UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 26

Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker]
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:52:27 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 07:26:01 -0500
Subject: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 23:09:02 -0400
> From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
> Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

> To the 1 or 2 people following this discussion:  Here is my
> latest respose to Barbara's criticism of the Ed Walters case.

> > MY COMMENTS ON BARBARA BECKER'S COMMENTS ON MY RESPONSE TO HER
> > PAPER, "ONE PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS"
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 1)  Here is my comment on her paper:
> > > HERE IS BARBARA'S COMMENT  on what I said.
> > None came forward before Walters.  Myself and others interested in

>   snip
> 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.

> >>>>>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
> from GULF BREEZE WITHOUT ED, a paper presented at the 1991 MUON
> Symposium):

*****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.

> >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! :)

> >>>>BSM 10/17/97:  everyone should have a copy of "that book"
> which contains both verbal and pictorial descriptions.   Persons
> who wrote to Ed in response to the publication of his first book,
> THE GULF BREEZE SIGHTINGS to say they saw the same or a similar
> thing:

> Clararence Barrons( "they are almost identical to the one I
> saw on Nov. 14, 1971....in Mississippi), Cliff Baer ("I saw that
> same object appear from behind some trees years ago...in the ack
> woods of Pennsylvania),  Helen Brown (Crestview...30 miles from
> gulf Breeze....in summer of 1954....there were three objects ust
> like the one in your photo 19...) ,  John Duquette (I saw the
> Gulf Breeze UFO back in 1976...felt I must have been hallucinating),
> Randy Duke (...Nov. 1991....saw the UFO in photo 23...), Carol Parks
> (..I've seen this thing too....craft seemed almost as wide as the road
> and hovered two or three feet above it...),  Robert Fuller (I have
> seen te Gulf BReeze UFO...in 1980 ...near Ogden, Utah...),  Michael
> Storm (I was incredibly shocked when I saw the cover of  your book
> because that is almost exactly what I saw while in Zimbabwe),  Daniel
> Leshibis (Germany; ....The UFO looked exactly like the one you have
> photographed...), Alex Stutzamen (Germany; ......I realized that the
> object you photographed is exactly what I saw [in 1986]), Revis
> Vannistish(Switzerland;...I saw the  pictures about the UFO [in Ed's
> book] and I know that's it...). There are  dozen or so other sightings
> reported in the book by  people who DID NOT say they saw the same
> thing, but they clearly  saw SOMETHING wierd.  As for the photos we
> have: Baker Watson (June, 1976, "I know the detail I saw is exactly
> what's in your book"; photo is very much like Ed-type);  Harry
> Bordersfield (Jan 1980, coming out of Carlsbad Caverns; photo looks
> like what Ed got July 10, 1991), Susan Keiley (Jan 1980,UFO over the
> Grande Canyon, somewhat resembles Ed-type), Gary Tomlinson( April
> 1986, Monterrey, Mexico), James Warnerfred (March, 1989,El Progresso,
> Guatemala, two photos, some resemblence to Ed-type), Ray Harcourt
> (Canaima, Venezuela, January, 1990, looks like Ed-type UFO
> hovering and sending down a beam), Bryan Hampton (July, 1990, Las
> Vegas, somewhat like Ed-type),  Carlos Medoso (Campo Grande,
> Brazil, December, 1991, similar to ed-type), James Parker (Fiji
> Islands, March, 1992, similar to Ed-type).

> *****BB  Bruce you can personally attest that you have seen each and
every one of these letters, and that they are written differently
different people? Afterall, you co-authored a book with this man,
surely you wanted to see for yourself what was being sent.

> Your comment that only three photos are similar is debatable (it
> could be more, depending upon the degree of similarity).

> Your comment, "Oddly enough, they are from around Costa Rica,
> where Walters said he and his wife and children lived for a
> while." is really a useless statement.  On two photos taken by
> one man during one sighting are from the vicinity of Costa Rica,
> and that sighting was in Guatemala.

> ****BB Are you saying that this person's sighting was reported in a
newspaper, thus recorded and the time and place of the sighting is
recorded?

> Furthermore, Ed and family lived in Costa Rica in the 1970's and
> the Guatemala photos were taken in 1989.  Perhaps you are
> suggesing that Ed created a hoax UFO in Costa Rica in the middle
> 1970's and then it somehow got into Guatemala and fooled people
> ten or more years later?

****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?

> Your reference to a Tommy Smith claim that Ed hoaxed UFO's while
> in Costa Rica is another useless statement.  Tommy is hardly an
> unbiased witness in this regard.


****BB Neither is Ed.

   BIGBIGBIG snip.

> > Barbara continues
> > In addition... In July 1991 I wrote to Maccabee and asked about

> <big snip>

> > 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?
> > IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW MANY PHOTOGRAPHS WALTERS TOOK.

> > My (Bruce's) 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 "serial numbers". There is no control here.

> >>>>>>BSM: 10/17/97   Ed also used his camera to take photos of other
> things, such as construction sites.   In retrospect it probably would
> have been "better" if he had used it only to take UFO photos so that
> all pictures could be placed in a continuous series.  However, he did
> have other things to do with the camera besides tajing UFO photos.
> SO, you are right, there was "no control," which is not surprising.

> > 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.

> >>>>>BSM: 10/17/97  Skeptics including Willy SMith, Bob Boyd, Ray
> Stanford had access to data and their reports prove that the did.
> However, it is true that after they went public with their
> positive claims of hoax before the investigation was completed,

****BB Before it was completed?  MUFON went public BEFORE the
investigation was completed!!!  Andrus even said he was breaking
precedent.

> and even before the sightings were over, they began to lose
> contact with the main investigation.    HOwever, that did not
> stop them from gathering their own data and loudly proclaiing
> their conclusions.

****BB According to you the sightings are still going on.  Would
that mean that nothing should have been, nor should ever be,
written about GB until the last red light dies?

> > 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.

> <snip>

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

> >>>>BSM: 10/17/97  I am not surprised that it is not Tommy
> Smith's version, since his version is whatever he wants it to be.
> ****BB Same about Ed.

> > 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.

> >>>>BSM: 10/17/97  Tsk, tsk.  People who are accusing Ed
> areafraid to step forward....excetp Tommy Smith, of course,
> So, we are to believe an anonymous ("Carol")  teenage girlfriend
> of  Rob M. , the "other friend" of Tommy Smith (not a friend of
> Ed), when she ostensibly (though an anonymous CUFOS investigator)
> says Rob M. was also "bought off" by Ed?   I begin to wonder just
> how many people ed has supposedly "bought off" in this "Grand
> Conspiracy."   All the other witneses, too?

****BB Did I mention Rob M.?   Guess you didn't do any follow up
at the time?

> > 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.

> BSM: 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.

****BB It should be, Ed took the photograph.

> > **** 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.

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

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

> > 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  OWNS THE COPYRIGHT TO THE BELIEVER BILL AND JANE PHOTOS AS
> > HE DECLARES,  THEN HE MUST EITHER HAVE A TRANSFER AGREEMENT, WHICH
> > HE  DOESN'T OR BE THE  PHOTOGRAPHER.

> > 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)

> >>>>>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
that if Ed Walters owns the copyright to the B&J photos, AND he
does not have a transfer agreement, which he doesnt, the he MUST
BE THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

SNIP

> >(Bruce)  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.

> >>>>>Sometimes people do thinkgs that "don't make sense."

****BB It makes plenty of sense when put in the context of a hoax.

SNIP

> >BB:  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.

> BSM: (10.17/97)   (Ending  Comment)^2:   no transfer agreement
> because Bill and Jane can't be contacted.

****BB Close but no cigar. All Walters needed to do, to protect himself
against a willfull infringment suit was to put an ad in the GB Sentinel
Newspaper, declaring his intention to publish a book, and asking the
rightful owners to please contact him privately.  Their anonymity would
be respected.

> Had either one left a return address or a phone number Ed would have
> called. Bill and  Jane have had nearly 10 years to make contact and
> assert their  copyrights. Presumably they are aware of the
> publication of Ed's book in 1990. Look's like a hung jury as far as
> Bill and Jane are concerned.

****BB People who don't exist have a real hard time making
contact.

<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 BS
about Duane giving him the photos.


BB


Search for other documents from or mentioning: c549597 | 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