UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 17

Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker]
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 22:48:32 -0500
Fwd Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 01:30:27 -0400
Subject: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:56:20 -0400
> From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.)

> HERE IS BARBARA'S COMMENT  on what I said.
> 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.

**** 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.

> In UFOS ARE REAL, HERE'S THE PROOF (Avon. 1997) there are photos from
> people around the world who have seen the same thing.

**** BB:  I have that book.  Maybe we are having a problem of
semantics. SAME means being exactly alike, identical.  There are
only three reproduced in that book that I would call identical.
Oddly enough, they are from around Costa Rica, where Walters said
he and his wife and children lived for a while...oddly enough
again, Tommy Smith said that Walters told he and another friend
that Ed had hoaxed UFO photos while he lived in Costa Rica. Go
figure! :)

> 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 the Huffords saw it.

**** BGB:  Gee, that's funny, Art says he saw EXACTLY (identical)
the same UFO Ed saw.  And Mary said Art saw windows but she
didn't except that later she said she too saw windows.

> 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 above
>          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.

**** BB: It is still impossible to know how many photgrpahs Ed
Walters actually took.  Look at Oeschler's serial numbers. 20,
21, 21A, 22, 23, 14A and 19A (and there were more) all have the
same "serail numbers". There is no control here.

> 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.

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

> 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.

**** BB: AFTER Tommy spoke with his father and AFTER Tommy cutoff
his relationship with Walters Ed Walters told the MUFON
Investigators that he was Mr. Ed. It was then that he showed Ware
et al. the remaining photos to 18.

> The young man had told Ed that he was exploding firecrackers in Gulf
> Breeze when a UFO had appeared and he had photographed it.


**** BB:   This is Ed's version.  This IS NOT Tommy Smith's

> 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.

**** BB:  I have a copy of a statement taken by a certain memebr
of CUFOS from a girl named "Carol" who was this "other" friends
girlfriend and who attended Columbia College in Chicago with this
"other" friend who claimed that this "other" friend had been
offered money to help Ed in the hoax.  This "other" friend was
promised money for film making (like video?) and school etc. I
trust this person in CUFOS I have no reason to doubt the
statement since the CUFOS person thought it was truthful and
sincere. AS with evryhting in this case, this "carol" was afraid
to come forward.

> 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 alters 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.

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

> 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?

**** BB: Read my copyright paper. ASlo, copyright is inherited,
Bill said:  "I'll keep the negs for my grandkids." (GBS p107)

> Barbara:
> 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.

> Barbara":
> And that does demonstrate his ability to use other cameras.

> My comment:  No, it doesn't.

**** BB:  Yes, it does!

> Barbara:
> (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 all.

**** BB:  That's not the point. He had the crap (alegedly) scared
out of him and the thing he thinks about doing is filling out his
copyright application and getting it in the mail?  It makes
perfect sense for someone pulling a hoax.  But it doesnt make
sense for someone in fear for the life.

> 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

ENDING COMMENT:   Hey Bruce....Is Ed dead?????  If nothow 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 BS
about Duane giving him the photos.


Search for other documents from or mentioning: c549597 | brumac

[ 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