From: Bruce Maccabee <email@example.com> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 16:29:54 -0400 Fwd Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1999 14:21:20 -0400 Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos >From: Mark Cashman <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 10:44:18 -0400 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos >Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:06:01 -0400 >From: Bruce Maccabee <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >>Mark has pointed out that, >>in a sense, both choices could be correct: I might be good at >>photo analysis and my analysis might be correct, yet I might >>have missed something. >Not so much missed something as not imagined something (to >imagine all of the techniques by which such photos could be >made is certainly possible, but it is also possible (though I would >say not probable) that there is some method which might meet >all of the requirements and yet not have been thought of except >by the hoaxer)).> >Unlike many, I do not believe that all of the information >required to decide the reality of a UFO case is encoded in >photos of the UFO. Certainly, if a photo is able to be shown >certainly to be a hoax (i.e. a wire is visible in the image), >then the reality level of the photo is certain, as it is if the >hoaxer confesses. But if that information is not present, then >all photoanalysis can do is raise the bar of difficulty and >expense. One can come to a conclusion at some point that a hoax >is unlikely because the bar is so high.> I have said many times over the years, "a photo a ufo does not make." I said the same thing in many more words in the message to which Mark was responding. >For instance, in Gulf Breeze, there are several things which are >clear about a hypothetical hoaxer of the case... >1) He was highly skilled in model making. His models are not >only large and detailed, they are round (harder than <snip> >2) He had a special location to do model construction, and to <snip> >3) He had a special location to do the trick photography. <snip> >4) He either understood typical flaws in UFO hoax photos or >accidentally avoided them (photos likely to be real typically <snip> >5) He understood double-exposure or did enough experiments to >avoid telltale traces from the overprint. >6) He had a second camera for experiments, or he was able to >document/remember his experiments well enough to produce <snip> >7) He kept all this hidden from investigators and friends, and >possibly his family, for an extended period of investigation and >media attention. >This is a pretty high bar. It is difficult to imagine a reason >for such intense effort on the part of a successful local >businessman. And, as yet, no such reason has been found. >Photoanalysis raises the bar still further: >1) The double-exposure claims have not been supported in >subsequent investigations. Indeed, the occultation experiments <snip> >2) The correlation between the size of the object in the sealed >Nimslo camera photos and the consistency between that size <snip> >3) The smearing characteristic of the UFO and the environment >in the early photos are consistent, which they would not be >if the photos were double-exposures. >4) The intensity of the blue beam in the distant object / blue >beam photo does not have the characteristics of a double >exposure line. >5) The closeup blue beam photo does supply indications of an >unusual light source. <snip> Mark forgot two more "bar raising" aspects of the Gulf Breeze sightings and photos a) if a hoax, then Ed was very fortunate to be able to have strangers come forward and claim to have seen the same UFO.. which was certainly not a CLASSIC shape (most "flying saucers" reports tend to fall into standard categoris as roud, disc, triangle, etc.). Several of these witnesses were well known, ustanding members of the society who had nothing to gain and a lot to lose by backing a man who was unknown to them b) the "lie detector"/psychological bar. How many witnesses do you know, whose stories are generally accepted and 1) taken two lie detector tests and a professionally done voice stress test and 2) have allowed themselves to be subjected to a battery of psychological tests by a clinical psychologist who worked with criminal types (Dr. Dan Overlade) In Black's Book, Travis Walton stands out because he passed lie detector tests, but even Walton wasn't given a psychological evaluation. At any rate, the polygraph information is consistent with the psychological test information: Ed is not a siociopath/con man.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp