Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 255 Sunday, July 1st 1990 Today's Topics: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze UFO VIDEOS GB pix Re: Ed Walters/camera Re: CAMERAS Re: Ed Walters/camera GB photos GB photos GB photos GB Photos GB Photos Re: Ed Walters/camera Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze Ed Walters Ed Walters Re: CAMERAS Traffic Traffic, again Crop Circles Revealed? Re: Ed Walters/camera Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze Re: GB PHOTOS GB evidence chain More GB Re: GB PHOTOS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Delton Subject: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze Date: 27 Jun 90 22:06:00 GMT RE: Buy a camera and give it to ED >>Would I be willing to do that? Yes, if I was MUFON, supposedly a reasonalbly professional organization, and I was investigating something that was supposed to be one of the premier cases of the decade, I think I might be willing to spring for a camera, say an autofocus, autowind for around $150. I would think an antitampering lock could be added without much more then some cosmetic degradation to the case. It's not like MUFON's investment in the camera would be out the window, presumably they would get it back at some future date. I'm mystified by the light blasting explanation. I don't see how you get detail out of ink black no matter how much light you shine on it. Have you actually seen this technique demonstrated or is it just something you have had described to you and you are passing it on. If holding it up to the sunlight would bring out the details on a photograph, they it ought to bring out the details right then and there to the human eyes. I've never seen a dark picture that worked that way when I've taken underexposed photo's. It also seems odd that the extremely dark parts get so light but the already light parts don't see to get that much brighter. It would seem that the already light parts would become blindingly bright to the point of loosing virtually ALL of the detail in that area. As far as the Nimslo, what you have said convinces me even more that the photos from it were hoaxed. If there was evident parallax and the parallax would not be evident more then 30 to 50 feet away then the object would have to have been withing 50 feet of ED. Hard to reconcile that it was within 50 feet but had such tiny and dim lights. Sounds very much to me like ED rigged up some christmas lights and took a photo of them from across the yard or someting. Certainly doesn't sound like a photo of a large object up in the sky since if that was the situation there should be no parallax at all evident. It still strikes me that the only camera ED had that he could not monkey with points rather nicely to the whole thing being a hoax. -- Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ZAK@cu.nih.gov Subject: UFO VIDEOS Date: 28 Jun 90 15:17:48 GMT I turned up the following films in a catalogue I have (which are 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 descriptions of the films below are verbatim from their catalogue. I cannot personally recommend any of the films because I haven't seen them. (NOTE--A videodisc catalogue is also available.) The Real E.T. 'Is anybody out there?' Peter Ustinov hosts an engrossing documentary produced by Omni magazine that looks at the search of life on other worlds, the persistent claims of 'close encounters,' and the possible colonization of space by Earth. 40 min. 64-3139 $12.95 UFOs and Channelling Who better than Captain James T. Kirk to take you into outer space and across the astral plane? Join William Shatner for a video investigation into sightings of 'flying saucers' and extraterrestrials, and a look at the growing interest in 'trance-channelling.' 60 min. 16-9013 $39.95 Overlords of the U.F.O. Examine the incredible-but-true stories of men and women who have been kidnapped by extraterrestrials and the amazing reasons behind this frightening secret invasion. 08-1438 $29.95 Who's Out There? Are extraterrestrials really out there? Or are they figments of sci-fi lovers' imaginations? Orson Welles hosts this look at outer space life, offering some amazing evidence you won't find anywhere else! 50-1219 $19.95 UFOs: It Has Begun Hosts Rod Serling, Burgess Meredith, and Jose Ferrer present astounding evidence of the existence of UFOs and examine the reasons behind determined coverup by our government. 08-1439 $29.95 Encounter With the Unknown Rod Serling ('Twilight Zone') narrates this dramatization of three frightening real-life events. 90 min. 08-1204 $59.95 U.F.O....The Unsolved Mystery Tens of thousands of people have seen then, including a former president of the United Staes. Host Mike Farrell takes a look at the history of unidentified flying objects using actual government reports, eyewitness accounts, and purported photographs and film footage. 54-5048 $19.95 UFOs Part of the series _Secrets of the Unknown_ hosted by Edward Mulhare ('The Ghost and Mrs. Muir'). Is Earth regularly visited by beings from beyond our world? Are we the subjects of alien scientific studies? 50-6339 $14.95 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks Subject: GB pix Date: 27 Jun 90 06:35:02 GMT > John, you are only forced to conclude that if you assume that > Maccabee is (a) infallible and (b) unbiased. The story, as yet unconfirmed but from several sources, is that the kid's parents are Bible-thumping religious fundamentalists. The kid apparently first told them he'd photographed what Ed had photographed, and when the parents freaked out, the kid changed his story. So now he has to decide whether to support that first lie, or what. So the story goes. I understand what you're saying about Maccabee. Remember, though, that he's talking on the sorta-straightforward technical level. He said that the kid said the ufo was supported on a black pole through the center, but there's no gap in the 'power ring' as there would be if the back side of it was blocked by a black pole. See what I mean? He said his study on the kid's claims will be available at the symposium, so I'll be sure and get a copy. 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/camera Date: 27 Jun 90 06:36:03 GMT > You mean the nobody has ever seen those $5.95 128mm I truly hope you're kidding. What are the manufacturing tolerances of _cardboard_? 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: 27 Jun 90 06:43:04 GMT > 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. I've been fiddling shooting aircraft lights at night. ISO 1600 film, 350 f2.8 lens on a fluid-head tripod. 1/60 gets enough exposure for the lights, but my hit-rate for sharpness is about ten percent. Of course, we're really pushing the limits here. With a shorter lens, that hit rate would be somewhat better. Of course, with a normal lens, they'd just about all be sharp tiny dots. Even caught illuminated windows in a few shots. Looked very odd, but *nothing* like Ed's Nimslo pictures. Don't get the wrong idea now, folks. ;-) jbh -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p100.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Kurt.Lochner Subject: Re: Ed Walters/camera Date: 27 Jun 90 17:34:56 GMT > > I truly hope you're kidding. What are the > manufacturing tolerances of _cardboard_? > > jbh I'm pretty sure that the tolerances involved in using a couple of those cheap box camera are well within usable ranges, they're not easy to tamper with and could be used effectively for a stereo pictures. No, I'm not kidding, I'm taking Optics this summer. -- Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Kurt.Lochner@p100.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks Subject: GB Photos Date: 27 Jun 90 18:12:00 GMT > 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? Yep, I did figure out a workable way. I talked with Maccabee about it voice and he agreed that, yes, it would work. Both of us agree that there's no proof, though. I'll try to put it in a coherent form and post it. > 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? I'm not enough of a mathematician to duplicate his calculations, but I do understand the principles involved. However, he does present his work in such a way that anyone who knows how could verify or invalidate his results. For the parallax calculations, for instance, he's figured distances within a range. The range is necessary because of the non-rigidity of the SRS. To me, what's important is that the center of each image is wider apart than the lens axes. If the centers are very wide, we're looking at an object up close, while if the centers are very close to the axes, we're looking at an object far away. Exactly how close or far away, I don't have the math knowlege to figure, but given the distance between the lens axes and the distance between the image centers in relation to the lens axes, someone who knows how *could* calculate it. So far as I know, his calculations haven't been called into question. From eyeballing the image pairs, I can say that we're not looking at something really close or extremely far away. In no case are we seeing something too far away to measure parallax, and with the SRS that range is out to about 2,000 feet. With the Nimslo, parallax is measurable to about 60 feet, but not with any precision past maybe 40 feet. Any of these image pairs could be faked, though, by someone who can figure out exactly how far to move a model for each photo of the pair, or who can figure out exactly how far to rotate a tripod for each shot. The margin of error for model movement or tripod rotation is very small for the object size at the calculated distance to be consistent with the object size as determined from other photos. And the size of each object seems to be consistent from photo to photo at varying calculated distances. Since I've mentioned models, I've been fiddling around. I've been photographing a variety of airplanes, from Cessnas to 747s at various distances. I got some odd-looking stuff, but all are clearly recognizable as airplanes. Also, it's mighty hard to do and get reasonably sharp. My real point is that whatever appears in the Nimslo photos probably isn't an airplane, as has been suggested. In order for it to be an airplane, its lights would have to be *much brighter* than the lights of any airplane coming into Orlando Executive Airport or Orlando International for several nights running. The closest I've come is a 747, but the landing and running lights are *much brighter* than the cabin lights, even when the airplane is going away, and we don't see that in the Nimslo photos. I've been using ISO 1600 film with a 350 f2.8 lens, while the Nimslo was loaded with ISO 1000 film and has normal-focal-length f2.8 lenses, I believe. I think that in order for Ed to have photographed an airplane, he would have had to have been flying alongside, and the subject airplane would have to have running and landing lights turned off. Feasible, but not very probable. 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: GB photos Date: 27 Jun 90 19:11:00 GMT Know what just occured to me? In order to photograph a model, we need a large (at least 30 feet long) dark area. How about a house under construction out in the boonies? Large empty room, no electric lights nearby (darkness), no one wandering around, and if Ed is caught there, so what. He's the builder. 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: GB photos Date: 27 Jun 90 19:15:01 GMT It finally occured to me what the Nimslo object resembles. A twin-rotor (fore 'n' aft) helicopter. And if I was actually photographing a model (from a hobby kit) of such a helicopter, I could put a light inside, and cover up what I didn't want light to shine through or put a hole where I want light. Why a model kit? Easy to get basic shape, window holes already there etc. And if I do this out in the boonies, no one will notice, and there's no extraneous light. Interesting the the color of the lights that appear in the photo is rather yellowish-orange, roughly the same as if you photograph an incandescent light with daylight-balanced film. 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: GB photos Date: 27 Jun 90 19:17:00 GMT I've just been kind of rambling. The fact is that *every one* of Ed's photos has a workable hoax theory now, but there's no proof of a hoax. 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: GB Photos Date: 28 Jun 90 01:54:00 GMT > You mentioned on CompuServe that you might have come up with a > method whereby photos 36L and 36R could conceivably have been > faked. OK, here goes. I've loaned out my copy of the book, so I'm more-or-less running on memory of what the pictures look like. I do have a copy of Maccabee's analysis. My goal is to fake 36L and 36R. I have show witnesses developing Polaroid pictures of a ufo that they didn't see. First, I need three cameras. The two Polaroid Sun 600 cameras on the SRS, and a third similar camera that we don't see. Also, I need four filmpacks; two of one emulsion batch and one of another batch. The batch numbers can be found on the boxes and on the back of each picture. One night, whenever I feel like it, probably late so I can be sure I won't be seen, I pick my spot at Shoreline Park and then, using one of the cameras, doesn't matter which, I take a shot of the dark sky with a bush in the foreground. This will be my L camera shot. (note: since I don't have the pictures to look at, I can't remember if the bush is in the L or R shot, but it doesn't make any difference) I don't let that picture be ejected and run through the rollers, therefore it just stays in the camera and doesn't get developed. When I get to wherever I'm going to photograph a model or whatever, in the dark, I pull that filmpack and reinsert the cardboard cover sheet. Now I can handle the filmpack in the light. Now, in my..er..studio, I set up the SRS rig. I've calculated how far I have to turn the tripod away from perpendicular to the model to get the proper amount of parallax effect. (not me personally, but it can be done) I insert the filmpack which includes the pre-exposed bush in the L camera and the cover sheet is automatically ejected. If I hadn't stuck the sheet back in, the bush photo would have been ejected. I insert another filmpack in the R camera. I rotate the SRS counterclockwise and take the L picture, and prevent that one from ejecting. I then rotate the SRS clockwise and take the R picture and prevent that from ejecting. I now have a stereo pair of ufo pictures which display a reasonable amount of parallax (reasonable distance) and one even has an overexposed bush in the foreground to lend credibility. In the dark, I pull out both filmpacks, noting which emulsion batch was loaded into what camera. I slide out the R picture, put it into the L filmpack, and slide the cover sheet back in. I can now handle this pack in the light. Now, sometime later, I go to my spot at Shoreline Park with an assortment of other people to look for ufos. As luck would have it, it's a cold windy night, so they probably won't hang around very long. A witness opens two new film packages (which I brought) and notes the emulsion batch numbers. I make sure I insert the pack in the L camera that has a matching number with the L photo I already made, and the other pack goes into the other camera. The reason for the care with the numbers is that all prints in a filmpack have the same number, which matches the number on the box. Any number of boxes of film with the same batch number can be purchased. However, the ufo photo I show as having come out of the L camera must have the same batch number of the pack that was loaded, or I'm caught. So, anyway, I'm sitting there with the SRS cameras loaded, and all these people are hanging around. I take a couple of test and souvenir pictures and one of the witnesses keeps track of the film counter of each camera. Eventually, since nothing's happening, the extraneous people decide to leave. Here's where the third camera comes in. I have disabled or covered the flash, and I've covered the lens, so all I'm using this camera for is to run the film through the rollers and start development at the proper time. The third camera is hidden in a box, bag or in my wife's large purse. After all, who's going to insist on looking in my wife's purse? Two of the witnesses have gotten in their car and headed away. I didn't hear any other car, so the other people are still around somewhere. They walked? Well, they couldn't have walked very far yet. I'm so well-concealed that I know they can't see me directly. I fish out the third camera and fire it twice, starting the ufo pictures to developing. I then fire each SRS camera once, just for the flashes. I stick those resulting blank pictures in a pocket so no one will see them. I figure the witnesses are nearby, so I run out of the bushes to my truck and turn on the headlights. If the witnesses are nearby, I've attracted their attention. ThThe witnesses gather and watch the pictures develop before their very eyes. They saw the flashes, and since the pictures are developing, the pictures were just taken, right? No one has seen a third camera, and no one will. Q - "How come we didn't see the ufo?" A - "You weren't looking in the right direction. Besides, it was there only for an instant." I've had plenty of time in my "studio" to photograph a model or projection at my leisure. Since I or someone I know has enough mathematical knowlege to calculate the appropriate parallax I need to show, I can either move the model the right distance parallel to the film plane or I can rotate the tripod the appropriate number of degrees. This is important so that the object won't appear too big or too small. I don't need the collusion of any of the witnesses, so I know none of them have any beans to spill. I only needed for them to leave me alone for at least 15 seconds. If they hadn't remained around, I just would have had two more pictures to show the next day, so nothing would have been lost. The emulsion batch number of the L picture matches the L filmpack, and the R number matches the R pack, so that lends credibility. Since I actually shot two blank pictures with the SRS and hid the pictures while presenting two more, the film counters show two shots exposed. Why did I run out to my truck? Well, my flashlight didn't work. Why not? That's a mystery, isn't it. ******************** I talked Maccabee through this a couple of times, and he agreed that it would work. We both, however, are in agreement that the fact that 36L and 36R could have been hoaxed are all it shows. It is not in any way proof of a hoax. Opinions? 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/camera Date: 29 Jun 90 07:04:00 GMT > I'm pretty sure that the tolerances involved in using > a couple of those cheap box camera are well within > usable ranges, they're not easy to tamper with and > could be used effectively for a stereo pictures. I'll try to remember to bounce it off Maccabee for his comments. I talked with him about using a Stereo Realist camera for the same thing, and he was very interested, but the cost of the camera is a definite factor. 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: 29 Jun 90 07:28:01 GMT > Yes, if I was MUFON, supposedly a reasonalbly professional > organization, and I was investigating something that was > supposed to be one of the premier cases of the decade, I think I > might be willing to spring for a camera, say an autofocus, > autowind for around $150. Interesting. You've just suggested a camera that would either be limited in long-exposure capability (as some are) or would automatically give a very long exposure (seconds). You'd either get nothing (drastic underesposure) or you'd get what lots of folks have gotten; blurry blobs and streaks. The usual wide-angle lens wouldn't help. What I think you really want is a camera (autofocus ok) with at least a medium telephoto and a manually-set shutter speed. The vast exposure latitude of modern negative films would cover overexposure well, and