UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 3

Re: One Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:27:01 -0700
Fwd Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 22:41:34 -0400
Subject: Re: One Picture is Worth a Thousand Words


>  From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>, on 10/3/97 10:48 AM:
>  To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>  From: "Serge Salvaille" <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
>  Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: One Picture is Worth a Thousand Words
>  Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 10:15:11 -0500

>  Barbara, Bob

>  My inquiry about Mr. Hyzer's analysis of some Gulf Breeze pictures
>  lead me to the following document:

>  http://www.skiesare.demon.co.uk/b-or-b.htm

I have read this document, and would make a couple of comments:

>  " Mr. Andrus could not provide Walters' original photos or at
>  least first-generation copies to Mr. Hyzer for his analysis"

>  Did Dr. Maccabee get at least first-generation copies for his
>  analysis ?

According to GBS (p 273) Dr. Maccabee made photo copies of
the originals during his visit to Gulf Breeze. I would imagine that
Mr. Walters maintains possession as well as ownership of the
originals, and MUFON would be unable to provide anything more
than Dr. Maccabee's copies. Therefore, in order to protect
the closest-to-orignal copies in their possession, it would not
be surprising that they would not provide those photos, but instead
copied. Mr. Hyzer would need to contact Mr. Walters in order to
obtain the same quality of copies as used by Dr. Maccabee.

This may be especially relevant with regard to the comment on Mr.
Hyzer's analysis which reads:

"Mr. Hyzer's report indicated that the dark rectangular areas
(portholes) in all of the photos analyzed are either slightly lighter
or no darker than the scenic backgrounds. This would indicate
that the  objects are either self-luminous, internally-illuminated,
externally-illuminated from the general direction of the camera,
or the result of photographic fakery."

Which is hardly conclusive.

At any rate, Dr. Maccabee's analysis in GBS addresses the
point about "double exposures":

(p 287) "There are two pictures, however, which provide clear
evidence that the simple double exposure method was not used.
These are photos 1 and 7. A careful inspection... of the left side
of the UFO image in photo 1 shows that the image of the UFO,
though brighter than the very dark image of the tree, did not overlap
the image of the tree branches... Similarly in Photo 7, the image
of a nearby cedar tree cuts off the image of the right side of the
UFO: the UFO does not overlap the darker image of the tree."

Dr, Maccabee goes on to show how much more difficult it would
be to use a double exposure technique that could produce these
results.

According to Dr. Maccabee in "UFOs are real" (UAR), he has
apparently read the Hyzer report and points out that Mr. Hyzer
attempted to account for the Photo 1 by reference to a special
property of Polaroid film (p 68). However, Dr. Maccabee
disputes this by first indicating that Mr. Hyzer is the discoverer
of this property, that the property was not discovered until
several years after the photos were taken, that the lighting
levels at the time of the photos was too great to allow the
effect to occur, and that while the effect requires the tree
to be the darkest object in the image, it is not.

Also in UAR, Dr. Maccabee provides a density analysis of the
blue beam from Photo 11, which clearly shows an absence
of the additive effect which would be present for a
double exposure.

In addition, in photos 37L & R (p 292), Dr. Maccabee shows that
these photos indicate the distance to the object had to be a
minimum of 60', due to occlusion of one stereo image by a tree.
However, while providing estimated size
figures for 10 (3 in), 20 (6 in) , 30  (9 in) and 300' (7.5'), he does
not provide a size for 60', which is (according to my calculation)
1.24 feet. Thus, while 37L & R rule out double exposure, they do
not completely rule out a model.

A similar photo, analyzed in UAR (Photo 40) is less equivocal
as to the size of the object. The object is occluded by a tree
at a distance of 60', which is clearly seen in a comparison shot.
In this case, the angular size of the object is clearly significantly
larger than in 37L & R, thus indicating that, even at a distance of
60', the model would have to be 2-3 times larger (4-7').

However, photos 36L & R, taken at Shoreline park with the
SRS, provide a minimum distance of 180 feet, and a maximum
of 3,000 feet. At 200 feet (which would be out over the water),
the object would be 4.8 feet in diameter.

The photos 38L and R further substantiate this, since the
SRS was properly calibrated and this was checked against
the bridge lights which were at a known distance. This photo
was particularly interesting, because it showed two objects,
one of which was similar to the object photographed with the
MUFON Nimslo sealed stereo camera, and the other of
which was one of the typical GBS objects. These photos
showed the objects to be 132' and 475' distant, and
2.5' long and 15' tall, respectively. This is especially
interesting since the Nimslo photos showed the object
photographed to be 2.5-4 feet long at 40-70' distance.

Obviously, these characteristics do not rely on the quality
of the images, except in a gross sense, and thus could
easily be determined from later generation prints.

The summary of the report continues:

"The report also indicated that the UFOs possessed
chameleon-like characteristics. The images of the UFOs
are of the same colorations as their scenic backgrounds.
This would indicate that the objects are either semi-transparent,
color-variable, or the result of photographic fakery."

Mr. Hyzer neglects to mention reflective or luminous, either
of which could explain differences from color neutrality.

My observations in looking at the photos are that they are
taken under three types of condition:

	1) Total darkness - the vast majority. These appear to
be fairly color neutral and show colors like grey, orange and
purple and purplish grey.

	2) Dawn (one photo of three objects). At least in the
GBS images, there are no perceptible color differences
between the objects closest and furthest from the dawn
light.

	3) Twilight (the first photo set). In these images, the
object does indeed have a bluish appearance. However,
when light-blasted, photo 1 shows the object to have a
more neutral color, and the "power ring" is distinctly yellow;
this may indicate that the bluish appearance is a function
of the low light level and the dominant presence of blue as
a result of the twilit conditions.

The summary of Mr. Hyzer's report goes on to discuss possible
problems with the road shot (Photo 19). The summary raises
objections to the photo:

	1) The object is not apparently reflected in the hood
of the truck.

	2) There is a problem with the light underneath the
object.

The summary also claims that the object is 370 feet from
the camera rather than the 185 feet which is cited in GBS.

This is strange, since when I recently constructed a
computer model of the sighting location, using
dimensions and angles from GBS, the result matched the
basic appearance of Photo 19, including the apparent
size of the power light, its ellipticity and the perspective
and placement of the road. 370 feet would not generate the
same result.

The summary indicates that Mr. Hyzer has performed
experiments that contradict Dr. Maccabee's result which
found that a dent in the hood of the truck would prevent
such a reflection. It is difficult to assess this without specific
information, including Mr. Hyzer's methods in attempting
to accomodate the dent.

However, it is possible to check this possibilty to some
extent using the test photo from GBS which is just below the
Photo 19 enlargement.

The first thing that can be noted is that, assuming the dark
area on the hood corresponds to the height of the treeline
from the ground, the height of all visible objects will be
reduced to 1/3 their apparent unreflected height.

In my copy, the reflected treeline is 5-7mm high at the
highest point of the treeline. It is about 18mm high
unreflected. Thus, the reflected height of the top light of
the object, given that the light is 1-2mm tall, would
be approx. .3-.6mm, which appears to be on the order of the
printed image resolution. However, that assumes that the
height decrease is constant. But if the hood were not
dented, the reflection would become even thinner as the
surface curved down and away.

The summary then touches on the "problem" with the
light in the road:

"Mr. Hyzer also notes that since the UFO is now supposedly
370 feet from the camera and two feet above the surface, there
should be a pattern of increased luminance directly beneath
the power ring. His photometric analysis did not reveal the
increase in luminance as expected. Mr. Hyzer's results
therefore indicate that there was no UFO present and that the
photo is the product of multiple-exposure camera techniques."

The meaning of this is unclear. There is, of course, the obvious
and intense increase in brightness on the road beneath the object.

A different document complains that the shape of this
brightness does not match that of a circular opening projected
on a flat road. However, that analysis seems to ignore that
the road is clearly not flat, but is domed to what appears
to be about 1 foot of additional height in the center. This can
be seen by examining the test shot where the road goes
into a left hand curve and noting how the centerline follows
the road. In addition, the opening is tilted 13 degrees
toward the camera. And, finally, other photos of the power
ring area show that the luminosity of that area is irregular
and sometimes polygonal.

>  Oh... BTW, the last 2 lines of the cited document read:

>  "ed note: William Hyzer has no particular interest in ufology and
>  should be considered an impartial analyst."

I am no uncritical fan of the Gulf Breeze photos. There are a
number of things which trouble me, including the absence of
this configuration in prior cases and the absence of
luminosity effects such as those seen in the Beaver Falls
photos.

And, naturally, my red flags are raised by multiple contact
cases, much less a multiple photo case, with what is practically
the full panolpy of "modern" ufological phenomena, including
abduction.

However, there are many Gulf Breeze witnesses and
photographers. The disputations of Dr. Maccabee's analysis
do not seem sufficiently convincing, especially when those
disputations avoid the SRS photos, which provide size and
distance information while simultanously multiplying the
difficulty of double exposure. Nor does a minor copyright
irregularity seem sufficient to imply falsity.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.geocities.com/~mcashman
- Original digital art, writing, and UFO research -
Author of SF novels available at...
http://www.infohaus.com/access/by-seller/The_Temporal_Doorway_Storefront
------



Search for other documents from or mentioning: mcashman | sergesa

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com