ParaNet BBS/kfyi-gb
From KB42
ParaNet BBS/kfyi-gb
| File Name: | kfyi-gb.txt |
|---|---|
| Author: | Unknown |
| Date: | Unknown |
| Posting BBS: | Unknown |
| BBS Main Page: | ParaNet Main Page |
| Key Words: | ParaNet, UFO, Ufology |
*****************************************************************
I M P O R T A N T N O T I C E
concerning the following text file
*****************************************************************
ParaNet makes no endorsement of this material and the views
expressed herein are not necessarily the views of ParaNet. This
information is provided as a public service only.
This file is SHARETEXT material. This means that you are free to
distribute it to anyone you like, as long as it is not used for
commercial purposes, you do not charge for it, you do not remove
this header, or change the contents in anyway. Additionally, we
ask that you contribute to ParaNet, if possible, to assure a
continuation of this valuable, educational SHARETEXT service.
The suggested contribution is $75.00 and entitles you to full
access to our comprehensive library and our network of electronic
affiliates all over the world. Other services are available.
Mail your contribution to:
ParaNet Information Service
P.O. Box 172
Wheat Ridge, CO 80034-0172
ParaNet(sm): Freedom of Information for a better world!
(C) 1991 ParaNet(sm) Information Service. All Rights Reserved.
****************************************************************
ParaNet File Number: 00156
CORRECTED VERSION - replaces transmission of 4/6/90
PARANET WHITE PAPER: The Gulf Breeze Sightings
The following background information was prepared in conjunction with
the ParaNet Information Service, Las Vegas, NV. For more information on
ParaNet, please call 951-3458 in Scottsdale.
________________________________________________________________________
ParaNet first became aware of the Gulf Breeze case in January of 1988,
about 2 months after the first sighting. It was then predicted -
successfully - that it would become by far the most controversial case
in the history of Ufology. The reasons for the controversy are many,
and I'll get into them, but overall, what should be an open and shut
case that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that UFOs are
interplanetary craft, instead is bogged down in murky, confusing and
conflicting details, shoddy investigative techniques, charges and
counter-charges, and especially, highly suspect photos and videos.
For starters, the photos LOOK hokey. One gets the impression that the
object somehow was photographed under different circumstances than the
rest of the background - perhaps in some cases, at a different time.
That is the suspicion on cursory viewing. But the major in-depth
photo-analysis has been performed by one of Ufology's few unimpeachable
investigators, Dr. Bruce Maccabee, who has steadfastly concluded that
there is no evidence of a hoax....and herein lie several controversies
at once. First, there IS evidence that strongly SUGGESTS hoax - I'll
get into it in a second - but Maccabee dismisses it rather offhandedly,
and that is uncharacteristic of him. Many feel that he has lost his
objectivity, and is so utterly convinced the case is real, that he is
ignoring the evidence. If this turns out to be the case, Ufology will
lose one of its very best and brightest. Maccabee CANNOT be unmindful
of that, so why the strident endorsement of a case that is questionable
at best? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Maccabee was
PAID A FIVE-FIGURE SUM by Ed Walters, for the material that appears in
the book's appendix? This kind of thing is unthinkable in ufology. How
can you objectively investigate someone who is paying you that much?
One of the pieces of evidence that Maccabee dismisses involves the
photo of the object with a streetlight in the foreground. The
streetlight, and everything else, is slightly but definitely blurred by
camera motion. The object is as sharp as a tack. Maccabee suggests that
Ed was panning the camera to follow the object in motion. We maintain
that the combination of conditions prevalent at the time - long shutter
speed, dark background, and the emotional duress that a real UFO
witness would experience - makes it highly unlikely that he could track
the object THAT perfectly. It is far more likely that a simple double
exposure has taken place.
Further, the lighting of the object is inconsistent. It appears
uniformly lit, as if from within, in some of the photos, whereas in
others it is only dimly lit as if from a flash. And if the object is as
large as Maccabee states, and therefore as distant, no camera flash
should be able to illuminate it. We therefore believe a variety of
techniques were used.
Look also at the photo of Ed's wife Frances ducking to avoid the "blue
beam." The beam becomes brighter towards the BOTTOM, rather than the
top, as would be expected if it were coming from an object overhead.
Also, it casts not the slightest illumination on Frances or any other
nearby object.
At one point, the challenge was put forth by Ed to others to try to
duplicate his photos by equivalent means. A gentleman in Belgium spent
about $4.00 American and did precisely that, using the technique of
shooting the object as a reflection in a window, which is what we think
Ed did in the majority of cases. (I'll try to enclose the photos with
this paper.)
If this is a hoax, Ed cannot really be faulted. Hoaxing is not a crime,
and if people buy it, that's their problem. The real fault lies with
the so-called investigators assigned to the case by the Mutual UFO
Network, the world's largest UFO group. It became obvious from the
beginning that this case was MUFON's "baby", and it would brook no
opposition to the idea that the photos were genuine. At one point, an
investigator who openly voiced skepticism about the case was removed
from his post as an officer in MUFON, as an overt retaliation for his
negative comments. From the beginning, the case was touted as "highly
significant" and "perhaps the best case in history," with virtually no
mention of the negative aspects. The witnesses were routinely provided
with details and findings before they could be analyzed, a blatant
violation of procedures. And for nearly a year, Ed's shadowy past was
neatly downplayed. At first all we heard was that he had been arrested
as a teen, then we heard that all it was about was a youthful
"joyride." It was only later that we found out that Ed is a convicted
felon, who served time for forgery. What normally should not be a
germane element in a UFO investigation, became a point of contention
simply because the investigators consistently tried to put the best
spin on the case possible, as if their function were that of PR flacks
and not objective researchers. What else might they have tried to cover
up?
"But what about the other witnesses?"
Well, what about them? Where are they? Where are their photos? At last
count, some 160 people have reported seeing UFOs in the Gulf Breeze
area since this flap began. To our knowledge, photos of the object in
question have been taken only by Ed, his wife, his friend the newspaper
editor, and a shadowy figure known publicly only as "Believer Bill."
Many suspected that "Bill" was yet another pseudonym for Ed (he's used
several during this controversy). While that is not true, it might as
well be. "Bill" is, in reality, a neighbor of Ed's, and a man who makes
no bones of his strong belief that he is in touch with the aliens, whom
he calls "the Elders", on a regular basis. He has recently taken to
posting his views and predictions of the Elders' actions on various
computer networks, including ParaNet. Most significantly, some Para-
Net researchers have uncovered evidence to show that Bill is possibly
connected with an alien contact cult known as "Love & Light", based in
Tennessee. Another known subscriber to the same cult is one Donald Ware
- the MUFON officer in charge of the Gulf Breeze investigation. And
herein lies the possible answer to the one question that has befuddled
the entire UFO community: WHY? IF this is a hoax, what is the
motivation? Ed differs from other UFO "contactees" in that he is
already quite wealthy, and has made no OVERT attempts to spread any
alien homilies of peace and brotherhood. Further, wealthy as he is, he
doesn't quite seem capable of organizing and carrying out a hoax of
this magnitude. Indeed, it was often suspected that some kind of covert
organization was behind the whole thing, yet no one has been able to
point fingers. Nor can we point definitively at this time, but viewed
in the context of a well-organized cult network, with a message of an
impending new age of harmonious alien contact, suddenly many things
connect: motivation, organization, polygraph training, perhaps even
brainwashing.
______________________________________________________________________
ParaNet's philosophy is that by educating members of the media on the
UFO topic, and pointing out the questionable cases, the field in
general gains credibility and the media will be more mindful of those
cases which do bear closer scrutiny. There are enough good, solid,
uncontroversial UFO sighting reports to make a case for the reality of
the phenomenon. Unfortunately they are lost amid a flurry of hoaxes,
unconfirmed rumors, unfounded speculation, and an overall circus atmo-
sphere surrounding the field. If you as a media member do not support
serious UFO research, this may be the reason why. We hope that this
brief has been of use to you, and that in the future, we may be able to
provide information on a more promising and well-documented case.
Either way, please do not hesitate to call on us again.
Thanks,
Jim Speiser
ParaNet
