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 -> 1999 -> Jun -> Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Jerry Black <blackhole60@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:18:23 PDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:30:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman


>From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 17:41:05 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

>>Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 07:38:12 -0400
>>From: Kenny Young <ufo@fuse.net>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman

>>>From: Greg Sandow <gsandow@prodigy.net>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>>Subject: Re: Jerry Black's Open Letter to Friedman
>>>Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 11:04:37 -0400

>>>Enough. I don't care whether I agree with Black, or disagree
>>>with him, about the many points he raises in his open letters.
>>>But I'm offended enough by his tone to feel I should say
>>>something.

>>Please look beyond the 'tone' and scrutinize the _substance_ of
>>what Mr. Black has to offer. It would be a mistake to assume
>>such a dismissive approach to his comments, as many have
>>repeatedly sought to do.

>Kenny -

>You are a serious investigator, and I have always appreciated
>your approach to cases.

>However, I am sure that you know that polemic such as that
>produced by Mr. Black is not the way to generate any sort of
>improvement in UFOlogy. Personally, I believe he does make, on
>occasion, valid points. However, they are not typically points
>which have not been made by someone else, much more courteously,
>elsewhere.

>Even if Walters and Strieber are the charlatans that Black
>claims, stridency is not the way to alter their impact on
>ufology. In regard to the Gulf Breeze case, if Mr. Black would
>like to demonstrate with appropriate science, and in a
>reasonable, objective tone, how to account for the following, he
>will be doing us all a service:

>1) How the obscuration of the object in Photo 1 and Photo 7 has
>been accomplished. Double exposure, even with the Hyzer method,
>has been experimentally discredited.

>2) That the light return from objects apparently at the distant
>edge of the flash is what would be expected from a model at a
>particular distance (for instance, Photo 13, Photo 16, Photo 23,
>Photo 35 all have foreground objects whose comparative light
>return would make that analysis simpler).

>3) That Photo 37L and R, which show that the object is obscured
>by a tree branch in one stereo frame, can be explained with
>models and mathematics within Walters' competence. It must be
>accounted for that the calculated size of the object is
>consistent with that in other stereo photos taken with other
>equipment at other times, and with non-stereo photos with
>reference points, such as the road shot.

>4) That Walters possessed sufficient knowledge to successfully
>and consistently spoof stereo photos so that the calculated
>diameter would remain consistent with that estimated from other
>images (including the road shot).

>5) That Photo 38L and R would be possible to create such that
>the resulting images be consistent with the Nimslo photo results
>(this requiring models to be suspended tens of feet above the
>water 100 or more feet from the shore) for two completely
>different objects of widely different sizes and yet have the
>resulting measurments be consistent with other photos taken
>under other conditions, including the other stereo photos taken
>by Walters.

>6) How the various videotapes could be hoaxed.

>8) How and where Walters was able to construct and test and
>photograph complex lighted models without anyone's knowledge.

>9) That Walters had the knowledge, the skills and the tools to
>create and photograph such models.

>10) That he had the mathematical knowledge to spoof the stereo
>photos or that such could be done by chance.

>11) That Walters' family was in on the hoax.

>12) Walters' motivation for the hoax.

>One of the problems with Black's discussion of Gulf Breeze (to
>take an example with which I am most familiar) is that he does
>not seem aware that most of these are issues. The characteristic
>of the scientific approach is best expressed by the section that
>appears in every scientific paper: related work. In that
>section, the author of a paper shows his understanding of the
>work done by the others in the field on the same problem and
>demonstrates why his approach is better. Black does not seem to
>properly counterpoint the important portions of the work done by
>Sanio or Maccabee, nor does he seem to realize or acknowledge
>the weakness of some parts of the Hyzer analysis.

>Now none of the above require discussion of Believer Bill, or
>the model found years later in the old Walters house, or any of
>the disputable testimony. These are simple qualitative or
>investigative requirements - and of those, the qualitative tests
>are of the most interest because they are reproducible on demand
>and are not subjective in nature.

>Understand - I am not a Gulf Breeze or Streiber partisan. I have
>many problems with Gulf Breeze, and I have even more problems
>with Streiber's case. I haven't devoted a lot of time to
>Strieber because, frankly, it seems to me he offers very little
>to work with that is not ambiguous, while Gulf Breeze is not
>ambiguous at all and offers all of the material needed for
>quantitative analysis. Of course, of the two, Strieber has
>certainly had a much more profound social effect.

>But, at any rate, I keep my mind open on Gulf Breeze because the
>above points have not been dealt with to my satisfaction, and,
>until they are, I have no choice but to leave the case open. And
>Mr. Black can attack everyone involved in the case as much as he
>wants, but _until_ all of the above points have been addressed
>to my satisfaction, why should I change my mind? If Bruce's
>analysis is flawed, I believe he will be receptive to the proof
>- I know I am. If Jeff Sanio's analysis is flawed, he should
>also be receptive to the proof. And if Hyzer's analysis is
>flawed, there should be some sign that Mr. Black is receptive to
>the notion.

>Quiet, carefully reasoned, qualitatively backed analysis means a
>lot more to me than any polygraph test, paid for by someone else
>or not. And certainly Mr. Black's attitude does nothing to
>generate confidence in me that the results he will bring forward
>are any more objective than those he denounces.


Mr. Mark Cashman;

I wanted to take this time to thank you for responding to Kenny
Young’s remarks. Firstly, I appreciate his support, but do not
need it. I am sorry if you and a few others do not like the tone
of my letters.

My letters were simply investigative letters to Mr. Whitley
Strieber in response to his ‘lack of response’ regarding my
invitation to have him take a third-party polygraph test
financed at my own expense. I am trying to show people that when
his books are read, there is much to be desired in terms of
believability once you get past the fantastic ability that Mr.
Strieber has in putting words on paper. There has been no
evidence whatsoever to support Whitley Strieber’s case -and
there should be, because he is/was an alleged contactee. We
don’t expect that from people like the three women from Casey
County, Kentucky who, in 1976, had one experience only. But when
you deal with contactee’s such as Billy Meier, George Adamski
and Daniel Frye - we expect more. Certainly I do.  Mr. Whitley
Strieber made sure that all the investigators were kept at bay
and unable to perform an analysis by staying overnight or
throughout a weekend to view what he was seeing when he had
these supposed encounters with ‘The Visitors.’ Motion picture
cameras, motion detection equipment, audio tapes... all could
have been set up in Mr. Strieber’s home to try to get this
information on audio or videotape. It was never done because Mr.
Strieber did not allow it. His books certainly do not prove
anything whatsoever. That he allowed his son to come out is a
major strike against the believability of his claim, having the
child put in that dangerous peril that he claims was present
there.

Also, your remarks about Gulf Breeze are well taken. I will be
making a final report on Gulf Breeze in which I will show you
and any objective person that all the pictures that were taken
by Mr. Ed Walters could have -and were- taken by him in a hoaxed
manner. Mr. Bruce Maccabbee, again, has sought to make it appear
as if Ed Walters was a complete idiot with a camera. However, I
have learned -along with investigator Rex Salisbury- from
talking with kids in the neighborhood who frequented the Walters
house quite often, that whenever you saw Ed, you saw a camera
around his neck. We have four youngsters who will testify [and
who DID testify] to Rex Salisbury and his wife Carol, that Ed
Walters would double-expose Polaroid film and play tricks on
them. For instance, he would take a picture of a reflection in
the mirror and leave the picture in the camera and take another
picture of one of the girls and say: “I wonder which one of you
will have the spirits behind you tonight?” It would obviously be
the first photograph that he would take, and when he pulled the
picture out, there would be a strange reflection situated behind
the girl.

So we know for a fact that Ed Walter’s was a camera buff, unlike
what Mr. Bruce Maccabbee tries to portray. And when you try to
use the expertise of Mr. Bruce Maccabbee against Mr. William G.
Hyzer and his son, you are talking about apples and oranges.
There is NO comparison -NONE- between the abilities of Mr.
William G. Hyzer and his son James in contrast to Mr. Bruce
Maccabbee and Mr. Jeff Sainio. PERIOD.

I will show in my report how the rest of the case, including
photograph #19, just does not hold up. There is not one piece of
evidence [although Bruce Maccabbee strangely states there are
many] that will substantiate this Ed Walters case. There is
nothing.

A lot of times when you have people perpetrate hoaxes, such as
[in my opinion] Ed Walters, Whitley Strieber, etc., they always
try to rely on other people’s stories or sightings to confirm
their own. That is exactly what both men have done. You cannot,
as an objective investigator, accept testimony from another
person because they say they saw an object which looks similar
to Ed’s, and say “that makes Ed’s real.” When you have a
nationally publicized case, you are bound to have people come
out of the woodwork, as we’ve had on every nationally exposed
case, and say that they also saw something very similar. To give
you a quick example, Mr. Art Hufford, one of the MUFON
investigators on the Gulf Breeze case, saw an object during the
daylight for twenty seconds. He drew that object and went around
on national TV [I heard him at least twice] and said to Ed
Walters: “I saw something exactly like what you saw.” But if you
look at Art Hufford’s drawings, there are no portholes or
windows in Mr. Hufford’s UFO. Does it have a similar shape?
Somewhat, but there are no windows or portholes. So obviously,
contrary to what Art Hufford told the national media, he did not
see the same object that Ed Walter’s allegedly photographed
[which shows portholes and windows]. Since he was caught and
this was brought to his attention by myself and other
investigators, he later stated that “there may have been
windows, but I didn’t see any.” So contrary to popular belief,
Art Hufford did not EVER see the same object that Ed Walters
photographed.

I will be issuing a final Gulf Breeze report, and challenging
Bruce Maccabbee and Jeff Sainio on photograph #19 to back up
their claims. The crux of photograph 19 is that Mr. Hyzer claims
there is no luminosity projecting downward from the object,
which there should be due to light bouncing off the hard
surface. Mr. Jeff Sainio claims, just by looking at his first
generation copy, that he can see the luminosity on the road -not
with instruments, but with the naked eye. Don’t you find it
unusual that Sainio can assert this while Hyzer cannot detect
this using the most sophisticated equipment that is the best in
the business? You sir, have to determine who is telling the
truth and who is not. Who has an ax to grind, and who doesn’t,
Mr. Cashman.

I will be offering Mr. Bruce Maccabbee and challenge that he
should not be able to refuse. If he does, then he shows me very
clearly that he has been blowing smoke all these years. That
challenge will be issued in my final report on Gulf Breeze.

If you would like to call me sir, I can go over some of these
issues privately with you and have no problem with that, and
would more than happy to do that for you Mr. Cashman, to show
you where exactly that Mr. Bruce Maccabbee keeps leading people
astray, and what the true facts are on Gulf Breeze. Some of the
things you will be seeing in my report have obviously not been
made public by the MUFON organization, because they do not want
this case to be exposed as the hoax it is [because they ran with
it prematurely].

Thank you for your time, I hope to hear from you.

Jerry Black
6276 Taylor Pike
Blanchester, OH 45107

513-625-2613
E-mail: blackhole60@hotmail.com
Website: http://members.xoom.com/blackshole/