Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 406
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 406
Saturday, May 25th 1991
Today's Topics:
Re: WALTER.SAL
Nuke 'Em!
Re: WALTER.SAL
Re: WALTER.SAL
Re: WALTER.SAL
Re: WALTER.SAL
Re: WALTER.SAL
The Moon
James Randi vs. Uri Geller
Re: Miscellaneous
Meier, Stevens, Tucson And The Moon
Gb Paper
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Greenen)
Subject: Re: WALTER.SAL
Date: 14 May 91 13:27:01 GMT
JH> > but in the Gulf
JH> > Breeze case others have seen the same craft or one that is
JH> > similar.
JH>
JH> Bruce just sent me a paper which pretty much leaves no
JH> doubt that Ed and quite a few others saw the same or very
JH> similar objects over a period of a couple of years, plus a
JH> report of a sighting of a similar object at St. Pete
JH> several years earlier.
JH> While there's still no absolute proof that Ed
JH> *photographed* those objects, such proof will probably
JH> never exist and in light of the supporting witnesses, it's
JH> no longer reasonable to doubt that Ed did indeed photograph
JH> those objects.
JH> Interestingly, Rex's investigations form the groundwork
JH> for Bruce's paper.
JH>
JH> jbh
JH>
JH> --- FD 1.99c
JH> * Origin: UFINET//PARANET//MUFONET (407)649-4136
JH> (1:363/29)
That is good news but Bruce is not the final say in the Gulf Breeze
sightings. The government can still say that photographs can be
faked and that will be enough evidence that 50% of the population
will still think this is a hoax. I told Walter that MUFON can send
Ed's photos to 100 labs to be analyzed but it won't prove anything.
The public will only believe the debunkers because they don't want
this to exist. What a beautiful job that our government has done for
the passed 40+ years, my hats off to them.
73's ---Jim---
--
Jim Greenen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Greenen@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks)
Subject: Nuke 'Em!
Date: 15 May 91 04:33:00 GMT
For those of you who don't get the MUFON Journal, in the latest issue John
Brandenberg has potentially demonstrated how grasses can be made to lay flat
without damaging the grass itself.
He cooked it in his microwave oven!
At any rate, he found that in his microwave oven, ordinary grass would lay
down in 20 seconds, while green pine needles (tough) would lay down in about 50
seconds. All this without damaging the stalks or killing the grass.
He calculated what kind of hardware would be required to generate and project
a microwave beam that would zap a wheatfield, and concluded that it would be
too big and heavy to tote around in a helicopter. Besides, choppers aren't
exactly known for their silence.
He speculated that the hardware could be carried by a blimp, but pointed out
that a blimp would have a difficult time quickly leaving the area.
Anyway, Brandenberg has found a way it *could* be done, but certainly doesn't
go so far as to say it *is* done with microwaves.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
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: WALTER.SAL
Date: 15 May 91 07:38:00 GMT
> Well to answer some of your collection of replys. I wonder how
> large a batch of film is at Polaroid? To be more specific, go to
> the store (which I will do) and look, are all the packages
> numbered from the same batch?
I went through this line of questions a while back. I went to a
local supermarket and had no trouble buying two packs of Polaroid film
with the same batch numbers. Could have bought eight or ten more.
Also, I could have bought multiple packs of each of several other
numbers.
Got into this a little with Bruce. He said that in the instance
when batch numbers were noted, there were actually two packs with
different numbers.
One pack went into the left camera, and the other numbered pack went
into the right camera. Bruce said that he resulting pictures had
numbers on the backs that matched the appropriate side (l-r).
Thought I might have found the "smoking gun" for a few moments
there. ;-)
> No great trick to buy two or six
> film packs, one is doctored as necessary. Next go out with the
> witnesses, show them the sealed pack, note the numbers with
> their confirmation. Next when they go out of view, swap the
> doctored pack, and snap a picture of a UFO (the one that was
> prepared in advance of course). And the batch numbers match!
Sure. I worked up a scenario using a third camera strictly to push
pre-exposed film through the rollers and start it to developing in
order to run out of the bushes and show the witnesses the film
"actually developing before their very eyes."
Went through it with Bruce several times and he agreed that it could
work like a charm. Add in the fact that a witness told me that Frances
came out of the bushes up to a minute later than Ed, and think about
it. Was she stashing away something?
Of course Bruce and I also agreed that the ability to hoax something
certainly doesn't mean that it *was* hoaxed. Although this incident
seems rather suspicious, complete with several witnesses who didn't
see the ufo, or that the ufo conveniently appears when and where the
other witnesses can't see it, there's no proof of fakery.
> Second, which I may or may not have mentioned, an overlay on top
> of the film, will make an image, just like a contact print.
That sounds like it might be workable. I'll have to think about it.
Offhand, I think density of an overlay pos would block light, thus
making, say, black lettering over a white background in the resulting
pos. How would you make a light object against a black sky with an
overlay?
I think it would be pretty easy to make prints on Polaroid with an
enlarger, or make contact prints, then stuff the latent prints back
into the pack to be later developed by the "third camera." That way
you could shoot some souvenir photos of the witnesses (Ed did) without
having to worry about giving yourself away.
Plus, if the witnesses never went away, "oh, well, the ufos didn't
show up tonight."
Also, anyone could inspect and/or develop your unshot film packs and
not find any evidence.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
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: WALTER.SAL
Date: 15 May 91 07:51:01 GMT
> One of the questions that
> stands out in my mind is how can one person, at will, go out and
> get a nice clear photo of a UFO, when for years people wait and
> try and get nothing or blurs? Terribly suspicious in my opinion.
A good question. This might sound like a cop-out, but it's really
not.
In Ed's first Polaroid series, he was using a camera which lends
itself to a very stable grip, sorta like holding a football in both
hands.
In low light, the camera doesn't do any automatic long exposures. It
just holds the shutter open as long as the photographer holds the
button down.
Ed tends to do the same sort of thing many amateurs do; he doesn't
make a quick stab at the shutter button, he holds that sucker down.
I've watched him shooting with the Canon A-1 he bought a year or so
ago. He hits the button and usually holds it down for close to one
second. Of course the A-1 sets its own shutter speed.
BTW, my wife does exactly the same thing. She even mashes the button
so hard her hand shakes.
Anyway, Ed holds the shutter button down for about a second. The
camera itself affords a steady grip, and in low light the camera holds
the shutter open as long as the button is pressed.
So, Ed would unconciously make one-second exposures.
Now he sees a spaceship, and thinks the space aliens are going to
zap him or something, so he gets a little excited. Instead of
one-second exposures, he's making one-half to one-fourth second
exposures.
The shorter exposures sharpen things up, plus the camera lends
itself to steady handholding. BTW, I think the first few photos were
closer to a proper exposure than later ones. The later photos are much
darker; presumably Ed was pretty excited by then.
Remember that the Polaroids don't get enlarged (unless a copy slide
is projected) and if you look at them closely, they're far from
tack-sharp. The lack of sharpness tends to get lost in the published
pictures because the dot pattern on the printed page makes them look
sharper than the originals really are.
So, for the original Polaroid pictures to have been shot exactly as
stated becomes very feasible.
continued
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
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: WALTER.SAL
Date: 15 May 91 08:03:02 GMT
> One of the questions that
> stands out in my mind is how can one person, at will, go out and
> get a nice clear photo of a UFO, when for years people wait and
> try and get nothing or blurs? Terribly suspicious in my opinion.
In the case of the Nimslo, the camera simply will not shoot slower
than 1/15. If the light level drops below what would require a 1/15
second shutter speed, it's still going to shoot at 1/15.
Most of the lower-priced point & shoot AE cameras do the same thing.
The Nimslo was a pretty expensive 3D camera, but as far as cameras
go, it was a piece of junk. The later Nishika is even worse.
What appears in the Nimslo photos, who knows, but it wasn't at an
exposure time that would preclude hand-holding the camera.
As for the Polaroid Sun 600 cameras on the SRS, well, they were
always on a tripod, so camera shake wouldn't be a problem. If the
subject wasn't moving too fast, that wouldn't be a problem either.
Minimum shutter speed for the Sun 600 is, I think, either 1/8 or
1/15, so there'd be the same situation as with the Nimslo.
Now, remember that Ed didn't stop there.
He bought a used Canon A-1 with a Soligor 70-220 f4 zoom lens.
Know what he's gotten with that camera? Blurry blobs, same as
everyone else.
The Canon's AE sees all that dark sky and gives about a four or
five-second exposure. Drastically overexposed red lights surrounded by
a blurry blob halo, or red streaks.
