UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 30

Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker]
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:57:54 -0600
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 08:28:45 -0500
Subject: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:49:58 -0500
> From: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
> Subject: UFO UpDate: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'
> Sender: bruce maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

> >>From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker]
> >>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:52:27 -0500
> >>TO: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> >>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'The Gulf Breeze Paper'

> >(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.


The problem with their reports is that there was too much time
between Ed's photos hitting the newspaper and these people coming
forward.  In ANY OTHER case, these reports would be viewed skeptically.
But, in the Ed Walters case, everything the investigators knew to do,
doesnt seem like it was done. ( I don't care WHAT Don Ware's reason was
for showing Ed Walters the Billy Meier video and other UFO books the
first week in December, it was not correct procedure.)

> >>>>>>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.

<snip>

> 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.

This has NOTHING to do with MY reasoning.  Ive been in this long
enough to know that no two reports of THE SAME OBJECT will be
reported IDENTICALLY.  When I hear people saying that they have
seen the SAME object, I am suspicious.  BTW: You apparently
forget that even in your corresondence to me it is YOU who state
that these other GB witnesses saw the SAME UFO as Ed. That seemed
to be a way for you and they to validate what Walters claimed he
saw.  As far as I know, from the documentation I have, no one
drew anything IDENTICAL to Walters, the pictures look more like a
bastardized version of Walters. The reports were taken much too
late not to rule out mis remembering what (if anything) these
people DID see.


Here are a few tidbits from your 1991 Symposium Paper. See, I
HAVE read it.

p.190/ "Mr. Art Hufford had stated publicly and unequivocally
that what he saw was exactly the same thing as shown in the
pictures."  Bruce Maccabee. (The Huffords did not make their
report until March 1988.) p.189/ In a letter to the GBS, Billie
Zammit claimed she saw "this same object", as the photo in the
newspaper.
p.189 /  Jeff Thompson, (whose report I find compelling but would
like it better if he had not waited 6 months to make a formal
report), said that what he saw was "similar".
p. 189 / Doris and Charles Somerby, Duane Cooks' parents, and
former editor of the GBS, said '"what I saw on Vaterans's Day
night , (November 11) was exactly what was depicted in the
pictures published in the GBS."'

>  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?

As I said previously, I find Thmopson's report compelling, but I
would have liked it to have been taken when the event was fresher
in his mind.

<snip>

> Its  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.

Thats the point.  I WOULDNT EXPECT THEM TO.  I agree.

> 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.

I dont reject them.  I reject Ed Walters photos as published in
GBS. They are just too damn perfect.

> > 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 just
> > 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

<snip>

> > *****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.

Which photos letter and envelopes have you personally seen? Do
you have copies for your records?

<snip>

> > 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.

I realize that, but I would think more highly of that particular
photograph if it were fixed in time by an independnet source.

> > 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.

Which of the South American reports/pictures used in the book are
fixed in time by an independent source?

> <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.
>   BB    Should I have said, till the last flare falls?

> 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,

<snip>

I know about Stanford...but I also know that it was Andrus who
made a proclamation about rain in one of the photos, so anyone,
with bad info can open mouth and insert foot.

> <snip>

The following was a paid political announcement.

<snip>

> > > 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.snip


> > >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 have seen exactly the same
> > >thing that Ed photographed.

There you go with the "same thing 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.

Who analyzed the photogrpahs? Please dont tell me you did.

<snip>

> > > 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.

Ya! Well, mom always liked you better!!!!!

> > > 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.

Oh, pullleeeese. Dont go through this "Ed's too stupid to..."
routine.

> Therefore he would have transfer agreements with Bill and Jane to
> protect himself against a lawsuit... or else he took the photos
> himself.

"By Goerge, you've got it!"

> 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.)'

You're smarter than I thought.

> 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!

But I dont think he broke the law.  I think he owns the copyright
(ie didnt break law) because he took the pictures.   He is
perfectly legal.  There is nothing to sue.

> <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.

NO IT HASNT.  Why wont you just get on the phone,or send him a
letter and ask him point blank about the Bill and Jane photos?
ANd if you refuse to do that, how about telling me and the rest
of the people on this list exactly why you wont do it.

> 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 I THE COPYRIGHTS
> OF BILL AND JANE.... *****if you are correct.******
> So, why don't you sue Ed on behalf of Bill and Jane?

Because there is nothing to sue.  Walters owns the copyright
because HE took the pictures.  That is what his LOC Copyright
registration says.  If its good enough for them, (and Morrow and
Ed's lawyer) then its good enough for me.

Barbara


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