Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 328 Friday, November 9th 1990 Today's Topics: Re: Santa Barbara (Continued) Re: Conclusion - Gulf Breeze Re: GB Sentinel Re: Walters case Re: Ed Walters video Re: Horse-patooties And Sonic Booms Ulysses UFO? the 'Face on Mars' on 'Unsolved Mysteries' Maccabee Rebuttal Maccabee Rebuttal #2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moderator's Note: All articles sent to infopara are read by a shell script which is kind of dumb and can't handle the double quote marks in the Subject line. Please don't put "" in the Subject line as 'inews' burps loud on these and will not put the article in the correct newsgroup. Thanks. -Cyro ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Delton) Subject: Re: Santa Barbara (Continued) Date: 8 Nov 90 22:35:00 GMT RE: Immunity for Roswell witnesses What is the basis for the suggestion that some of the Roswell witnesses may be given immunity?? Has the gvt been approached? By whom? With what response? Who specifically was approached? Another question that comes to mind is would it be a violation of an oath of silence to simply say "I can't tell you what I know but the gvt statements as to what happened are not true." -- Jim Delton - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Delton@p0.f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Re: Conclusion - Gulf Breeze Date: 7 Nov 90 20:07:00 GMT John: From what I read in Saucer Smear, it looks like Ed had big plans on starting his own newsletter or magazine which was to begin publication next month. According to Smear, Ed turned down a big advance on a second book to go to work on this project. I wonder who some of the other contributing writers were to be? -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Re: GB Sentinel Date: 8 Nov 90 00:23:00 GMT jbh>Obviously another example of fair, impartial journalism. John: The GB Sentinel's current position casts a light of suspicion on their role in this case. Add to that the fact that one of Ed's early "corroborating witnesses" is Mr. Somerby, author of the Charley's Corner column in the paper, whose editor is his son-in-law, Duane Cook (another of Ed's "witnesses"). As long as Mr. Somerby likes to impugn motives, how about this one: What single publication in America had the most to gain from the Walters hoax? How many people do you know from all around the country, who began subscribing to the GB Sentinel when the Walters case first started getting publicity? So the Sentinel is keeping pretty quiet about the Salisberry report, eh? Maybe they might have a lot to keep quiet about! -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Burke) Subject: Re: Walters case Date: 8 Nov 90 00:39:00 GMT John: So Dan Wright says that MUFON is concerned that one of their investigators has taken sides in a political dispu. I find it curious that no concern has been expressed about the fact that MUFON's Eastern US Regional Director *has explicitly* taken sides in that very dispute, using his name and title to endorse Ed. On the other hand, Wright has no evidence (other than his delusional imagination) that the Salisberry report was part of a sinister plot to keep Ed Walters out of the Gulf Breeze City Council. I must say that I have really had it with these pinheads from MUFON! That organization has done more than Phil Klass could have ever hoped to do in giving ufology the reputation of being ufoology. -- John -- John Burke - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Burke@f20.n1011.z9.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG (John Hicks) Subject: Re: Ed Walters video Date: 7 Nov 90 16:39:01 GMT > You have fleshed out, in excellent detail, what Jim Speiser > and I discussed many months ago. Amoung the original > discussions were that there were consistent "out of place" > pinpoint lights around the "UFO" that appeared to be reflections > on a plate of glass. I really don't think you should attach too much importance on pinpoints of light in the Polaroids. As I'm sure you know, dirt or rust on the Polaroid rollers can cause consistently repeating pinpoints. And Ed's rollers were obviously very gunky, as can be seen by the flaws in most all the pictures. Somewhere along the line I asked him how often he cleaned the rollers and the response was a blank "huh." I don't think he had a clue. If these same pinpoints didn't show up in the later Polaroids show with the new cameras (with clean rollers) I think we could safely assume gunky rollers. If they do show up, in pretty much the same positions, you're onto something. Another possibility would be pinpoint flaws in the emulsion of the projected slide. Those flaws ordinarily wouldn't be noticeable, but surely would show up in a projected image of a dark sky. They wouldn't be consistent frame-to-frame though. Several of the photos do include an (open) sliding glass door. Remember, though, that the video was shot outside, so he would have taken the sliding glass door off its tracks and propped it up outside. You set me to looking at Maccabee's analysis of the video. I'd noticed that he noted that the object image "wavered" earlier, but, like most everyone else, hadn't realized what it could mean. So, we have, so far as I've been able to determine, a low-noise videotape shot in conditions in which video noise would be at its highest. If Ed's camcorder really performs that well, he's doing much better than the Sony and Ikegami gear the local TV stations use. If his camcorder does that well (regular 8mm) I'd consider selling off my S-VHS gear and buying what he has. I don't expect to be spending any money. ;-) Aside from the low-noise tape, we also have Maccabee's notation and drawings that indicate that the object image wavered slightly in shape as it moved. I think we either would have to accept a solid ufo that changes its shape or wavers, or that the image is a projection on a sheet of glass that's not optically flat. I've never managed to shoot a low-noise tape in the darkness without closing down the iris a little, and the subject always has to be bright enough to allow that. Never managed to shoot a tape in which the subject wavers in size and shape either. If Ed knew enough to close down the iris, then that contradicts what he's told everyone about his knowledge of photography. If he closed down the iris because the object image was excessively bright, we also have to conclude that the object image was much brighter than would be consistent with the Polaroid exposure times. Can you say, "smoking gun?" ;-) jbh Neither a Debunker nor a True Believer. -- John Hicks - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: John.Hicks@f29.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug.Kraft@f502.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Kraft) Subject: Re: Horse-patooties And Sonic Booms Date: 9 Nov 90 06:06:00 GMT Uhh... That's too deep for me (Couldn't resist) -- Doug Kraft - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Doug.Kraft@f502.n202.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Dobbs Subject: Ulysses UFO? Date: 9 Nov 90 14:17:40 GMT A friend of mine video taped the deployment if Ulysses from the space shuttle Discovery a couple weeks ago. It was aired on one of our cable public access channels. He told me that something strange had appeared near the spacecraft and, knowing my interest in UFOs, wanted me to take a look. This is what we saw. A couple minutes after Ulysses was released from the cargo bay, a crescent shaped image appears on the screen. One of the astronauts says 'And you can see the glistening object there. We were wondering what that was also...' Mission control responds, 'Yea, we see that.' I have looked at the tape several times and it appears to me that it is a revolving disc which is either luminous or reflecting sun light off of its side. The object is moving relative to Ulysses and changes pitch. Especially interesting is to view the tape going fast forward or fast reverse. It does not look at all like what you might expect space debris to be. The footage shows the object for about a minute. Shortly after the deployment of Ulysses Nasa aired a press conference on the same channel. It obviously was not well attended because most of the chairs in the room for the press were empty. Most of the discussion just talked about the normal aspects of the mission - but at the end, they took a phoned in question from somebody from the Kennedy Space Center. Women's voice: 'Gentlemen, can you tell us some more about the extra object that appeared on the screen after deployment please?' Nasa Project Spokesman: 'At the moment we cannot say what that is. We are waiting to see the video playback of that - whether it's real or just a curious reflection or not. We have nothing to say about it at the moment.' Question from the audience that can't be heard. Nasa Project Spokesman: 'One observation said that there was a circular object seen coming away from the shuttle at the same time as the spacescraft (Ulysses) deployed from the shuttle. Uh, we have no knowledge as yet as to what it is. I think as far as the spacecraft is concerned, it cannot be anything that affected the spacecraft because we would not have such a nominal acting spacecraft if, say, part of the thermal insulation had come away or something like that. But I prefer not to speculate about what it is until we have an opportunity to view the film.' End of press converence. What is curious is that to my knowledge there still has not been any statement from NASA as to what they think it is. I corresponded with Ron Baalke from the Jet Propulsion Lab who forwards Nasa mission status updates to some of the usenet notesgroups (sci.space, sci.astro). His statement follows: > I've seen the object, too, when the tape was shown 'live' (one hour after > the actual deployment), but I haven't heard anything since on what it > might actually be. I remember a year ago when Galileo was deployed from > the Space Shuttle, small white particles were seen floating out of the > Shuttle along side Galileo. Sorry I couldn't help solve the Ulysses > mystery object, but I'll ask around and see if anyone knows anything new > about it. Did anybody else happen to see this? The object was fairly large and highly suspicious. And why did Nasa allow the footage and press conference be shown but still has not come out and said anything furthe about the incident? Most curious. ------ Mike Dobbs Internet: miked@vcd.hp.