UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 4
[The following document has been edited by the webmaster in response to the threat of lawsuit by Barbara Becker, who claims copyright infringment. See Here for more information.]

Maccabee on Becker - 1

From: Jean van Gemert <jeanvg@dds.nl>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 13:51:10 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 08:29:17 -0400
Subject: Maccabee on Becker - 1

Dear all,

Bruce maccabee has, upon stumbling across Ms. Becker's
1990 paper, written a rebuttal to it which Bruce has
asked me to post here. It's long, but relevant.

--
COMMENTARY ON BARBARA BECKER'S 1990 PAPER ENTITLED "THOUGHTFUL OPINION"
ON GULF BREEZE

(Commentary by Bruce Maccabee, Sept. 30, 1997)

Barbara Becker wrote a three part series of articles in August, 1990, as
follows, with my comments inserted.  I have very lightly edited what she
wrote to make a consistent analysis.

Barbara Becker wrote:
[The quoted text that was once at this location was deleted by the webmaster on 10/9/97 in response to the threat of lawsuit by Barbara Becker, who claims copyright infringment. See Here for more information.]
*****
COMMENT:
  At the time Barbara wrote this (summer 1990) the most complete history and
analysis ---OTHER THAN what was contained in the book THE GULF BREEZE SIGH-
TINGS (TGBS)--- was contained in my paper A HISTORY OF THE GULF BREEZE
SIGHTINGS (AHGBS) which was published in the 1988 MUFON Symposium Proceed-
ings. This 90 page paper was MUCH more complete then early version of the
history as published in the Journal, so she should have used it as her
prime source for comparison with the book. It was based on my interviews...
which were not represented in the spring 1988 Journal publications... plus
information from others. It was written in April and May, 1988. After I
submitted it for publication I continued to update it and so an annotated
edition, which includes copies of the viewgraphs presented at the 1988
Symposium (where I presented the result of my research), was  completed
in July, 1988.   It is available on order from the FUND FOR UFO RESEARCH
or by contacting me directly.   Unfortunately Ms. Becker did not use this
paper as a reference, although it had been available for several years,
and this is part of her "problem": several of her criticisms would have
been resolved had she used it instead of the early MUFON Journal reports.
     A paper that was not available in 1990, but should be obtained by
any serious researcher of this case today, is the paper I presented at
the 1991 MUFON Symposium entitled GULF BREEZE WITHOUT  ED (GBWE).  This
80 page paper concentrates on the 90 OTHER sightings by witnesses other
than ED which occurred between November, 1987 and July 1988 and goes on
to the many (hundred) other sightings that occurred between the summer of
1988 and the spring of 1991.  As described in GBWE, there were over a
dozen witnesses who said they saw exactly the same thing that Ed photo-
graphed,.   There were many other witnesses who reported seeing a bright,
round light or ring moving through the sky and several even reported
seeing the blue beam.
  Also, as of today any serious researcher should have a copy of "PHOTO
ANALYSIS, A PICTORIAL PRIMER" by Jeffrey Sainio, published in the 1992
MUFON Symposium proceedings, pg 132.   In this paper Sainio presents
computer-aided analysis of several dozen UFO photos and video, including
14 of Ed's photos.
  For the complete story of Ed's experiences OTHER THAN what was reported
in TGBS (for example, his abductions) the researcher should have ABDUC-
TIONS IN GULF BREEZE (AIGB; Ed and Frances Walters, Avon, paperback, 1994)
and for more recent photographic events and sightings by Ed and others
throughout the world, UFOS ARE REAL, HERE'S THE PROOF (UARHTP) (Ed Walters
and Bruce Maccabee, Avon paperbackl, 1997).   This most recent book res-
ponds directly to the double exposure criticisms and other allegations put
forth by Becker and others.  It also provides photos taken by other people
in other countries who saw the same sort of UFO that Ed photographed.
  Finally, the researcher should have the paper ACCELERATION, presented at
the 1996 MUFON Symposium Proceedings and now available at the web site of
the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS):  www.accessnv.com/nids.
When you get to the front page click on the "WHAT ELSE" button. This paper
describes in detail the analysis of Ed's July, 1995 video which is only
briefly described in UARHTP.

**************

SHE CONTINUES:
[The quoted text that was once at this location was deleted by the webmaster on 10/9/97 in response to the threat of lawsuit by Barbara Becker, who claims copyright infringment. See Here for more information.]
********************

Comment:   Barbara has summarized what I call the SIMPLE DOUBLE EXPOSURE
(SDE) technique which I described fully in my MUFON Symposium presenta-
tion, in the last chapter (which I wrote) of THE GULF BREEZE SIGHTINGS
(TGBS), one of the references Becker cites, and also in more detail in
UFOS ARE REAL HERE'S THE PROOF (UARHTP). Although I could go into great
detail on this, I would like to point out a key factor overlooked by
Becker:  the first photo shows the left edge of the UFO image apparently
blocked by the much darker tree image.  The SDE tecnique will not allow a
darker image to overlay or "block" a lighter image...the lighter image
"bleeds through" the darker one.   Hence to make this one photo, if a
hoax, would require much more sophistication, on the level of Hollywood,
using the Masked Double Exposure (MDE) technique. The MDE or an equivalent
requires alignment between the model image and the backgroud image so that
the boundaries of the images match perfectly, otherwise the error in
matching is detectible.  Computer aided analysis of Ed's photo 1 shows
no error at the boundary between the UFO image and the tree image.  To
produce a high quality MDE with Ed's simple camera would be  virtually
impossible.
  A photo expert, Dr. Wm. Hyzer, realizing that the photo could be neither
a SDE nor a MDE, conceived of a third method applicable to Polaroid film
which required very low exposure of the model image (exposure so low that
the image would only appear if a second exposure added enough light to
make the film register the sum of the two exposures). This method, which
requires rather precise control of light levels and exposure, is described
in UARHTP. Experiments by myself and Jeffrey Sainio proved that this method
would not work under the conditions of Ed's photo.  The bottom line is that
there is no conventional explanation for photo  1.
  Ed's photo #7 taken in November, 1987 (see TGBS) and photo #40, taken in
Feb. 1988, also show a UFO blocked by a tree.  Photo 40, which was first
published in UARHTP, shows a UO blocked at the right side by a tree about
60 feet from the camera.  The argments against multiple exposure also apply
to these photos.

******************

She continues:
[The quoted text that was once at this location was deleted by the webmaster on 10/9/97 in response to the threat of lawsuit by Barbara Becker, who claims copyright infringment. See Here for more information.]
*****************

Comment: It is true that the UFO tends to be in the upper left hand side.
However, as I pointed out above, no amount of "memorizing the placement of
the UFO" can explain the fact that the UFO image in the first photo is cut
or "blocked" by the outline of the tree image at the left side.

******************

She continues:
[The quoted text that was once at this location was deleted by the webmaster on 10/9/97 in response to the threat of lawsuit by Barbara Becker, who claims copyright infringment. See Here for more information.]
*************************

Comment: WRONG. The backgrounds have similar clarity, the main distortion
being slight image smear due to camera vibration. The copies in the hard
cover edition of the book are, of course, not as clear as the originals.
In the originals one can see the TELEPHONE/POWER WIRES at a distance of
a hundred feet or more.   On the other hand, the UFO image is not any
clearer than the background.
  Regarding the image smear due to motion, it is important to note that
the smears of the background and UFO image, where measureable, agree. Of
particular interest is photo 4 where there is a sizeable diagonal smear
of the top light of the UFO and of the nearby streetlight.  Jeff Sainio,
MUFON photoanalyst, showed, by "clipping" the streetlight image and
placing it next to the UFO top light image using computer-aided methods,
that the motion smears are the same in amplitude and direction (see
Sainio's article in the 1992 MUFON Symposium Proceedings).   Such a
"coincidence" would be virtually impossible to achieve by someone who
first photographs a model with a hand held camera, thereby causing a
smear of one angle and magnitude, and then photographs the background,
thereby causing another smear of (probably) another angle and magnitude.
Similar smears of the UFO top light and streetlight are also evident in
several other photos, as described by Sainio (reference cited), although
the magnitude is not as great as in photo 4.

*************************

She continues:
[The quoted text that was once at this location was deleted by the webmaster on 10/9/97 in response to the threat of lawsuit by Barbara Becker, who claims copyright infringment. See Here for more information.]
*************************

COMMENT:   The so-called "ghost-demon" photo shows an amorphous collection
of faint blobby images contained in a picture of a girl at one of Ed's
parties. No one has provided a completely satisfactory explanation of that
photo, although anomalous reflections from a glass wall the girl was stan-
ding next to have been suggested, as well as other photo artifacts. How-
ever, the amorphous blobs... I hesitate to say "image"..... are NOT what
one would expect from a SDE in which first a person in a mask (the ghost)
is photograped in a dark room (first exposure) and then the "victim" of
the ghost (the girl) is photographed (second exposure). Under these typ-
ical SDE conditions one would expect a faint but definitely identifiable
image of the mask.   In this case the collection of faint blobs has no
definite image and is very unconvincing as a "ghost."   In fact, to get
a "ghost" image or any image out of these blobs is really a "Rohrshach"
test for the person looking at the photo.
  Ed did, in fact, create "ghosty" photos for his parties, but not by
double exposure.   He had discovered that when his camera was completely
DEFOCUSED the images of people looked distorted. Hence he would photo-
graph a person with the camera defocused and claim that the weird image
was a result of the "ghost".  He demonstrated this to the investigators.

