Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1998 -> May -> Bruce Maccabee Again Confronted - Part 1

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: "Kenny Young" <task@fuse.net>
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 11:53:57 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 13:57:14 -0400
Subject: Bruce Maccabee Again Confronted - Part 1

[See: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/mar/m15-005.shtml
 and: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/updates/1998/mar/m15-002.shtml
 -- ebk]

Part 1 of 2

Jerry Black Replies to Bruce Maccabee's comments on The Open Letter
to the Gulf Breeze Investigators, Entitled: "Looking Back: A Review
of Gulf Breeze"

Let me begin by advising our readers that I will be condensing
portions of my original letter that Mr. Maccabee has seen fit to
address, and at times will be condensing his comments, to make this
a sharper, more expeditious letter for presentation.

As opposed to Mr. Maccabee, I stand behind my investigations
thoroughly. I am not afraid, nor do I hesitate, to answer any and all
questions that anyone might have about the work I have done on any
given case. That is why I put up my name, address, and phone number,
for everyone to feel free to make comments to me about what I have
written for posting to the Internet.

	ISSUE #1:

I said in my original letter, "In this dissertation we will look back
and review [strictly] the Ed Walters Gulf Breeze case."

Mr. Maccabee comments, "Immediately Mr. Black gets off on a 'wrong
foot' by intentionally ignoring all of the other sightings...including
seven on the day when Ed took his first photos."

Here Mr. Maccabee tries to use the sightings of other people to
substantiate Ed Walters' photographs. Any good investigator knows that
each individual UFO report is handled and evaluated on its own merits.
So the fact that seven people saw a UFO on the same night does nothing
to prove, or disprove, Ed Walters' photographs. However, it is
interesting that a neighbor of Ed Walters, Mr. Morris, was interviewed
by Rex Salisberry, and claims that he never saw any UFOs on the night
of November 11, 1987, even though he was sitting outside that evening.
But, in keeping with fairness to both sides, we still must say that
possibly Mr. Morris could have stepped inside for a little while, to
watch a television program, or something else. Maybe he wasn't looking
in the right direction. So the fact that Mr. Morris did not see a UFO
still does not prove or disprove Ed Walters' photographs.

So we make note of both things; the fact that seven people had UFO
sightings on the same evening, and the fact that Mr. Morris claims
that he never saw any UFOs that evening, even though he was sitting
outside. In fact, as it turns out, Mr. Morris says he has never seen
a UFO at all, from his home, 16 months after that initial sighting by
Ed Walters. However, what is interesting, is that, with Ed Walters
taking numerous photographs, one would think that, after the first
couple of UFO encounters at his home, Ed would summon someone like
Mr. Morris, or the neighbor on the other side, to come and look at
this with him, so he would have someone to support his claim of seeing
these UFOs. Strangely, this was never done. At no time did Ed contact
any neighbor, to allow them to see the same thing he was seeing, which
would help substantiate his photographs. That I sincerely do find
interesting.

	ISSUE #2:

I am a little bit at a loss to explain Mr. Maccabee's comments here...
However, in my original letter, I said that Bob Oeschler admittedly
accepted $5,000.00 from Ed Walters very early on in this situation. I
believe that this was totally wrong. There was nothing, whatsoever,
that Bob did for Ed Walters to earn himself $5,000.00, which could
have been viewed as a help in the investigation of this case.

Mr. Maccabee comments, "WRONG! And Mr. Black has been informed of this
before. He sent me a tape in November, 1991. In that tape Mr. Black
asserts that I have been paid $5,000 by Ed Walters for photographic
analysis work before the book was published. I responded to that tape
on November 27, 1991 that I was not paid $5,000 for photographic
analysis work.... (at any time!)."

All I can say is that Mr. Maccabee is correct. On my tape of November,
1991, I did incorrectly state that he had received $5,000.00 from Mr.
Ed Walters. I corrected that mistake a few months later. As you, the
readers, can see, I state that Bob Oeschler admittedly accepted
$5,000.00 from Ed Walters. I did not say that Mr. Maccabee did. So,I'm
a bit confused about what Mr. Maccabee's point might be. I corrected
my initial mistake in the open letter, Looking Back: A Review of Gulf
Breeze. I am at a loss as to exactly what his complaint is here.
Possibly a lapse of memory.

