UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Oct > Oct 25

Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 00:14:03 -0400
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 09:26:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos


 >Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 23:21:54 -0500
 >From: Roger Annette Evans <raka@swbell.net>
 >Subject: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos
 >To: updates@globalserve.net


 >>Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos

 >>From: Bruce Maccabee
 >>Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 21:44:23 -0400
 >>Fwd Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 15:21:42 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Bruce Maccabee and Gulf Breeze Photos

 >>I think you are trivializing this.

 >On the contrary, Bruce. I truly believe it is you that are
 >trivializing the importance of this particular aspect of the GB
 >investigation. The analogy of the check out line is clear: I
 >could continue through the line as many times as I wanted UNTIL
 >they found out I had committed fraud. In the meantime, I'll
 >never admit it voluntarily. Likewise, if Ed wanted to deceive,
 >he could continue to produce fakes as long as you were willing
 >to believe he knew nothing about photography; thereby adding
 >credence to the authenticity of his photos. He certainly won't
 >voluntarily admit fraud, especially if he is getting away with
 >it.

 >Is it your assumption that all fraud is detectable and, if not
 >detected, then it doesn't exist?

Of course not.

But my assumption is that if ed had been creating a fraud it
would have been detectable. Not only that, but, if Ed had been
commiting photographic fraud, then he was continually getting
"better" at it since the conditions were continually getting
tougher.

You argue that creation of all the pictures was "easy"... I say
that it wasn't all that easy.

 >In the meantime, you maintain that no evidence exists that Ed
 >faked the photos because of an unnecessarily complex view of
 >just what it would take to fake them.

Unnecessarily complex? Complex for Ed, IMHO. You wish to argue
that they were not too complex for Ed. Apparently I can't
convince you that they were beyond Ed's
knowledge/skill/capability and you can't convince me that they
were withing his knowledge/skill/capability/ I guess we'll have
to agree to disagree.

 >By doing so, you, perhaps >unknowingly, artificially enhance
the credibility of what >appears to me as basic photographic
techniques applied by >someone with basic, not advanced,
photographic skills.

Yes, "appears to you as basic photographic techniques" But just
because it appears to you to be basic doesn't mean it appears to
everyone as "basic" or simple. I would classify Ed as in the
group of people for whom these techniques are not "basic" but
actually rather advanced.

<snip>

 >>Presumably Ed would not need a copy stand if he were to take
 >>pictures with no smear. You have him using a tripod to take
 >>unsmeared pictures and then saying, :"oh these will be more
 >>convincing if I create a smear which will be th same on both the
 >>UFO and the streetlight. So I'll go out and buy a cheap copy
 >>stand, one so cheap that when I click the shutter the camera
 >>will move slighting thereby creating the same smear on the UFO
 >>and on the streetlight."

 >This is nonsense, Bruce. The obvious point is that ALL of the GB
 >photos could be produced on the copy stand, whether he wanted
 >them blurred or not. The stand could be rigid as steel; the blur
 >would be created by moving the print during exposure.
 >Butt-simple. Or is this yet ANOTHER basic photographic technique
 >that you didn't think of while investigating every possible
 >explanation about the GB photos? Let's explore that territory a
 >bit...>

Butt-simple... yes. If you think of doing it. If the copy stand
were as rigid as steel and the camera fastened and the film
lying there with no "wind" around... the natural thing would be
to take a picture with no motion of the camera or film being
copied. This would produce an unsmeared picture. One would have
to _think_ of actually moving the picture while the shutter was
open. That requires an escalation of "expertise" over simply
making a copy with the copy stand. (And, also requires care in
moving the picture in such a way that a reflection glare does
not occur during the movement.)

 >Beyond admitting that you never thought of the masked double
 >exposure technique,

Whoops. Never said that. I described the masked double exposure
in my MUFON Symposium presentation.

What I didn't think of was putting the mask inside the camera on
the film container. This is "easy" to introduce for the first
picture of the pack and, of course, can be left in a single
position for all the pictures in the pack. But if the position
of the mask has to be changed after the first picture the change
has to be made in a dark room. Ed's first photo was #5 of the
pack.

 >you stated that the photos to be copied
 >would have to be "quite large"; large enough to maintain focus.
 >This is false: Using the Polaroid copy stand, no large prints
 >would be needed. He could double expose, cut and paste and alter
 >original Polaroids at will and copy them onto more Polaroid
 >film.

The idea of cut and paste was tested. The edges of the images
where a cutout is laid over another picture will generally have
a jagged edge or not a smooth variation of brightness from the
image on the cutout to the image on the underlying film. Of
course the boundary between the cut edge and the lower
_background_ film can be "smoothed" by defocus or motion blur...

So analyses of photos using a computer were done to determine
whether or not defocus was used to hide the "cut and paste". No
evidence of that technique was found. SNIP

 >And, yes, the addition of blur WOULD make the final effect more
 >believable. It fooled you, didn't it? Or, rather, you believe
 >that the inclusion of blur makes the photo less likely to be a
 >fake? Why? Because you couldn't think of a way to fake it? Well,
 >now you know how! Does that make the photo more or less likely
t>o be a fake?

It's not that I didn't think of a way to fake it, I just didn't
think of doing it exactly the way you have suggested. You are
claiming that with the copy stand it is "so easy." Yes, as I
pointed out above, easy if you think of doing it.


 >Moving on, Bruce suggested:

 >>You should contemplate photo 11, the photo of the UFO supposedly
 >>in the distance over a field, with a blue line coming down.
 >>Hyzer claims it was a double exposure. By this he means what I
 >>call a simple double exposure as opposed to a masked double
 >>exposure. The upper part of the "beam" is silhouetted against
 >>the dim morning sky. The bottom of the beam is silhouetted
 >>against the total dark trees, buildings and ground. So, what do
 >>you think? A simple double exposure?

 >A distinction without a difference. It, too, could be created on
 >the Polaroid copy stand.

Yes, this would have to be a cut and paste situation in which
the UFO model and blue "beam" are cutouts laid on top of a
Polaroid photo of the background and then the combination
photographed... essentially a masked single exposure in which a
paper cutout (of a photographed model of a UFO) is blocking
light from the background photo at the location of the model
(and beam).

 >In fact, this is my whole point, Bruce. It doesn't have to be
 >complicated to look good. And the less complicated it is,
 >the more likely Ed (or anyone else) could do it.

 >However, you maintain the false reasoning that the pictures he
 >produced could ONLY be fake if a sophisticated optical technique
 >was used by someone with an advanced degree of knowledge about
 >photography. You are a photo analyst; presumably with said
 >advanced degree of knowledge about photography. Yet the notion
 >of using a cheap copy stand or a masked film cartridge never
 >occurred to you. Does that make me some kind of photographic
 >genius? (Bob Shell would say "No.")>

I suppose we would have to define "sophisticated". I still say
that Ed was not sufficiently sophisticated to do these things.
The idea of a "cheap copy stand" and rephotogrqphy was
considered and investigated years ago... although I doubt that
anyone contemplated the expense of the stand... Ed could have
afforded the best photographic equipment available... It is true
that the masked film cartridge didn't occur to me. But so what?
I contemplated another masked method which, to my way of
thinking, would have been more likely what someone would try.

 >Forgive the inclusion, but I believe Hyzer made the same
 >mistake. Instead of looking at what tools were available for the
 >average person to achieve the GB photos through fraud, you and
 >Hyzer both assumed that it MUST be something more exotic and
 >sophisticated; something that would elevate the challenge of
 >discovery and detection to a level worth of your expertise
 >(hence the "Hyzer method")

Look, there were two things you came up with: a mask inside the
camera and a "cheap copy stand" with rephotography of a paste on
"model."

(Don't need the mask inside the camera if you use rephotography)
How do you know that Hyzer didn't think of these things himself,
or variants, and check for them on photo 1 and then rule them
out?

 >Why?

 >Why must it be so darned complicated?

 >In fact, this has nothing to do with Ed's intent, or whether
 >he's telling the truth or blowing smoke up your skirt. It has
 >nothing to do with what other witness saw or didn't see. It has
 >nothing to do with whether Ed is a simple man or a sophisticated
 >man. Henry Ford couldn't even write his own name. So what? And
 >believe it or not, it has nothing to do with whether the GB
 >photos are real or fake.

 >All it boils down to is this:

 >Can't you just admit that the photos could be faked on a cheap
 >Polaroid copy stand? If not, then why? Because Ed said he didn't
 >have one? Because Ed claims to know nothing about basic
 >photography?

Well, as I have said above, rephotography or whatever you want
to call it (paste or lay a "model" on top of the photograph of
the background and then photograph the combination) can be done
well or can leave "tracks." These tracks... unwanted variations
in brightness or even shadows at the edges of the model..can be
looked for in the final photo. They were looked for... and not
found. Perhaps Ed figured out a way to cover the tracks without
using defocus to blur the edges. But if so he was "very good."

So I "admit" that the photos could, _in_principle_ be faked
using a copy stand and rephotography. HOwever, I cannot "admit"
that Ed's photos were done this way because I found no evidence
of it.... and not just me. Sainio and other pros looked at the
photos. Possibly Hyzer also searched for "rephotography tracks."

Of course, Ed's denial of knowing about photo tricks and his
apparent zero level knowledge of photography in general means
nothing. He could be a fabulous genius with "no tracks." Right?

 >Gee, there goes Ed through the check out line again....

 >At what point does Maccabee's Grocery Store start becoming
 >suspicious?

Oh, about 11 1/2 years ago.

I should point out, as have numerous times before, that I would
_give_ you the argument that the photos could have been faked. I
say, the capability is beyond Ed.

Your rejoinder is, hey, all these things are so simple... cheap
copy stands, lenses come with it, just slap the photo of the
background into the stand, lay a cutout model on top and
photograph away... even slide the picture a little if you want
convincing smear... all so simple.

Well, in the absence of any evidence at all that Ed could have
known about any of those things I would have to say simplicity
is not "proof"... not even evidence.

If you are trying to argue that Ed's photos are fake because it
was "so easy" to create them, I would say you are wrong.

If you say you don't know whether the photos are fake or real,
but at the least they could be done "easily" by someone with the
equipment, time and knowledge, I would say you are right
(probably... although there are certain technical details for
the various photos that make some of them "iffy" to fake in a
"simple" way).

If you argue that Ed had the equipment, time and knowledge then
I would say... OK... prove it, but don't use circular
reasoning. That is, don't use the fact that the pictures could
have been faked as proof that Ed had the equipment, time and
knowledge. that Ed faked the pictures. Find some other
evidence such as "sightings" of a copy stand, darkroom,
photographic magazines, books, numerous cameras of different
types, etc... something to indicate that Ed was not a photo
dolt.



[ 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