UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 10

Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:56:20 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:46:31 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'


1)  Here is my comment on her paper:

It is important to know that many other witnesses reported UFOs
flying around Gulf Breeze in the same time frame and, hence, it
is possible that others could have photographed them.   This
applies in particular to "Believer Bill" (discussed below) who
claimed to have photographed UFOs at a location that turned out
to be just behind Ed's (old) house.   ("Jane", described below,
claimed her photos were taken long before the Gulf Breeze flap.)

None came forward before Walters.  Myself and others interested in
this case have serious doubts about some of the reports.  In some
cases it was months after Walters' photos appeared in the newspaper  that
the reports were taken.  I personally spoke with Mrs.  Art Hufford, an
interview which I have on audio tape, where she  says that the object
she did not have windows,  yet Mr.  Hufford often says that what he saw
looked EXACTLY like Ed Walters  UFO.  There is  always the danger of
contamination of witness testimony the longer time goes on.

HERE IS MY COMMENT ON HER PAPER:   I am aware that the GB skeptics have
tried, unsuccessfully, to discredit all the other witnesses.   There are
about a dozen Gulf Breeze witnesses who say explicitly that they saw what
was in Ed's photos.   In UFOS ARE REAL, HERE'S THE PROOF (Avon. 1997)
thereare photos from people around the world who have seen the same thing.
In the case of Mary Hufford and the claim that they saw no windows, here is
evidence of a witness not being contaminated!   Nevertheless, the shape of
the object the described and drew is very similar to the shape of the
Ed-type UFO.   Perhaps the :"windows" (dark areas) were simply not showing
when th Hufford saw it.


2)  Here is another of my comments on her paper:
Strictly speaking it is "impossible" to know how many
pictures Ed took... because he was not being watched 24 hours a
day.  The reader should not, however, be caught by the
implication that he may have taken many more UFO photos.   There
is no evidence that he took any UFO photos other than what he
released in the 1990 book (TGBS) and in the 1997 book (UARHTP).

 **Here is Barbara's comment on my comment::
Very true.  It looks like we agree here.  Not only was  Walters not
being watched 24 hours a day but no one knew he had even  taken
any other photos until December 23, and photo number 18.
Bruce continues:) "There is no evidence that he took any UFO photos other
than what he released in the 1990 book."    That's not true.   Have you
forgotten he shot two pictures while allegedly huddling under his truck
on January 12, 1987 the night of the infamous road shot?  Only one of  the
two  was used in the book.

Here is my reponse:right and wrong.  Wrong because the photo which appears
in th book was taken while Ed was still in th cab of the truck .   While
under the truck he took only one photo which, he says, only showed the tire
because he couln't aim the camera while under the truck.  It is true that
no one other than Ed) has ever seen this photos because he said he threw it
away when he saw that it didn't show the UFO.

Barbara continues
In addition... In July 1991 I wrote to Maccabee and asked about
the difference in serial numbers on Walters' photos 15 (J712051Z),
16 (H712631Z), and 17 (J712051Z) reported by  Bob Oeschler on his
on a "Gulf Breeze Serial  ID Number Sheet".  Maccabee  replied  that
according to Polaroid:   "In one batch (of sheet film)  there could be
very many packs of film. The film is made  in one long roll and cut into
'pack size' after each piece is stamped with a  'mark' as follows:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8- cut-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, -cut- etc.  Each series of 8...is
placed into a separate box and packaged for shipment automatically.
There could,... be many (hundreds?) of boxes made from  one long roll,
that have the same serial numbers."    And that is EXACTLY why  we have no
way of knowing how many photographs  Walters actually took.  He could
have had three (hundreds?) of boxes with identical serial  numbers,
shot 24 photographs or however many he needed,  and patched together the
photos, 1 through 8.  Making them look sequential.

As an example: This is from Oeschler's serial number sheet.

Comment   Photo    serial#     Mark       Date          Comments
          20       G715481E    xd out     1/16/88
xd out
         21        G715481E     7        1/24/88    Slight Add'l P smr
Cook     A           "          8
         22        G715481E     5        1/26/88    No P Smr
         23        G715481E     6        1/26/88    No P Smr
At the bottom of sheet and NOT included w/Walters photos:
         14-A      G715481E     1                   Same S# as Ph# 20-23
         19-A      G715481E     3

("Mark" refers to the number of the photos in the film pack.  There
were 8 in a full pack.)

If photo 21 is the one Walters took in Cook's presence and used in GBS,
then what is 21 A  that specifically names Cook?


My comment:   Shortly after the first (UFO) photo with Cook Ed took a
second photo for comparison.

NOTE:   The GB investigators have been accused of sloppy work, etc.
However, I would like to point  out that to make her argument about the
photos Barbara has used the very diligent efforts of Bob Oechsler to
catalogue every photo related to the UFO sightings that Ed took with that
camera.   None of the skeptics undertook this effort.


