Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 263 Friday, July 13th 1990 Today's Topics: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze Re: CAMERAS Re: Ed Walters Re: Ed Walters Re: Skeptics and Klass THEM (Tyson Mitchiner) Re: Ed Walters/camera Re: CAMERAS Re: GB Photos Re: GB Photos Re: GB PHOTOS Re: CAMERAS Re: TNN UFO SPECIAL Re: TNN UFO SPECIAL Re: Traffic reports.. Re: Rep rips E.T. _UFO_ Article ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze Date: 24 Jun 90 02:56:03 GMT re: Shoreline Park photos -- 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: >... Ed had approximately four hours of elapsed time from when >he first told Mr. Cook that he heard his "hum" (4pm) until he >arrived on the scene at the park (8pm). This is plenty of >time to prepare for his second set of pictures if he is indeed >a hoaxer. Also it is clear that from his initial "hum" to his >actual taking of the pictures at around 10pm, six hours had >elapsed. -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Re: CAMERAS Date: 24 Jun 90 03:09:56 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. Of course, if this were any other case, such a finding would spell the end of it, since most people would cry "Model!". But ... since this is the sacred Gulf Breeze case we must all "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Re: Ed Walters Date: 24 Jun 90 03:16:34 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 -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Re: Ed Walters Date: 24 Jun 90 03:24:59 GMT John: On that radio show you heard, Ed Walters was lying his ass off, as usual. First of all "the newspaper reporter" has a name; it's Craig Myers. Craig Myers did no such thing as approach the current resident of Ed's house and ask if he found any models. This is just another lie from an ex-convict who served time for forgery and I can't believe that so many people would believe his story over that of someone with no criminal record. According to Myers, the current resident came to the newspaper with the model, saying that he "never would have found it" if he hadn't been remodeling the house. As for Ed's lies about his accomplice who came forward with the pictures, see my reply to John Hicks. -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@p0.f740.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gene.Gross@f26.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Gene Gross) Subject: Re: Skeptics and Klass Date: 25 Jun 90 05:26:00 GMT Hi Jim: Well said! This brew is such a heady drink sometimes. I grew up with the idea that extraterrestrial life could well exist. And it is easy for me to fly off in that direction. But as I've grown older I've come to prize evidence more and more without losing my innate belief. Klass has made a number of statements which will weigh about his neck like a millstone. His statement equating ufologists with Nazis is one. In the UNL case, his mention of his credentials could only cause problems--even if he wasn't calling in those capacities. Some years ago, I was reading a pop-psych book by a fellow named Jess Lear (sp ?). I don't recall the title right now, but I do recall that he had some interesting quotes from his students in the back of the book. One that I fell in love with was, "The only problem with being open-minded is that your brains, might fall out." Some truth to it. Still I would argue for the balance each time. -- Gene Gross -- Gene Gross - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Gene.Gross@f26.n123.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tyson.Mitchiner@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tyson Mitchiner) Subject: THEM (Tyson Mitchiner) Date: 26 Jun 90 01:01:00 GMT Whitely SStriebe wrote in, I think, Transformation, that it was apparent to him that the aliens who abducted him were interested/concerned about how fast we are developing.. how quickly we adapt.. To Strieber, the aliens seemed slow and methodical, while humans were quick.. maybe it's about the fact that we will eventually reach a higher point than they are at. -- Tyson Mitchiner - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Tyson.Mitchiner@f134.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kurt.Lochner@p100.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Kurt Lochner) Subject: Re: Ed Walters/camera Date: 26 Jun 90 09:51:31 GMT > 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 geezzz, You mean the nobody has ever seen those $5.95 128mm Fuji cameras with the built-in film. Rig two of those together on some kind of dual tripod and wire release for simultaneous exposure.... All the human error is forfeited in this way, why aren't the easy ways to do this more readily apparent? -- Kurt Lochner - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Kurt.Lochner@p100.f66.