Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 548
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 548
Thursday, April 16th 1992
(C) Copyright 1992 Paranet Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
Today's Topics:
Debunkery
Mycroft
Rainbow 11/11
Mycroft
Mycroft
Mutilations
Mycroft
Mycroft
Comments on the Hyzer Report - Gulf Breeze
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: well.sf.ca.us!ddrasin
Subject: Debunkery
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:15:54 GMT
From: ddrasin@well.sf.ca.us
+ * Originally from Sheldon Wernikoff
+ Peggy... I finally was able to get through to Dr. King ...
+ His opinion that the mutilations do not represent any 'other-
+ worldly' events still stands, and he remains confident that most of
+ the Howe-Altshuler cases are explicable through predation
+ mechanisms.
Sheldon, Has Dr. King offered *any* detailed evidence whatsoever
other than his armchair opinions? I don't see any actual science
here.
+ The eye wounds and 'cookie cutter incisions' Altshuler describes
+ are consistent with what is effected by predatory birds, such as
+ vultures, and represent nothing remarkable.
This is pure, unadulterated nonsense. it's simply not true. Unless
'consistent' means "bearing a vague resemblance." I challenge Dr.
King to provide any real evidence of this assertion.
+ Coyotes and cats often will eat the tongue of a dead cow, which
+ usually hangs out of the mouth.
Fine. If you ignore all the other simultaneous anomalies.
+ The anal and genital areas are also choice tidbits for the
+ predators.
And I suppose coyotes and cats can surgically core out genitals
and rectums with their teeth, bloodlessly.
+ As far as the various microscopic cytological changes Altshuler
+ reports, King stated that wounds made by animals (or himself for
+ that matter) would exhibit similar effects, and that these effects
+ need not be generated solely by high-heat instruments.
Pure debunkery. 'Similar' effects? What does that mean? HOW similar?
Can this guy be specific?
+ The 'bloodless' corpse also seems to have a more prosaic
+ explanation.
This is not an explanation, but a personal opinion. Do you
understand the difference?
+ Apparently, when the cow dies, the blood is not drained, but the
+ plasma (liquid) portion of the blood is absorbed into the
+ surrounding tissues, causing cellular distention. ... etc.
So why, in these cases, is no blood ever found on the ground or in
the environment? Is there no bleeding at all from these wounds? Does
such 'absorption' occur *instantaneously?*
+ However, all of the blood constituents are still there in the cow,
+ except for some of the water content.
Again, this is nothing more than armchair opinion. Where is the
evidence? Can Dr. King provide us with the results of actual tests
that verify this? Where is his field work on actual mutilations?
+ King also stated that many of the cows that were examined were dead
+ for *days*, not freshly killed as often stated by H & A, causing
+ dehydration and subsequent exacerbation of the 'bloodless'
+ condition.
The existence of cows that were dead for days does not preclude the
existence of cows that were *not* dead for days. In any event,
bloodstains, evidence of struggle, etc., do not go evaporate into
thin air just like that.
Anyone can explain anything prosaically as long as they neglect to
provide actual evidence for their opinions and conveniently leave
out most of what needs explaining.
+ What really bothers me Peggy, is the fact that many 'believers'
+ never even get the opportunity to hear alternative explanations such
+ as King's, because H & A don't present them. IMHO, H & A are not
+ being totally honest with us, but more importantly, they are not
+ being honest with themselves.
I don't know about Altshuler, but Howe has been on this beat for
almost a decade and has considered *every* possible theory over and
over again. At a certain point you have to give your focus to what
the actual evidence dictates and not waste your time with 'flat
earth' theories. As far as I know, Howe is completely open to
examining any real evidence that may provide additional clues to the
mutilation mystery, but armchair opinions, speculation and debunkery
add nothing to our knowledge base and I wouldn't blame her for not
wanting to waste her time dealing with these kinds of 'explanations.'
+ When I finally asked King why he thought Howe and Altshuler were
+ continuing with their 'mutilation circuit', he stated "probably
+ because there's a good buck in it.' Unless H & A begin to present
+ a more objective perspective of the 'phenomenon', I tend to agree
+ with King's assessment.
'Probably because there's a good buck in it' is one of the classic
no-brainer debunker's excuses. Again, it's simply a personal
speculation or assertion with no evidence to back it up. Surely Dr.
King makes a 'good buck' at *his* own chosen profession...
Dan Drasin
ddrasin@well.sf.ca.us
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan.Smith@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dan Smith)
Subject: Mycroft
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:56:01 GMT
Doug,
I am partial to both Vallee's and Jacobs' theses, but I
don't see any obvious way to synthesize these two
contrasting views at present. On the other hand, I do have
trouble with the idea that Aliens are simply advanced space
travelers. There appear to be other dimesnions and other
realms involved in the phenomenon, and there is the
strangeness factor, to trip up the naive.
And should we not be considering UFO's in the context
of other paranormal and psychic phenomena? But, by all
means, we must attempt to make sense of what we know. I am
concerned about the formulation of a concerted human
response to these strange goings on!
Dan
--
Dan Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Dan.Smith@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG (Don Ecker)
Subject: Rainbow 11/11
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:31:00 GMT
Don;
In reference to those posts I have but one thing to say;
BULLSHIT.
Best;
Don
--
Don Ecker - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Don.Ecker@p0.f3.n1012.z9.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doug.Morrow@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Morrow)
Subject: Mycroft
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:47:00 GMT
Dan,
I think that one of the important things to remember about the
Visitors (whoever they may be and wherever they may be from) is that
_it_doesn't_matter_for_now_where_they're_from_, either another
planet or another dimension. What matters is that the phenomena is
not as straight forward as it wants us to believe.
Vallee's and Jacob's theses can be synthesized if we believe that
the phenomena is external to the individual and "real", but that the
root cause is not what is being portrayed to the individual. In
World War Two, the allies drove a German General through Britian,
allowing him to see strategic airfields and military compounds.
However, they changed all of the signs in such a way as to convince
him that he was seeing a big buildup where there was none. I am
suggesting that the Visitors are doing the same thing, only much
more sutily(?). Too many people are now convinced that we have a
good idea of who and what these Visitors are, and why they are here.
But consider Vallee's arguement about deception...it is taking place
on a massive scale, and I doubt that all of it is coming from some
human agency. The Visitors are involved in a big way in keeping the
phenomena confusing (at best). Why? Obviously, because they (it?)
has some need to maintain human ignorance about the ultimate reality
of the phenomena. Why? I don't have a clue (well, maybe a clue).
Jacob's subjects (those having "real" experiences) are all being
tricked, just like that German General. Why? To make us believe
some thing(s) that are probably not true. Why? We can only
speculate.
And your concern about some unified action on huimanities part
addressing the phenomena. I don't think it will happen...
Not at least until it is (if I may be so bold) "allowed".
Doug.
--
Doug Morrow - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Doug.Morrow@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan.Smith@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dan Smith)
Subject: Mycroft
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:34:00 GMT
Doug,
O.K., then the phenomenon forces us to expand our
concept of reality. Reality is like the dance of the seven
veils, except that there may be an infinite number of veils
or levels of perception. Each level contains a partial
truth, or in some metaphorical sense points us to a larger
truth. The mystics tell us that the veils exist for our own
protection. The ultimate truth would blind us were we to
confront it in our present state of ignorance. We must be
spoon fed.
This problem of spoon feeding becomes rather tricky in
the age of computer networks and mass media, because it is
much more difficult to maintain a priestly hierarchy of
access to esoteric knowledge. And so there must be a large
degree of inherent ambiguity so that individuals are not
forced to accept more than they can handle. The crop circle
phenomenon might be a good example of ambiguity and multiple
levels of interpretation. This is the power of symbolic
communication.
So what is the symbolic value of those abductions?
They are telling us that our evolution has external inputs,
but perhaps of more subtle nature than the barnyard methods
experienced by abductees. Are we being given the suggestion
that we are approaching a quantum jump in our physical and
spiritual evolution? At the same time we are being
presented with a cosmic antagonist to force us to cooperate
among ourselves. Conspiracy buffs might suppose this is a
deception fostered mainly by some of our own who wish us to
surrender our indivdual rights for our protection from the
bad aliens. Paranoia is, hopefully, only the unfortunate
byproduct of that ambiguity. It keeps us on our toes, at
least.
Evidently those little buggers want us to speculate, so
let's not disappoint them!
Dan
--
Dan Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Dan.Smith@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sheldon Wernikoff)
Subject: Mutilations
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:01:01 GMT
In a message to All <07-April-92 19:01> Dan Drasin wrote:
DD> Sheldon, Has Dr. King offered *any* detailed evidence
DD> whatsoever other than his armchair opinions? I don't see any
DD> actual science here.
Dan... King's "armchair opinion" is based on years of field work,
both in the U.S. and abroad, having performed thousands of
veterinary pathological examinations. He is without question one of
the most highly esteemed veterinary pathologists in this country.
In regards to the Howe/Altshuler material specifically, King worked
with slides and tissue samples provided by H & A. If you would like
me to ask King anything more specific, please post your questions
and I shall post his response. King does practice good science.
+ The eye wounds and 'cookie cutter incisions' Altshuler describes
+ are consistent with what is effected by predatory birds, such as
+ vultures, and represent nothing remarkable.
DD> This is pure, unadulterated nonsense. it's simply not true.
DD> Unless 'consistent' means "bearing a vague resemblance." I
DD> challenge Dr. King to provide any real evidence of this
DD> assertion.
Obviously, I can not ascertain the veracity of this statement- but
then again - I have no way of knowing it is not true either, and
have no reason to doubt King's testimony. I imagine the only way to
prove King's assertion would be to surreptitiously film a predator,
cultist, or King himself in action, show the damage to Altshuler,
have him declare it was effected by "unknown instrumentation", and
then show him the film. Of course, immediately thereafter, everyone
will be shouting "conspiracy".
+ Coyotes and cats often will eat the tongue of a dead cow, which
+ usually hangs out of the mouth.
DD> Fine. If you ignore all the other simultaneous anomalies.
These have been reasonably addressed, have they not?
+ The anal and genital areas are also choice tidbits for the
+ predators.
DD> And I suppose coyotes and cats can surgically core out genitals
DD> and rectums with their teeth, bloodlessly.
No, I don't think so, but long-beaked birds could probably do a
reasonably nice job of it, and I am not convinced the cored out
areas are as precise as described by Altshuler. A dead, dehydrated
animal will not bleed. I agree that a living, or very recently
killed animal would.
+ As far as the various microscopic cytological changes Altshuler
+ reports, King stated that wounds made by animals (or himself for
+ that matter) would exhibit similar effects, and that these
+ effects need not be generated solely by high-heat instruments.
DD> Pure debunkery. 'Similar' effects? What does that mean? HOW
DD> similar? Can this guy be specific?
Specifically, King was referring to the reported basophilia
(coagulation necrosis) nuclear pallisading, nuclear fragmentation,
and vacuolar change.
+ The 'bloodless' corpse also seems to have a more prosaic
+ explanation.
DD> This is not an explanation, but a personal opinion. Do you
DD> understand the difference?
Yes I do Dan, very well. King's "personal opinion" is based on a
lifetime of practical experience as a veterinary pathologist.
Altshuler's "personal opinion" is founded in his occupation as a
hematologist/pathologist, and his extensive involvement with
mutilations. Both opinions, put forth by seemingly qualified
medical professionals, are extremely disparate, and the source of
our dilemma.
+ Apparently, when the cow dies, the blood is not drained, but the
+ plasma (liquid) portion of the blood is absorbed into the
+ surrounding tissues, causing cellular distention. ... etc.
DD> So why, in these cases, is no blood ever found on the ground or
DD> in the environment? Is there no bleeding at all from these
DD> wounds? Does such 'absorption' occur *instantaneously?*
Obviously, absorption, coagulation, and dehydration can not occur
instantaneously. If the animal has been dead for a period of time,
no wound bleeding will be evident. If a living animal is attacked
by a predator, profuse bleeding will occur.