	ISSUE #3:

Let's refer again to my comments about Mr. Bob Oeschler receiving
$5,000.00 from Ed Walters for doing some photographic work. Mr.
Maccabee comments again on that by saying, "Therefore, when Mr. Black
says that Bob Oeschler did nothing of value to the investigation which
could be worth $5,000.00, he, Black, is viewing this from the point of
view of his own agenda, which should be obvious to any of the readers."

My response to that is, in Mr. Maccabee's reply to me, telling me what
all Mr. Bob Oeschler did with the photographs, he himself states this:
"Bob learned from Polaroid how to clean the pictures, and made some of
the best copies ever made." He, Bruce Maccabee, was supplied with a
set of those copies.

My original comments stand, because, with all of this excellent work
done by Mr. Oeschler for Mr. Walters, securing some of the best copies
ever made from the originals, why, then, wasn't Mr. William Hyzer
given a set of those copies as well? Mr. Maccabee was, and I'm sure
Jeff Sainio probably was. Why wasn't Mr. Hyzer extended the courtesy
of receiving one of those sets? He was given "pictures of pictures."
Mr. Walt Andrus took photographs of the originals and gave them to
Mr. Hyzer.

So, again, my question still stands: What did Bob Oeschler do, to be
worth $5,000.00, that helped the investigation of this case? He did
nothing but supply Ed Walters' supporters with the better copies. He
did not supply the same quality of copies to anyone who could have
conducted an objective and independent investigation.

	ISSUE #4:

Mr. Maccabee refers again to comments again made about Bob Oeschler
and the $5,000.00 he received for the photographic work he did for Ed
Walters. Mr. Maccabee made a comment about this which I included in
an article that I did for UFO Magazine about the Gulf Breeze case.

Mr. Scott Smith, a writer from out of town, did a story on Gulf Breeze.
After reviewing the massive amount of literature available on both
sides of the issue, Mr. Smith concluded that the arguments against Ed
were weak, at best, and probably wrong. I was told that UFO Magazine
was not happy with Mr. Smith's conclusions, having fully expected that
Mr. Smith's research would "sink the Gulf Breeze ship" once and for
all. Mr. Maccabee states that UFO Magazine published a rebuttal of
sorts, which was my own two-part article on the Gulf Breeze case. He
states, also, that Mr. Scott Smith did an in-depth investigation of
the Gulf Breeze case.

My response to Mr. Maccabee is that I do not feel that Mr. Smith did
an in-depth investigation. He is not a UFO investigator. He did not
talk to me, he did not talk to Barbara Becker, he did not talk to Rex
Salisberry, he did not talk to Hugh Jones, the polygraph expert, he
did not talk to Billy J. Rakes, the president of the polygraph
association, he did not talk to any of the children that stated that
Ed Walters used double exposure techniques with a Polaroid camera to
play jokes on them, he did not talk to Tommy Smith, nor did he
interview Mr. William G. Hyzer to obtain his expert opinion. Basically,
what Scott Smith did was take the information readily available and
write his story from that. He did not do a thorough investigation of
the material before him. He did not check into the polygraph tests, or
he would have realized that they were, in fact, self-sponsored by Ed
Walters. He took Mr. Maccabee's word that the photographs were genuine.

So Mr. Maccabee, do not try to tell these readers that Scott Smith did
an "in-depth" investigation of this case. I personally talked to Scott,
and, basically, he was given some available information on the case,
but did no real investigation. Mr. Smith, with no experience in the
field of UFOlogy, just wrote a story on the case; it was not a thorough
investigative review.

	ISSUE #5:

I made some comments about Jeff Sainio that Mr. Maccabee took issue
with. I stated that he was basically an unknown until the Gulf Breeze
case came along. Suddenly, Mr. Maccabee had this photographic expert
in the wings that would make a revelation to everyone on the case.