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro) Subject: Re: CAMERAS Date: 25 Jun 90 18:39:28 GMT Interesting about the calculated diameter of the object. As for streaking photos, I guess the automatic cameras are mindless. I still have a few manual Canon FT's which are my favorite since I have lenses to fit them, and don't have a few thousand dollars to upgrade. Sure thing if a person takes a photos for long exposure, (after 1/30 at best hand held) there are going to be all sorts of shakes, streaks, or blurs. On the other hand take a normal exposure of a bright object against the sky, and most likely you'll get a dot. Not very interesting either. For those who doubt the difficulty in photographing a UFO try the moon which is fairly constant, sitting sort of still etc. An automatic camera will probably give you a nice dot on a black negative, no detail. Now imagine something traveling at 400 mph (just for example a normal jet aircraft) you would have to pan with the object and make a precise photo exposure, or get some white, green and red streaks on a film. No lets examine a UFO, (wouldn't that be nice???) a hypothetical UFO for discussion. It's going to be hovering a couple of hundred yards away (great closeup) lights on the object, sky is dark. What would I expect the object to look like? Either a pattern of dots of light, or a spinning one would produce a swirl of lights against a stationary background. For those of you who want to have some fun and run a roll of film through a camera experimentially, just photograph lights. Small lights in the dark, street lights, (use short exposures) because lights will be dots, no soft windows like we have seen on some photos. That sort of exposure would take a film with high speed and great latitude. What's this all about? 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 Porro - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: Re: GB Photos Date: 2 Jul 90 17:01:00 GMT > I have tried a couple of times to get any kind of decent photo > of a light in the sky at night and that seems to be at least as > hard as just hoaxing something. I've got it wired. ;-) For aircraft lights, try 1/60 at f2 with ISO 1600 film, if the airplane's fairly far away. Of course, unless you use a long lens, you won't see any seperation between the running lights and the landing lights; you'll just see a big blob. If we suppose that the lights on Ed's Nimslo object were as bright or brighter than the usual aircraft running lights, it's perfectly feasible for the Nimslo photos to be real, as far as film exposure goes. If the object was as close as it appears to have been, the lights wouldn't have been dimmed by haze and cloud. About the Nimslo photos...... I got a shot of an aircraft complete with illuminated windows. It looks *really strange*, but unlike the Nimslo photos, the cockpit was not illuminated and the running lights were *much* brighter than the window lights. Also, no large bright areas were visible. The only way I can figure that Ed could have photographed an airplane with the Nimslo is that he would have to have been flying alongside, and the pilot of the subject airplane would have to have turned off the running lights. That doesn't seem very likely. No one's been able to think of an airplane that has three rows of windows. jbh -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: Re: GB Photos Date: 2 Jul 90 17:31:01 GMT > Without knowing the "right" way > to take a night photo they just don't come out and I have a hard > time seeing how ED does it so easily. I think we're seeing hardware limitations that we may not know about, and by chance those limitations cause the exposures to fall within the film's latitude. In no case has Ed produced what would be considered a properly exposed picture. I originally thought his first Polaroid should be giving long exposures on the order of several seconds, but that's not the case. It'll automatically set shutter speeds until the dimness of the light exceeds the capability of the metering system. Then it holds the shutter open as long as the photographer holds down the shutter button; sorta like the B setting on other cameras. Observation of Ed taking other pictures showed that he was unconciously holding the shutter button down for a time within a range of 1/2 to 1 1/2 seconds. I saw him shoot pictures with his new Canon camera in the same manner. That is, instead of quickly punching the shutter button, he held it down, but of course the Canon didn't just let the shutter hang open like his old Polaroid. It's very common for completely non-technical photographers to hold a shutter button down for a long time. It's as if they're trying to make sure the picture's taken, or something like that. My wife does it with her point'n'shoot. So, because of the limitation of the hardware, the exposure was about 1 second at about f4 on ISO 75 film. If the hardware had not been limited in that way, we may very well have seen properly exposed blurs of the objects and background. In the case of that camera, the flash attachment has no effect on the shutter speed of the camera. As for the Nimslo, I suspect its autoexposure system has a minimum shutter speed of 1/30 or 1/15, and that would prevent the camera setting such a long shutter speed that would result in streaks of the lights rather than points. Someone who has specs or a manual on the Nimslo should be able to tell us if this is so. The Polaroid 600 cameras used for the SRS are similarly limited. The specs for the camera state that the minimum shutter speed that camera can set is 1/3 second, and if the light's dim enough, it's going to fire the flash no matter what. The flash doesn't really count. The distance from the camera to the object would be such that the flash would have no effect. In the SRS series we see that the pictures are somewhat more underexposed than those of the original Polaroid, but this is consistent with the faster film along with a faster minimum shutter speed. The faster film to some extent accomodates the faster shutter speed. Also, I think the 600-type film is more contrasty than the 108-type film, which would tend to make dark areas appear darker. The point of all this is that none of the cameras were capable of making the kind of exposure an averaging metering system (which they had) would call for. The meter would "see" the entire frame, and all that blackness would fool it into setting an exposure of several seconds duration, but the limited hardware couldn't set