UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:47:58 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 13:17:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:08:20 PDT
>>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>>Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 11:04:37 -0400
>>>Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:04:47 -0500
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>>From: Glenn Joyner <infohead@airmail.net>
>>>Subject: Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>>>My name is Jerry Black, and I will now state, for the record, my
>>>position on the UFO topic.
><snip>
>>Am I the only one who never wants to read another word from Jerry
>>Black?
>Mr. Sandow, you also refer to William G. Hyzer, and I might add,
>his son James B. Hyzer [who also worked on the Ed Walters/Gulf
>Breeze pictures], and stated that I have put my total trust in
t>hem, and that nobody could be as good as them. But the real
>issue is that nobody could be as BAD as Bruce Maccabbee.
>In Mr. Hyzer's preliminary report of the ten pictures that he >
>was given, which included photograph #18 [the famous>
>"road-shot"], he stated that "ALL" of the pictures showed
>indications of double-exposure. He could not prove at that
>particular time that any one of those photographs were
>absolutely hoaxed, but all showed signs of double-exposure. To
>the contrary, Mr. Bruce Maccabbee and Mr. Jeff Sainio, not only
>in all their vocal support given at symposiums during this time
>frame, and through all their reports they wrote, never ONCE had
>a negative comment to make regarding the pictures. So we are to
>assume, sir, if we adhere to your theory, that Mr. Hyzer made
>TEN mistakes on all of these pictures, and Mr. Bruce Maccabbee
>is correct.
I have commented and criticized at length Mr. Black's claims on
this list in the past. To avoid using valuable bandwidth yet
again.....,let me invite anyone who wishes to see my discussion
of Black's comments please request by email.
brumac@compuserve.com
I will, however, remark that in the above, aside from being
given the attribute of being the worst photoanalyst in the UFO
field ("Nobody could be as BAD as Bruce Maccabee" (spelling
corrected) I would like to point toward Hyzer's essential
honesty in this:) "He could not prove at that particular time
that any one of those photos was absolutely hoaxed but all
showed signs of double exposure."
Hyzer was correct... he coul not prove hoax.... he could not
prove double exposure. The statement that photos have "signs"
of double exposure means littl unless those signs can be
specified. Otherwise it is just an opinion... "This photo looks
as if it could have been created by double exposure." There
ARE "signatures" of double exposure and a photo can be analyzed
to determine whether or not one or more of those "signatures" is
present. The Walter's photos were so analyzed and no positive
signatures were detected (otherwise Hyzer would have been happy
to level the "smoking gun."). Just because a particular photo
composition COULD have been created by double exposure doesn't
mean it was. I should point out that there are also signatures
which point AWAY from double exposure. In some cases these
signatures were found. IN the first 5 photos, for example,
Sainio carefully compared the image smears due to camera (hand)
motion of the images of the streetlight and of the UFO.. He
found they were the SAME. In a double exposure situation this
would require that the hand vibration b exactly the same fr both
the initial (model in a dark room) exposure and th second
(outdoor scene) exposure.
I discovered that in the blue beam photo 11 there was positive
evidence AGAINST a double exposure.
All of this has been presented before in gory detail. If Mr.
Black chooses to "disbelieve".... that is his prerogative. I am
well aware that a lot of people think the Gulf Breeze sightings
of Ed are a hoax.... even though some people would accept the
OTHER sightings as probably true. Such are the vaguearies of
UFO research.
<snip>
>This is the first time that I am aware of that Mr. Bruce
>Maccabbee has been confronted with an independent photo-analyst
>of the quality of Mr. Hyzer, working on the same project. And it
>appears to me that we, in the past, have been misled by
>believing Mr. Bruce Maccabbee's professional experience in
>photographic analysis was much greater than it obviously is. So
>yes, I have a great deal of trust in Mr. William G. Hyzer, and
>if you take the time to look on my web-site, you will see a
>whole page providing you with Mr. Hyzer's background.
It is true, so some extent that there are few qualified
photoanalysts willing to take the time to really analyze any
case. However, I should point out that I had consulted with Dr.
Robert Nathan of JPL at the very beginning of my research (the
"father" of computer photo processing at JPL). I also received
input from a number of photographers and other photo analysts
over the years of m work on the GB sightings. Hence I was well
aware of the criticisms before Hyzer and long before Black came
into the picture.
>The photographic evidence speaks very clearly for itself. Any of
>the pictures that Mr. Bruce Maccabbee claims would be so hard
>for Ed Walters to produce, Mr. Hyzer has already shown how HALF
>of them could be re-produced very easily with a minimal amount
>of experience. He expressed one of these theories in "Photo
>Methods" magazine.
Yes, and th photo he claimed to have explained in that article
was Ed's photo 1. However, when his theory was tested by
comparison with the original of photo 1 it was found that his
theory failed.... even assuming that Ed might have accidently
satisfied certain of the rather stringent lighting requirements
set forth by Hyzer's theory.
>If we are to believe Mr. Bruce Maccabbee, he claims that Ed
>Walters was a complete idiot in terms of photographic knowledge.
>Here is a man, sir, when divorced, was worth 2.5 million
>dollars. Idiots do not make 2.5 million dollars.
A non-sequitur, as I'm sure all readers will realize. Being a
successful home builder does not imply being a photo buff or a
photo genius.
>Mr. Rex Salisbury, in his interview with numerous young people
>who were familiar with Ed's son and his family, said that every
>time they had seen Ed, he had a camera around his neck. Mr. Ed
>Walters was very well-versed in the camera that he used. He had
>quite a bit of experience with it, he was a camera BUFF. But if
>you wish to believe Mr. Bruce Maccabbee, who said he was an
>'idiot with a camera,' that, again, is your problem. The
>evidence doesn't show this.
Ed had one camera (Polaroid) and a video camera. Some "Buff."
(No photo magazines, no 35 mm camera)
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com