From: Bruce Maccabee <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 21:44:23 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 16:00:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Challenge To Whitley Strieber >Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 03:03:12 -0600 >To: firstname.lastname@example.org >From: Glenn Joyner <email@example.com> >Subject: Jerry Black's Challenge To Whitley Strieber >Hello Errol, and List members: >As you know, I do transcription work for Jerry Black. Here's the >latest "open letter" from Jerry. Please note that his site has >moved to: >http://members.xoom.com/blackshole >Thanks, >Glenn --------------------------------------------------------------- >An Extensive Review of Whitley Strieber and His Claims of >Encounters With the Visitors >by Jerry Black >January 1999 <snip> >Mr. Strieber's actions here remind me of his original reaction >about the Gulf Breeze case, in stating that people should take a >second look Ed Walters' Gulf Breeze photographs. He bases his >entire opinion on this case, besides his actually going to Gulf >Breeze at one time (did Mr. Black ever do that?) >I believe, on the fact that a close friend of >his saw an object very similar to the Ed Walters object, two days >before the alleged Walters encounters. Obviously Mr. Strieber is >not a UFO investigator, because one cannot rely on one person's >sighting of an object to validate the UFO sighting of another >person. Hmmmmm..... in past years Black and other skeptics have "complained" that other witnesses to the thing that Ed saw/photographed were deluded,were part of the "conspiracy" along with Ed and family, or were simply trying for publicity. Now we have Streiber saying he personally knew someone who claimed to have seen the same thing two days before Ed's photos....and so, if this were true, could not possibly have been influenced by Ed's photos (which were not publicized until 8 days after they were taken on Nov. 11, 1987). Not surprising that Streiber would be inclined to believe his friend. And, assuming he believed his friend, and that his friend's description was reasonably accurate, then if his friend's description matched that of the UFO Ed photographed it would certainly appear that (a) such things were in the vicinity and real and (b) hence the sightings could be mutually supportive. There were other peopl who claimed to have seen the same thing. I don't know who Steiber's friend is and so I don't know if that person "went public." But about a dozen did, including Dr. and Mrs. Fenner McConnell, who said they saw the same thing in July, 1988. So accepting his friend's story and allowing it to lend sone support for Ed's sightings doesn't make Steiber a "bad UFO investigator." > In this case, I obviously do not know what his good >friend saw two days before Ed Walters first took his photographs, Perhaps Jerry should have found out before making the following statement: >but whatever he saw was not what Ed Walters alleges to have seen, Now we learn the real reason why Mr. Black can't accept the observation by Streiber's friend: >because it has been conclusively proven that the objects that Ed >Walters photographed were models. Accordingly, there is no way >that Mr. Strieber's friend, two days earlier, could have seen the >objects in the sky that Ed Walters photographed. Conclusively proven? Only in Mr. Black's mind (and that of a few others). Arguments over the Gulf Breeze photos have raged over years... and despite the efforts of the dyed in the woll skeptics, the photos still stand. They don't/won't understand the examnations those photos have undergone. For example, a test which killed the recent Mexico City Video of Aug. 7, 1997 (big disc goes behind building....featured on the "Fox Hoaxes" show)...was applied to Ed's photos (years before, of course). The test was to see if the background image and the UFO image were smeared by the same amount when rapid camera hand vibration occurred. IN the Mexico city case the background was smeared by motion but the UFO image was not. OF course, Ed's photos were not movies. HOwever, they were presumed by the skeptics to be "two step" creations (double exposure) which DOES allow for a test of relative image smear. IT is assumed the first photo was taken of a model in a dark room,model lighted, silhouetted against a black backdrop. Then the camera was taken outside and the backgroud scenery was photrographed. In each case there was the possibility for camera smear since these were essentially time exposures (about 1 second). That is, hand vibration during the photo of th UFO model would create one smear of the image of the model (unless mounted on a tripod...which it wasn't)...and hand vibration during the second exposure would create another smear, this time of the background. Fortunately for analysis of the first photographs the nearby scenery included a streetlight. The smear of this light image was compared with that of the light in the UFO image. The smears were found to be equal in magnitude and direction. This was reported by Jeff Sainio in the 1992 MUFON SYmposium proceedings. The result of this sort of test, finding the camera vibration smears of the UFO and background images to be the same, argues against a double exposure of a model. THere are other arguments against faking of the Gulf Breeze photos presented in th book 'UFOs Are Real, Here's The Proof' by Walters and Maccabee (Avon paperback, 1997) >My objectivity and fairness is well-known in the UFO community. I> support the Travis Walton case, and I support the Liberty, >Kentucky case. An extensive investigation, of four and a half >years, into the Ed Walters Gulf Breeze case has conclusively >shown that the case is a hoax. Ed Walters was given the same >opportunity. He was asked on two different occasions by myself, >and on one occasion by Mr. Rex Salisberry, to undergo a third >party polygraph test, properly sponsored. Mr. Walters has >refused all three requests to undergo a properly-given polygraph >test. >At this time, I am asking Mr. Whitley Strieber to take a >properly- administered polygraph test, sponsored by a third >party. >As I have said earlier, and as confirmed by Mr. Billy J. Riggs, >who was the President of the Polygraph Association of Florida in >1992, and which is also the view of the National Polygraph >Association, the subject person under investigation cannot take >his own polygraph test. It is considered an invalid test. >In fact, in the words of Mr. Billy J. Riggs, no good competent >polygraph expert, in his opinion, would give a polygraph test >under those circumstances. Mr. Ed Walters tried this, as well. >Of course, his test results were considered null and void. As I >stated earlier, Mr. Walters refused to take a properly-sponsored >polygraph test. To say that the test results were "null and void" is a statement of opinion only and not of fact. Mr. Black, so far as I know, never talked to the polygraphist who tested Ed twice. I did talk to him. He gave good reasons for believing that his polygraph test was valid. The polygraphist's opinion, based on the testing, was - (a) Ed is telling the truth as Ed believes it to be true and (b) Ed is not a sociopath... This opinion is consistent with that of clinical psychologist Dr. Dan Overlade (whose statement is in the book 'Abductions In Gulf Breeze' by Ed and Frances Walters). Overlade gave Walters a battery of psychological tests and found no signs of mental disorder and no signs of a sociopathic personality. He found no evidence that Ed was making it all up or that Ed had hoaxed anything.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp