From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:44:45 -0500 Fwd Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 11:57:45 -0500 Subject: Re: Tracing The Flow Of The Gulf Breeze Money - >From: Kenny Young <ufo.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:19:58 -0500 >Subject: Re: Tracing The Flow Of The Gulf Breeze Money >>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254.nul> >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 00:40:06 EST >>Subject: Re: Tracing The Flow Of The Gulf Breeze Money >>Quite honestly I am still waiting for the evidence of these >>allegations and all I have heard is stories and tales. At this >>point Ed Walters pictures are more credible then tales and >>allegations about MUFON and Bruce M. >You have got to be kidding. How can anyone realistically look at >the hokey Ed Walters pictures, knowing the history of Ed >Walters' photo trickery, the Hyzer photo analysis which shoots >down this case as doube-exposing frauds and all the reported >'money issues' from the beginning... how could any rational >observer not think that this current remark about the photos >having more credibility than contrary information refuting this >case is a zany comment? As has been pointed out many times before on this list and elsewhere, the Hyzer analysis does not prove a hoax, in spite of what some people loudly proclaim. >I am to be faulted for having no more tolerance for this tired >issue. Jerry Black is right when he says this case is an >embarrassment to the UFO subject. This Ed Walters case is a sham >and I think most of the people on this List know it. It is my >concern that the chief promoter, Dr. Bruce Maccabee, knows full >well this case is a sham in spite of his defense of the case, If it had been a sham I would have found this out back in the spring of 1988 and would have said so at the MUFON symp that year. >Dr. Maccabee has responded to things on this List before, mostly >trying to resort to an attempted technical discussion with >fogged non-specifics, and I understand why he wants the issue to >be dropped and to "let's move on, please." I would want to get >away from all that too if I were in those shoes. Amusing. Here I am criticized for making use of technical aspects of Ed's photos to support my conclusion that the photos weren't faked. And as for "fogged non-specifics" I guess my "specifics" seem "fogged" because the reader doesn't have enough knowledge or background in the subject or whatever to understand the technical details. The importance of the stereo photos with the SRS camera is a case in point which I described in detail as long ago as the July 1988 MUFON Symp. And don't forget that the indictment of "hoax is not just against Ed. There are a dozen other witnesses who said they saw the same thing during the roughly 8 month time period (1987- 1988) and many other witnesses who said they saw something unusual (lights, etc) in the Gulf Breeze skies, also in the same time period. Sorry. I don't accept the idea that the fact that Ed's photos were publicized "caused" these other sightings to happen. Of course, then there is the follow on: "Bubba".... one version of which I saw for myself. As far as "moving on" is concerned, we may as well. There are plenty of more recent events that require time and effort. No point in spending hours on re-arguing that which has been argued "endlessly" over the last 15 <gulp> years because it seems apparent that no minds will be changed. Just to re-read the many hundreds of pages of letters I have received and investigative material on the subject over the years would require days, when I am trying to analyze recent cases (and do lots of other stuff, too... like live).
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp