SUBJECT: A NEST OF INFO ON GULFBREEZE UFOs FILE: UFO1647
PART 33
Message #8792 - Gourmet Gab
Date : 18-May-90 12:43
From : John Hicks
To : Don Allen
Subject : Gallifrey
> Did Ed tell you how he had managed to capture those "ghosts"
> on film (recent Sentinel article showed a young girl at Ed's
> house and the appearence of a ghost either behind or beside
> her)?
Yes, he described what he was doing and showed me some pictures. The ghost
pictures are pretty much a disinformation campaign by Willy Smith. BTW, when
the first burned area was found in the field, Willy Smith insisted he smelled
gasoline while no one else did. Specific testing for petroleum products found
none. Also, Willy Smith hired a photographer in New York to fake a picture of
an Ed-style ufo in front of the Chrysler Building, ostensibly to show how it
could be done. Smith then passed off that picture as one of Ed's pictures
until the photographer contacted MUFON and let the cat out of the bag. So, I
think anything Willy Smith says is highly suspect.
Anyway, back to the ghost pictures.
According to Ed, the game is that "The ghost is *in* one of you, and only
the camera can tell which."
Ed takes a couple of normal pictures of the kids, no ghost. Then he picks
one, focuses the camera for long distance (called infinity, but he didn't know
that) and takes a picture of the kid about four feet away. The out-of-focus
picture shows the far wall sharp while the kid's a little blurry. The flash
causes the eyes to go totally white in the same way that many pictures of
people result in red eyes, or of animals result in bright green eyes etc. The
"ghost" of course has totally white eyes.
In the picture Willy Smith is trying to call a ghost picture, it was
supposed to be a regular picture of the kid, no ghost. However, it was shot in
front of a sliding glass door which Frances said she had never cleaned in the
five or so years they had lived in the house.
Maccabee said that he has confirmed in tests that fingerprints and smears
can really reflect blobs of light while the angle to the glass is such that
clean glass doesn't reflect light back to the camera. I've also seen this many
times myself.
Anyway, Smith claims that the photo which shows the blobs of light is
supposed to be a ghost picture, but when you see Ed's examples of "ghost"
pictures and the pictures that show the kid that the "ghost" is gone, you can
see that Smith is taking little bits of information completely out of context
in a debunking effort.
Absolutely no signs of double exposure or manipulations other than
intentionally wrong focusing can be seen in any of the pictures.
> Total Non-sequitor: Since you're a photographer...what camera
> setup
> would you recommend and film,speed,etc to capture a UFO in
> flight?
I extrapolated a ballpark exposure based on the known exposure settings of
Ed's pictures taken with the Polaroid 108 film. It comes out to a ballpark
exposure setting of 1/60 at f2.8 with ISO 3200 film. This is for the craft
itself, providing it's apparent self-illumination would be about the same. My
gut guess was 1/60 at f2 with ISO 1600 film, which amounts to the same.
Of course, if what you see is a bright light, you'd use less exposure, while
if you see a dark disc you'd use more exposure. If you see lights on a dark
disc you'd need to decide whether to go for the structure of the disc and let
the lights overexpose or to go for the lights and let the disc go to black.
In any case, you need to use manual settings rather than autoexposure
because the metering system will see all that black sky and give an exposure
of several seconds. This is what happened recently when Ed and several others
tried to photograph a dark disc that had a dull red light on the bottom.
Everyone's camera gave an exposure of three to five seconds and all anyone got
was blurry blobs.
jbh
**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS -
http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************
