ParaNet BBS/mred

ParaNet BBS/mred

File Name:	mred.txt
Author:	Unknown
Date:	Unknown
Posting BBS:	Unknown
BBS Main Page:	ParaNet Main Page
Key Words:	ParaNet, UFO, Ufology

The following is a response by "Mr. Ed" to the allegations made
by Willy Smith at the Cleveland UFO conference held in Cleveland
in September 1988. 
------------------------------------------------------------------

November 30, 1988

AN OPEN REVIEW OF THE NEGATIVE VIEWPOINTS PRESENTED
BY WILLY SMITH AT THE CLEVELAND CONFERENCE

 This review does not respond to all the Smith allegations,
only the ones with which I have access to the reports or data
misrepresented or omitted by Smith.  My conclusion is that
Smith's paper represents a classic example of text book 
debunking.

"Deception" pages 3 thru 5.
This was a review of the "Mr X" letter in which Smith points
out inconsistancies with the Jan. 7, 1988 official report to 
MUFON.  Smith concludes that this letter proves that I lied
about details of Nov. 11, 1987.

Response:
My wife and I wrote the "Mr X" letter in an effort to withold some
of the most unbelievable events (the blue beam and telepathy)
and intentionally modified some details to protect my identity.
Under the same conditions I suggest that many people
might react the same way, although, I admit that the story of "I
have a friend, Mr X, who took these photos" was obviously
transparent.

Smith continues with an attempt to discredit me personally
and depict me as a less than prominent citizen.

Response:
Maybe this is a matter of the definition of prominent. I am a
member of the City Planning Board and a recognized leader
of youth activities, plus I built 3 houses and donated the
proceeds to service organizations.  This may not be credible
in Smith's eyes but in the eyes of my small town I would
disagree.

Smith criticized me for saying the UFO photographed with 
the Nimslo was big and far away.

Response:
Smith wrote in his April 6, 1988 paper that the Nimslo 
photos "show only a distant array of lights."  So why is it
OK for him to think it was distant, and suspicious for me
to think the same.  (Both of us were wrong with only my
wife insisting that this very different UFO was smaller 
and closer.)

Smith concludes the "Deception" viewpoint with a bold
statement that his allegations are "documented evidence
of a lie."

Response:
Smith has selected data to fit his opinion and omitted details.
He has only documented his own bias.

The second viewpoint by Smith he calls "Illusions"
Page 6 (a)
Smith alleges "there is only one known photographer."

Response:
Others have testified to seeing the UFO and presented their
photos at the Sentinel office.  Their names are on the record.
The photos were of poor quality.  A complete MUFON report
was filed on one lady and her photos are in the hands of Dr. 
Maccabee (also poor quality). I certainly can understand
why others chose to remain anaonamous. (Especially if
W. Smith finds out their names.)

Page 6 (c)
Smith tries to ignore all the witnesses who testify to seeing 
the same object.

Response:
The witnesses showed up in mass (over 100) at an October
meeting in Gulf Breeze. (Most recent witnesses were a Judge
and his wife.)

Page 6 (d)
Smith says that "on several occasions an investigator" was
near when I photographed the UFO and saw nothing.

Response:
Who was this investigator?  There was none. Smith made this up.
There has never been an investigator nearby when a photo
was taken.  Give us the name Willy!

Page 6 (f)
Smith complains that there is no profile photograph.

Response:
If you photograph a UFO in flight it will not normally
be in profile although (as reported) this UFO did rock
back and forth when it was low to the ground.

Page 9 Photo #1 - #5
Smith describes the distances, etc. of the Nov. 11, 1987 sighting
and vaguely disregards the importance of the photo #1 being
blocked by the pine tree.

Response:
On April 6, 1988, Smith wrote "This overlapping apparently is
at odds with the possibility of a double exposure." But now he
uses the same details to say "This overlapping.....makes one
suspect the possibility of a double exposure."  If Smith would
make an effort he would find that when a lighter object is
exposed over a darker object they blur together in an obvious
double exposure.  In this case the tree clearly blocks the 
central grey/blue body of the UFO.  As Smith said on April 6th
this is at odds with a double exposure, no matter how much he
wants to ignore this photo now.

Page 9 (a)
Again Smith wants to re-hash the cloud theory that even
Boyd has put to rest.

