UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: "Kenny Young" <task@fuse.net>
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 12:16:15 -0700
Fwd Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 14:02:06 -0400
Subject: Bruce Maccabee Again Confronted - Part 2
[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 2 of 2
Mr. Maccabee's comments are as follows:
"Gee, so many lies around here... you'd think I was qualified to be
President. Anyway, I told Ms. Becker what was my recollection of what
happened when Hyzer and Andrus reached some agreement as to what
pictures Hyzer was willing to look at. What I told Becker was based on
my recollecion of what Andrus told me many years before, namely that
Hyzer wanted the pictures quickly so Andrus sent what he had, namely
8 x 10 copies that Andrus had made from negatives which he, Andrus had
obtained by photographing Ed's photos."
It is funny, Mr. Maccabee, that your memory always serves your purpose
so conveniently. You knew, from the beginning, that your good friend
Ed Walters did not want anyone but you and Jeff Sainio to have copies
of his photographs for analysis. I do not buy your story, or your bad
memory, at all.
ISSUE #15:
I stated, in my original open letter, "I still wish you would tell us,
Mr. Maccabee, what the fee was that Ed Walters gave you in December of
1989 (according to the post card that I have from Ed Walters), besides
the $20,000.00 that you got for your chapter in the book. You could
have, I imagine, just about bought a home for what you got in December
of 1989, plus what you got for your "work" in the book. This whole
issue of the money tells us that you were not in a position to be
truly objective in regard to this case."
Mr. Maccabee's comment to that was, "Dear Jerry, if I'm a liar, then
you're a jerk. In fact, maybe you're a jerk anyway!"
Don't blame me, sir, for what your friend, Ed Walters, said. I have
a postcard from him where he tries to deny that you had gotten any
money for the book. On the other hand, though, he admits that he gave
you a "professional fee" in December of 1989. Now in your 12-page
letter to me, early on in this investigation, you state that you did
receive money for your chapter in the Gulf Breeze/Ed Walters book in
January of 1989. Accordingly, I can only conclude that you have
received two payments for your work in the Gulf Breeze UFO sightings.
If I am wrong, take it up with your friend Ed Walters. He is the one
that sent me the postcard. If he has his dates confused, he himself
has created the problem -- not me.
ISSUE #16:
I stated further, in my original open letter, "There are so many
things in this case, Mr. Maccabee, that as an intelligent person,
someone with a college education, like yourself, should have given you
cause to just stop and say, "wait a minute." You should have thought
to yourself, "Stop, another red flag," but you did not. So I have to
assume one of three things: 1) Either you were following an agenda,
set by Mr. Walt Andrus; 2) you were following a financial agenda, set
by Ed Walters and yourself; or, 3) you are completely, totally,
incompetent. That's all I can make out of this."
Mr. Maccabee's reply:
"If I'm totally incompetent then you're a.... oh well, I said it
before. Evidently you don't remember that I pointed out in my Nov 1991
letter to you that I started off being as skeptical as or more
skeptical than most. Like many people my first thought was of Meier.
I started off assuming the whole thing was a hoax."
Mr. Maccabee continues:
"Then, after months of analysis, investigation, data collection by me
and others I realized that there was just too much to it for Ed to
pull off the whole thing and the photos were too difficult for him to
hoax,....especially the stereo photos."
Mr. Maccabee, we're getting tired of constantly hearing about your
skepticism as you came into the case; about how you came into this
expecting it to be a Billie Meier type of scenario... You say, though,
that "after months" of investigation, you realized there was too much
evidence to support the case.
There is no evidence to support the case. None whatsoever. Ed's
polygraph tests were self-sponsored. The PSE test that he took was
self-sponsored. There were so many red flags abounding in this case,
and you ignored every one of them.
The photoanalysis work you did was completely inept, as Mr. Hyzer has
effectively demonstrated.
So what were you trying to accomplish in the Gulf Breeze case? That is
what everyone wants to know. Even some of your friends are wondering.
What was your agenda in Gulf Breeze? Why couldn't you see all of these
red flags that everyone else saw? Many other competent investigators
certainly saw them.
Ed Walters stumbled all over himself in this case, but not even one
time during his stumblings did you stop to take another look. This
appears, frankly, to be incompetency on your part. You insinuate that
people are getting tired of hearing how Ed Walters is a complete
idiot... He's worth $2,500,000.00, Mr. Maccabee. One does not get to
that level of assets by being a complete idiot. If we were to believe
you, he's lucky if he knows how to hold on to a camera, much less use
it.
I say again, you are a disgrace to the UFO community.
ISSUE #17:
Once again referring to my open letter, I said: "You were told, just as
was Walt Andrus, about Peter Newman. You assured us that he was
mistaken. That's what you said, 'He's mistaken.'"
Your reply: "Yeah, mistaken."
This, Mr. Maccabee, tells us again that you have never objectively
looked at this case. Any UFO investigator would have gone back and
interviewed Peter Newman. Any time something has come up with this
case that does not fit your scenario, or does not lend credence to
this case, you simply ignore it. Don't you have the fortitude to go
back and call Peter Newman, to see if this was, indeed, a mistake?
What would you call this, other than a one-sided investigation? When
something pertinent to the investigation is brought to your attention,
you don't bother to check it out. Trust me, when something is brought
to my attention that casts doubt on a case, I will check it out.
"Yeah, mistaken." That's all you can say.
When are you going to get the guts, Mr. Maccabee, to follow up on Peter Newman?
ISSUE #18:
I made a statement in my open letter to the affect that Mr. and Mrs.
Thomas have stated that the model was not for their house plans.
Mr. Maccabee's reply: "Gary Watson, a realtor, investigated the
Walters sightings and analyzed the Lynn Thomas story and the Volker
house plan 'explanation' etc., and concluded that the paper strip in
the model did not fit the Volker house plan but did agree in slab
area and living area with the numbers on the Thomas house plane which
inmplied that the model itself was a hoax."
Supporters of Ed Walters have always claimed that someone planted the
model in the attic to discredit Ed Walters. There is no evidence
whatsoever to support that.
In fact, the evidence indicates just the opposite:
A: Frances, Ed's wife, claimed that the neighbor across the street
told her that there was a strange car parked in front of the house,
with out-of-state license plates. The people from that car attempted
to enter the attic of the house through the garage. (There was a
staircase that came down from the attic in the garage.) When Rex
Salisberry contacted the people across the street from the old
Walters residence, who had to be the people Francis was speaking
of, as they were the only neighbors who would have had a clear view
into the garage, they stated in a signed letter for Rex that they
had never seen anyone tamper with the Walters home.
B: Ed Walters claimed, early on, that the model was lying on top of
the insulation. When confronted with Mr. Robert Menzer's statement,
that the object was buried under three or four inches of insulation,
Ed denied that he had said that. It is extremely hard to believe
that someone would risk being arrested and going to jail, by breaking
into an unoccupied house, going up to the attic, and placing a model,
that might never be found, under three or four inches of insulation.
In talking with Mr. Robert Menzer, he advised me that, if he had known
where the shutoff valve was for the water, simply by either asking Ed
or another neighbor, he would have found out that the shutoff valve
for the water was buried in a black box in his front yard. If he knew
that, he would have never gone up into the attic three times, in his
search for the shutoff valve. Therefore, the model would not have been
found for years and years, if ever. Thinking realistically, and using
common sense, there would have been no reason for anyone to have
"planted" a model in the attic, under three or four inches of
insulation. So the evidence supports that the model was almost
certainly placed there by Ed Walters, probably to hide it from
visitors who were coming to his home at the time of the alleged
sightings.
When Craig Meier and the Pensacola News Journal confronted Ed about
the model, he went to the newspaper office and discussed the situation
with the Managing Editor. The Managing Editor asked Ed Walters, at
that time, to take a polygraph test or a PSE test. Again, as Ed has
done on other occasions, he refused to take the polygraph or PSE
tests. Once more, this leads to suspicion against Ed Walters.
When I contacted Sara Menzer, she told me that when Ed was at their
home, and saw the model, which was being viewed by other
investigators, he asked her if he could have it. She said that she
did not want to give it up to anyone that would make it appear that
she was being partial to one side or the other, and said she would
keep it.
One would wonder, really, what Ed would want with the model that was
causing so much trouble. Of course, maybe he just wanted to add it to
his collection.
ISSUE #19:
I stated in my original letter, "To get back to you, Bruce Maccabee, you
should do what your friend, Bob Oeschler, did, and retire from UFOlogy."
Mr. Maccabee commented, "Thanks for the advice... but I'll stick around,
whether you like it or not!"
It makes no difference whether you stick around or not, Mr. Maccabee.
Most of the reliable investigators in UFOlogy will not use you anymore
for photographic analysis work. You do not realize how many calls we
have had, asking for the name of a good photoanalyst -- even people
that have turned to you in the past. But because of Gulf Breeze and
Guardian, a lot of people are disgusted.
Not long ago a friend said an associate of his was going to send a video
to Bruce Maccabee. I wished him good luck, he asked what I meant, and I
explained my reasons. The video tape ended up going to the lab on the
east coast, instead of to you. I tell you this only to demonstrate the
fact that a lot of people now question your credibility. So stick
around if you want, and continue to collect your lecture fees and
symposium fees, whatever. I'm not sure what you have to say that anyone
would want to pay money to hear, but I guess there are still people out
there that really don't know what's going on in UFOlogy, and are
willing to listen to anything. Lots of luck to you, in that regard.
Mr. Maccabee, some of the errors that were made, that propagated
erroneous information in this case, can be directly attributed to
you. For instance, as I brought up in my original open letter, there
was the Nimslo sealed camera... Your original analysis of ten
photographs revealed, you said yourself, that the object was only 40
inches long, and 40 feet from the camera.
In my letter, I stated, "Ed Walters said that it must have been a
mother ship, that everybody in Gulf Breeze should have seen it. Did
that give you pause? Did you think, 'Now wait a minute, these are
pictures that Ed Walters never saw before he handed them to us. How
could he make a statement like that?'"
Mr. Maccabee's comments were:
"Ed's testimony was obtained before the stereo photos were developed.
He said he had the impression that the object was far away. It went on
the other side of some trees in the area. Hence he thought it was big.
However, Frances, looking at it from another point of view felt that
it was relatively close and therefore not so big. When the photos were
analyzed the distance came out in the range 40-70 feet. When the
distance from Ed's location where he took the photos to the tree the
object went behind was measured it was found to be about 40 ft. The
most convincing thing about the stereo photos was when this very
unusual object was again photographed along with the more common type
Ed had photographed in a stereo pair of photos on May 1, 1988."
Mr. Maccabee, you must think all of the readers, not to mention
myself, are idiots. Let me stage this story for the readers... Ed
Walters was given a sealed camera and told to use that camera to
take photographs the next time he saw a UFO. He took ten pictures of
an object some days later. He then returned the camera to MUFON. In
front of the news media, he told everyone, "It must have been a mother
ship. Everyone should have seen it." His wife, Frances, said, "No, Ed,
it was much smaller than that."
When the film was developed, it turned out that the object was 40 to
70 feet from the camera, as Mr. Maccabee has stated. It also turned
out that the object was only 36 to 40 inches long, which Mr. Maccabee
has neglected to say in his comments at that particular time.
So, readers, here is what we are asked by Mr. Maccabee to believe. Ed
Walters had already stated that the object must have been a "mother
ship," an object alleged to be at least 300 feet long, before the
photographs were developed. Ed said this, even though the object was
in front of him, no more than 70 feet away, and even though it went
behind a tree. Yet the evidence indicates that the object is only
about 40 inches long. We are asked to believe that Ed Walters made a
miscalculation of over 298 feet in his assessment, even as close as
the object actually was, only 70 feet.
This is one of the red flags that Mr. Maccabee has totally ignored.
You insult our intelligence.
Let me explain to the readers, instead, what actually did occur here,
and the way you should have looked at this. Ed Walters was confronted,
for the first time, with taking photographs of a UFO that he would not
be able to see, or to manipulate, before he had to hand the camera
over to MUFON. The camera had been sealed, and a test photograph had
been taken at the beginning of the film.
Ed realized at that point that he did not know how this small 36 inch to
40 inch model that he had was going to show up on the Nimslo camera.
Would it appear large? Would it appear small? He wasn't sure, because
he would not be able to see the photograph before the camera was turned
over to MUFON. So Ed and Frances talked it over. He decided to say that
it was an extremely large object, like a mother ship, and Frances would
say that it was much smaller. That way, in effect, they were covered,
either way the object actually appeared on the film.
Do you, Bruce, realize how ludicrous it is for you to ask intelligent
people to believe that Ed Walters could not tell the difference
between a 300 foot object, at 70 feet away, as opposed to a 40 inch
object, at 70 feet away? No one is going to buy that argument. You
have again made a ridiculous statement, about it going behind a tree,
and Frances being at a different angle. This one thing, this glaring
evidence, should have stopped you dead in your tracks. But it did not.
Instead, you said something to the effect of "Well, we've just got a
probe here. It looks like Ed Walters has photographed, for the first
time, a very small probe." END OF INVESTIGATION.
I note here that you are also surprised at the fact that this same
object, that he took a photograph of with the sealed camera, showed
up again in a photograph he took later, on May 1, 1988. What is so
surprising here, Bruce? He used a 36 to 40 inch model for the sealed
camera. He just used the same model again on May 1, 1988. What is so
surprising about that?
ISSUE #20:
I stated in my original letter, "In this new book, Mr. Maccabee, you
state that Bubba is definitely not a flare. What are those pieces of
material falling off of the object? Is this some kind of signal that
it's getting ready to take off? Is that what we are supposed to
believe, Mr. Maccabee?" I further stated that Mr. Hyzer has shown us
that Mr. Maccabee is not a qualified photographic analyst.
Mr. Maccabee's comments are as follows:
"You seem to be looking to Mr. Hyzer to save your rear end from my
photo analysis. However, there are probably DOZENS of qualified
people "out there," even some reading these internet posts, who could
comment on my analysis of the Bubba vs Flare using a diffraction
grating (uh, oh, that technical term again) to produce the spectrum."
Mr. Maccabee, I do not need Mr. Hyzer to "save my rear end." He has
already nailed yours to the wall.
As for the "tests" you performed involving the red light that you call
Bubba, against some flares, let's make sure that the readers know who
helped you with the test. I believe it was Ed Walters that took the
photograph of the red light in the sky that you refer to as Bubba,
and who also took the pictures of the flares, to make the comparison.
Isn't that like having the fox guard the henhouse, so to speak?
My challenge to you, Mr. Maccabee, is merely to put up or shut up.
We cannot use your "red light," which could have been anything. Was
that the same light that the Houston television crew videotaped on
the beach in Gulf Breeze? Was it the same type of light? I seriously
doubt it. To regain some credibility, you need to step up and use the
clip that we discussed here earlier. Will you accept that challenge?
What happened between you and Ed Walters, in your "tests," is not
even viable. Taking a photo of some light in the sky, then of flares,
for comparison, mean nothing, especially because Ed Walters was
involved.
It is quite clear that you either do not understand, or worse,
disregard, what "independent investigation" means. You do not use
the principal, the person you are investigating, to assist you in
any tests, or in any other way.
ISSUE #21:
I stated in my open letter, " Why couldn't you guys have gotten into a
boat, gotten underneath this object, taken some good photographs, and
probably even recovered some of the material that was being dropped
every time that it was seen? None of you guys tried to do that,
because you didn't really want to find out what it was."
To which Mr. Maccabee responded, "How do you know what the Gulf BReeze
Research Team tried to do? You weren't there! Actually the airplane
method was investigated but found to be too expensive for a zero
budget project considering that the airplane might have to be flying
for several hours every night for a week or more to have a good chance
of seeing something... and even then the airplane might be miles away
from the object at the time it appeared. AS for chasing in a boat...
again no one could predict where these things would be. Also, many
were over land. And most were too short to mount a real 'chase' before
it disappeared."
Mr. Maccabee, I know that you did not do this, because it was never
reported in any literature on Gulf Breeze. So I'm certainly aware
that you never made any attempt to secure a plane or a boat whenever
Bubba showed up. According to Blanton Pugh, nearly every time a
national news crew was known to be in town, Bubba would show up. Based
on that, after the first couple of times, you certainly could have
scheduled a plane or boat to be rented, so that, when Bubba did show
up, you could have gotten a closer view of the object, and find out
what this material was that was falling into the water, or on land,
as you would like to say. But you didn't try to do that.
You are insulting our intelligence when you give us the excuse that
there was a "zero budget." With MUFON's membership larger than it
ever had been, in 1991 and 1992, there was no budget for the biggest
case (according to Walt Andrus) in 50 years? You could not afford
$300.00 or $400.00 for plane rental of a few hours? No, you didn't
want to get any closer to Bubba, to find out. That is what the real
issue is here. It was more profitable for MUFON, and for yourself,
to keep people coming to the bridge for two years, having symposiums
and whatever else, to raise money, than it was to find out the truth.
Of course, I may have to back off of the statement above... Knowing
that the news media was coming into town, renting a plane may not
have been a good idea. We know that the Gulf Breeze "investigators"
always informed Ed Walters of everything that was going on. So
perhaps Bubba would not have showed up after all, if Ed realized that
a plane or a boat would be ready; maybe Ed would not have sent any
"Bubbas" up. This is conjecture, but definitely a thought to
consider, Mr. Maccabee.
ISSUE #22:
I stated, "Ed Walters has been a liar about the Gulf Breeze case from
the beginning. We will expose Mr. Ed Walters for exactly what he is,
one of the biggest -- not the best, by far, because he has made so
many mistakes -- hoaxers in this century. Again, I say, not the best,
but the biggest. And that's only because you guys made him the biggest."
Mr. Maccabee replies: "Strong words, I would say.....from one of
several people who have had it in for Ed and other Gulf Breeze
witnesses for 6 or 7 years now...... Strong words from one who
has so far failed to prove a hoax..."
Mr. Maccabee, we have proven this case to be a hoax. Mr. Hyzer has
proven this case to be a hoax, conclusively. He has put his reputation
on the line, and stated that photograph #19 is a double exposure. Are
you still going along with Walt Andrus' contention that it is merely
opinion? It is not an opinion, it is a fact. Mr. Hyzer has proven that
it is a hoax. The evidence supports it, just as all of the available
evidence on this case belies its true nature as a hoax. If you do not
want to acknowledge that, that is your business.
I thank everyone for their time in reading this.
Regards,
Jerry Black
A NOTE ABOUT JERRY BLACK
Mr. Jerry Black has been researching and investigating UFOs in a
scientific and objective manner for the past 39 years. He spent four
and a half years re-investigating the Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze case,
with experienced investigators Rex Salisberry, Barbara Becker, and
Zan Overall. Mr. Black invites your comments on the above. He can
be reached at the following address and phone number:
Jerry Black
6276 Taylor Pike
Blanchester, Ohio 45107
(513) 625-2613
NOTE: Permission is granted by the author to reproduce
this article in its entirety, in electronic form. Please
contact the author for permission to reproduce segments only.
--
UFO Research
http://home.fuse.net/task/
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