In talking with Jeff Sainio, it appeared to me that he was extremely
jealous of Mr. Hyzer and his son, James. I surmised this because the
statements that Jeff made were totally in left field. Any competent
photographic analysis person would never have made some of those
statements. Mr. Maccabee's comments in regard to that are as follows:

"I will let Jeff Sainio defend himself. However, I am amused at
Black's claim that 'the statements that he (Sainio) made were totally
in left field.' I am amused because based on my correspondence with
Black I wonder whether his competence for photographic analysis even
lies within the ball park, so how would he know whether Sainio was
correct or not?"

Let me just state this: First, I do not pretend to be a photographic
analysis expert, like Mr. Bruce Maccabee does. I do not pretend to be
able to analyze physical material objects, nor do I have the ability
to analyze soil samples or grass samples. I have, therefore,
established good working relationships with experts in those fields.
There is a photographic lab in Alexandria, Virginia that I can use
whenever a decent photograph or video is given to me. Here in the
Cincinnati area, there is a gentleman, Mr. Boggs, that will conduct
studies on any soil or grass samples that I need to have tested, where
a UFO may have allegedly landed. In Huber Heights, near Dayton, Ohio,
there is a professional lab which can analyze any physical object that
I may turn over to them, whether that be an alleged implant, an
alleged piece of a UFO craft, or any other object.

Again, I do not claim to be a photographic analysis expert. The
comments I made to and about Mr. Jeff Sainio were based, not on
photo/analytical ability, but on common sense.

In a conversation that I had with Mr. Sainio, he said that he could
detect luminosity coming down the road on photo #19, the famous "road
shot," just from looking at the photograph lying in front of him. I
stated to him that Mr. Hyzer had second and third generation copies.
To this, Mr. Sainio replied:

"I also am stating that, using second and third generation copies, on
photo #19, I can see, with my naked eye, the luminosity on the road. I
could even show this to Mr. Hyzer if I could meet with him."

My comments to him were, "You understand that Mr. Hyzer has already
stated that, using the most up to date photographic analysis equipment,
he sees no luminosity on the road in photo #19."

Readers, keep in mind that Mr. William G. Hyzer, and his son, James B.
Hyzer, had a total of over 60 years experience in photographic analysis
work, as of the year 1992. So my comments against Mr. Sainio had
nothing to do with any photo/analytic ability, as Mr. Maccabee tries to
allude to. It has to do with plain common sense. How could Jeff Sainio
see luminosity on the road on photo #19, with his naked eye, when
William and James Hyzer, using state of the art equipment, viewing the
same generation of copy, could not detect it? I leave it up to you, the
readers, to determine who is telling the truth, or who is more credible.

	ISSUE #6:

Mr. Maccabee continued on my remarks about Jeff Sainio:

"Yet Black never discusses the real issue: Sainio worked with the
original photo and published the results of his image enhancements
which show brightness on the road. This rejects the double exposure
explanation that Jerry Black needs in order to explain the photo."

I retained the services of Mr. William G. Hyzer for the Mutual UFO
Network. I felt we needed an independent photographic analyst to
evaluate the shots. Mr. Hyzer assured me, from the beginning, that
he would have never worked with the second and third generation
copies that Walt Andrus sent him, if he did not feel that he could
make a proper analysis. With that in mind, it makes no difference
whether Mr. Hyzer had the originals or not, or whether Mr. Sainio
used the originals or the second and third generation copies. Mr.
Hyzer told me that digital enhancement is a very powerful tool. In
a letter concerning digital enhancement sent to the editor of the
MUFON Journal, Mr. Hyzer wrote:

"There is a certain commonality that exists between statisticians and
digital image processing aficionados. Tell me what you want them to
hear, and I will produce a statistic to support it. Explain to me what
you want them to see, and I will create an image to buttress that
perception. The power to alter images is a great concern among forensic
image examiners, and by those who depend upon their image to convey
impartial information regarding a scene or an object. Elements within
an image can be fabricated, enhanced, distorted, shifted, cloned,
erased, and/or transferred to another image with a precision that
virtually defies detection. Those who doubt the creative potential of
digital image processing should see the film Terminator II.

"This is not to imply that Mr. Jeff Sainio is such an aficionado or
possesses either the facilities or the expertise required to produce
the spectacular special effects of Terminator II. But digital imaging
and processing, even in the primitive form, is a highly manipulative
process, capable of changing an image into something it isn't, in
order to highlight certain features, and/or subdue others, at the
personal discretion of the operator."

Mr. Hyzer obtained all of the information he needed from second and
third generation copies to make an evaluation, or he would have never
made that evaluation. So the fact that Jeff Sainio had originals to
work with makes no difference in this particular issue. Mr. Hyzer's
reputation in the photographic analysis community is such that he would
never have jeopardized it by making an evaluation that he could not
back up at a later date.

The point, simply, is that Mr. Hyzer's evaluation stands. You, the
readers, have to decide... Is Mr. Hyzer correct in his evaluation? Or
is Mr. Sainio correct in his evaluation? Keep in mind, please, that
Jeff Sainio was the State Director for MUFON of Wisconsin, with 12
years experience, and Mr. Hyzer was an independent investigator, with
38 years experience, along with his son, James (who also worked on
this project), with 20 years experience.

	ISSUE #7:

I made some comments in my original letter about a person who gave me
some information concerning Ed Walters' frequent trips to the office
of The Gulf Breeze Sentinel. This person told me that, during almost
every one of those trips, Ed Walters and Duane Cook, the editor, were
constantly laughing very loudly, as though someone had just told a
very good joke. This occurred during the time of the "Believe Jane"
and "Believer Bill" pictures, and for a while thereafter.

Mr. Maccabee's comments are:

"Regardless of laughter, Duane Cook did not know that Ed was the
photographer until the end of December, 1987. It is also amusing to
note that Duane's own mother and stepfather were two of the early
witnesses to the object Ed photographed. And besides, what does
laughter prove, anyway? Ed likes jokes an I presume Duane does too."

My response is as follows... You, Mr. Maccabee, make the assumption
that Duane Cook did not know that Ed was the photographer until the
end of December, 1987. We do not know that to be a fact. It has always
been my contention that this whole thing started out as a local joke,
to help increase the circulation of The Gulf Breeze Sentinel. That
would mean that Duane Cook was likely in on it from the beginning.
Obviously, if he was in on it from the beginning, then possibly he
could have had his parents step up and say that they were also
witnesses to the objects that were appearing in the paper at that time.
That does not mean that they were bad people, they were just trying to
help their son, who had a newspaper that was failing.

The joke, then, in my opinion, got out of hand. The local Gulf Breeze
investigators began believing the case, and ran with it.

As far as the laughter is concerned, one would not expect a man who
had recently allegedly been picked up by a UFO, some ten feet off the
ground, in a blue beam of light, and then dropped to the ground, to
be in a consistently jovial mood. This is not human nature. That made
me particularly suspicious, as it did the person who made these
comments to me, about the constant laughter between Duane Cook and Ed
Walters at that particular time. As I said earlier, this went on for
weeks.

	ISSUE #8:

In my original letter, I made some comments concerning Mr. Bruce Maccabee,
as follows:

"Bruce Maccabee has tried to wear many, many different hats during this
investigation. He tries to pretend that he is a UFO investigator -- in
which he failed. He tried to pretend he was a photographic analyst. We
now know (thanks to Mr. Hyzer and his son) that Bruce Maccabee and Jeff
Sainio do not even begin to qualify as professional photographic
analysts. We have proven that now. Of course, they may have been
following an agenda of their own."

Mr. Maccabee's comments are these:

"I recommend anyone who wants to discuss details of the photoanalysis
of several of the sightings should read UFOS ARE REAL, HERE'S THE
PROOF. I can also supply anyone with a copy of my paper presented at
the MUFON Symposium in 1988 which presents a detailed discussion of
the analysis of Ed's early photos plus a long discussion of hoax
methods. I'll be happy to compare my capability and experience in
analyzing UFO photos with Mr. Hyzer or anyone else....... dueling
analysts, if you wish!"

In order to have "dueling analysts," you need two. In this particular
case, we only have one: Mr. William G. Hyzer. Mr. Maccabee is fully
aware, when he makes the comments that he would be happy to compare
his capability and experience in analyzing photographs with Mr. Hyzer,
that Mr. Hyzer will no longer work on UFO photographs, because of the
way he was treated by MUFON. Mr. Hyzer has clearly shown that Mr.
Maccabee has no photographic analysis ability whatsoever.

In Mr. Hyzer's preliminary report, he stated that all of the
photographs he analyzed exhibited characteristics of double exposure.
Why has Mr. Maccabee never made even one comment that would indicate
that there was possibly some problem with the photographs? Everything
Mr. Maccabee had to say was positive. Everything Mr. Sainio had to
say was positive. There was no reference to even one tidbit of
information which would give anyone an indication that something could
be wrong with the photographs. Yet Mr. Hyzer found that all of the
photographs showed signs of double exposure. One has to ask oneself,
why would Mr. Hyzer and his son, independent analysts with no agenda,
find evidence of photographic hoaxing, when Mr. Sainio and Mr.
Maccabee, known UFO proponents, find none? It is quite clear that
either Mr. Maccabee and Mr. Sainio have no photo/analytical ability
whatsoever, or they were following an agenda established either by
themselves, or by the MUFON organization.

At this time I will present to the readers the qualifications of Mr.
William G. Hyzer, which, because of the dispute above, are extremely
important to be known. As of roughly 1992, his credits and achievements
were as follows:

	Academic Degrees:

Graduate of University of Minnesota, Electrical Engineering, 1946
Graduate of University of Wisconsin, Physics, 1948

	Profession:

Consultant in Engineering and Applied Science (since 1953)

	Awards:

Named Fellow, Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, 1965
U.S. recipient of International DuPont Gold Medal Award, 1969
Named "Engineer of Distinction" by Engineers Joint Council, New York,
  1974
Named "1976 Outstanding Chapter President," Wisconsin Society of
  Professional Engineers, 1976
Named Fellow, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, 1977
Named "1979 Outstanding Professional Engineer in Private Practice,"
  Wisconsin Society of Professional Engineers, 1979
U.S. recipient of Coleman Memorial Award, British Institute of Physics,
  1980
Awarded "Honorary Master of Photography" Degree, PP of A, 1981
Certified Photogrammetrist (ASPRS), 1988
Named Fellow, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 1989

	Publications:
  {More than 500 published patents, books, and papers, including:}
The regular column, Scientific Instrumentation, in Photomethods
  Magazine, 1956 --
Engineering and Scientific High Speed Photography, Macmillan, 1962
Photographic Instrumentation Science and Engineering, U.S. Government
  Printing Office, 1965
The regular column, Notes on Photonics, in Research and Development
  Magazine, 1971 -1978
The regular column, Instant Photoinstrumentation, in Optical
  Engineering, 1976 - 1979
Two chapters, High Speed Photomacrography, and Instant
  Photomacrography, in Photomacrography, Focal Press, 1987
The chapter, Forensic Photogrammetry, in Forensic Engineering,
  Elsevier, 1989

	Positions Held:

Chairman, High Speed Photography Committee, Society of Motion Pictures
  and Television Engineers, 1964 - 1966
Vice President of Photoinstrumentation Affairs, Society of Motion
  Pictures and Television Engineers, 1966 - 1969
President, Photo Data Institute, Janesville, Wisconsin, 1968 --
Board Member, Redlake Corporation, Santa Clara, California, 1968 - 1970
Board Member, Research and Development Magazine, 1970 - 1978
Member, Advisory Board, Milwaukee Area Technical College, 1970-1983
Chairman, Janesville Building Board of Appeals, 1973 - 1976
Chapter President, Wisconsin Society of Professional Engineers, 1975 -
  1976
Chairman, Photosonics Achievement Award Committee, Society of Motion
  Picture and Television Engineers, 1975 - 1978
Board Member, Technical Council, Society of Photo-Optical
  Instrumentation Engineers, 1976 - 1981
President, Carcajou Shooting Club, Lake Koshkonong, Wisconsin, 1977 -
  1978
Member, Citizens Advisory Committee for Janesville Area Transportation
  System, 1978 - 1979
Judge, IR-100 Awards, 1978 - 1987
Board Member, Industrial Research and Development Magazine, 1978 - 1988
Vice President, Wisconsin Society of Professional Engineers, 1979 -
  1980
President, North American Photonics Association, 1980 - 1982
Board Member, Imaging Technology in Research & Development Magazine,
  1983 -85
Member, Advisory Board, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester,
NY, 1984 - 1988
U.S. National Delegate, International Congresses on High Speed
Photography and Photonics, 1978 - 1984 and 1986

	Additional Biographical Sources:

World Who's Who in Commerce and Industry
Personalities of the West and Midwest
Who's Who in Engineering
Engineers of Distinction
Men of Achievement
Dictionary of International Biography, Volume XVII

Mr. Hyzer has also been a guest lecturer at numerous colleges,
universities, professional organizations, service groups, and
corporations, from 1953 through the present. He has even been sought
out to give lectures for prestigious international photographic,
engineering, and optical organizations, in Germany, Japan, China, the
USSR, Singapore, South Africa, and Sweden.

I invite both Mr. Maccabee and Mr. Sainio to list and expand on their
qualifications in the field of photographic analysis. In this way, our
readers can weigh and evaluate those qualifications, in comparison with
those of Mr. Hyzer. So doing, we will let our readers be the judge.

	ISSUE #9:

In my original letter, I discussed the video taken by Duane Cook of
Ed Walters, during the time when his head was allegedly hurting
tremendously. They went out in the pickup truck, with Ed's head
still hurting, with the video tape was running, and Ed feeling that
there was a UFO in the area. Mr. Maccabee's comments are as follows:

"When I first heard it I had to decide whether this could actually be
happening or if it was all an act by Ed. If an act it would have been
a tremendous feat of extemporaneous acting in concert with a person...
Duane Cook editor of the newspaper, .... who doesn't know this is an
act and herefore has no prescribed lines and therefore whatever he
(Duane) says or does in response to Ed's actions cannot be predicted
in advance."

Most people could put on a very good acting job, for a given, very
short, period of time. In this case, I think it would certainly have
been within the range of Ed's ability, or anyone's ability, for that
matter, to act as though his head was hurting, using profanity, and
give the appearance that they are "literally going crazy." Also, Mr.
Maccabee has again made the assumption that Duane Cook did not know
that this was an act. He does not know that for sure. As I said
before, Duane Cook could have very well been involved in this from the
beginning. None of us know for a fact that Duane was not aware of
everything that was going on that night. The possibility of that looms
as large as any other scenario in this matter, and in fact seems
likely.

Mr. Maccabee's comments continue on, to state:

"One does not have to be an acting 'talent scout' to recognize the high
quality of the 'performance' if that's what it was. I subsequently
concluded, after may hours of conversation with Ed, that it was very
unlikely that he could have carried this off as an act."

Mr. Maccabee is now trying to represent himself as a psychologist.
What next?

	ISSUE #10:

I stated in my letter, "Mr. Maccabee, so far as I know, your are not a
professional talent scout or director, and are not qualified to judge
anything like the above. Anybody could act like that for a short period
of time, sir. You, too, are an embarrassment and a disgrace to the UFO
community."

Mr. Maccabee's comment was:

"I guess we'll see who's the embarrassment."

My comment to that is it is obvious that you are the embarrassment in
the Gulf Breeze/Ed Walters case. And, I add further, a continual
embarrassment in the Guardian case, which you supported on national
television, and which now has been proven to be a hoax by MUFON in
Canada. So it is you, Mr. Maccabee, who continues to be an
embarrassment to the UFO community.

