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

Maccabee on Becker - 5

From: Jean van Gemert <jeanvg@dds.nl>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 13:51:58 +0200 (MET DST)
Fwd Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 08:38:48 -0400
Subject: Maccabee on Becker - 5

 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 appeared in the only spot in the park...." No, the UFO
did not appear at a spot "in the park."   There was a collection of
trees and bushes surrounding on 3 sides the small area where Ed had
the camera set up.  People in the parking lot outside this small area
had their view of the southwest blocked by those bushes and trees.

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

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: How does she know how hard it would be to tell.  The
outer cardboard box is sealed and presumably this could have been
opened and resealed rather easily.  However there is a thin inner foil
covering which is glued to the sides of the box.  This would not be
easy to break or cut and then reseal.  I talked to Neumann.  He was
of the opinion that the two boxes were new.
     However, this is a moot or useless point anyway.  As the following
discussion shows, the suggested hoax method involves the
substitution of a previously prepared film pack for the pack that
Neumann opened.  So, what the heck...let him open a truly new pack
of film!

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

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:    I have experimented with a Model 600 (I bought one
as soon as I learned that Ed had bought one).  Reloading of film
packs etc., may be possible, I haven't tried it.
     Barbara never does outline the hoax method in her paper.
Therefore I will do it for her.  To begin, assume that Ed had two
"previously prepared packs" with the same serial numbers as the
new packs.   (The serial numbers were different for left and right
cameras.)  He would substitute these prepared packs for the packs
that Neumann opened.  Assume that Ed has prepared the packs so
that the "ufo pictures" were the third in each prepared pack.  Then,
after the people left, he could eject the packs that Neumann opened
and insert the prepared packs.  This would set the counter to 10.  To
bring the counter down to 7 he would turn off the camera flash (to
prevent other potential witnesses from seeing the light from the
flash), press the shutter button of each camera twice, thereby
ejecting the first two (useless) photos and leaving the prepared
photos for the next shot.  He would then turn on the flash and take
simultaneous pictures of the foreground bushes using the prepared
photos.  (It would be OK if other potential witnesses saw this flash,
since it would coincide with the "UFO" photo.)  This would establish
the location of the photos.
     This is the scenario which Barbara infers may have happened.
However, she has not specified just how these special pictures
would have been prepared.  I'll do it for her.
     The Model 600 camera automatically ejects the picture
immediately after it is taken.   Through a Polaroid representative I
learned, weeks after Ed had taken Model 600 UFO photos,  that
there is a means to do a double exposure.   One has to defeat the
ejection mechanism (which starts the development process) by
opening the film pack insertion cover (a little "door" that holds the
pack in the camera) instantaneously after pushing the shutter button.
Then, if the picture gets ejected a little bit, it must be pushed back
into the camera.  Then one can take a second exposure, this time
letting the motor eject the film.  I managed to create double
exposures that way.
     Assuming that Ed might have figured out on his own how to do a
double exposure with the Model 600 (no independent evidence of
this, however!), one might assume that he would prepare his special
pictures by photographing a model UFO in a room where the model
was silhouetted against a dark screen (the first step of the SDE
method).   In this case it would be a small model showing just the
top light and the bottom light since the central portion makes no
image in the pictures.   The problem is this:  he has to have one
picture for the left camera and one for the right camera and THEY
HAVE TO HAVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF "PARALLAX".   If,
as Barbara assumes, Ed wants these fake SRS photos to be "proof"
he has to have (a) a recognizable image and (b) a calculatable
parallax.  The first part is easy, but the second is not.  How does one
synthesize the parallax? Let's suppose he takes the picture for the
right hand camera first.  The image will appear at some location in
the picture, say slightly above center.   He then has to photograph
the same model with the left camera, but the pointing direction of the
left camera must be DIFFERENT, but NOT GREATLY DIFFERENT
from the pointing direction of the right camera.  He could not simply
set up the SRS camera in a room with a small model, point the
camera at the model and take left and right photos.   If he did, the
parallax effect would be so great with a 2 foot baseline that he would
be caught RED HANDED as they say!  Instead, he would have to be
clever...very clever...EXTREMELY clever to figure out either (a) how
much to rotate the SRS camera clockwise (as seen from above)
after taking the right hand photo before taking the left hand photo or
(b) how much to move the model sideways (to the left) after taking
the right hand photo before taking the left hand photo.  Either
method, I realized WEEKS AFTER Ed had taken these pictures,
could be used to synthesize parallax under controlled conditions.
But, if he rotated the camera or moved the model either too little or
too much he could create an "unbelievable" stereo pair of photos.  If
he rotated the camera or moved the model too little he would get
very little parallax and this would lead to a very large calculated
distance (thousands of feet or miles) and a resulting UFO size could
be unbelievably huge (hundreds of feet).  If he rotated the camera or
moved the model too much he would get too much parallax leading
to a very short calculated distance (10's of feet or less) and a
resulting UFO size that would be small (inches or feet in size). Or,
if really screwed up and rotated the camera counterclockwise or
moved the model to the right he could lose parallax altogether (the
sighting lines would seem to diverge) and there would be no
distance estimate: the SRS photo pair would be no more valuable
than a single photo.   HOW TO DETERMINE THE EXACT AMOUNT
TO ROTATE THE CAMERA OR MOVE THE MODEL?   Point:  there are no
books (that I am aware of) where you can read about how to synthesize
parallax.   There aren't even many books on stereo photography for
the amateur (specialists doing photogrammetry are familiar with the
principles, but it is not in the books you can typically buy in a
book store).  ED HAD TO FIGURE THIS OUT ON HIS
OWN.
  Are you as smart as the skeptics assume Ed is?   Want to try it
yourself?  OK.  Assume a 2 foot baseline and assume the camera
lens axes are parallel.   Assume a small model, 9" = 3/4 foot in
diameter (such as the model found in Ed's old house) is 10 ft from
the camera.  Now figure out how many degrees to rotate the
baseline between pictures to synthesize a parallax distance of 200 ft.
What angle change corresponds to 20 ft?  What angle corresponds
to 2,000 ft?  What angle change corresponds to infinite distance?
How sensitive is the calculation to angle accuracy at 200 ft?  Now
repeat the calculation but instead of rotating the camera calculate
how much you would have to move the model sideways to
synthesize 200 ft, 20 ft and 2,000 ft.  What is the sensitivity to
position-shift of the model at 200 ft? What distance corresponds to
infinite distance?   What would be the calculated size of the UFO at
200 ft, 20 ft, 2,000 ft?
     Easy....ONCE YOU'VE FIGURED IT OUT, you genius, you.   (I
have calculated the answers to these questions.  If you want to
know, contact me.)
     Ed has NEVER given any indication of having any more than very
basic knowledge of photography, such as "point and shoot."  I can't
imagine that he would have figured out how to synthesize parallax
undet these condition.
     And this goes double, triply, pentuply, etc.  for the May 1 stereo
photos where there ar two UFOs of different distances and different
sizes OVER WATER!

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

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: Speak for yourself, Barbara.   However, in a sense she's
right: I presume we will never know EVERYTHING that happened.

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

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:   Whoa, there.   How does she know Ed "embellished" his
accounts of the incidents as presented in the book?   How does
she know that he wasn't just giving a MORE COMPLETE VERSION THAN
HAD BEEN PRESENTED IN THE ADMITTEDLY BRIEF ACCOUNTS PUBLISHED BY
THE INVESTIGATORS WHO DIDN'T HAVE INFINITE TIME AND MONEY AND
SPACE IN A MAGAZINE TO PUBLISH EVERY DETAIL?

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

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:

   Where are your credentials as a psychologist?

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

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.]
****************************************

ENDING COMMENTS:
     Of course there is much more in the GBS book than Barbara has
cited.  In particular there is the last chapter where I presented
analyses of many of the events she has discussed.   At the very
least, if this is a hoax it is exceedingly COMPLICATED and involves
may other people.  Such a thing would be difficult to "pull off" for
months in a convincing way.   TGBS, AHGBS and GBWE all described
numerous OTHER sightings by OTHER witnesses which are  consistent in
one way or another with Ed's sightings.   For example, not mentioned
by Barbara in regard to the March 17 SRS photo sighting, is the
sighting by Brenda Pollak of a bright ring light traveling over Gulf
Breeze toward Shoreline Park.   Brenda saw this moments before Ed's
photo as she was driving to the park to join the skywatchers.   If
this is all a hoax, how did Ed arrange that?
     Part of Barbara's problem is that she doesn't understand the
analytical details and calculations that have gone into the analyses of
these sightings.   She also does not understand the significance of
the numerous experiments that were done to test the validity of Ed's
photos and sightings.   It is my considered opinion that, as of 1997,
Ed Walters has done MORE experiments related to sightings than
ALL OTHER INVESTIGATORS AND WITNESSES COMBINED.
Many of these experiments were specifically designed by me to test
Ed's veracity.  Of course, I didn't tell him the real reasons behind
some of the experiments.
     A major example of these experiments was the creation of the
SRS camera.  Ed could have simply refused to create such a
camera because either it was too much trouble or he didn't have the
time, or both,  and I wouldn't have been any the wiser.  However, he
did make the camera.  And, at my request he made needed IMPROVEMENTS
to the camera.  Any hoaxer with a brain in his head would have
refused to do so because taking SRS photos greatly complicates the
hoaxing.
    I was not the only one to try to "set him up."  The MUFON team
that gave Ed the sealed Nimslo camera in February, 1988, did NOT
tell him that the camera could "measure" distances and hence could
distinguish between a small model 10  or so feet away and a large
object hundreds of feet away.    He was told that, because the
camera had four lenses, it would create more copies of each picture
for analysis by more photo experts.  In other words, he was led to
believe that there was some value in having four negatives of each
picture instead of just one.  There was no such advantage.
    Whereas Ed may have responded reluctantly to some of my
requests, because they impact on his time (and money), the fact is
that he has always complied.   The bottom line is that Ed has done
far more work "above and beyond the call of duty" to provide
verifiable proof of his photos and videos than anyone else IN THE
WORLD, so far as I know
 __________________________________________________________________________

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



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