UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Nov > Nov 6

Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 11:26:34 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 03:54:03 -0500
Subject: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

>From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker]
>Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:57:54 -0600
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

(10/30/97) To the several people still following this discussion:
Here are my comments on her 10/29 message..

> <snip>

>> > > HERE IS MY COMMENT ON HER PAPER:   I am aware that the GB
>>>> skeptics have tried, unsuccessfully, to discredit all the other


>> > **** BB: There were NONE that came forward before Ed and only
>> > ONE, a man named Thompson, who described and drew a picture
>> > similar to Ed's.

>> The fact is that over a dozen people came forward within the 8
>> months following Ed's initial report. Presumably no one twisted their
>> arms or otherwise forced them to make their statements to the effect
>> that they saw the same object. I realize this is a bitter pill for the
>> skeptics to swallow, but if you took Ed completely out of the picture
>> you would still have an amazing series of sightings. Quite likely


>> Presumably there would have been some publicity and then
>> investigators would have learned about the sightings that took
>> place in November, December 1987 and January and February, 1988.
>> And many of the witnesses reported the basic key features: a
>> round object with a bright ring on the bottom and a light on the
>> top. Some reported other key features as well.

>(BB10/29)The problem with their reports is that there was too much time
>between Ed's photos hitting the newspaper and these people coming
>forward.  In ANY OTHER case, these reports would be viewed
> skeptically.

What does this mean?  What should have been done differently?
Each sighting should be judged on its own merits.  Or, would you
have them rejected simply because there are many  similarities to
what Ed photographed?

>> ( I don't care WHAT Don Ware's reason was
>>.for showing Ed Walters the Billy Meier video and other UFO books the
>>first week in December, it was not correct procedure.)

At least we agree on one thing. Contamination of witnesses is a
dumb thing to do. On the other hand, it apparently didn't affect
Ed.   However, if his pictures had begun to resemble Meier's
after December, 1987 the investgation probably would have been
closed in January of 1988.

>>>>BSM, 10/17/97:  The following people stated they saw a UFO
>>> > like or the same as what appeared in  Ed's photos (list taken

>> >*****BB  I have many of these reports.  Unfortunately, with the
>> >exception of Thompson, the other sketches of witnesses in 1987, are
>> >NOT identical to Walters UFo. ANd once again, most of the reports
>> >were taken much later.

Yes, some of the reports were taken much later because sightings
were much later.  (e.g., McCann, Holcomb, Pollock,McConnell, see

>> Your requirement of "identicality" reminds me of similar
>> fallacious reasoning by the writers of Project Blue Book Special
>> Report #14.


>> Your reasoning could be used to achieve the same result with the
>> Gulf Breeze sightings. You could state that  because the
>> witnesses did not all report exactly the same thing they probably
>> saw nothing at all... or at least no flying saucers.

>This has NOTHING to do with MY reasoning.  Ive been in this long
>enough to know that no two reports of THE SAME OBJECT will be
>reported IDENTICALLY.  When I hear people saying that they have
>seen the SAME object, I am suspicious.

WHOA THERE!! If I understand correctly up to this point you have
been demanding that support for Ed's sightings means that the
descriptions must be the "same" or "identical."  Now you admit
different people won't report things identically and, moreover,
if they did you'd be suspicious.  You can't have it both ways.

Consider the report by Fenner McConnell (county coronor and
pathologist) and his wife Shirley. Their sighting did not happen
until July, 1988. They said they saw the same objected that Ed
photographed hovering over the water near their house on the
western shore of Gulf Breeze. This was early in the morning. So
much light was coming out of the bottom that they could see the
reflection from the water. They also reported seeing "windows."
As they watched, the light got  brighter and then it moved away
acress the Pensacola Bay. The sketch by Shirley MConnell is in
GULF BREEZE WITHOUT ED (MUFON Symp 1991). Do you accept their
sighting as real? Or do you reject it?

>BTW: You apparently
>forget that even in your corresondence to me it is YOU who state
>that these other GB witnesses saw the SAME UFO as Ed. That seemed
>to be a way for you and they to validate what Walters claimed he
>saw.  As far as I know, from the documentation I have, no one
>drew anything IDENTICAL to Walters, the pictures look more like a
>bastardized version of Walters.

WHOA..here you ago with identical" again. Let's see, if  I
understand what you are (or seem to be) saying: it is my
mistake to suggest that these sightings/sketches support Walters
because the descriptions/drawings are similar.  They would only
support Walters if the drawings/descriptiong were identical.

On the other hand, arguing from your Walters-hoax point of view,
the fact  that these sketches/descriptions are somewhat similar
(or nearly identical) indicate his photos are a hoax because

(1)  the drawings/descriptions are not identical and therefore
don't support Ed's photos or

(2) the drawings/descriptions are so similar that they must be
"bastardized versions" of Walters' photos,  i.e., the witnesses
don't really recall what they saw (if anything) and so they don't
support Walters photos.

CONGRATULATIONS!   With reasoning like this...... you could never
be wrong.

>The reports were taken much too late not to rule out mis remembering
>what (if anything) these people DID see.

WHOA THERE AGAIN! Many interesting sightings occurred long after
Ed's first photos were published and the witnesses made their
reports soon after the sightings. (see McConnell sightings above
and others below)

>Here are a few tidbits from your 1991 Symposium Paper. See, I
>HAVE read it.


**>p.190/ "Mr. Art Hufford had stated publicly and unequivocally
**>that what he saw was exactly the same thing as shown in the
> (The Huffords did not make their report until March 1988.)
**> p.189/ In a letter to the GBS, Billie Zammit claimed she saw "this
**> same object", as the photo in the newspaper.
**>p.189 /  Jeff Thompson, (whose report I find compelling but would
**>like it better if he had not waited 6 months to make a formal
**>report), said that what he saw was "similar".
**>p. 189 / Doris and Charles Somerby, Duane Cooks' parents, and
**>former editor of the GBS, said '"what I saw on Veterans's Day
**>night , (November 11) was exactly what was depicted in the
**>pictures published in the GBS."'

>>  So, what is it, Barbara?  Do you accept ANY of the sightings in
>> the November 1987 - July 1988 time frame (when Ed was taking
>> these pictures), or do you reject them all?

>As I said previously, I find Thmopson's report compelling, but I
>would have liked it to have been taken when the event was fresher
>in his mind.

How about Truman Holcomb who made his report SOON AFTER his April
28 sighting? How about Ray Pollock who also made a confidential
(name not released at the time) report soon after his sighting
May 27 (see page 202, "anonymous"). I already mentioned the
McConnells. These people made "fresh" reports. Do you reject
their accuracy of description simply because what they describe
resembles (closely!) what Ed saw and photographed? Or do you
think that in the several days or so between their sightings and
their reports their memory had been sufficiently "bastardized" by
Ed's photos (which had been published MONTHS earlier; there was
no book at this time, you know) that they couldn't accurately
describewhat they saw?


>> Its not enough to have an overall similar or even identical
>> shape, plus a bright ring on the bottom? Just because the "windows"
>> don't show in every photo by other people doesn't mean the objects
>> aren't the same.

>Thats the point.  I WOULDNT EXPECT THEM TO.  I agree.

>> Hence a verbal report which mentions the key details (overall shape,
>> bright ring on bottom, light on top) should not be rejected simply
>> because it doesn't include all the details  shown in  Ed's pictures
>> Also, even many of Ed's recent pictures (since 1992)show objects which
>> are not identical in shape to the ones he photographed in 1987-88.

>I dont reject them. I reject Ed Walters photos as published in
>GBS. They are just too damn perfect.

Thank you for explaining the scientific basis for your rejection
of the Walters photos in the face of "whelming" (some might even
say "overwhelming") evidence that other people saw the SAME
THING!! Said scientific basis being "too damn perfect." I think
I'll invent an acronym to simply further reference to this
scientific principle of UFO photo evaluation: reject photos that
are TDP!

Perhaps there are degrees of TDP.  For example, if anyone should
be rejected it is Billy Meier who definitely ranks at the top of
TDP. In comparison with this, many of Ed's photos rank low, even
below the famous McMinnvile photos, because in many of Ed's
photos the images are too dark to see the whole UFO. Sometimes
all that is visible is the "power ring."

>>Persons who wrote to Ed in response to the publication of his first


>>>>  Bruce you can personally attest that you have seen each and
>>> >every one of these letters, and that they are written differently
>>> >different people?

>>> I have not seen all these, but have seen many letters...all from
>>> different locations.   Different writing. Ed saved the
>>> envelopes..all different addresses and postmarks.

>Which photos letter and envelopes have you personally seen?
> Do you have copies for your records?

I looked at my file and found that in January 1991, four years
before there was any talk of a book by me and Ed, Ed sent me
copies of about two dozen letters he received from Florida, other
places in the USA and other countries. With each letter was a
copy of the envelop with postmark. In reviewing the letters I
found many with drawing and descriptions and statements of
"similarity" or "identicality" , just as in the published
letters. I found only two in the collection I received in 1991,
which are published in the book: Alan Stutzamen (from Germany)
and "Marsha Pagan" (not her real name).  You will find these on
pages 122, and 130 in the book....Ed had literally thousands of
letters to choose from and apparently he chose mostly letters
that were more recent than what he sent me.

Example of unpublished letters:

March 6, 1988 sighting (letter date May, 1990)
"...what it looked like most was photo 17...";

June 10, 1989 sighting (Mar 1990 postcard)
"My wife and I saw something glide through the sky that greatly
resembled your photo #18..."


>> > Your comment, "Oddly enough, they are from around Costa Rica,


>>>****BB I really dont know what you are saying here but...Has
>>> this one been in the newspaper?   Which of the South American
>>> reports and sightings were recorded in a newspaper at the
>>> time of the sighting?

>>  See my response above to the previous comment.

>Which of the South American reports/pictures used in the book are
>fixed in time by an independent source?

You can read a UPI story dated March 18, 1989. Then in his letter
James Warnerfred says it was the publicity that got him to go to
the area on March 30, 1989. So far as I know none of the photos
published in the book was published in a newspaper.

> <magnum snip>

> > >**** BB:  Anyone with the slimmest doubt was kept away from this
> > > case. No skeptics allowed...only believers.

>> Instead they proceded on their own. Perhaps you don't recall (or
>> never knew) about Ray Stanford getting egg all over his face in
>> April, 1988,


>>I know about Stanford...but I also know that it was Andrus who
>>made a proclamation about rain in one of the photos, so anyone,
>>with bad info can open mouth and insert foot.

Yes, indeed. However, there is a considerable difference  between
what Andrus did (saying that in his opinion the little white
spots on photo 19 were water drops on the windshield) and what
Ray did. (He sent letters to the mayor, TV station and newspaper
to claim  publicly (and loudly) that he had proof that a man
generally considered to be an upstanding and respected citizen of
the community was actually the perpetrator of an amazing hoax and
conspiracy!) If Walt Andrus inserted his foot then Ray swallowed
himself whole.


>>> The person Tommy "came forward" to with his story was his
>>> father.


>>>At the press conference Mr. Smith was careful  to avoid criticizing
>>>any of the other Gulf Breeze witnesses, including those who
>>> claimed to have seen exactly the same thing have seen exactly
>>> the same thing that Ed photographed.

>There you go with the "same thing Ed photographed"...

There you go again mixing up identicality with "the same

>>> Tommy's photos were analyzed. Tommy  had claimed that
>>> Ed had faked  them by double exposure methods.

> > 10/17/97  Readers: note well the following paragraph:


>>> However, analysis revealed no evidence of double exposure
>>> and, in fact, the photos appeared to be just single exposures,
>>> not double  exposures as Tommy had indicated. The shape
>>> and color of  the  depicted UFO was consistent with what Ed
>>> had photographed.


>> Evidently you don't understand. I'll try again, The  proof that Ed
>> faked the pictures that Tommy gave to the Sheriff was
>> ***supposed to be**  the evidence that it was a double exposure,
>> according to T. Smith. But there is no evidence of a double
>> exposure.

>> Hence your claim "Ed took the photographs" is not proved by
>> the photographs.

>Who analyzed the photographs? Please don't tell me you did.

Oh, but I did. And so did Bob Oechsler. And so did Robert Nathan
at JPL. None of us could find even the slightest hint of a
double exposure. There was simply nothing on the negatives
other than the faint reddish images of the UFO itself. If there
had been a double exposure there would have been siome other
images like a background scene. But there was nothing.

And, by the way these photos rank near or at the bottom of the
TDP scale mentioned above.


>>>**** BB: I cant speak for any of these people but everyone
>>>makes a bad call once in while...even you Bruce.

>>>Yeah me.....and even You, Barbara.

>> >  ****BB  Bruce. The above line is childish.

>> Yeah, so is the above line.

>Ya! Well, mom always liked you better!!!!!

Right, but you got the dog and all I got was that stupid chicken!
BARK,. CHICKEN!!!! Never could get that chicken to bark.
(unquote, Smothers Brothers, ca. late 1960's or early 1970's)

> > > 4)  Here is my comment on her paper:
> > > This discussion about the copyright does not prove Ed
> > > created the Bill and Jane photos.  Hence Barbara's claim

>> <big snip>

>> > > "this demonstrates his ability...."  is also not proven.   In

>>> >BSM: 10/17/97  When it comes to deciding who's right, you
>>>> grasp for legalities is you wish; I'll stick to the physical
>>>> analysis.

>> >****BB  Your physical analysis can be wrong. Law, at least this
>> >copyright law, is very specific.  And it VERY specifically says


>> Physical analysis can be wrong.....and the law can't be wrong?

>>Can lawyers repeal the "laws" of optics and photography? But we
>>are talking about diverse things here. I claim that the photos
>>which Ed claims to have taken were not hoaxed by Ed...and
>> severalof them contain images which could not have been
>> hoaxed by Ed for reasons outlined in UFOS ARE REAL.....
>> Also, I claim there were many other witnesses to the same type
>> of UFO.  Hence, I claim the
>> photos and sightings are real

>> You claim that Ed broke the law if he published the Bill and Jane
>> photos without owning the rights to those photos.
 > >But to arrive at your conclusion you must assume Ed (and his
>> lawyers) would be smart enough not to break the law.

>Oh, pullleeeese. Dont go through this "Ed's too stupid to..."

Who said Ed's too stupid? Perhaps he got bad advice. After all,
he doesn't claim to be an expert on copyright law.

>> Therefore he would have transfer agreements with Bill and
>> Jane to protect himself against a lawsuit... or else he took the
>> photos himself.

>"By George, you've got it!"

Got what?  Your TDP principle?

>> Since he has no transfer agreements you conclude that he
>> must have taken the photos himself. (But then he would be a
>> liar because he said someone else took them, and this lie
>> then carries over into the other sightings... etc.)'

>You're smarter than I thought.

>>AND JANE'S PHOTOS? Ed doesn't think he broke the law.  Ed's
>>lawyer doesn't think he broke the law.Morrow's lawyer doesn't
>>think he broke the law.  But, according to you, if he is telling the
>>HE BROKE THE LAW.  SHAME ON ED!!!! Well, as I have
>>suggested (challenged you) in the past, if you really think he
>>broke the law in publishing the photos, the sue him on behalf of
>>Bill and Jane!

>But I dont think he broke the law.  I think he owns the copyright
>(ie didnt break law) because he took the pictures.   He is
>perfectly legal.  There is nothing to sue.

And your justification for thinking Ed didn't break the law is
what? The TDP principle?

> <snip>

>> >****BB I'll repeat the question.  Maybe you overlooked it the
>> >last time I asked.   Hey Bruce....Is Ed dead?????  If not how
>> >about calling him on the phone (surely you have his number)
>>>and ask him why he doesnt have a transfer agreement and
>>>why he owns the copyright to the B&J photos?  Thats simple.
>>>  And please no BSabout Duane giving him the photos.

>> The answer has alread been given.

>NO IT HASNT.  Why wont you just get on the phone,or send him
>a letter and ask him point blank about the Bill and Jane photos?
>ANd if you refuse to do that, how about telling me and the rest
>of the people on this list exactly why you wont do it.

I did talk to him some time ago when you brought this up in
private letters.  His answer was that he has no transfer
agreement and his  lawyer thinks he is not infringing on any

>>> If you are correct,  Ed is a CRIMINAL, A FELON,
>>> So, why don't you sue Ed on behalf of Bill and Jane?>

>Because there is nothing to sue.  Walters owns the copyright
>because HE took the pictures.  That is what his LOC Copyright
.>registration says.  If its good enough for them, (and Morrow and
>Ed's lawyer) then its good enough for me.

As I said before, looks as if we're back where we
started....except for one thing.  Every reader of this message is
now aware  of the TDP principle, which appears to have been your
underlying  justification for this"attack."   As far as the legal
aspects are  concerned you haven't proven a thing. Ed could be
guilty of  copyright infringement, but we'll never know for
certain if he isn't taken to court.   You think he owns the
copyright and  therefore can't be sued.  His lawyer thinks he
owns the right to  publish the photos in his book because Bill
and Jane ha ve  abandoned the rights to the photos. This sounds
to me like a stalement. If this were a court of law I would ask
the judge for a summary  dismissal of this argument.

Too bad it's not a court of law.

Search for other documents from or mentioning: brumac | c549597

[ 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