you'd just have to pray in the case of underexposure. > I would think an antitampering lock > could be added without much more then some cosmetic degradation > to the case. It's not like MUFON's investment in the camera > would be out the window, presumably they would get it back at > some future date. That is perfectly reasonable. > I'm mystified by the light blasting explanation. Anything above d-max is going to become visible if enough light is passed through the print material. In fact, any print emulsion is actually a transparency on a reflective substrate, such as the print paper. If there's enough exposure to get any of the emulsion grains to be developable, they will develop density (or lack of density, in the case of Polaroid positives) and that density difference can be made visible by shining a bright enough light through the back of the print. Forget neg/pos printing and think in terms of positive transparencies, in which exposure causes *less* density than no exposure. > Have you actually seen this technique demonstrated > or is it just something you have had described to you and you > are passing it on. Maccabee told me how it was done, then I tried it myself. > If holding it up to the sunlight would bring > out the details on a photograph, they it ought to bring out the > details right then and there to the human eyes. I've never seen > a dark picture that worked that way when I've taken underexposed > photo's. Think transparency positive originals! Take a dark slide and look at it against reflected room light. Mighty dark, right? Now project it and see if you don't see lots more detail. > It also seems odd that the extremely dark parts get so > light but the already light parts don't see to get that much > brighter. It would seem that the already light parts would > become blindingly bright to the point of loosing virtually ALL > of the detail in that area. Why would the light detail vanish? You're looking at sunlight through a piece of white paper. If you're making a copy photo, use low-contrast duping film. BTW, a long dupe exposure would accomplish much the same thing. > As far as the Nimslo, what you > have said convinces me even more that the photos from it were > hoaxed. If there was evident parallax and the parallax would > not be evident more then 30 to 50 feet away then the object > would have to have been withing 50 feet of ED. Maccabee said more than 20 feet and less than 60. > Hard to > reconcile that it was within 50 feet but had such tiny and dim > lights. Sounds very much to me like ED rigged up some christmas > lights and took a photo of them from across the yard or > someting. I don't think so. It has some light features which clearly aren't point-sources. More like reflections. What, I don't know. I can think of a way to photograph an airplane so it would look similar, but sunlight and weather conditions would have to be exactly right, and it still would be more than 60 feet 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!f701.n362.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Finney Subject: Ed Walters Date: 27 Jun 90 00:15:35 GMT > > 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. Ed was naming names in the radio interview, but i don't remember what they were. john -- John Finney - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Finney@f701.n362.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG!John.Hicks Subject: Ed Walters Date: 30 Jun 90 06:38:00 GMT > Ed was naming names in the radio interview, but i don't remember > what they were. Tom and Tommy Smith, I think. At least one of them is named Tom Smith. jbh -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser Subject: Re: CAMERAS Date: 29 Jun 90 05:14:00 GMT > > 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, that's a double-edged argument, which makes it unwinnable. On the one hand there are those who ask, "How come after all this time nobody's got any clear pictures of a UFO?" Then when someone produces some, we get asked, "how come when everyone else is getting blurs and blobs, this guy manages to come up with something so sharp?" Obviously I'm skeptical of Gulf Breeze, but not because the images are so clear. To me, its inevitable that someone's bound to come up with a clear photo of a TRUFO at some point. I just don't think it's Ed. 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: Traffic Date: 30 Jun 90 05:51:00 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. 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? The latest IUR features a story on two UFO photos taken 15 years apart that look strikingly similar. One of them is the recent Japan video. Am I the only one here that gets the IUR? Issue: 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'm just trying to get things stirred up here. And let's not see all the same hands.... 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: Traffic, again Date: 30 Jun 90 05:55:00 GMT I've just perused the UFO echo. In the past 30 days, 351 messages have come in from 35 people, not including the InterNet people. Are there only 35 ParaNet users on three continents? And roughly half of those are sysops or staff members. I think its time we started rewarding the best message-writer of the month, or something. -- 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: Crop Circles Revealed? Date: 30 Jun 90 08:04:00 GMT I dunno, Mark....what do you think? I was never excited about the vortex theory, because why only in England, and only in the last few years? But now it appears that they DO appear elsewhere, and they do go back to antiquity. And it does seem to explain why they only form overnight. ON THE OTHER HAND, its my understanding that whirlwinds can only spin one way, depending on the hemisphere, and these circles are flattened in either direction. And I sure don't buy the "electrical charge" bit to explain the lights and humming. Not that I buy the lights and humming to begin with.... 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: Re: Ed Walters/camera Date: 30 Jun 90 08:05:00 GMT John, if you talk to Maccabee again in the near future, ask him if a complete analysis of the Kanazawa video will be available soon, and whether he classifies it as a TRUFO. 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!Jim.Delton Subject: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze Date: 1 Jul 90 02:49:00 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. If I follow your light blasting expo correctly then the original polariods were ripped apart to do the light blasting??? 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 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. 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. -- Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Pete.Porro Subject: Re: GB PHOTOS Date: 29 Jun 90 16:44:11 GMT Interesting topic since I enjoyed low level photography when I was in college. My fun at night? Anyway, the Nimslo camera has meter setting for 100 and 400, how did the high spped film get exposed properly? I still have a 100 foot roll of high speed recording film in the frig. it's probably getting old now. Used to use it at 3200 asa and process in Acufine. I don't even know if the current processes are better for souped up photos. -- 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: GB evidence chain Date: 1 Jul 90 04:26:00 GMT I just talked with Don Ware regarding the chain of possession etc of the model. Ware said that the homeowner found the model in March and *didn't tell anyone*. He said that the reason the homeowner said he didn't tell anyone was that the model didn't look enough like anything that he though much of it. About a month ago now, according to Ware, Craig Myers (sp) of the Pensacola News-Journal went to the house and asked the man a few questions. One was whether the man had ever seen a ufo, and then if the man had found a model. The man gave Myers the thing, and a couple of days later, the news story appeared. Ware said that the first the investigators knew of the model was when they read the news story. So, these points: The man found the model in March. He did not tell anyone. Myers appeared and asked him if he'd found a model. The man handed over the model. The MUFON investigators learned of the model via the news story. According to Ware's story, the investigators did not sit on or hide evidence. BTW, I didn't let him know what I was looking for in advance. 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: More GB Date: 1 Jul 90 04:29:01 GMT Don Ware said another little bit of info. According to him, Tommy Smith, who claims to have helped Ed fake the pictures, said that they used the model that was found to fake the pictures. A couple of problems. The model supposedly doesn't look much like Ed's objects, or at least doesn't have matching details. The model was made of material from house plans that have been confirmed to have been drawn about two years after the photos were made. 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: GB PHOTOS Date: 1 Jul 90 05:17:00 GMT > meter setting for 100 and 400, how did the high spped film get > exposed properly? I'm not sure about the film used. Actually, it could have been that someone told Ed he should have used ISO 1000 film. I've loaned out my copy of his book, so I can't look for the reference. Do you have any idea what is the slowest shutter speed the Nimslo is capable of? Meter system coupling range? Any tech specs? What I'm wondering is why it didn't set a shutter speed according to all that black sky the meter would have seen. Unless it set the slowest speed it could. > I still have a 100 foot roll of high speed > recording film in the frig. Ah, yes, I remember it well. Grain city. Kodak T-Max P3200 (at EI 1600 or 3200) looks like, get this, Tri-X of a couple of years ago developed normally. At two to three stops higher speed! jbh -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.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************************