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rutgers!vanth!jms (Jim Shaffer) Subject: the 'Face on Mars' on 'Unsolved Mysteries' Date: 9 Nov 90 07:06:49 GMT This week's 'special Sunday edition' of "Unsolved Mysteries" (NBC) is supposed to include a segment on 'The Face On Mars.' The commercial said something like 'astounding new evidence for life on Mars.' Two questions come to mind: First, why are they covering this now when they've said nothing about it in the past, and second, why are they giving it such a credible treatment (unless the commercial was an inaccurate representation)? [And third, of course, why a 'special Sunday edition?'] ---------- paper : James Shaffer Jr., 37 Brook Street, Montgomery, PA 17752 uucp : uunet!cbmvax!amix!vanth!jms (or) rutgers!cbmvax!amix!vanth!jms domain: jms%vanth@amix.commodore.com CompuServe: 72750,2335 quote : The owls are not what they seem. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Maccabee Rebuttal Date: 9 Nov 90 17:00:00 GMT Note: Received via US Mail from Bruce Maccabee, and transcribed by John Hicks 11/8/90. Distribution to any and all, per Bruce Maccabee. REANALYSIS OF PHOTO #19 SUPPORTS WALTERS' STORY by Bruce Maccabee In his initial testimony regarding the "Road Shot (Photo #19), Ed Walters reported that he had been driving along highway 191-B at about 6:00 PM on Jan. 12, 1988 when a brilliant white light suddenly entered the cab of his truck. This caused him to lose some sensation of feeling in his hands and forearms. He said that he momentarily lost control of the truck and swerved to the left hand side of the road and then onto the left side shoulder. As this was happening he observed a UFO moving above and ahead of him and, as he managed to stop the truck on the left shoulder, the UFO was hovering several hundred feet ahead over the road. Ed said he had his Polaroid camera with him in the truck. He grabbed the camera and took the picture (Photo #19). But then he realized the object was moving and he had the impression that it was going to come back and hit him with the white beam again. He immediately crawled under the truck where he would be completely shielded. Unfortunately his legs were still protruding as the UFO did, indeed, shine the white beam down on him again. The compllete story of the Road Shot (and Ed's other sightings) is told in his book, The Gulf Breeze Sightings (Morrow, NY, 1990). This is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the historical context of Photo 19, the stereo photos of May 1 (which will be referred to later) and of all of the Gulf Breeze Sightings. Technical analysis is provided in A History of the Gulf Breeze Sightings (updated version available from the Fund for UFO Research). For the purposes of this discussion the description given above of how Photo #19 happened to be taken is sufficient. During the initial analysis of Photo 19, in the spring of 1988, it was assumed that the bright irregular image within the image of the road was the reflection of light from a non-uniformly radiating source within the glowing bottom of the UFO, and that the UFO was actually over the reflection. This seemingly reasonable assumption allowed the size of the UFO to be estimated in the following way. First the location of the reflection was determined by projecting a sighting line across the road in the directio of a "tree bump" in the skyline that appears above the image of the UFO. As a person walked along the sighting line form the camera position toward the tree bump he crossed the road and actually walked through the location of the reflection. Since the reflection image partially obscured the yellow line in the road, it was assumed that where the sighting line crossed the yellow line was the approximate location of the reflection, and hence the approximate location of the UFO. Measurements made on the site yielded a distance of about 185 feet from the camera to where the sighting line crossed the yellow line, When this distance was combined with the size of the UFO image on the film the size of the actual UFO could be calculated. It was found to be about 7.5 ft across the bottom bright area, about 9 feet high and about 12 feet across the mid-section. The calculation of the UFO size is the extent of the analysis that has been published to this date. However, in an unpublished calcuation done during the summer of 1988, I used the RI to estimate the size of the illuminated area on the road. A simplified calculation showed that it had to be quite long in the dimensions along the line of sight. In fact, I estimated it to be about 80 feet long, if its center were 185 feet from the camera. Although this was a surprise to me, I simply attributed this to light coming out from the bottom of the UFO in a non-circular pattern at very flat angles (i.e., nearly horizontal). This seemed odd, but it certainly didn't violate physics. Recently Rex and Carol Salisberry, in reevaluating the Walters sightings, carried out an independent analysis of the RI in Photo #19. Being unaware of my 1988 calculation of the elliptical spot on the road they proceeded from another assumption. They assumed, for unstated reasons, that light could only come downward from the UFO in a direction roughly parallel to the (nearly) vertical axis of the UFO. Combining this assumption with my estimate of the bottom