************************************
[The quoted text that was once at this location was deleted by the webmaster on 10/9/97 in response to the threat of lawsuit by Barbara Becker, who claims copyright infringment. See Here for more information.]
***********************

COMMENT:   The discrepancy is in the book.  In my MUFON Symposium report
I have stated that Ed took photos 1,2,3, and 4 and then got another film
pack. This was verified by the numbers on the backs of the Polaroid film
(Type 108, which ALMOST always, has numbers from 1 to 8 on the pictures
in the pack).   The numbers on the backs of photos 1 - 4 are 5,6,7,and 8
(8 being the last one in the pack).  Photo 5 bears a 1 on the back (hence
a new pack).
  Becker is correct that IN THE BOOK photos 3 &4 are identical. This is
an error by the publisher:  photo 4 was printed twice and photo 3 not at
all!
  Regarding the brightness of photo 5 relative to photo 4:  Ed operated
the camera with the shutter set on automatic exposure. However, at low
light levels, such as pertained at the time of these pictures, the auto-
matic characteristic essentially did not work... i.e., it did not close
the shutter.   I carried out experiments with the camera which showed
that if there wasn't enough light the shutter would stay open as LONG AS
THE SHUTTER BUTTON WAS DEPRESSED. The way Ed operated the camera, he
pushed on the shutter button and held it down for about a second, but
this time was variable.   He did this whenever he took a picture, night,
day, with or withou flash. Of course this method was fine for daylight
or flash exposures because the autmatic shutter mechanism closed the
shutter quickly when there was enough light. However, in low light con-
ditions the shutter time was essentially controlled by Ed, although he
didn't realize that until I proved it to him by experiment. Hence photo 4
could have been a relatively shorter shutter (less than a second) and
photo 5 could have been a longer shutter (1 sec), thus making 5 appear
brighter than 4. (Note: the relatively long exposure times explains the
image motion smears evident to some extent in each of these photos.
Because even though it was proven by experiment that Ed could hold the
camera quite steady, he could not hold it perfectly steady.)  I should
point out that the combination of evening, with a cloudy sky meant that
the overall light level changed considerably during the time of the
photos.

***********************************
[The quoted text that was once at this location was deleted by the webmaster on 10/9/97 in response to the threat of lawsuit by Barbara Becker, who claims copyright infringment. See Here for more information.]
*********************************

COMMENT:   The claim that it is "apparent" that the UFO is a small model
is actually an opinion based on no evidence.  Moreover, a comparison
between the UFO photos and daylight photos (not published in the book)
that are clearly taken from the same two locations shows that the UFO
MUST have moved to the right between photos.   This was determined by
comparing the sighting lines to the UFO with the sighting lines to known
nearby structures (windscreen "boards" that have white edges and so show
up in the photos).  At first it was thought possible that an estimate of
the distance could be made by a parallax calculation since the camera
was moved several feet sideways between shots.  However, then I deter-
mined that the sighting lines diverge, rather than converge to a single
point.  Hence the UFO must have moved (to the right) between photos.
According to Frances it did move between photos (see TGBS).

******************
[The quoted text that was once at this location was deleted by the webmaster on 10/9/97 in response to the threat of lawsuit by Barbara Becker, who claims copyright infringment. See Here for more information.]
********************

COMMENT:   Clearly the light from the bottom of the UFO is not from the
camera flash.  As for the brightness of the outer surface, one cannot be
certain of the source.   If it were a model less than 20 ft away if could
be a result of the flash, since the flash will light up a white surface
enough to make a distinct image at that distance, but not much further.
(The image of the white rim of the pool, illuminated by the flash, il-
lustrates the rapid decrease in image brightness with distance.)

*********************
[The quoted text that was once at this location was deleted by the webmaster on 10/9/97 in response to the threat of lawsuit by Barbara Becker, who claims copyright infringment. See Here for more information.]
*******************************************

COMMENT:  This is an unconvincing argument at best.   Perhaps if Ed were
built like Arnold Schwarzenegger(sp?) one could detect tense muscles.
However, in an average person the muscles are overlain by enough fat so
as to remove any indications from the outside that there is "tension"
in the muscles.  Hence one would not expect to see, in a photograph like
this, any indications of tension. As for complaining that Ed didn't know
how to hold his hands when yelling at a UFO to get out of his life...
well, that's purely a matter of opinion.

********************************
 __________________________________________________________________________

                    Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
               http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
                           -----------------------

[Next Part]

Search for other documents from or mentioning: jeanvg

[ 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