	ISSUE #11:

I said in my original letter, "I assume, Bruce, that you're still with
the Fund For UFO Research. You should not be. I do not think that
anyone there has the guts to kick out of FUFOR, as they should, any
more than Walt Andrus has the courage to kick you out of MUFON."

Mr. Maccabee's comments:

"You'll have to take this up with the new Chairman, Don Berliner."

Bruce, like I told you before about the "Old Boys Club," you and Don
Berliner are both members of that club, so I guess my wishes won't
come true, and you'll still remain a member of FUFOR.

	ISSUE #12:

I stated the following in my open letter: "Mr. Hyzer clearly
demonstrated to us, Mr. Maccabee, that you have no talent whatsoever
as a photographic analyst."

Mr. Maccabee's comment: "He did? How did he do that? Or is this just
your wishful thinking?"

Mr. Maccabee, in a letter that you wrote to me a few years ago, you
stated that Mr. William B. Hyzer had more talent as a photographic
analysis person than yourself. Mr. Hyzer has said that Photo #19 is
definitely a hoax; and you have concluded that none of the photographs
have any indication of being a hoax, then certainly Photo #19 is not a
hoax...

I guess you've answered your own question. You have already stated that
he has more ability than you. He differs in his answer from you. The
readers can see the qualifications of Mr. Hyzer above. I think I've
answered your question, too.

	ISSUE #13:

Comments from my original letter are as follows:

"So, to write in this new book, that it can't be a flare, because of
this or that -- you can use all of the high technology terms at your
disposal, but it makes no difference, because Mr. Hyzer has shown
us that you don't have an ounce of true ability in your body to
analyze such photographs."

Mr. Maccabee comments that I have basically embarrassed myself,
because of my lack of photographic knowledge. He discusses his work
on "Bubba," and determining that "Bubba" was definitely not a flare.
Those of you interested in reading more about that can refer to his
book UFOs Are Real, Here's the Proof, on page 193, as Mr. Maccabee
states in his reply.

While he is correct that I have no knowledge whatsoever about
photographic analysis work, what I have done -- and Mr. Maccabee does
not advise you of this here -- is to make a challenge to Mr. Maccabee,
back in January of this year, in a taped message to him. The object
that he used in his experiment in Gulf Breeze was a red object, which
I don't believe was actually shown on national television. He took
some photographs of some flares and determined from that, by using a
special camera, that the red object seen over Gulf Breeze definitely
was not a flare.

My challenge, then, was for us to use the famous video shot of Bubba
over the bay, taken by a Houston television station crew, somewhere
around 1991, which clearly shows a large white object with a piece of
material falling from it, into the water. This is a well-known shot,
and was shown on many television programs around the country back in
the time frame we are discussing. I told Mr. Maccabee that we could
use this particular video clip, which I have a copy of. I proposed
that we send this to the lab that I mentioned earlier, and have them
analyze it. The fee would be quite substantial, and would range
anywhere from $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. I told Mr. Maccabee that, when
this independent lab made an analysis of the Bubba shot, if it turned
out that the object was definitely not a flare, I would pay for the
entire analysis. If the analysis, on the other hand, indicated that
the object was, or could be, a flare, Mr. Maccabee would then be
responsible for all of the charges incurred in the analysis. I gave
Mr. Maccabee 30 days to respond to my taped challenge. As of the
dictation of this letter, he has apparently chosen not to accept that
challenge.

	ISSUE #14:

I said in my original letter: "Mr. Maccabee, you also recently lied to
Ms. Barbara Becker, about Mr. Hyzer. When she confronted you with the
issue of why Mr. Hyzer never received the original photographs, you
stated that it was 'because he wanted them in such a hurry.' You, sir,
are a liar. I told Barbara Becker that, she e-mailed you back that
response, and you decided to change your mind, saying that you didn't
really know what happened. This was another lie, Mr. Maccabee. You know
why he never got the originals, as well as I do. Ed Walters did not
want anyone like Mr. Hyzer, an objective person, that Ed didn't have
in his back pocket, to receive any original copies."

continued in Part 2
--
UFO Research
http://home.fuse.net/task/