diameter (7.5 feet) they concluded that if the UFO were real, then it would illuminate a spot on the road that would be only slightly larger than the bottom of the UFO itself. That is, they claimed that the illuminated spot on the road would have been nearly circular and only about 7.5 to 8 feet in diameter. They then used simple photogrammetric and trigonometric calculations to predict what the size of the RI should be under their assumptions. They predicted that the RI should appear as a very thin line in Photo 19. Since it is, in fact, a very fat line (measured vertically), it disagrees with their prediction. Hence, they claimed that the RI could not have been caused by an actual reflection in the road since to do so would be a virtual physical impossibility (Salisberry, Interim Report on the Reopening of the Walters UFO Case, 23 Sept. 1990). The discovery of this "physical impossibility" led them to further conclude that the RI must have been faked (by double exposure) with the logical consequence that the whole photo, the story, etc. were all faked. It is of great importance to note that their result follows directly (after some simple math) from their assumption that light from the UFO could only travel downwards (roughly) parallel to the axis. If they had allowed for the possibility that light could travel outward from the bottom of the UFO at very flat angles then they would have seen that the spot on the road could be much larger than the bottom of the UFO. This is the result I obtained in the summer of 1988. Concluded in next message... -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) Subject: Maccabee Rebuttal #2 Date: 9 Nov 90 17:02:00 GMT My reanalysis of Photo #19 is based on the assumption that the RI really was caused by light reflected from the road. Starting from this assumption I have estimated the nearest and farthest points of the reflection. The distances from the camera to these points were estimated by combining on-site measurements with measurements on the photographs. By measurement it was found that the sighting line from the camera toward the tree bump crosses the near edge of the road at a distance of about 90 feet from the camera and the far edge of the road about 490 feet from the camera. The illuminated spot on the road lies between these two distances. Using photogrammetric techniques involving angles that are determined by measurements on the photographs, I estimated that the closest point of the illuminated area to the camera (the lowest point of the RI) was about 180 feet away, and the farthest point was about 305 feet away. (These distances could easily be off by 10 feet either way because of the low precision in measureing the actual boundary positions of the images.) Similarly, the width of the illuminated area was about 8 feet. Thus the spot on the road was approximately a thin ellipse with the long axis running along the sighting line to the UFO. (These calculations did not take into account the slight downward slope to the road from the centerline toward the edge. To take this into account would require a much more complicated analysis ond a very accurate survey of the road. If the downward slope were to be taken into account it would likely decrease by a small amount the calculated length of the illuminated area.) Although the illuminated area is highly elongated, there is no physical reason why such an area could not be produced by a UFO (or by a conventional light source). Thus this analysis shows that the RI is not a "virtual physical impossibility" and it cannot be used as proof that Photo 19 is hoaxed. However, the analysis does raise the question of how the highly elongated illuminated area might have been produced. One way would be for the UFO to be over the far end of the reflection, for example, and emanating a very elliptical (in cross-section_ beam in the direction of Ed's truck, but pointed downward so that it hit the road. Alternatively, the UFO might be over the center of the illuminated area, directing light downwards and both toward and away from the truck. Yet a third possibility is that the UFO is farther away from the truck than the illuminated area and is directing a beam downwards and toward the truck. It is this last possibility which I find most intersting. It is important to realize that a previous assumption can be arbitrarily rejected. Previously I and others had assumed that the UFO was actually over the illuminated spot on the road. With this assumption it was possible to calculate the size of the UFO based on the image size and on the measured distance to the reflection (assumed to be rather compact and centered about 185 feet away). Thus the assumption was necessary for the previous analysis. However, it was not justifiable since the distance to an object cannot (generally) be estimated from a single photograph. The distance to an object can be calculated from a stereo pair of photographs, however, and Ed obtained just such a pair on May 1, 1988. The details of this sighting are in Ed;s book. The information which is important here is tha, using a stereo camera with a two foot baseline, Ed photographed two UFOs, the larger of which looks like the UFO in the Road Shot (see Ed's book for further details). These stereo photos also have images of lights which were at a known large distance. The images of the distant lights allowed the cameras to be calibrated for parallax. After the calibration had been done it was found that the UFO was about 475 feet away (over water!) and nearly 15 feet in diameter across the bottom. Thus its width was nearly twice the value which I had originally estimated for the Road Shot UFO (about 7.5 feet). Assume, now, that the size of the Road Shot UFO was the same as the size of the large May 1 UFO. Since the image size corresponds to a bottom diameter of 7.5 feet at 185 foot distance, then it also corresponds to a diameter of 15 feet at about 370 feet. If the UFO were actually 370 feet from the camera (but still over the road) the sighting line crossed the far side of the road at 490 feet), then the UFO would have been 65 feet from the farthest opint of the reflection (at 305 feet from the camera). Hence the only way that light could get from the UFO to the illuminated spot on the road would be if the UFO projected a beam of light 65 feet toward the truck but downward at a slight angle so that the beam hit the road. The color of the RI suggests that this beam of light was white or pale yellow. A reconstruction of the Road Shot scene, with the illuminated spot between the camera and the UFO, is presented in Figure 1. This reconstruction can explain a puzzling fact about the RI: its high level of brightness. Under the previous assumption that the UFO was directly over the reflection I carried out tests with a powerful, 100,000 candlepower spotlight shining directly down onto the road. This reflection of the beam on the road made film images that were much, much less bright than the RI. Hence I had to assume that there was an extremely intense (much, much more than 100,000 candlepower) source of light within the UFO. This new reconstruction can explain the brightness of the RI quite easily without resort to extremely intense light sources within the UFO. It is well known that virtually any surface, even a rough black surface like a road, can give a strong reflection in the forward direction when illuminated by light at a grazing angle. This is the phenomenon of forward gloss (a rough, diffuse reflector becomes nearly a specular reflector at grazing incidence). This particular case, with the beam from the UFO hitting the road at a flat angle (several degrees) and the camera viewing the illuminated area at a flat angle (about a degree), is virtually "optimized" for the forward gloss effect. Experiments with a spotlight have confirmed this effect at the site of the Road Shot. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that the RI is a result of a moderately intense beam of light, like that from a powerful flashlight, projected downward at a slight angle from the UFO, incident at nearly a grazing angle on the road and reflected in the direction of the truck. Although the photograph itself provides no information which would allow us to choose which is the actual situation )e.g., UFO over the center of the relfection, UFO at the far end of the reflection, UFO beyond the reflection, etc.), the context of the situation does provide enough supplementary information to suggest a choice. ED described being hit by a white light before he ran off the road. He said that after he took the Road Shot he climbed under the truck because he thought the UFO was going to zap him again with the white light. (He says that the UFO did just that while he was crawling under the truck.) What might have caused him to think that the UFO was going to direct the white light at him again? Could it be that the white light was contained within a beam from the UFO and that Ed realized that the beam was hitting the road just ahead of him after he took Photo 19? Perhaps the white spot on the road, made by the beam, started moving slowly toward the truck just after Ed took the picture. Under these circumstances, he might well have concluded that the object was going to try to hit him again with the beam. Although there is no direct photographic evidence that the RI was made by a white beam on the road, the preceding discussion shows that the existence of such a beam would be consistent with Ed's story and with the brightness of the RI. The existence of a beam also allows the UFO to be further from the truck than the reflection and this, in turn, means that the UFO in the Road Shot could have been then same size as was the "large size Type 1 UFO" in the May 1 stereo photos. CONCLUSION The preceding analysis shows that the sample of the RI is not a "physical impossibility" and hence does not prove the Road Shot is a hoax as claimed by Rex and Carol Salisberry. A reconstructon of the Road Shot scene based on this reanalysis supports Ed's story by demonstrating that the RI may actually have been caused by the white light, which Ed described, in the form of a beam projected from the UFO toward the truck. Note: Photo 14 also has an RI underneath the image of the UFO. The RI is quite non-circular and can be explained in a manner similar to the explanation of the RI in Photo 19. END File Name: GBREFUTE.TXT -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.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************************