287 lines
15 KiB
Plaintext
287 lines
15 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: A NEST OF INFO ON GULFBREEZE UFOs FILE: UFO1637
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART 23
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1226) Fri 22 Jun 90 10:02
|
|
By: John Hicks
|
|
To: John Burke
|
|
Re: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
|
|
St: Reply chain 1007 1331
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
@EID:116b 01d8f3a6
|
|
@MSGID: 1:363/29 6b09d1a3
|
|
> 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. ;-)
|
|
|
|
(1239) Sat 23 Jun 90 0:33
|
|
By: John Hicks
|
|
To: Pete Porro
|
|
Re: CAMERAS
|
|
St: Reply to 1199
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
@EID:116b 01d1f3c5
|
|
@MSGID: 1:363/29 6b806b54
|
|
> 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.
|
|
|
|
(1312) Sat 23 Jun 90 14:35
|
|
By: John Hicks
|
|
To: All
|
|
Re: GB pix
|
|
St:
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
@EID:116b 01dd0c57
|
|
@MSGID: 1:363/29 6b8e6706
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
(1518) Mon 25 Jun 90 1:27
|
|
By: John Hicks
|
|
To: John Burke
|
|
Re: Re: CAMERAS
|
|
St: Reply to 1514
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
@EID:116b 01d1b217
|
|
@MSGID: 1:363/29 6c8111f6
|
|
> 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.
|
|
|
|
Don't forget that the same object appeared later in an SRS camera pair, and
|
|
the size matched up within a reasonable amount. The parallax calculations also
|
|
showed that the object was *no more* than about 40 feet away. The object was
|
|
close enough to show parallax.
|
|
Can you explain how a model (or whatever) could have been moved so precisely
|
|
that the size was consistent in two different stereo photo pairs?
|
|
The only way to hoax it I can think of is to suspend the model in a dark room
|
|
at least 20 feet long and photograph it, then do that again with the SRS rig.
|
|
|
|
> Of course, if this were any other case, such
|
|
> a finding would spell the end of it, since most people would cry
|
|
> "Model!".
|
|
|
|
Do you know the acceptable size range of ufos? If you do, please tell us how
|
|
you came by this information.
|
|
|
|
> But ... since this is the sacred Gulf Breeze case we must all
|
|
> "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" -- John
|
|
|
|
There's at least a few of us paying a hell of a lot more attention than you
|
|
realize.
|
|
I've enlarged the hoax possibility to include *all* of Ed's pictures, and
|
|
that's on a provable, demonstrable technical basis, while previously they were
|
|
all hoaxable except for one pair. However, all I've proven is that it's
|
|
*possible* that the pictures were hoaxed, and that at least one possible hoax
|
|
method is known for *each* picture.
|
|
Neither I, nor anyone else, has *proven* a hoax. Until that happens, the
|
|
possibility that Ed's pictures are true ufo pictures as claimed *cannot be
|
|
dismissed*.
|
|
If you read Bruce Maccabee's analysis, if you hear him speak, or if you talk
|
|
with him on the phone, he says (and has said all along) that a hoax is a
|
|
possibility, but no one's been able to prove it.
|
|
In the absence of proof of a hoax, you need to proceed as if the pictures are
|
|
real, while continuing to look for evidence of a hoax.
|
|
Now, I'm certainly not trying to start any kind of battle over this stuff.
|
|
You may notice that in one sentence I may be saying something that supports
|
|
Ed's case while in the next sentence I'm chipping away at it. I had something a
|
|
couple of days ago that would have proven a hoax beyond a shadow of a doubt,
|
|
concrete proof, if certain numbers hadn't matched up, but it turns out they
|
|
match up perfectly. The reason the numbers were so important is that *none of
|
|
the investigators knew what they meant*.
|
|
If I come up with solid, undebatable proof of a hoax, you'll most likely read
|
|
about it right here first. The same will happen if I come up with the same sort
|
|
of proof that they're real.
|
|
BTW, I know I sound sorta proud of my hoax possibility theory. I am. Only
|
|
took me about two months to think it up, when it should have been obvious right
|
|
away. ;-)
|
|
|
|
(1519) Mon 25 Jun 90 1:29
|
|
By: John Hicks
|
|
To: John Burke
|
|
Re: Re: Ed Walters
|
|
St: Reply chain 1334 1520
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
@EID:116b 01d1b21b
|
|
@MSGID: 1:363/29 6c81761f
|
|
> 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
|
|
|
|
You are correct. While they were a very short time ago anonymous phone
|
|
callers, they aren't anonymous any more.
|
|
Bruce Maccabee told me that he has proven on *eight technical points* that
|
|
the photos could not possibly have been faked in the manner the young man
|
|
claims. Since this would be independently verifiable, I take Maccabee's word
|
|
for it.
|
|
|
|
(1524) Mon 25 Jun 90 13:33
|
|
By: John Hicks
|
|
To: Jim Delton
|
|
Re: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
|
|
St: Reply chain 1517 1525
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
@EID:116b 01dc2586
|
|
@MSGID: 1:363/29 6c8d29ce
|
|
> Why was Ed using a Flash to take photos of something flying in
|
|
> the sky??
|
|
|
|
Maccabee found that Ed was unconciously setting a shutter speed of around one
|
|
second with his first Polaroid. Actually, what happens is that the camera will
|
|
autoexpose until it reaches the limit of its dim-light range, then the shutter
|
|
will simply stay open until you let go of the shutter button.
|
|
Ed was doing the very common thing of giving the shutter button a real good
|
|
press, for whatever reason most snapshooters do.
|
|
As for flash, consider all the people who use their little cameras with their
|
|
little flashes at, for instance, a night football game. They don't know any
|
|
better.
|
|
In the original Polaroid, the flash isn't linked to the camera in any way
|
|
except for the firing connection; that is, it doesn't affect any other camera
|
|
operations.
|
|
If you see the originals, they're all actually extremely dark, as if they're
|
|
underexposed by several stops.
|
|
As for the second Polaroid type (Sun 600), you get the flash whether you
|
|
want it or not. It's built-in, and if the camera meter determines flash is
|
|
needed, it fires the flash. No choice in the matter.
|
|
Also, the shutter speed is limited to a minimum speed; probably about 1/15
|
|
second. Maccabee told me, but I forgot exactly what it was.
|
|
The pictures taken with the Sun 600 cameras are much darker than the
|
|
original series of Polaroids, which is consistent with a limited minimum
|
|
shutter speed but somewhat faster film.
|
|
The "light-blasting" technique used for the pictures in the book consists of
|
|
holding the original print up to direct sunlight and photographing it. Works
|
|
sorta like a transparency, in that detail that's almost lost in the dark is
|
|
brought out. Unfortunately, this extreme lightening of the images mostly so
|
|
they could be reproduced in the book has given a false impression of how the
|
|
pictures look. They're really very dark.
|
|
As for the Nimslo, the images of the lights, whatever they are, are actually
|
|
quite sharp and very small. They do, however, show parallax. That indicates
|
|
that the object was not so far away that the parallax would be unmeasurable. If
|
|
the object was, say, 500 feet away the amount of parallax would probably be
|
|
less than the size of the film grain or the resolving power of the lens/film
|
|
combination. That is, it would be unmeasurable.
|
|
The baseline (distance between the outer lenses) of the Nimslo wasn't large
|
|
enough for accurate measurements for an object farther than about 20 feet away.
|
|
You could clearly prove, for instance, that an object was between, say 30 and
|
|
60 feet away, but you couldn't measure more accurately than that.
|
|
Thus the SRS.
|
|
Maccabee said he was musing aloud about how to make a stereo camera with a
|
|
significantly larger baseline, and that Ed surprised him by building one. The
|
|
first version had the wiggles, so it couldn't really be used, but the second
|
|
version was much more stable. However, the stick (which made it self-
|
|
referencing) still had the wiggles so had to be discounted.
|
|
The concept was great, but the execution left a little to be desired.
|
|
Anyway, Ed did get a shot of the Nimslo object in the same frame pair with
|
|
another object with the second version of the SRS. Its size for the calculated
|
|
distance was consistent with the frame pair from the Nimslo.
|
|
|
|
*continued*
|
|
|
|
(1525) Mon 25 Jun 90 13:39
|
|
By: John Hicks
|
|
To: Jim Delton
|
|
Re: Re: Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze
|
|
St: Reply to 1524
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
@EID:116b 01dc258a
|
|
@MSGID: 1:363/29 6c8d8e52
|
|
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
|
|
previously obtained for $25 from a camera store by an investigator who thought
|
|
there might eventually be some use for the thing.
|
|
It's not the camera I'd have picked for the purpose. A Stereo Realist is a
|
|
much more accurate camera with a much wider baseline, but then we're talking
|
|
about buying a camera for about $200 for one in good condition, and giving it
|
|
to someone for an unknown length of time.
|
|
Would you be willing to do that?
|
|
Also, there are problems with both these cameras. The Nimslo is designed to
|
|
provide four images to be used in a proprietary process that produces
|
|
lenticular 3D prints, similar to 3D postcards. The Stereo Realist is designed
|
|
to duplicate the baseline of the human eyes and provide a stereo pair of slides
|
|
to be viewed in a viewer, like the old viewers which showed 3D views using a
|
|
disc of transparencies.
|
|
In any event, they don't have a larger baseline than human vision, and that
|
|
simply isn't large enough.
|
|
|
|
jbh
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |