From: bruce maccabee <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:49:58 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 16:36:55 -0500 Subject: Re: >>From: email@example.com [Barbara Becker] >>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:52:27 -0500 >>TO: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper' LATEST ON THE LEGAL CONTROVERSY!!! (are you still awake out there?) >(FROM BSM 10/18/97) To the 1 or 2 people following this discussion: >Here is my latest respose to Barbara's criticism of the Ed Walters case. <snip> > > 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. 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 they would have not been reported as early as November, 1987 if Ed hadn't published his pictures. However, by March, 1988 there had been so many sightings that it is quite likely that someone would have called the UFO hotline by that time, or otherwise alerted UFO investigators. In other words, in my opinion, even in the absence of Ed, the flap that took place in the spring of 1988 in Gulf Breeze would have been recognized as it was occurring. 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. >>>>>>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. Your requirement of "identicality" reminds me of similar fallacious reasoning by the writers of Project Blue Book Special Report #14. In that report there is the statistical analysis of 3201 reports, of which about 20% were left unexplained. That report also includes a list of "twelve good unknowns" which were sightings so well reported that they couldn't possibly be mistakes and yet the investigators did not think they were hoaxes. In other words, there was a good possibility that these were "the real thing." However, the writers of the report were able to dismiss even these twelve by pointing out that they weren't all identical and hence could not be used to create a consistent "model saucer." 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. 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? And, if you accept any as true, which are they? > >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. (SNIP) There you go again requiring "identicality" to prove reality. It's 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. Many of the photos in the new book were taken under brighter conditions. Also, people who give verbal reports may have seen things which they don't mention because they don't remember. 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. <snip> >. 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: > Clarence 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 back > 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 the 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. 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. > 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. Only 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? Barbara, you can read as well as I. Look at page 149 of UFOS ARE REAL.. and read the press story of the sightings. However, so far as I know this witness never reported his particular sighting to the press. However, according to the witness it was the press stories which got his attention and he went to the sighting area to see if he would see anything. Not only did he see, he photographed. > Furthermore, Ed and family lived in Costa Rica in the 1970's and > the Guatemala photos were taken in 1989. Perhaps you are > suggesting 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? See my response above to the previous comment. <magnum sbnip> > >**** 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. Yes, MUFON did a stupid thing and went public saying that the case seemed to be real (as did Hopkins) in February and March, 1988. This was after numerous interviews of Ed and reports from many other witnesses. >> 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? Really, Barbara, this makes no sense. You know as well as I (or you should know) that the first period of sightings was clearly delineated by the history of events. The first period was from November 11, 1987 through July, 1988. After that the sighting rate dropped to near zero. The sightings in that time period form a "closed set" or a "macrocosm" of the events and can be analyzed independently of whatever came afterward. And, in fact, they have been treated that way. Hence July 1988 was a good time for a report on what had happened. Had the critics waited until I had presented by MUFON paper at the 1988 symposium they would have know what arguments they had to refute in order to prove a hoax. Instead they proceded on their own. Perhaps you don't recall (or never knew) abou Ray Stanford getting egg all over his face in April, 1988, This began when he sent a long report to the Mayor of Gulf Breeze and to the press in Pensacola. This long report presented Ray's firm conviction that the first photos were not taken on Nov 11...and he could prove it! He claimed that the clouds in the first thee photos were moving the wrong way to have been photographed on Nov 11 at 6 PM (or so). He suggested an alternate date and then presented a logical argument to justify why the pictures were taken on one date and then reported as having been taken on another. Of course he argued that the the photos ..and all of Ed's sightings, were a hoax. The other skeptics (CUFOS, Robert Boyd) had a field day on the evening of April 21, when Ray's report was publicized on TV, etc. Ray was quoted as saying "If I am wrong I will completely resign from the (UFO) field." The next day Ray had to eat crow. Why? Because he had proceeded on his own, apart from the main investigation he did not know the exact direction the camera was pointing. He used the wrong sighting direction and thereby got a wrong direction for cloud movement on Nov 11. The weather reports in the area provided information to which way the wind was blowing. When the MUFON investigators learned of Ray's report they discovered Ray had used the wrong sighting direction. When Ray was told the the correct sighting direction he realized he was wrong. On the evening of April 22 Ray stated publicly that he had gotten "bad information" and this led him to the wrong conclusion regarding when the photos were taken. <snip> > >**** 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....except 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 dozens of other witnesses, too? >****BB Did I mention Rob M.? Guess you didn't do any follow up >at the time? I don't know what this means. I talked to Rob M. so I know first hand his story. But now you are suggesting that Ed "bought off" Rob M. to get him to help with the hoax. Tommy Smith says Ed paid Hank Boland to help. One begins to wonder just how many people Ed has been paying to keep silent about his hoax.!! FOR THOSE OF YOU OUT THERE STILL LISTENING.. may I suggest you go to www.skiesare.demon.co.uk and look up my article about T. Smith. Or, you can contact me for much more information than is on the web site. > > 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. Evidently you don' 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. The fact that the photos have images consistent with what Ed photographed would only mean that Ed photographed it IF you (o anyone) could prove that there were NO SUCH UFOS AROUND FOR OTHERS TO SEE AND TO PHOTOGRAPH. I should point out that Tommy's photos are NOT IDENTICAL to Ed's! By your logic (as indicated above) these photos should therefore be considered by themselves apart from Ed's because unless they are identical they don't support Ed's sightings. So, are Tommy's real? Or did he fake them? > > **** 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. Yeah, so is the above line. > > 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 <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 >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. 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 several of 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. Therefore he would have transfer agreements with Bill and Jane to protect himself against a lawsuit... or else he took the photos himself. 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.)' BUT....WHAT IF ED DID BREAK THE LAW IN PUBLISHING BILL 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 truth 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! <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. The answer has alread been given. Looks as if we're right back where we started: Bill and Jane are NOT ED and therefore Ed is a CRIMINAL, A FELON, GUILTY OF INFRINGING ON THE COPYRIGHTS OF BILL AND JANE.... *****if you are correct.****** So, why don't you sue Ed on behalf of Bill and Jane?
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp