80 lines
4.3 KiB
Plaintext
80 lines
4.3 KiB
Plaintext
|
SUBJECT: MESSAGE THREAD ABOUT HYSER REPORT FILE: UFO1684
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(6433) Sun 10 Nov 91 2:12a
|
||
|
|
By: John Hicks
|
||
|
|
To: all
|
||
|
|
Re: Hyser report
|
||
|
|
St: Local Sent
|
||
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
@MSGID: 1:363/29 9d00f8c8
|
||
|
|
@PID: FM 2.02
|
||
|
|
Here's the scoop on the Hyser report (so far).
|
||
|
|
Rex Salisberry says he has a copy of William Hyser's report on some of Ed
|
||
|
|
Walter's photos but can't release it to us yet because of a committment he made
|
||
|
|
to Hyser to not release the report without his (Hyser) permission.
|
||
|
|
Jerry Black sent a copy to Phil Klass, and Phil quoted a little of it in his
|
||
|
|
newsletter. Rex said Hyser went through the roof.
|
||
|
|
Anyway, the gist of the report is that Hyser found quite a few things in the
|
||
|
|
photos that were *consistent with* multiple exposures, but nothing that
|
||
|
|
constituted *proof* of multiple exposures.
|
||
|
|
I think we've already discussed most of those items and picked the photos
|
||
|
|
apart, but of course we don't have any clout so we don't really count. ;-)
|
||
|
|
Also, in the October 1991 _Photomethods_, (a journal for commercial/
|
||
|
|
industrial photographers) Hyser went through an example of how to do a multiple
|
||
|
|
exposure and have the object appear to be behind another darker object. The
|
||
|
|
example was a ufo behind a church steeple at night (surprise!)
|
||
|
|
Anyway, he presents the idea of the film's threshold sensitivity as being the
|
||
|
|
key to having a foreground object appear black against a slightly light object.
|
||
|
|
Look at Ed Walter's photo #1, in which we see a ufo behind a tree branch.
|
||
|
|
Keep that in mind.
|
||
|
|
Now I'll walk through the threshold sensitivity thing, in plain English. In
|
||
|
|
the graphic arts and photolab industries, the process is called flashing, so
|
||
|
|
you guys familiar with that stuff will now already know what I'm talking about.
|
||
|
|
Photographic film (paper etc.) requires a minimum amount of light for an
|
||
|
|
image to "stick." For example, let's say the threshold is five photon (units of
|
||
|
|
light). If the film receives only four photons, they'll most likely dissipate
|
||
|
|
before you develop the film. If the film receives more than five photons, they
|
||
|
|
"stick" and you have a latent image (waiting to be developed).
|
||
|
|
So, an area of film that receives only four photons will be black (clear) and
|
||
|
|
an area that receives six photons will have density.
|
||
|
|
Listen closely now.....
|
||
|
|
A ufo model is first photographed against a black background, and is exposed
|
||
|
|
just below the threshold, say, just under five photons. If you were to develop
|
||
|
|
the film, you'd see no image.
|
||
|
|
*But* you make a second exposure on the same sheet of film. The second
|
||
|
|
exposure consists of a black tree and an illuminated skyline. You make this
|
||
|
|
exposure slightly underexposed.
|
||
|
|
Where the tree overlaps the ufo, the film doesn't receive any additional
|
||
|
|
light, so you have a total exposure still of just under five photons; no image.
|
||
|
|
The combination of the skyline *and* the ufo below-the-threshold image make up
|
||
|
|
more than five photons, so not only do you have the skyline image, you've
|
||
|
|
kicked the ufo image over the five-photon threshold too; you have an image of a
|
||
|
|
ufo against a skyline, with a (black) tree that appears to be in front of the
|
||
|
|
ufo.
|
||
|
|
*But* such a multiple exposure isn't without artifacts. The very dark image
|
||
|
|
of the ufo will tend to take on the colors of the background. Sort of a
|
||
|
|
chameleon effect.
|
||
|
|
Also, to heighten the contrast between the ufo image and the skyline, you can
|
||
|
|
develop the film for a longer time (Polaroid 108 too).
|
||
|
|
Now, take another good close look at the Ed Walters photos......
|
||
|
|
My opinion? (since you didn't ask)
|
||
|
|
This process is certainly workable, and wouldn't be anywhere near as
|
||
|
|
cumbersome as masking techniques in the darkroom, then printing onto Polaroid
|
||
|
|
etc. But it'd be hard to control. But certainly workable.
|
||
|
|
I think we have another valid hoax theory. Not proof, but a theory that can
|
||
|
|
explain photo #1.
|
||
|
|
William G. Hyser is a consultant in optical instrumentation, photogrammetry,
|
||
|
|
forensic engineering, electrical contact physics and illumination engineering.
|
||
|
|
Perhaps best of all, he's not a ufologist.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
jbh
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
* Origin: Moderation? What's that? -*- Fidonet UFO Moderator (1:363/29)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
**********************************************
|
||
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
||
|
|
**********************************************
|