Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 254
Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 254
Wednesday, June 27th 1990
Today's Topics:
GEOSOPHY FILM
Satellites And Secrecy
Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Re: CAMERAS
Re: Ed Walters
Re: Ed Walters
Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Re: An Open Letter to Mr. Ed
Re: An Open Letter to Mr. Ed
Umm.. Opps!
GB Photos
Crop Circles Revealed?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZAK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: GEOSOPHY FILM
Date: 27 Jun 90 21:30:23 GMT
There has been some talk on this list about ley lines
and Earth magnetic grids and the like. I turned up
this film in a catalogue I have, which is 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 description of the film is verbatim from their
catalogue. I cannot personally recommend the film
because I haven't seen it. (NOTE--A videodisc
catalogue is also available.)
Geosophy: An Overview of Earth Mysteries (1988)
A look a Stonehenge and various sites around Britain
examines the influence of geosophy, the ancient study
of the natural harmony between the Earth and the
heavens, on their construction. With Paul Devereaux,
John Mitchell, John Steele, Nigel Pennick, and others.
95 min.
70-7051 $29.95
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f1.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin
Subject: Satellites And Secrecy
Date: 26 Jun 90 23:58:00 GMT
> From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
>
> James Roger Black and Michael Corbin:
>
> According to my 'studies' with a multi-satellite tracker (I
> have 370
> orbital elements of artifical satellites graphically
> displayed on either
> a world map or local 'radar') at least 10 percent of all
> artifical satellites
> are above your LOCAL HORIZON at any given time.
Do you have any information on the objects that appear to flash?
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f1.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 25 Jun 90 08:03:00 GMT
> 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:
There's no problem with that. In fact, previously-prepared pictures
would be essential to hoaxing the incident. The pictures could have
been prepared days, weeks or months earlier.
The reference was that one of the witnesses loaded the SRS cameras,
and that after the cameras were loaded, Ed and Frances were not alone
until the witnesses pretended to leave. Less than two minutes later,
Ed ran out of the bushes with the developing pictures.
Actually, Ed would have needed no more than 15 seconds alone.
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: 25 Jun 90 08:27:01 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.
Don't forget that the same object appeared later in an SRS camera
pair, and the size matched up within a reasonable amount. The parallax
calculations also showed that the object was *no more* than about 40
feet away. The object was close enough to show parallax.
Can you explain how a model (or whatever) could have been moved so
precisely that the size was consistent in two different stereo photo
pairs?
The only way to hoax it I can think of is to suspend the model in a
dark room at least 20 feet long and photograph it, then do that again
with the SRS rig.
> Of course, if this were any other case, such
> a finding would spell the end of it, since most people would cry
> "Model!".
Do you know the acceptable size range of ufos? If you do, please
tell us how you came by this information.
> But ... since this is the sacred Gulf Breeze case we must all
> "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" -- John
There's at least a few of us paying a hell of a lot more attention
than you realize.
I've enlarged the hoax possibility to include *all* of Ed's
pictures, and that's on a provable, demonstrable technical basis,
while previously they were all hoaxable except for one pair. However,
all I've proven is that it's *possible* that the pictures were hoaxed,
and that at least one possible hoax method is known for *each*
picture.
Neither I, nor anyone else, has *proven* a hoax. Until that happens, the
possibility that Ed's pictures are true ufo pictures as claimed
*cannot be dismissed*.
If you read Bruce Maccabee's analysis, if you hear him speak, or if
you talk with him on the phone, he says (and has said all along) that
a hoax is a possibility, but no one's been able to prove it.
In the absence of proof of a hoax, you need to proceed as if the
pictures are real, while continuing to look for evidence of a hoax.
Now, I'm certainly not trying to start any kind of battle over this
stuff. You may notice that in one sentence I may be saying something
that supports Ed's case while in the next sentence I'm chipping away
at it. I had something a couple of days ago that would have proven a
hoax beyond a shadow of a doubt, concrete proof, if certain numbers
hadn't matched up, but it turns out they match up perfectly. The
reason the numbers were so important is that *none of the
investigators knew what they meant*.
If I come up with solid, undebatable proof of a hoax, you'll most
likely read about it right here first. The same will happen if I come
up with the same sort of proof that they're real.
BTW, I know I sound sorta proud of my hoax possibility theory. I am.
Only took me about two months to think it up, when it should have been
obvious right 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!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: Ed Walters
Date: 25 Jun 90 08:29:02 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
You are correct. While they were a very short time ago anonymous
phone callers, they aren't anonymous any more.
Bruce Maccabee told me that he has proven on *eight technical
points* that the photos could not possibly have been faked in the
manner the young man claims. Since this would be independently
verifiable, I take Maccabee's word for it.
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
Date: 25 Jun 90 08:31:03 GMT
> John: On that radio show you heard, Ed Walters was lying his
> ass off, as usual.
OK, John, you have your mind made up and I can see that I'm wasting
my fingers typing to you. Please try to open your mind to the
possibility that you may indeed be wrong, and examine all the
evidence you can get ahold 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!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks
Subject: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
Date: 25 Jun 90 20:33:01 GMT
> Why was Ed using a Flash to take photos of something flying in
> the sky??
Maccabee found that Ed was unconciously setting a shutter speed of
around one second with his first Polaroid. Actually, what happens is
that the camera will autoexpose until it reaches the limit of its
dim-light range, then the shutter will simply stay open until you let
go of the shutter button.
Ed was doing the very common thing of giving the shutter button a
real good press, for whatever reason most snapshooters do.
As for flash, consider all the people who use their little cameras
with their little flashes at, for instance, a night football game.
They don't know any better.
In the original Polaroid, the flash isn't linked to the camera in
any way except for the firing connection; that is, it doesn't affect
any other camera operations.
If you see the originals, they're all actually extremely dark, as if
they're underexposed by several stops.
As for the second Polaroid type (Sun 600), you get the flash
whether you want it or not. It's built-in, and if the camera meter
determines flash is needed, it fires the flash. No choice in the
matter.
Also, the shutter speed is limited to a minimum speed; probably
about 1/15 second. Maccabee told me, but I forgot exactly what it was.
The pictures taken with the Sun 600 cameras are much darker than
the original series of Polaroids, which is consistent with a limited
minimum shutter speed but somewhat faster film.
The "light-blasting" technique used for the pictures in the book
consists of holding the original print up to direct sunlight and
photographing it. Works sorta like a transparency, in that detail
that's almost lost in the dark is brought out. Unfortunately, this
extreme lightening of the images mostly so they could be reproduced in
the book has given a false impression of how the pictures look.
They're really very dark.
As for the Nimslo, the images of the lights, whatever they are, are
actually quite sharp and very small. They do, however, show parallax.
That indicates that the object was not so far away that the parallax
would be unmeasurable. If the object was, say, 500 feet away the
amount of parallax would probably be less than the size of the film
grain or the resolving power of the lens/film combination. That is, it
would be unmeasurable.
The baseline (distance between the outer lenses) of the Nimslo
wasn't large enough for accurate measurements for an object farther
than about 20 feet away. You could clearly prove, for instance, that
an object was between, say 30 and 60 feet away, but you couldn't
measure more accurately than that.
Thus the SRS.
Maccabee said he was musing aloud about how to make a stereo camera
with a significantly larger baseline, and that Ed surprised him by
building one. The first version had the wiggles, so it couldn't really
be used, but the second version was much more stable. However, the
stick (which made it self-referencing) still had the wiggles so had to
be discounted.
The concept was great, but the execution left a little to be
desired.
Anyway, Ed did get a shot of the Nimslo object in the same frame
pair with another object with the second version of the SRS. Its size
for the calculated distance was consistent with the frame pair from
the Nimslo.
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 previously obtained for $25 from a camera store by an
investigator who thought there might eventually be some use for the
thing.
It's not the camera I'd have picked for the purpose. A Stereo
Realist is a much more accurate camera with a much wider baseline, but
then we're talking about buying a camera for about $200 for one in
good condition, and giving it to someone for an unknown length of
time.
Would you be willing to do that?
Also, there are problems with both these cameras. The Nimslo is
designed to provide four images to be used in a proprietary process
that produces lenticular 3D prints, similar to 3D postcards. The
Stereo Realist is designed to duplicate the baseline of the human eyes
and provide a stereo pair of slides to be viewed in a viewer, like the
old viewers which showed 3D views using a disc of transparencies.
In any event, they don't have a larger baseline than human vision,
and that simply isn't large enough.
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!Don.Allen
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Mr. Ed
Date: 26 Jun 90 01:22:00 GMT
JS>Get just one - I repeat, JUST ONE - photo of an Ed-like object from ANYONE
JS>who is willing to go on record with their real name as having taken the
JS>photo, and who has no obvious ties to Ed Walters. Surely, with so many
JS>witnesses, with Ed having so many photo opportunities, there must be ONE
JS>legit photo outside of his sphere of influence.
I'll work on that Jim..You'll be first to know.