I strongly suggested to Bruce a while back that he tell those people
to set the cameras at 1/15 at f4 with Ektapress 1600, plant 'em on tripods and
shoot away.
Apparently that suggestion didn't get on down the line, because
they're still getting blurry blobs.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
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: WALTER.SAL
Date: 15 May 91 08:06:03 GMT
> One of the questions that
> stands out in my mind is how can one person, at will, go out and
> get a nice clear photo of a UFO, when for years people wait and
> try and get nothing or blurs? Terribly suspicious in my opinion.
It is rather suspicious, but I think what gets most would-be
photographers is that they rely on the autoexposure systems of their
cameras. The camera sees all that darkness in a night shot and
automatically sets a long exposure, which results in blobs and
streaks.
Best thing to do is just to guess exposure and bracket like mad.
jbh
--
John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Speiser)
Subject: Re: WALTER.SAL
Date: 16 May 91 08:29:00 GMT
Jim:
I can tell your heart is in the right place, but there's a few things you
should know about Gulf Breeze, and Ufology in general....
->model. Ed Walters photographed 3 different crafts, where
->are these other models if we most let the skeptics have
->there way? And yes, Billy Meier, what a great artist he
Good lord, Jim, do we have to find ALL the models before you'll consider
that he might have done it with models? It was only a stroke of luck that we
found one! The others he might have been more careful with.
->there way? And yes, Billy Meier, what a great artist he
->must be to be able to make 6 different models with only
->having one arm.
This is a put-down (unintentional, I'm sure) of handicapped people. I happen
to know quite a few HCPs myself, and many of them are capable of quite
amazing things with limited dexterity. My best friend, in fact, is the
victim of a horrible birth defect similar to the effects of Thalidomide. His
arms and legs are virtually unrecognizable as such, he has three twisted
claws on one hand that serve as fingers, one leg that ends in a foot where
most people have a knee, the other leg is even shorter and ends in a knob;
yet he is an accountant, drives a large car, smokes like a chimney and fires
pistols at the firing range. I'd say Billy can do just fine with one arm.
-> As in a court case, one must seek
->a motive and what is the motive for Ed. It can't be money
Disagree entirely. This is NOT a murder trial, hence motive is not an issue.
It has been pointed out time and time again that hoaxing is its own motive.
Lack of motive cannot be grounds for dismissal of a hoax charge, simply
because it has been shown time and time again that hoaxes have occurred in
the past without any visible motive. And yes, the motive can be money - it
was $400,000 he was paid for the book, and a sequel is in the works. That's
a lot of change to anyone.
I'm not sure what other people are seeing, Jim. I think the non-Ed cases may
have something to them. But you cannot make that grounds for acceptance of
Ed's case, any more than you can make legitimate sightings ANYWHERE grounds
for acceptance of any particular case.
Jim
--
Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@paranet.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mcorbin@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Michael Corbin)
Subject: The Moon
Date: 21 May 91 03:10:58 GMT
I have been reading a NASA briefing paper from the late 60s entitled
'Lunar Anomalies.' It would seem that there are a great deal of references
contained in the work indicating what appears to be volcanic activity on
the moon. I am an amateur at science and astronomy, but I always thought
that the moon was 'dead.' Is it possible that there are volcanoes on the
moon?
Michael Corbin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gateh@conncoll.bitnet
Subject: James Randi vs. Uri Geller
Date: 21 May 91 21:33:46 GMT
From: gateh%CONNCOLL.BITNET@YALEVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
+ From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro)
[stuff deleted]
+ Biggest laugh for me was Uri Geller bending a spoon, and taking about how
+ much money he had made. Finally got to see what Randi looks like, and Carl
+ Sagan made a nice statement about what he believes, but still left it open
+ for others to choose for themself. I appreciate that kind of acceptance and
+ ability to let others have freedom of thought even if one disagrees with
+ those thoughts.
Don't know if you folks have heard, but a letter from Randi was
recently forwarded to the BITNET SKEPTICS list, wherein he relates
how a series of relentless legal attacks by Geller (concerning
statements he made to the effect that Geller is a fraud), while
without merit, are crushing him financially. He has also made a
very difficult decision to remove himself as a member of SCISOP
(sp?) in order to prevent further association of that group with the
fracus. He ended the letter with a plea for financial assistance in
his fight against Geller, as it has already cost him more than
$100,000. It seems as though there may be a legal fund of some kind
in the making.
If folks are interested, I can probably retrieve a copy of the
letter and forward it on.
Cheers! - Gregg
Gregg TeHennepe | Academic Systems Coordinator
gateh@conncoll.bitnet | Connecticut College, New London, CT
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Re: Miscellaneous
Date: 16 May 91 16:06:00 GMT
> Thanks for that account of the Tucson Congress, Dan. Unfortunately, the
> only report I got was of a woman who claimed to be from Venus. Largely
> because of her and a few others of her ilk, the Congress got bad press.
> The AP story included none of the reports you mentioned. Why can't we
> have "New Age"-oriented conventions and science-oriented conventions,
> and never the twain shall meet? This doesn't denigrate the more
> spiritual aspects, it simply sets up a "separate-but-equal" status. This
> may be improper in the racial context, but I certainly see benefits in
> the UFO context.
I agree...The AP article was a devastating blow to UFOlogy, once again. And,
as it has in the past, so it is in the present -- the wild claims of some jerk
makes the news simply to discredit the rest of the attempted serious study.
Someone ought to put a clamp on their mouths! What I can't believe is how
otherwise serious people who have a rational discipline could pay money and
approve of such unfounded stories as true. Venus is not supportive of life,
we have satellites there right now surveying the planet and know it is
uninhabitable. Sheesh!
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Meier, Stevens, Tucson And The Moon
Date: 16 May 91 16:38:00 GMT
> From: well!ddrasin@apple.com (Dan Drasin)
> + In regard to Meiers Metal that was supposedly examained by an IBM
> + engineer - as I recall the 'engineer' was a lower level technician
> + with a penchant for overstatment. I also seem to recall that after
> + the piece was analyzed it conveniently was lost - the 'engineer' was
> + carrying it around in his pocket and misplaced it, or some such
> + nonsense.
>
> Jim, I almost hate to tell you this, but that 'lower level technician'
> you recall was none other than the late Marcel Vogel, holder of
> hundreds of high-tech patents and one of the top crystallographers in
> the country. His work was central to the development of magnetic media
> for computers (hard and floppy disks) and liquid crystal display
> devices. In recent years he devoted himself to exploring some of the
> lesser-known properties of crystals, including many that have been
> poo-poohed by 'scientists' without so much as a wisp of an attempt at
> honest research.
I agree. From what I saw of the tape with Vogel speaking, he was demonstrating
the properties that the metal had as a result of the electronmicroscopy. Very
interesting, but inconclusive. This, in my book, does not make the
possibility of its alleged origin moot. The same results were demonstrated
with the metal recovered from the Brazil explosion years ago. It was found to
contain a high purity magnesium, but nothing that couldn't have originated
here. And, true, the scientific community has demonstrated a lack of interest
in the whole UFO field for years, and probably will continue. But, have we
ever wondered why? Aside from various theories that include a concerted
deliberate effort on the part of the government squelchers, I tend to think
from talking with some of them myself, that they are extremely uncomfortable
with the quality of the data that is out there today, and the
pseudo-scientists that abound this field. Although I believe that what we
perceive to be metaphysical today might very well prove out to be scientific
fact tomorrow, we have another problem going on that causes the scientists to
shy away -- blind faith belief in something to the point that it is accepted
without so much as a question. This is not science, nor is it good sense. We
can demonstrate that EVERYTHING has mechanics. Even psychic abilities, in my
understanding of them, have mechanics. But, we are not able to measure this
or observe it, yet. Nonetheless, what is being billed as science by
metaphysicians is nothing more than folly and is recognized as such by those
true scientists. I do not applaud their out-of-hand rejection of the entire
phenomena, but I can't blame them for wanting to stay away. How would you
feel if your good name and reputation was billed right next to the jerk that
claims to be a Venusian? In order to understand the intricacies of this
thing, we must be observers first.
> I can't verify this, but the story I heard was that Vogel made the
> mistake of submitting the sample to a certain government agency for
> independent analysis, and that was the last he ever saw of it.
> However, the data tapes of the sample, made through his scanning
> electron
> microscope, have been preserved. In the end, neither he nor any of his
> professional colleagues who examined the actual sample could figure
> out how the Meier (not 'Meiers,' please) sample could have been
> created with any metallurgical processes known to them.
>From what I understood Vogel to say was that the sample disappeared from his
pocket mysteriously. No other explanation was offered.
> The Meier case probably deserves some kind of award for being the most
> frequently debunked by so many people who have done so little
> research into its details.
I agree. But, again, who is researching it that has demonstrated a balanced
non-committed belief approach to it? I have seen no one. The verdict was in
before the trial was over.
> The Tucson conference was absolute dynamite. What the Soviet
> contingent (three speakers, including Dr. Marina Popovich, cosmonaut
> and the USSR's most highly-decorated test pilot) had to say (and show)
> was fairly mind-blowing. The Soviet Acad. of Sciences is years ahead
> of us in open scientific inquiry into 'forbidden' areas, and
> the entire spectrum of ufological matters seems to be handled much
> more responsibly there than here. That's all I'll say right now -- I
> could go on for hours.
Without taking up the bandwidth of this conference, I would love to discuss
the responsibility factor with you in netmail. Care to do this?
> + Why do you think Wendelle Stevens lost credibility/popularity with
> + the UFO community? Was it because he backed up Billy Meier at one
> + time (and Billy has only a few supporters anymore?) I'm asking
> + because I do not know; have only graduated to Kindergarten in my
> + knowledge of UFO subjects and people.
>
> Well, Stevens only lost credibility with certain *factions* of the UFO
> community, one of them being the faction represented here on ParaNet.
> In general, 'the nuts-and-bolts' and "abduction" ufologists have had
> little patience with contactees claiming benevolent, interdimensional,
> spiritually-oriented or otherwise complex experiences, though the
> latter have always been more tolerant of the former. Stevens has had a
> reputation for honoring the *entire* spectrum of reports, which has
> always irked those of the narrowly materialist-reductionist
> persuation.
Please do not heap ParaNet into this. ParaNet does not take a position at
this point. The sentiments concerning Stevens are the opinions of some of the
members here only. Also, Stevens seems to me to be interested in this only
from a profit motive. Is this balanced scientific/research objectivity?
> Others lost faith (i.e., didn't want to be associated with him) after
> he was convicted of child-molestation a few years back -- which
> occurred after he refused to lay off a certain crashed-saucer case
> after repeated warnings.
That he was convicted is not necessarily relevant here, and it poses some
interesting questions regarding his involvement, but the problem is why
haven't some of the other researchers investigating equally sensitive areas
been convicted of like crimes? Could it be that this is a convenient excuse
to maintain your credibility while running a brothel in Las Vegas? I don't
think so.
> As for the Meier case, Stevens, while he has generally supported
> Meier, has never been a 'true believer' in Meier's entire story. He
> and others have observed that a radical change came over Meier about
> 1980. He feels that the pre-1980 material is probably largely
> legitimate, but that later the whole picture shifted quite a bit, and
> that Meier is now rather a 'broken' man.
This may be a very valid point. Betty Hill has demonstrated a similar pattern
of behavior following her encounter. But, as anything else dealing with this,
qualified people should be dealing with it rather than a bunch of believers.
> As a professional photographer I can tell you without a shadow of a
> doubt that photos presented by Meier after 1980 were contrived. But
> neither I nor anyone else has ever been able to find the least fault
> with his mid-1970's photos. Those pictures are probably the most
> extensively and repeatedly analyzed in the entire history of ufology,
> and so far nobody has been able to shoot them down, either technically
> or circumstantially.
There is one shot of the saucer hovering in front of the movie camera. The
branch is moving. Then Meier claims the saucer suddenly disappeared. The
branch ceases moving. What causes this?
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Gb Paper
Date: 16 May 91 23:46:00 GMT
> Anyone interested in the Gulf Breeze incidents, be sure and get a copy
> of Bruce Maccabee's paper to be presented to the MUFON symposium in
> July.
> It's about the "other" incidents, and it'll knock your socks off.
> Bruce's paper should be included in the symposium Proceedings, which
> will be available from MUFON.
Could you elaborate on what it is that could "knock your socks off?"
Thanks,
Mike
--
Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.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
For administrative requests (subscriptions, back issues) send to:
UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request
DOMAIN infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
To obtain back issues by anonymous ftp, connect to:
DOMAIN ftp.uiowa.edu (directory /archives/paranet)
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