exposure times that long. Therefore we have relatively sharp pictures rather than blurry blobs and streaks. Now, to further the point. Ed recently bought a Canon A1 camera, which *is* capable of automatically setting exposure times of several seconds duration. In a recent incident in which he used that camera, and another witness used a similar camera, both cameras "saw" all the dark sky and automatically set shutter speeds of three to five seconds duration. Ed got a large red blurry blob, and the other witness got a long winding streak. These photos were of a point-source red light. To further belabor the point, I think autoexposure systems are why so many other witnesses get just blurry blobs and streaks. This is demonstrated by Ed'd and the other witness's photos of the red light. Could be that if the other photographers manually set a shutter speed instead of letting the camera set a long exposure, we'd see point-source lights or sets of lights. That's exactly what I'm doing with airplanes. I manually set a shutter speed (by guess) and it's slow enough/fast enough that the exposure falls within the film latitude. jbh -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro) Subject: Re: GB PHOTOS Date: 2 Jul 90 16:39:53 GMT The shutter on the Nimslo (the real one not the Nashika that is out now) is automatic exposure. I don't have the manual handy but I think it drops to 1/30 max. Both cameras are limited in capability, but make nifty photos if you want some fun effects. With four lenses two are set eye width, so a good ufo photo would give minute differences in the location, which would give reference for judjment of the distances. I'll mention it again for anyone else, after about 12 feet (maybe 20 max) the stereo effect is lost. So long shots of scenic mountians, and not very 3d. Get a group of people from 3-12 feet and each one looks like they are standing behind the next. Really good effect! The high speed recording I have is 2564 (or was it ??? Kodak) and a surplus roll from the USAF. Both are grainy, and can be pushed quite far. It all stopped 17 years ago when I moved into a place that has well water instead of Municipal treated water. Iron and Calcium made me stop developing my own film temporarly (cough) until I can get some clean water again. -- Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro) Subject: Re: CAMERAS Date: 2 Jul 90 19:53:03 GMT Yes your comment about the double edged argument makes sense. I guess I was looking at both sides, and not trying to make conclusions. I just know how hard it is to get a good photo under these conditions, and at the same time one person seems to be able to get all he wants at will? If someone shot 36 photos at various settings and one or two worked, I would be likely to believe that bracketing did the job right. If someone gets a blury photo, it could be anything, but an honest photo would probably look more like that than a clear one. Seems self contradicting logic. Meanwhile the main point is that one person can get good photos almost whenever he want, yet it's very difficult to get one good one for most other people. Is that a better explination of the conclusion about GB photos? As for any other photos, each case on it's own merits. -- Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Pete Porro) Subject: Re: TNN UFO SPECIAL Date: 2 Jul 90 20:02:03 GMT I am one of those poo folks who spends all his money on computers, Paranet, and VCRs, but I don't have cable! Is there any possiblility of getting a copy of the series from you after it has been aired? (or anyone else?) V8, Beta or VHS format are all acceptable. I have another reason for no cable, three teens who are already glued to the set. MTV is nice, but I'd like them to have something else in their life. (evil dictator step-father speaking) This brings up another comment, I spoke with someone who says they have over 180 hours of UFO related tapes. Unlikely that I'll get them to copy much of it. I can only find about five tapes and most of them are crud. Any suggestions on getting some more "good" videos? -- Pete Porro - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Pete.Porro@f414.n154.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeff.Ballard@f20.n3607.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jeff Ballard) Subject: Re: TNN UFO SPECIAL Date: 10 Jul 90 06:47:00 GMT Who knows, I'm getting where I'm not real suprised by most stuff!!! -- Jeff Ballard - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jeff.Ballard@f20.n3607.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f876.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Re: Traffic reports.. Date: 11 Jul 90 07:29:00 GMT Jim: CUFOS is $25 per year, or $1000 for life. -A good deal if you live for at least another 40 years. -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f876.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f876.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Re: Rep rips E.T. Date: 11 Jul 90 07:40:00 GMT Ed: Why don't the Greys ever abduct a guy like Conte? :-) -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f876.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f876.n115.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: _UFO_ Article Date: 11 Jul 90 07:49:00 GMT Don: I think that you should tell TS that you want to do an article in _UFO_ about his trip to Dulce and what it revealed. After all, he did say that he was going there in June '90. :-) -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:30163/0 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f876.n115.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************************