these films are that they're very low contrast, and
that's to avoid the contrast gain you'd get when you copy a neg or
slide with ordinary film.
Are you familiar with the Zone System? Well, if your original has a
Zone 6 highlight and you move it up (in the dupe) to Zone 8, you'd
also move Zone 1 (first density above base + fog) to Zone 3, which is
readibly visible. Of course your black (d-max) would then be a very
muddy grey, which you can see in the light-blasted pictures published
in the book.
You can only get away with this if you use one of the low-contrast
duping films.
Also, light-blasting by sunlight only counts for actually viewing
the Polaroid; it would be rather cumbersome to actually make a dupe
photo that way. You can accomplish the same thing by using a much
longer exposure in duping than you would ordinarily use for an
ordinary dupe. That is, if you normally use a one-second for a dupe of
a normal print, you could use a four-second exposure for a dupe of a
dark print. If the original dark print is low-contrast, you can get
away with it.
Don't think so much about the sun itself; think about making the
dupe with a long exposure using a dimmer source. You can get the same
actual film exposure of the dupe film either way.
BTW, the "road shot" points up what you're saying about the
highlights being overexposed in a dupe of a high-contrast original.
Notice how much brighter and burned-out the light on the road appears
in the light-blasted version.
> 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.
It also shows up in at least one Polaroid photo, along with a Type 1
object.
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: Traffic, again
Date: 2 Jul 90 07:15:05 GMT
> I think its
> time we started rewarding the best message-writer
> of the month, or something.
A round-trip ticket to Zeta Reticuli? ;-)
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: Ed Walters/camera
Date: 2 Jul 90 06:46:02 GMT
> John, if you talk to Maccabee again in the near future, ask him
Got it. Wrote myself a note.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jym.Fox@p14.f13.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jym Fox)
Subject: Traffic, again
Date: 1 Jul 90 22:45:31 GMT
JS> I've just perused the UFO echo. In the past 30 days, 351 messages
JS> have come in from 35 people, not including the InterNet people. Are
JS> there only 35 ParaNet users on three continents? And roughly half of
JS> those are sysops or staff members. I think its time we started
JS> rewarding the best message-writer
JS> of the month, or something.
How about cause when a newcomer DOES ask something somebody always get
on his case. I just read because I don't want to seem TOO dumb. I think
there are a LOT of people who like me just read and try to learn.
Jym "IMHO" Fox
--
Jym Fox - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jym.Fox@p14.f13.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jym.Fox@p14.f13.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jym Fox)
Subject: GB evidence chain
Date: 1 Jul 90 22:53:41 GMT
JH> The man found the model in March.
JH> He did not tell anyone.
JH> Myers appeared and asked him if he'd found a model.
JH> The man handed over the model.
JH> The MUFON investigators learned of the model via the news story.
JH> According to Ware's story, the investigators did not sit on or
JH> hide evidence. BTW, I didn't let him know
JH> what I was looking for in advance.
John,I have a few questions if I may.....1) Do you happen to live in the
area.2) Have you met Mr. Ed. 3) What was your impression of this whole
situation in general.
Jym "How can I ask for answers when i don't know the questions" Fox
--
Jym Fox - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jym.Fox@p14.f13.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jym.Fox@p14.f13.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jym Fox)
Subject: More GB
Date: 1 Jul 90 23:00:10 GMT
JH> A couple of problems.
JH> The model supposedly doesn't look much like Ed's objects, or at
JH> least doesn't have matching details.
JH> The model was made of material from house plans that have been
JH> confirmed to have been drawn about two years after the photos were made.
Is there anyway YOU can confirm this? This isn't even worthy of
"The spooks". Thats plain out and out dumb.I just came back from
vacation there in april.Wish I had of know someone.....
Jym "Enquiring minds wanna know (means I'm nosey <grin>" Fox
--
Jym Fox - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jym.Fox@p14.f13.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kurt.Lochner@p22.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kurt Lochner)
Subject: Traffic reports..
Date: 1 Jul 90 22:41:34 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.
What do you wish to debate, Jim?
>
> 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?
Nope, I haven't had much time to consider that "other UFO
Echo". Most of the time, I wind up typing to folks on this
network and then spend a week waiting for a reply..
> The latest IUR features a story on two UFO photos
What's IUR, anyways?
> Am I the only one
> here that gets the IUR?
Apparently...
> 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 can't think of anything to really criticise about
Gulf Breeze Sitings, except for the fact that a friend
of mine that regularly visits the state of Florida has
told me that he hasn't seen anything out of the ordinary
in the skies there. He also suggested that it more than
likely was just another scam to attract tourists with...
> I'm just trying to get things stirred up here. And
> let's not see all the same hands....
>
Oh, awlright...I'll shut up now...
--
Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Kurt.Lochner@p22.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tyson.Mitchiner@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tyson Mitchiner)
Subject: More GB
Date: 2 Jul 90 01:46:00 GMT
JH> A couple of problems.
JH> The model supposedly doesn't look much like Ed's objects,
JH> or at least doesn't have matching details.
JH> The model was made of material from house plans that have
JH> been confirmed to have been drawn about two years after the
JH> photos were made.
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?
--
Tyson Mitchiner - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Tyson.Mitchiner@f134.n109.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************************