--
Don Allen - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Don.Allen
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to Mr. Ed
Date: 26 Jun 90 01:25:01 GMT
JB>Don: You must mean the other people in the GB area who have seen UFOs at
JS>various times, as described regularly in the "Current Case Log" of
JS>the _MUFON UFO JOURNAL_. These reports almost always reveal that they
JS>describe an object which is inconsistant from the design of Ed's things.
JS>Only Ed and "Believer Bill" ( an another pseudonymmed- entity) seem to get
JS>the photos of *these* objects.
It does not seem logical to me that Ed has the _only_ clear
photos around. There MUST be someone else that has some other photos
that are similiar.
--
Don Allen - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Allen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f0.n1031.z9.FIDONET.ORG!Mark.Limburg
Subject: Umm.. Opps!
Date: 22 Jun 90 20:28:11 GMT
That didn't work did it! Lets try that again...
Hi Micheal,
Well in response to your questionnaire, here is my input on the
matter. Hope you enjoy.
----------------------------------------
The UFO Questionnaire - Completed by Mark W.Limburg : Friday
22, June, 1990
ANSWERS
1. Definitely False
2. Probably False
3. Probably True
4. Definitely True
1. Some flying saucers have tried to communicate with us.
(3) I perceive that an entity whom had the ability to discover another
world such as our own, would wish to communicate. Greed, curiosity
and fear are just three of many reasons for such. I believe that
we are not the only form of life within this universe and the odds
of an alien encounter are fairly high.
2. All UFO reports can be explained either as well understood happenings or
as hoaxes.
(2) Within all areas, the reports about UFO's are varied. The very fact
that they are Unidentified means that they are unexplained. Not all
UFO's are prospective alien buddies!
3. The Air Force has done an adequate job of investigation of UFO reports
and UFO'S generally.
(3) Yup.. and it would be nice if they told us the whole story. I can't
STATE that Lear's story is true... but I do KNOW that there is much
information which is being withheld, and for a number of "reasons".
4. No actual, physical evidence has ever been obtained from a UFO.
(4)
5. A government agency maintains a Top Secret file of UFO reports that are
deliberately withheld from the public.
(3) There are too many reasons for the knowledge of "alien" realities to
be given over to the general public. Civil war would be a minor
thing to worry about... think of the holy wars it would cause!
6. No airline pilots have seen UFOs.
(4) I have a pilot friend who was followed by a light. He banked to
have a look, and the light actually reversed. As he finished his
turn, it sped up and was gone from sight in less than a minute. He
has no proof, but I must say that I believe him. He's been flying
for some fifteen years, and he's never seen anything like it.
7. Most people would not report seeing a UFO for fear of losing a job.
(2) Maybe not losing their job.. but I suppose just what the job was!
I can understand it if you were working in a control tower.
8. No authentic photographs have ever been taken of UFOs.
(4) I have seen a few myself.
9. Persons who believe they have communicated with visitors from outer
space are mentally ill.
(1) What poffle! The above statement makes as much logical sense as..
"I enjoy eating food, therefore food enjoys being eaten..."
10. The Air Force was told to explain all UFO sightings reported to them as
natural or man-made happenings or events.
(3) There are similar things known within the police force. Whenever
a panic situation is imminent, the officer is told to defuse it,
and to use any means to do such. The above statement could be said
within the same vein.
11. Earth has been visited at least once in its history by beings from
another world.
(3) Quite possible. There is a large amount of evidence which tends to
state as much. This isn't proof, but it is a start to look at it
with some reason.
12. The government should spend more money than it does now to study what
UFOs are and where they come from.
(2) Before anyone can really answer this question, I suppose it would
be important to know just HOW MUCH the government is ALREADY
spending...
13. Intelligent forms of life cannot exist elsewhere in the universe.
(4) The above statement is a scientific impossibility! The odds of
another race existing on another planet is VERY high. Don't
forget that the above question didn't ask about whether they
are of a standard to travel beyond their planet.
14. Flying saucers can be explained scientifically without any important
new discoveries.
(2) If they could say that, then they would have proved it a long time
ago.
15. Some UFOs have landed and left marks in the ground.
(2) Possible.
16. Most UFOs are due to secret defence projects, either ours or another
country's.
(2) Again, possible.
17. UFOs are reported throughout the world.
(4) Yup, everywhere!
18. The government has done a good job of examining UFO reports.
(3) I believe that they have, shame they don't tell us it all though!
19. There have never been any UFO sightings in the Soviet Union.
(1) The Soviet Union has to be one of the mostly open countries when it
comes to the unexplained. Pravda has reported many UFO sightings,
and as we all know.. "PRAVDA NEVER LIES...!"
20. People want to believe that life exists elsewhere than on Earth.
(3) Some of us do. It gives us the stimulus of another possible future
which many of us need. There is much which looks bleak for our
future, and the existence of other life helps broaden our outlook.
Also, there are religious aspects. Many people today "half" believe
in Christianity. Proof of other life will end their continual
nagging questions.
21. There have been good radar reports of UFOs.
(4) Yep... Well, they scrambled fighters to them...
22. There is no government secrecy about UFOs.
(1) It would be inconceivable for there NOT to be a government force
of some description. It is an important issue, and one which would
does need addressing. One example: on a military side, a UFO could
be an enemy machine. They would need a "quiet" look before they
release any data. The CIA have a unit for just this purpose.
23. People have seen space ships that have not come from this planet.
(3) Possible.
24. Some UFO reports have come from astronomers.
(4) Yep.
25. Even the most unusual UFO report could be explained by the laws of
science if we knew enough about science.
(4) Science covers everything, it's only if we understood all science.
26. People who do *not* believe in flying saucers must be stupid.
(1) This is as incorrect as "People who *do* believe in flying saucers
must be stupid". The possibility is there. But it still is ONLY
a possibility to many.
27. UFO reports have not been taken seriously by any government agency.
(1) There are some government agencies which will always listen.
28. Government secrecy about UFOs is an idea made up by newspapers.
(3) Some of it, YES! There are some newspapers which will print near
anything "GIANT HUMPBACK WHALES WANT OUR WOMEN!", etc..
29. Science has established that there are such things as "Unidentified
Flying Objects."
(4) Unidentified Flying Objects - Anything from a weather balloon, to a
flock of birds, to a private helicopter (always a biggie), to a few
alien teenagers on a joy ride. It does need to be said that a UFO
is an UNKNOWN object.
30. Abduction reports are the result of hallucinations.
(3) Some of them, yes.
Finally, what do you believe UFOs to be?
Weeell.. I do believe that alien life does exist. Almost without doubt
on that one. As for whether they are here and are currently running a
couple of countries via secret societies... I don't know.
Will continue...
--
Mark Limburg - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Mark.Limburg@f0.n1031.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser
Subject: GB Photos
Date: 27 Jun 90 05:11:00 GMT
John:
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?
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?
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MTG@csi.compuserve.com>
Subject: Crop Circles Revealed?
Date: 28 Jun 90 02:11:04 GMT
Fresh off the UPI newswires:
- Mark G.
-=-=-
LONDON (UPI) -- International experts said the mysterious crop circles
appearing in Britain and around the world are the work of Mother Nature, not
aliens from outer space or pranksters, according to a report published Sunday.
The newspaper Independent on Sunday said speakers at the first international
conference in Oxford on the phenomena of crop circles said weather and
topography cause the flattened circles which suddenly appear in fields.
'They seem to form in conditions of warm days and cold nights when a
temperature inversion is established,' said Terence Meaden, head of Britain's
Tornado and Storm Research Organizaion.
Meaden was one of 150 scientists and UFO enthusiasts at the Circles Effect
Phenomena Conference. Several other experts put forth other meteorological and
topographical theories on the causes of the mysterious circles.
The circles, nearly perfectly round and ranging from a few yards wide to half
the length of a football field, appear overnight during the crop-growing season.
Sometimes their arrival is accompanied by noises and lights, witnesses have
said.
More than 200 have been sighted in Britain this year, most in English corn
fields, the newspaper said. Their unexplained appearances and varied patterns
have led to a variety of popular theories. UFO fans offered them as proof of
extraterrestrial landings a decade ago. Others said drunken farmers or
pranksters were to blame.
But Mead and the other scientists said they believed the cause was much more
down to earth. Meaden said the circles form when a layer of cool air becomes
trapped under warmer air.
A 'trailing vortex' develops in the form of a column of rapidly spinning air,
Meaden said. When the vortex settles in a field, it sweeps out a ring of damage
as it expands.
John Snow, a professor at Purdue University in Indiana and Tokio Kikuchi of
Kochi University in Tokyo said that the humming and bright lights witnesses
report are the product of electrical charges built up by the friction inside the
air columns.
The mystery surrounding the circles encouraged some scientists to become crop
circle experts and has drawn hundreds of circle spotters to tour farmlands.
Farmers have complained of trampled crops left by the spotters.
The circles were mentioned in 17th century accounts and have been found in
the United States, France, Australia and Japan as well as in Britain. England
may have more of the circles because of the combination of the weather fronts
and land features, experts said.
********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************************