3)  Here is another of my comments on her paper

MACCABEE : Tommy Smith did not "come forward" publicly
until June, 1990.   His testimony about Ed faking photos is about
as solid as a Swiss Cheese.  Ed told the UFO investigators in
January 1988 that a young man had shown Ed UFO photos.

The young man had told Ed that he was exploding firecrackers
in Gulf Breeze when a UFO had appeared and he had photographed
it.  He asked Ed if he should be go public? Ed pointed out the
problems he (Ed) was having with all the publicity offer his photos
and he cautioned against it.  The young man did not publicize his
sighting and asked for anonymity. Ed respected the young man's
wishes and did not tell the UFO investigators the man's name.
(Hence there was no investigation of the young man's sighting.)

More than 2 years later, in June 1990, after Tommy Smith had
gone public with allegations of hoaxing by Ed, Ed stated that
the young man was, in fact, Tommy Smith. Ed's testimony was
supported by another young friend of Tommy's who told me and
other investigators that Tommy had told him, in late 1987, about
exploding firecrackers and seeing and photographing a UFO.
The person Tommy "came forward" to with his story was his
father. According to his father, lawyer Thomas Smith, at a press
conference in June, 1990, Tommy told him in late 1987 of a UFO
sighting with pictures.  According to Thomas Smith, a few days or
weeks later Tommy told him the pictures had been faked by Ed.
Neither Smith said anything in public about these allegations
until June, 1990.  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
that Ed photographed.  Tommy's photos were analyzed. Tommy
had claimed that Ed had faked them by double exposure methods.

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.

  **  BB COMMENT: This is strictly disinformation damage control.
In the first week of January 1988, Tommy Smith confessed his role in
Walters hoax to his father, who then discussed it with his law partners,
Mayor of Gulf Breeze, Ed Gray and Police Chief, Jerry Brown.  So there
is no lack of credible witnesses to what Tommy said and when. All of
whom believed MUFON would discover the hoax and it would go away.
It didn't.  At this time Tommy cut his ties to Walters.  This was when
Walters executed his own damage control.  He told Ware et al., that he was
definitely, "Mr. Ed." and showed the remaining 12 or so photographs
he had taken.  To my recollection it was Walters who came out with
the preposterous story about Tommy Smith.

My comment on her comment:
I have never heard of any testimony that in January 1988 Tommy Smith told
his father, who told his law partners, the Mayor of Gulf Breeze and the
Police Chief.      If it is true, that the Police Chief had a witness to a
hoax as early as January 1988, then I guess he could be guilty of
nonfeasance of duty to inform the public, inasmuch as there was a lot of
interest in the sightings at the time.

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 that
"this demonstrates his ability...."  is also not proven.   In
contradiction to Barbara's conclusion, many other factors in this
case indicate that Ed told the truth because many of the photos
he took were beyond his capability to fake.

 ** BB COMMENT: You can make up any story you want to believe,
whatever makes you feel better.  But the FACT of law is: IF ED WALTERS

My comment:   Can you prove the "Bill" and "Jane" didn't intend to abandon
all rights to their photos?


And that DOES validate Tommy Smiths claims whether you like it or not.
My comment:  quite independent of this argument,,Tommy's Smith's testimony
is full of holes.

And that does demonstrate his ability to use other cameras.

My comment:  No, it doesn't.

(As an additional remark regarding copyright.  Ed Walters claims that on
January 12, 1988 after 5:30 PM, he was chased down, while driving his
truck,  by light  wand carrying aliens, (photo 19.  The road shot).
He claims he was physically and mentally traumatized. He managed to
escape and return home. Commenting that the next day he was still
feeling the effects.

The copyright for the photographs taken by Edward Daniel Walters, titled
UFOS:PROOF POSITIVE,  which includes photo19, has a completion
date of January 12, 1988. This means that IF we believe Walters actually
took photo19 on  January  12,  as he claims, (but probably didnt)
then he xeroxed his photographs, completed the paperwork and got it in
the mail in time to be received and registered in Washington DC at the
LOC on January 15.  I wish I had mail service that was that fast!

This seems like rather odd behavior for a man who is claiming he is being
stalked by aliens. But it is not odd behavior for a man pulling a hoax and
hoping to capitalize on it.)

My comment:  he had been advised to copyright the photos by the UFO
investigatotors so the photos wouldn't be circulating with no control at

ENDING COMMENT:   Barbara can argue legalities as long as she likes. I'll
stick to the technical aspects combined with the numerous other sightings
(which include witnesses to the blue beam).   For example, stereo photos
and photos which can't be simple double exposure (like #1), etc.
And then there is January 8, 1990 when Ed got photos in the presence of
other witnesses, two of whom took their own photos (see UFOs ARE REAL,

Search for other documents from or mentioning: brumac

[ Next 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