Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 252 Monday, June 25th 1990 Today's Topics: CAMERAS Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze Ed Walters CAMERAS Stan Friedman Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze Ed Walters Re: Arizona UFO's GB pix UFO DOCUMENTARIES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Pete.Porro Subject: CAMERAS Date: 20 Jun 90 16:14:33 GMT I read one account that Ed used a twin 35mm camera rig for the paralax and pseudo stereo. I have seen references to the Nimslo camera but is this in fact one of the types he used? If so it gives the best effect on close photos, after about 20 feet there is not much stereo effect. For anyone who does not know what is happening here, the Nimslo type camera takes four half frame photos at one time, processing is done only by them, it is sliced and a lens (thin sheet of plastic) is placed over the photo. Nice trick! If you see one of these it looks like you can stick your finger into the photo etc. Meanwhile back to GB photos. I know I read that there were assorted cameras tried, I believe the Polaroids provided the good clear photos. If anyone can add to this, I wondered if anyone else has any knowledge of any other clear photos provided by anyone other than ED? Possibility: Whoever made the model, had it hidded in the roof structure and forgot it was under the insulation when they moved out. Didn't anyone ever hide something inside their own place and forget where they hid it? Did anyone ever move and discover they left things up in the rafters? Oh well just some thoughts. -- 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: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze Date: 22 Jun 90 17:02:01 GMT > John: The thing that really makes me suspicious about those > "Shoreline Park" photos is that even though there were > "witnesses" in the area (Duane Cook from the Sentinel -- and his > wife -- and at least one other person) *noone* saw the UFO that > Ed photographed. I think it was Duane who had occaision to > actually see the camera flash -- without seeing *any* UFO. > So we have "eyewitnesses" but what did they witnesses? -- We have six witnesses in addition to Ed and Frances. Duane and Dari were driving away only to turn around and head back, while the others were for all practical purposes *hiding* behind a restroom building. Ed was hiding in a clump of bushes so that anyone who wandered up wouldn't pester him. Anyway, based on where the witnesses said they were, and where Ed said he was, they couldn't see him or the ufo because their view was blocked by the building and trees. They could, however, see the treetops above Ed. When he fired the flashes, they saw the flashes against the treetops. All the witnesses said they saw the flashes light the treetops, but didn't see a ufo. All they actually witnessed was the film being loaded into the cameras, the flashes going off, and then the pictures developing. That the pictures they saw developed was the same film that was loaded into the cameras was verified. There's no way to swap a previously-prepared filmpack for what was loaded without resetting film counters *and* having a different serial number. According to the witneses, there was only a couple of minutes Ed and Frances were alone, hence no time to hang or otherwise fiddle with models etc. Placement of models or turning the tripod would have to be *exact* or the stereo effect of the two cameras would give it away. So, although the witnesses didn't see a ufo, they do provide confirmation that the film loaded into the cameras wasn't prepared in advance, that the filmpacks weren't switched, that there was no time to mess with models etc., and that whatever appeared in the developing pictures is what Ed photographed when he fired the cameras. Either that or all present were in on a hoax, and there's no evidence at all toward that. If you can figure out a feasible way to hoax that incident, we're all listening. My brain's tired. ;-) 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: Ed Walters Date: 22 Jun 90 20:50:00 GMT > drawings are of was not designed or built until about 2 years > after the pictures were taken. He says that he can prove this > 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. 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: CAMERAS Date: 23 Jun 90 07:33:03 GMT > I read one account that Ed used a twin 35mm camera rig for the > paralax and pseudo stereo. I have seen references to the Nimslo > camera but is this in fact one of the types he used? If so it > gives the best effect on close photos, after about 20 feet there > is not much stereo effect. A Nimslo was in fact used. Maccabee used the images from the outer lenses as the baseline for his parallax measurements. He reached the conclusion that the baseline was long enough for calcualtions of distance out to about 20 feet, but no farther. He did calculate, though, that the object photographed with the Nimslo was more than 20 feet away. As far as clear photos, I've noticed one thing in common among many of the other folks who've taken ufo photos which show blurs and streaks. They usually have their cameras loaded with fairly slow film; that is, ISO 400 or slower. Also, since they don't have the foggiest idea of what a proper exposure would be, they just leave the camera's autoexposure system set on automatic. The camera meter "sees" all that black sky, ignores the tiny light, and automatically gives an exposure of several seconds duration. Also, the cameras are just about always handheld. The result is a large blur and/or a streak. Ed got the exact same results with his new camera, which is a Canon A1 with a long zoom lens. According to Maccabee, Ed was unconciously setting an exposure of about 1/2 to 1 1/2 seconds with his old Polaroid simply by the way he was pressing and releasing the shutter button. The shape of the Polaroid makes it fairly easy to handhold for those durations. The pictures aren't all that incredibly sharp, but not bad. That is, they're not as sharp as the camera is capable 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!f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Tim.Hamewka Subject: Stan Friedman Date: 23 Jun 90 18:09:07 GMT If anyone has been wondering what ol' Stan has been up to, you can call 1-900-USA-UFOS. It seems that he is the spokesperson for a toll line called THE UFO LINE. It's president is someone named Ryan Wood. According to the newspaper article, you can call up and hear about some of the latest sightings and other UFO related material. I'll try to get the entire article typed up and put on some of the BBSs in case anyone is interested. -- Tim Hamewka - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Tim.Hamewka@f725.n209.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser Subject: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze Date: 22 Jun 90 06:34:00 GMT > > I was sure I'd figured it out a few times, but I wasn't as smart as I > thought I was. ;-) > I'm willing to admit to not being smart enough. The real problem with > Ed's pictures is that most of them could have been faked while some are > real head-scratchers, and no smoking gun has turned up. Just about once > a day I think I've figured it out, for about five minutes. You seem to be at the stage I was at only a few months ago. "It CAN'T be true...no, wrong attitude, it COULD be true, I'm only saying that because we're not used to getting so many close-up shots....but these look fake...but how did he do the road shot?...but why didn't he get any shots of the aliens?...On the other hand, what about the other witnesses?..." and on and on and on. I sympathise with ya, John, its a tough nut to crack. I think you have to take a step back and look at the whole thing, especially Ed's overall behavior and demeanor, and the consistency of his tale and the reports from the investigators. Something is definitely not right here. Just the fact that MUFON came out with that mickey mouse position statement only two days after the model was discovered, tells me that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. They didn't sound like anything approaching objective investigators, they sounded more like President Bush expressing support for John Tower. 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: Ed Walters Date: 23 Jun 90 07:31:00 GMT Thanks for that report, John. The only thing I can add at this point is that I talked to the reporter, Craig Meyers and he said he went to the house on a lark (and NOT on a "tip") to see if the owners might have found anything. The owners had ALREADY found the model in the attic a few weeks before his visit, and they produced it for him immediately. Much can be read into this scenario, but for now I am taking it at face value. I have been given no reason to suspect the reporter or the homeowner of any duplicity. 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!Mike.Wheeler Subject: Re: Arizona UFO's Date: 23 Jun 90 15:07:00 GMT Yes, I have, although I haven't heard that much about him. One of the reasons I am most interested in the Childs area is that one time I was traveling in that area with my wife and a friend, and we were looking out at a large, deep canyon called Fossil Creek. Right at the bottom of this canyon was a large brown circle in the middle of a very green field. To this day we have wondered what that was, and I wish I had had a good telephoto lens on my camera, as it was I took a picture but it can hardly be made out. It was after this that my mom reminded me of some of the stories about Childs and this area in general, and of some of the things my dad talked about. ? -- Mike Wheeler - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Mike.Wheeler@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks Subject: GB pix Date: 23 Jun 90 21:35:01 GMT I have come up with a method by which Ed's pictures 36L and 36R could have been hoaxed. There is, however, no evidence that points toward a hoax. I had a very long conversation with Bruce Maccabee this morning, and he agrees that my hoax method is workable. We now have a situation in which every one of Ed's ufo pictures could be hoaxed. Not very easily, but could be. I'd also discovered a factor that may have nailed an unwitting hoaxer dead, but concrete evidence satisfied the requirements of that factor to *not* prove a hoax. Recently a person has said publicly that he helped Ed hoax pictures, and the person has, at least privately, shown some ufo pictures. Maccabee said he has some of the pictures. He said that he has disproved the hoax method described by the person on eight technical points. In other words, the pictures the person presented *could not* have been hoaxed the way the person said they were. We're then forced to conclude that the pictures are real, and that the person is sustaining a lie he told two years ago. To clarify, the person apparently took real pictures and then lied that they were fake, for personal reasons. jbh -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ZAK@cu.nih.gov Subject: UFO DOCUMENTARIES Date: 25 Jun 90 19:18:45 GMT -+From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Pete.Porro -+ Speaking of films, I know there are many ufo films and videos out there. I -+ have not seen more than 10. Is there a list or a clearing house for maybe -+ circulating some of these from person to person for viewing? I saw the ad for -+ the Billy M films (three parts?) in an American Express flyer. The price was -+ too much for my budget, has anyone got some reviews of the best films or -+ videos to look for? I have a monster catalogue from a video store in Pennsylvania. When I was at the store, I noticed a number of UFO documentaries on the shelves, and I've been trying to remember to either photocopy the page or write down the titles and the ordering address for my father for some time. Thanks for reminding me! I'll send the info along soon! ********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************************