+ However, all of the blood constituents are still there in the
+ cow, except for some of the water content.
DD> Again, this is nothing more than armchair opinion. Where is the
DD> evidence? Can Dr. King provide us with the results of actual
DD> tests that verify this? Where is his field work on actual
DD> mutilations?
I am not aware if King ever went with Altshuler to investigate a
mutilation, however, this is not the point. If King's field work on
prosaic cattle deaths exhibits the same symptomology as Altshuler's
exotic hypothesis, a serious problem becomes readily apparent.
+ King also stated that many of the cows that were examined were
+ dead for *days*, not freshly killed as often stated by H & A,
+ causing dehydration and subsequent exacerbation of the
+ 'bloodless' condition.
DD> The existence of cows that were dead for days does not preclude
DD> the existence of cows that were *not* dead for days.
Obviously, I would not dispute that. Nor is the existence of cows
that are not dead at all precluded. So where does that leave us?
DD> In any event, bloodstains, evidence of struggle, etc., do not
DD> go evaporate into thin air just like that.
Bloodstains have been dealt with, at least in part, and perhaps not
entirely to your satisfaction. Who said anything about a
"struggle". Animals that die as a result of myocardial infarction
or cerebral ischemia don't struggle, they simply drop dead.
DD> Anyone can explain anything prosaically as long as they neglect
DD> to provide actual evidence for their opinions and conveniently
DD> leave out most of what needs explaining.
That is not true. To be acceptable, an explanation must follow
deductively from what one has observed, and attempt to conform to
known scientific rationale if possible. What has King
"conveniently" left out? Please tell me and I'll ask him - or
better yet - YOU ask him.
DD> As far as I know, Howe is completely open to examining any real
DD> evidence that may provide additional clues to the mutilation
DD> mystery, but armchair opinions, speculation and debunkery add
DD> nothing to our knowledge base and I wouldn't blame her for not
DD> wanting to waste her time dealing with these kinds of
DD> 'explanations.'
I certainly would not call working with King a waste a time. I know
he is willing, and eminently capable. I am not confident about Howe
being as open as you suspect.
+ When I finally asked King why he thought Howe and Altshuler were
+ continuing with their 'mutilation circuit', he stated "probably
+ because there's a good buck in it.' Unless H & A begin to present
+ a more objective perspective of the 'phenomenon', I tend to agree
+ with King's assessment.
DD> 'Probably because there's a good buck in it' is one of the
DD> classic no-brainer debunker's excuses. Again, it's simply a
DD> personal speculation or assertion with no evidence to back it
DD> up. Surely Dr. King makes a 'good buck' at *his* own chosen
DD> profession...
I do agree with you that monetary gain is not *necessarily* H & A's
main objective, and it is a typical debunker's rationale, but you
have to admit it *is* a possibility not exactly unheard of in
ufological circles. After all, there are few (if any) veterinary
pathologists that have come forward in support of H & A's
conclusions. I have to wonder why, since it would seem that
D.V.M.'s in this area of specialization are the only individuals
disciplined to conceive knowledgeable conclusions regarding the
mutilation scenario.
Thanks for your comments -- Sheldon
--
Sheldon Wernikoff - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Sheldon.Wernikoff@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doug.Morrow@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Morrow)
Subject: Mycroft
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:42:00 GMT
Dan,
We can speculate til the mutilated cows come home, but I fear that
if we don't couple the speculations with a knowledge of the
phenomena, we are going to just muddy up the waters even further.
Therefore, I think it best to look at a specific phenomena, let's
say abductions for now, and think about what it is the phenomena is
telling us about itself. First, it seems that the researchers are
saying, that it is saying, that THEY are "conventional" space
aliens, here from somewhere else, using Earth men and women to
supply the raw materials necessary to improve/create a race of
hybrids.
Before we become to metaphysical, we need to 1) find out if the
researchers are telling us the whole story re: their findings, or if
they are excluding information that does not agree with the scenario
they are purposing 2) find out what other types of abductions are
going on in other parts of the world re: I have heard that the
"grays" are not as significant or important in the experience in
Northern Europe as they are here. What happens in India, or Asia.
And let's not jump to the assumption that we know; let's find out
for sure and 3) what good physical evidence do we have re: the
experience? I have heard a number of cases concerning the missing
fetus syndrom(?), but have yet to hear any "official word" from the
docter(s) who were involved. Same re: the implants; back in 1988, I
heard that at least two had been discovered and sent to Universities
for study. Information that was supposed to be released in 6 months
has still not come out. Conspiracy? Maybe... maybe not. But we HAVE
GOT to get our facts straight before we begin to speculate to much
about what the phenomena is trying to tell us.
Then, AND ONLY THEN will the metaphysical speculation you are
talking about be really helpful. Then we will (hopefully) have a
better understanding what information is coming from individual
researchers subconscious bias, what is urban myth, and what is
"really" real.
Doug
--
Doug Morrow - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Doug.Morrow@p0.f150.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan.Smith@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dan Smith)
Subject: Mycroft
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:15:01 GMT
Doug,
You speak often of the wheat and the chaff. Suppose we
consider Bill Cooper or George Adamski and their many
claims, for example. Is this the chaff of charlatans?
Perhaps. Or an integral part of UFO folklore? Perhaps.
The UFO phenomenon seems deliberately tailored to bring out
the charlatans, present company excluded, of course! It
does not seem predisposed to use established channels of
authority and communication. We seem to be dealing with a
subversive phenomenon, which chooses to associate itself
with the fringes of our consciousness and with the fringes
of our society. This pattern should not be unusual to
students of the history of revelation.
The truth may be a treasure that is deliberately
hidden. The best place to hide the treasure might be inside
a manure pile.
There is always wheat and chaff, but we can only make
that evaluation from an understanding of the purposes of the
agency behind the phenomena. It is hard to determine which
kinds of facts or effects might be relevant to which kinds
of purposes or causes. We have to bootstrap ourselves into
that understanding. We have to keep all options open until
we can be sure which are the dead ends.
Another consideration is that according to many sources
we are approaching a time of harvest. Then the definition
of wheat and chaff will take on an additional significance,
and most of us don't get paid enough to have to take part in
that kind of decision. We can only hope to do something to
increase the yield. Just another speculation.
Now here is something even trickier to deal with - the
iceberg problem. Suppose we are coming to a new openning, a
new connection to the cosmos. The aliens are able to
exploit this new openning from the other side for their own
parasitical purposes, but at the same time they are serving
as its harbingers, as the visible tip of the iceberg. The
higher spiritual connections are much more subtle, and they
do their work within our minds. The entire UFO phenomenon
is then an opportunistic distraction from the real arena
which again is within. The most important aspect of this
phenomenon may be its most subtle and most subjective
aspect. We have to renew the spirit before we can remake
the world.
I thank you for bearing with me here, and providing an
opportunity to ruminate. What can we do to bring more
people into the process of painting the bigger picture?
What is the caution that keeps so many interested people
reluctant to stick out their necks about the big issues.
Are we hoping that if we patiently build up our data bases
that one day the truth will jump out of our computers,
already fully grown? The truth may already lie within us,
and those alien midwife abductionists symbolize the birthing
of that new truth and the new life from the old. Just
another thought.
Dan
--
Dan Smith - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Dan.Smith@p0.f605.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Subject: Comments on the Hyzer Report - Gulf Breeze
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:36:00 GMT
Below are the comments by Rex and Carol Salisberry on the outcome of the Hyzer
Report regarding the Gulf Breeze photographs. This report has been
contributed to ParaNet by John Hicks.
SYNOPSIS OF WILLIAM G. HYZER'S _THE GULF BREEZE PHOTOGRAPHS: BONA FIDE OR
BOGUS?_ (Second edition, March 15, 1992)
by Rex and Carol Salisberry
Late in 1990, Mr. Walter Andrus, International Director of MUFON, requested
Mr. William G. Hyzer to undertake a photo analysis of the Walters photos.
Mr Andrus made the request at the suggestion of Mr. Jerry Black, who had
made the initial contact with Mr. Hyzer.
Mr. Hyzer is a nationally-recognized photogrammetrist, who was honored by
an award from the American Academy of Forensic Sciences at their annual
meeting in February 1992. Mr. Hyzer was assisted in his analysis of the
Walters photos by his son, Dr. James B. Hyzer. Mr. Andrus provided copies
of photos 1,2,5,9,13,14,16,17,18,19,21,22,36L&R,37L&R and 38L&R for their
work. It is unfortunate that Mr. Andrus could not provide Walters' original
photos or at least first-generation copies to Mr. Hyzer for his analysis.
Mr. Hyzer has now completed his work and a copy of his final report, _The
Gulf Breeze Photographs: Bona Fide or Bogus?_ (second editon, March 15,
1992) was sent to Mr. Andrus on April 1, 1992. We have been priviledged to
read the report and we find it most definitive.
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.
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.
Late in 1991, Mr. Ray Stanford noted that the reflection of the tree line
in photo 19 is visible on the hood of Walters' truck (see photo section
preceding page 129 in Walters' book). Mr. Stanford requested that Mr. Hyzer
analyze this aspect of photo 19. Mr. Stanford had mentioned the lack of
reflection from the UFO to Dr. Bruce Maccabee back in 1988. Dr. Maccabee
claims to have conducted tests using a flashlight and Walters' truck to
determine why there were no reflections from the UFO as expected (see
MUFON Journal, #252, April 1989). Dr. Maccabee found that because the hood
of Walters' truck was supposedly bent, illuminations below seven feet above
the ground at 200 feet away would not cause reflections. He later changed
the seven feet to six feet.
A series of experiments was performed, in which we assisted Mr. Hyzer, to
establish the envelope within which light sources would reflect from the
hood of a Ford 150 XLT truck. The light sources were moved laterally from
30 feet left and right of the centerline of the road and vertically from
ground level up to 10 feet above the surface. Distances varied from 500
feet to 20 feet from the camera. The light-source reflections within the
described envelope were visible and photographed on the hood of the truck.
All of the data, which we helped to collect, was provided to Mr. Hyzer in
raw form (including negatives). This was necessary so as to preclude any
possibility of biasing the information.
Since Dr. Maccabee has now moved the UFO to a position 370 feet from the
camera and two feet above the ground, about 13 feet of the top part of the
UFO would have been above the six-foot restriction claimed by Dr. Maccabee
above. Therefore, the crescent-shaped illuminated dome and the dome light
should have made a visible reflection on the hood of the truck since both
were as bright or brighter than the background sky, though they do not
reflect.
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. These results of
Mr. Hyzer's analysis lead him to conclude the in his professional opinion,
photograph 19 is a fake produced by multiple-exposure photography.
Since photo 14 is very similar to photo 19, it also is probably a fake.
The other of Walters' photos depicting the same objects as photos 14 ad 19
then become highly suspect. Couple this with the brightness and
chameleon-like factors reported by Mr. Hyzer and there appears to be a high
probablility that all of Walters' photos are fakes.
We hope that Mr. Hyzer will publish his report in the near future.
Rex and Carol Salisberry
ed note: William Hyzer has no particular interest in ufology and should
be considered an impartial analyst.
--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
********************************************************************************
For permission to reproduce or redistribute this digest, contact:
DOMAIN Michael.Corbin@paranet.org
UUCP scicom!paranet.org!Michael.Corbin
********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********
'infopara' at the following address:
UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!infopara
DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com
For administrative requests (subscriptions, back issues) send to:
UUCP {ncar,isis,csn}!scicom!infopara-request
DOMAIN infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com
To obtain back issues by anonymous ftp, connect to:
DOMAIN ftp.uiowa.edu (directory /archives/paranet)
Mail to private Paranet/Fidonet addresses from the newsletters:
DOMAIN firstname.lastname@paranet.org
UUCP scicom!paranet.org!firstname.lastname
******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************