Response:
Many re-enactments have demonstrated the same sequence
of events and timed them exactly.  To get a better feeling
as to the research skills of Smith - please read his April 
20th "hoax paper".  He defends Ray Stanford's cloud theory
and says, "Without the shadow of doubt, photos #1, #2 and 
#3 were NOT taken on the reported date." As we know, Ray
Stanford retracted his cloud theory which he admits was 
based on faulty data. 

Page 10 (b)
Here Smith wonders about the spacing of windows and what
he calls "sloppy design."

Response:
Until the UFO allows itself to be examined I suggest we do
not know the why questions of it's design.

Page 11 (d)
Smith argues that he can see supports beneath the UFO.

Response:
I'm sure Bob Oechsler will respond to this having spent
many hours consulting with the Polaroid engineers and 
detailing the film defects.

Page 11 (e)
Here Smith makes a grand speculation that the UFO is 
obviously not glowing.

Response:
Does Smith have design knowledge of the UFO? I think not.
But what has influenced him is the result of blasting light
on the originals for reproduction.  The originals (as he
knows) are very dull.

Page 12 Photo #7
Smith says this is a double exposure (as he does all the
photos) because he believes it to be overlapping a tree.

Response:
Dr. Maccabee had this photo analyzed by computer and
will certainly respond.  
Smith disregards Dr. Maccabee's word and demands 
"independent supporting evidence."
Considering all the allegations and speculation Smith presented
to the Cleveland audience a 'one for one' argument would
also demand Smith have supporting evidence.

Page 13 Photo #13
Here Smith seems intent on showing that my 80' estimate
height of the UFO was wrong.

Response:
My estimate maybe was wrong.  Given the darkness and no 
horizon to help me judge plus I was 4' down a hill looking upward
toward the UFO.
Now let's consider how difficult it is to estimate distances, even
for Smith.  On March 19, 1988 he visited the same field to study
the area of a sighting.  He then wrote a paper in which he
estimated a tree line to be 440' away.  During daylight hours
with no threat of a UFO and plenty of time to estimate he 
concluded (based on his 440' estimate) "the objects were much
closer than indicated by the witness."  When the Pensacola News
reporters came to the field to check they measured the trees to 
be 175'.
So if Smith is going to judge this case on my estimates or even
worse, his, then research has been disregarded.

Page 14  Photo #14
Smith is troubled by the bottom ring on the UFO showing up
at an angle to the camera.

Response:
Again Smith omits the detail that the UFO rocked and I would
have a natural tendency to shoot the photo when it was the 
brightest as seen through the view finder.

Page 14 Photo #19
Here Smith relates a version of the photo 19 event unlike the
reported account.  He says it was raining and I should have been
muddy.

Response:
Why does Smith assume that my truck had rain on it? It
was not raining at the time nor do I remember any rain though
it could have rained there before I arrived. (Florida has sand
not mud).  Again he refers to the tilt of the UFO above the
road, and refuses to read the official reports of the UFO rocking
back and forth.

Page 16 Photo #21
This is the best part of the negative paper in which Smith
unwittingly spends 5 pages proving what was actually reported.
The UFO was not directly over the truck but over the truck to
the south and just above the pine trees maybe 150 feet away
(my estimate).  Somehow Smith seems to think that the UFO
was OVER the truck.
The two women have also responded that they stand by
their report (although Smith decided to change it for them) that
they were more than two blocks away, around a 180 degree 
curve and straining to see through the misty windshield.
They also report seeing orange glows through the pine forest
between them and where the UFO appeared.

Page 21 Photo #22 and #23
In an effort to persuade, Smith tells us that the camera is a
Fixed Focus Polaroid and proceeds to point out the focus 
problems and how these photos could not be real.

Response:
I suggest that W. Smith is either incompetent or was intentionally
misleading the Cleveland audience at this time.  On March 19,
1988, Smith held the exact 108 Polaroid camera in his hands. 
An expert, or even a novice, can tell the difference between a
fixed focus and a 3' to infinity variable manual focus. THE 
CAMERA IS A 3' TO INFINITY VARIABLE MANUAL FOCUS.  
Smith's accusations continue to crumble under the weight of
non-research or deliberate deception.

Smith's comment about our Spitz dog is equally wrong. The dog
is agitated with front paw lifted and with it's ears cocked as it
barked.

I'll skip the last viewpoint that Smith calls "Disinformation"
since much of it is a re-hash of his earlier coments. By now
I expect most will consider where the disinformation is 
comming from.  Willy Smith has been yelling "hoax" since
March '88 before the MUFON investigation and Dr. Maccabee's
analysis were even completed.