From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:38:51 -0500 Fwd Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 17:03:47 -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 20:09:27 -0800 (PST) >Subject: Re: Tracing the Flow of the Gulf Breeze Money >March 14, 2004 >Mr. Stanton Friedman, >I've noticed recently in your reply to Kenny Young, you stated >that Mr. Bruce Maccabee, in your opinion was a very objective >investigator. Certainly nothing could be further from the truth >in the case of the Gulf Breeze sightings. The word objective was >not in Mr. Maccabee's vocabulary during his investigation into >the Gulf Breeze sightings. I don't know how you could presume to know which words were and which weren't "in my vocabulary" during the Gulf Breeze investigation. As I have pointed out numerous times in the past and have published, my initial opinion was that this was another Meier-type case (note: perhaps you should give Meier a polygraph test). It took months of analysis and investigation .. and _no_,_no_ money from _anyone_... before I concluded that the sightings by Ed were real. (Of course, there were also all the other sightings. Hmmmm... want to polygraph test the county coronor, Fenner McConnell, and his wife? They claimed they saw the same object near their house in July 1988. "And it was no small model!" exclaimed Mrs. McConnell during a TV interview.) >Some may consider you standing by your good friend Mr. Bruce >Maccabee to be very noble, but considering you know nothing >about the Gulf Breeze sightings it was not a very smart move. >Please explain this to me, Mr. Friedman, how is it that three of >Mr. Bruce Maccabee's friends, Mr. Richard Hall, Mr. Jerome Clark >and Mr. Ray Fowler, do not support Mr. Bruce Maccabee's work in t>he Gulf Breeze sightings. In another words, none of these >gentlemen believes Mr. Maccabees conclusions in the Gulf Breeze >sightings. >Would you please explain this for me, I eagerly await your >response. I wouldn't presume to respond for Stan, but let me respond for myself. Why don't Hall,Clark, Fowler, et al "believe?" Probably because they haven't done what I did. I, too, would probably doubt the conclusion if I hadn't done all the calculations, analyses, interviews, etc. myself. Sorry, but it takes a lot of analytical "horsepower" (knowledge of optics and photography) to understand the significance of some of Ed's photos. If these gentlemen, and you, can't understand all the details of photography, parallax calculations for stereo cameras, experiments to verify photographic parameters, etc., then you have to rely on someone who can. One person who does understand is not in your list above - Jeff Sainio. He approached the GB sighting photos from a skeptical point of view and ultimately concluded they were real. His method of operation was to examine the photos independently of any interviews. He was would have called them fake if he found any conclusive evidence. He did indicate to me that he was surprised that Ed was willing to let him (Sainio) borrow the originals for analysis. Jeff presented his results at the 1992 MUFON Symposium. Sainio did no interviews and never met Ed. He worked solely with the photos themselves. As for Messr's Hall, Clark, Fowler, et. al. They may have their own opinions, but I note that not one of them has called me a liar. Not one has called for a lie detector test. Perhaps this is because they believe I would pass such a test.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp