From: Dennis <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:20:15 -0500 (CDT) Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 17:48:18 -0400 Subject: Re: One Picture is Worth a Thousand Words >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >From: "Serge Salvaille" <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: One Picture is Worth a Thousand Words >Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 13:42:53 -0500 >Dear Barbara [Becker], >You have mentioned... >>Yes, Independent (that means he looked at the photos WITHOUT >>an agenda) photoanalyst Wm. Hyzer, however his report was disregarded by >>MUFON. >Any way to get our hands on this document ? >Serge Salvaille, system programmer The List's wish is my command! Actually, the fact that I've just resigned as editor of the MUFON UFO Journal, effective with the November issue, means that I have a lot of free time on my hands...so I decided to look up the issue with the Hyzer article in it. Imagine my surprise when I picked up a stack of Journals tucked away in the closet and the top issue turned out to be the relevant one. Will synchronicities never cease! For those interested, and with access, the article is the cover story of the July, 1992 issue of the Journal, "The Gulf Breeze Photographs: Bona Fide or Bogus?" by William G. Hyzer, pp. 3-9. The article is copyrighted by the author, who requested written permission to reprint same, so I shan't be scanning and posting it here. Besides, I don't have _that_ much free time. To summarize, however, Hyzer essentially concludes that the famous Polaroid series of pictures released by Walters are hoaxes, specifically double-exposures. To cite but one example, the famous "road shot," Hyzer concluded that reflections from the photographed object should have appeared in the scene reflected on the hood of Ed's pickup, since the background treeline did. Ergo, the object was not physically present at the time the picture was taken. Ed Walters and Bruce Maccabee responded to this apparent "anomaly" by claiming a) the bed of Ed's pickup truck was filled with cinder blocks at the time, thus lowering the rear and raising the front, and b) what's more, Ed had recently dented the hood of said pickup -- you guessed it -- at precisely the point where the otherwise randomly captured reflection would have normally appeared. Touche Dr. Hyzer, and all you other professional photoanalysts out there! (Did anyone ever ask Ed for an insurance claim or a repair receipt? Nah, not that I'm aware of. Given that Ed routinely packed a Polaroid to photograph UFOs, would it have been too much to expect him to snap off a picture of his buckled hood for posterity, if not for his insurance agent? Apparently so.) Barbara's statement that Hyzer's "report was disregarded by MUFON," then, obviously requires some caveats. Since we published his analysis as a feature story, it would seemingly be difficult, if only as a matter of semantics, to defend the point of view that MUFON "disregarded" it. If she means that many within MUFON didn't accept Hyzer's conclusions and trumpet them to the high heavens, then she's more on the mark. But that isn't what she said. My responsibility was to publish the article, which I did, not to go out there and personally twist three or four thousand arms until they all agreed with me. In my own case, no analysis was necessary by anyone. The pictures looked hokey to begin with, and they still do to this day, on their face. Go back and look at them again. Sometimes you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Not when it's blowing that hard, anyway. Dennis PS: Back issues of the July 1992 issue can be requested from Walt Andrus at MUFON, 103 Oldtowne Road, Seguin, Texas 78155-4099, for $3.00 each, s/h included. And no, I don't get any commission.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp