UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: RGates8254@aol.com [Robert Gates] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Fwd Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 02:41:40 -0400 Subject: Re: Paper on Gulf Breeze In a message dated 97-09-18 12:39:41 EDT, you write: > From: c549597@showme.missouri.edu [Barbara Becker] > Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:50:04 -0500 > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MUFON Journal Muses > > From: RGates8254@aol.com > > Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:37:52 -0400 (EDT) > > To: updates@globalserve.net > > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MUFON Journal Muses > > In a message dated 97-09-16 02:39:40 EDT, you write: > > > Mr. Stacy: > > > How many words would you like for the article proving Ed Walters > > > hoaxed his photos? > > > Barbara > > Opinion pieces go on OPed pages or letters to the editor. > > cheers, > > Robert > Sorry, but this has nothing to do with opinion. > BB What you are really doing is unloading your "interpretation" of Gulf Breeze based upon information you received. For example the same documented facts that UFO researchers interpret to support their accounts of Roswell are also interpreted by others to support their pet accounts, which at times are at total odds. The Kennedy Assassination is another case in point. 40 books by 40 experts with their interpretation of the facts which dovetails nicely with "their" pet theory. Kind of like the guy in Texas who claimed that a particular document was proof that Kennedy was shot by the Feds. When the rest of the story came out, the FBI agent making the report in fact said in the report that he was only repeating a story that he heard over the Dallas radio station. One of the posts I saw was claiming that you had some kind of signed statement by Ed Walters -- which even if true we must also consider under what "conditions" Ed signed the statement, if indeed he did. We have notorized sworn signed statements from some Roswell witnesses, who later on turned around and allegedly swore out and signed a new statement about the location of the crash site. The story was that on the 2nd sworn statement had a profit motive basis. Again under what conditions were the statements signed under? Bottom line is what interpretation you present and the BASIS for that interpretation. If the BASIS is well documented, your story may be credible. IF the BASIS withstands the test of time and examination, then your interpretation will be even more credible BUT not likely to be the last word. As always I look forward to seeing this much talked about cast-in-stone-without-a-doubt evidence/proof that Gulf Breeze was a hoax. Cheers, Robert
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com