From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:38:45 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:59:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Tracing The Flow Of The Gulf Breeze Money - >From: Jerry Black <gulfbreezeinfo.nul> >To: UFO Updates <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:07:40 -0800 (PST) >Subject: Re: Tracing The Flow Of The Gulf Breeze Money >March 14, 2004 >To Mr. Bruce Maccabee, >Mr. Bruce Maccabee, please do not bore others and me with your >rehash of your conclusions presented at the MUFON Symposium in >1988. Your biased and illogical conclusions and in some cases, >outright untrue statements do not need to be repeated. It is >still my opinion that your biased and illogical conclusions >stated at the MUFON Symposium in 1988 were the results of a >large payment made to the MUFON Organization from Ed Walters >that was turned over to you, Mr. Maccabee. Your opinion, is it? Backed up by proof? Or is your opinion is more important than the scientific analysis I have presented? Analyses of photos, including especially the stereo photos which, as I have previously pointed out numerous times, provided the "conclusive evidence" that convinced me it was all true? Oh, but, please.... I wouldn't want to bore you and the others with "scientific analysis"...... because you couldn't understand it anyway (apparently!). >I will now give you and your supporters the opportunity to prove >me wrong. You've obliviously obliviously? perhaps, obviously? >shown, during the Gulf Breeze >sightings, that you are an avid supporter of the polygraph test, >even a self-sponsored polygraph test, which is not accepted by >most police departments and other security offices throughout >the United States. Have I said I was an avid supporter? No. I have, on the other hand, taken the polygraph evidence into account when evaluating Ed's sighting. (Ed passed two polygraph tests and one voice stress test. The polygraph tests were especially interesting since the polygrapher was paid to do one test and present the results to Ed, but didn't believe the results of the first test - Ed passed - so he surprised Ed by giving him another test... at no further cost... when Ed arrived at his office expecting only to get the results of the first test. Ed also passed the second test. The results of these tests were published many years ago.) >I am now inviting you, Mr. Bruce Maccabee, to take a polygraph >test given by Mr. Cy Gilson who passed in 1992, Mr. Travis >Walton and Mr. Mike Rodgers who were involved in the Travis >Walton UFO abduction in 1975. Mr. Cy Gilson is located near >Snowflake Arizona and I will pay for the polygraph test and >reimburse you for any incidental expenses and meals. Since your >good friend Mr. Stanton Friedman has been your avid supporter, I >will allow him to pay for your travel expenses. My, my. What a great offer. You let someone else pay for my trip to Arizona. I'm sure Stan will be jumping all over that one!! >Mr. Cy Gilson has over 25 years experience as a qualified >polygraph expert and is well respected by the police departments >throughout the state of Arizona. I have no doubt that he is respected. >Mr. Bruce Maccabee, you will be tested to see if you received >any monies either directly from Mr. Ed Walters or the MUFON >Organization to which you knew came from Mr. Ed Walters other >than the monies that you received from the two books that both >of you gentlemen wrote. >Finally, you will be tested as to whether you truly believe in >your heart, that the Ed Walters Gulf Breeze case is a true and >valid case. >If you should fail the polygraph test given by Mr. Cy Gilson and >feel there was a personality problem or any other good reason >for failing, I will pay for and give you the test again with >polygraph expert Mr. Hugh Jones. You remember Mr. Hugh Jones Im >sure, this is the gentleman whom Mr. Charles Flannigan set up an >appointment for Mr. Ed Walters, and Mr. Ed Walters missed his >appointment. >Your avid supporters and I await your reply. I suppose that if I fail the test by Gilson, that Stan can then pay my way to Florida to take a second test from Hugh Jones? OK, if this comes down to lie detection (forgetting "science") then let me propose a more logical, reasonable approach that would save a lot of money for you and Stan and save time for me: YOU find some polygrapher in the Washington DC or Baltimore area. I would do it, but if I did the test would be "self- sponsored." Therefore you have to do it. I presume that Gilson can recommend someone in the vicinity of DC or Balto, someone who would produce accurate results... well at least to 95% accuracy estimated for the "lie detector." (Don't know where Ed Gelb lives. He might be another possibility.) Note, by the way, that this lie detector approach is a perfectly "logical" part of the process which embodies Stan's rule for debunkers: if you can't attack *the data* attack *the person.* Further commentary: As I ponder this accusation of essentially taking a bribe from Ed I think back to that fateful spring of 1988 at a time when no one knew how things were going to turn out. Oddly enough, sightings by Ed and others were occurring _during_ the investigation. This happy situation almost never happens (generally one investigates history... the sightings that took place yesterday or a week ago or a month ago or years ago). I entered the fray in the middle of February, quite certain that in a few days I would be able to show it was all a hoax during my first trip to Gulf Breeze - paid for by FUFOR - not by Ed! Instead of finding a "witness" who was obviously spinning stories, contradicting himself, refusing to allow analysis of his photo evidence, refusing to be interviewed in depth, etc., I found a guy who seemed completely open and even cooperative with the investigators. (I also discovered, to mysurprise, that there were numerous sightings by others.) Everyone already knew by then that Ed had been offered a sizeable sum as an advance on a book(I think it was $300,000) and he had turned it down. This certainly didn't sound like a guy who was out to make a few bucks by selling fake UFO photos (take the money and run). And yet the sighting reports were so unbelievable as to be... unbelievable. And so I didn't believe them. But, on the other hand, I couldn't prove they were faked. And, as Budd Hopkins has pointed out, they were so complex as to require a real genius in order to fake them all in a consistent manner. But the point I want to make is this: I was alert to whatever Ed might have done that could indicate a hoax. Offering me a bribe would have been considered grounds for me calling the case a hoax and getting out. As I think about it now, I find it unimaginable that I would have accepted $$$ to perpetuate a hoax. Jerry seems to think that I would have accepted a bribe and gone happily onward to a conclusion that the sightings were real. Sorry, Jerry, but I value credibility more than that. Had he offered me a bribe I would have immediately assumed it was a hoax after all, would have called it a hoax and split. There wouldn't have been any stereo SRS camera photos. (Ed made the SRS camera at my suggestion; this camera was designed to determine whether a UFO was a nearby model or a distant large object.. Ed knew of its capability to discover a small model hoax, but he built it anyway and even took 3 SRS UFO photos (photo pairs)!) Also, there wouldn't have been any extensive report at the MUFON symp (at least not by me) and there wouldn't have been any book... at least none with my participation. Even more mind boggling to me is Jerry's suggestion that MUFON would try to bribe me after being bribed by Ed (i.e., taking money from Ed and then passing it, or some of it, on to me). I just can't imagine Walter Andrus even giving such a ridiculous thing a passing thought. I am certain that if Ed had tried to give multi-bux to MUFON/Andrus, Walter would have immediately called the case a hoax and closed the investigation. Believe it or not, Jerry, I did not need money to live and I did not need to grub for $$$ from some UFO photographer who thought he could make much more $$$ by bribing me to declare his photos real. I recall back in the 80's, probably before the GB investigation, that I was handed the opportunity to get rich on a much simpler UFO case involving video. A guy in New Hampshire offered to cut me in... 50/50... if only I would verify that the UFOs he was videotaping flying over his house were real. "As soon as you verify the UFOs I can sell the video and we'll make lots of money," he said (or something like that). "They land right over there on the other side of that mountain," he explained. Sure enough, in the video one could see the lights in the evening sky disappearing over the mountain. UFOs landing. Open and shut case. One problem. When the UFOs went overhead you could hear a sound. Well, could be some special sound that UFOs make, even though it also could have been the sound of a large jet aircraft. And the orientation of the lights... diamond shape as they went overhead. Just ignore the fact that a similar shape often turns up on large jet aircraft..... Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway) I didn't verify the "UFOs" and the guy stopped pestering me after a while. I have had other opportnities to claim "UFO" when I can suspect either a hoax or an honest misidentification (e.g., the guy who called me up and spent hours talking about his UFO video.... that turned out to be a video of the world's most popular UFO, Venus.). On the other hand, some witnesses have offered to pay small amounts for analysis of photos or videos. I never ask for $$$, but some witnesses offer it. A typical question is, "How much do you charge for analyzing a photo?" In these cases I assume that the witness actually realizes that analysis takes time and is therefore worthy of recompense. I could respond, "More than you can afford," but instead I never take a dime. In fact, I can't recall taking money from any witness. And, yes, analysis takes time and is worthy of recompense! By the time of the GB sighting investigation I had already invested something like 15 years in UFO studies and investigation and I had already established a credible reputation for accurate investigation of the McMinnville, Gemini 11, Tehran Jet, New Zealand, Japan Air Lines and other sightings and had published papers on the FBI and government cover up. I wasn't about to waste this reputation for $$$ on what initially appeared to me to be a probable hoax. I didn't even take any money after I concluded that it probably wasn't a hoax (in the summer of 1988). (The payment I received for a writing the last chapter in his book was not until December, 1988.) (It is well known that, in the summer of 1988, Bob Oechsler did accept $5000 from Ed to cover the costs of extensive photo work making, in a photo lab along with a professional photographer, numerous copies of the originals, both prints and slides, at varying exposure levels and magnifications. Oechsler and the photographer spent about several weeks in a photo lab, as I recall.) Incidently, from my knowledge of the time Ed spent in doing experiments with his camera and cooperating with other aspects of the investigation, I conclude that Ed did spend quite a bit of money on the investigation. But he spent it himself on himself.... paying for tens and perhaps up to (and beyond?) a hundred boxes of Polaroid film at roughly $10 per box. He also spent a lot of time allowing himself to be interviewed and carrying out photographic experiments (many of which were designed to smoke out a hoax if there were one). So the bottom line is..... Bring it on! I'll take your "lie detector" test... but I don't plan to spend any extra time or waste anyone else's money on it.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp