UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Mar > Mar 17

Re: Tracing The Flow Of The Gulf Breeze Money -

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

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

>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

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,

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

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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com