Mufon ufo journal 1989 4. april


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mufon ufo journal 1989 4. april

  1. 1. MUFON UFO JOURNALNUMBER 252 APRIL 1989Founded1967I". OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF AfC/JFOJVV MUTUAL UFO NETWORK, INC.$3.00Type 1 and type 2 objects photographed simultaneously with stereocameras on May 1,1988."The Scale Remains Unbalanced"SPECIAL GULF BREEZE ISSUE
  2. 2. MUFON UFO JOURNAL(USPS 002-970)(ISSN 0270-6822)103 Oldtowne Rd.Seguin, Texas 78155-4099 U.S.A.DENNIS W. STACYEditorWALTER H. ANDRUS, JR.International Director andAssociate EditorTHOMAS P. DEULEYArt DirectorMILDRED BIESELEContributing EditorANN DRUFFELContributing EditorROBERT H. BLETCHMANPublic RelationsPAUL CERNYPromotion/PublicityMARGE CHRISTENSENPublic EducationREV. BARRY DOWNINGReligion and UFOsLUCIUS PARISHBooks/Periodicals/HistoryT. SCOTT CRAINGREG LONGMICHAEL D. SWORDSSta« WritersTED PHILLIPSLanding Trace CasesJOHN F. SCHUESSLERMedical CasesLEONARD STRINGFIELDUFO Crash/Retrieval.WALTER N. WEBBAstronomyNORMA E. SHORTDWIGHT CONNELLYDENNIS HAUCKRICHARD H. HALLROBERT V. PRATTEditor/Publishers Emeritus(Formerly SKYLOOK)The MUFON UFO JOURNAL ispublished by the Mutual UFONetwork, Inc., Seguin, Texas.Membership/Subscription rates:$25.00 per year in the U.S.A.; $30.00foreign in U.S. funds. Copyright 1989by the Mutual UFO Network. Secondclass postage paid at Seguin, Texas.POSTMASTER: Send form 3579 toadvise change of address to TheMUFON UFO JOURNAL, 103Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas 78155-4099.FROM THE EDITORHeft this 32-page issue of the Journal in your hands. Theadditional weight, for the-most part, comes from Dr. Bruce Mac-cabees thorough, thoughtful analysis of the controversy sur-rounding the Gulf Breeze case, particularly the charge that theprimary witness, "Mr. Ed," may have hoaxed the resulting Pola-roid, 35mm and video pictures that support his remarkable ser-ies of repeat sightings, including alleged abduction(s).While we doubt Dr. Maccabees article will dispel every lin-gering doubt in the minds of many, or heal all the rifts betweenindividual researchers (tempers, apparently, have flared toomuch for that), we do hope it will aid and allow our othermembers and subscribers to reach their own unbiased conclu-sions about this extremely intriguing episode in contemporaryufology.In addition, weve managed to cram in our other regulardepartments, plus a few extras, like Dr. Richard Hainess sug-gested technique for the analysis of UFO-associated sounds. Wehope it doesnt get overlooked in the Gulf Breeze crunch.In this issueTHE SCALE REMAINS UNBALANCED . . . . Bruce Maccabec, Ph.D. 3UFO SOUNDRECOGNITION TECHNIQUE Richard F. Haines, Ph.D. 25LOOKING BACK Bob Gribblc 27IN OTHERS WORDS Lucius Parish 29APRILNIGHTSKY WaltcrWebb 30DIRECTORS MESSAGE Walt Andrus 32Copyright 1989 by the Mutual UFO Network, Inc. (MUFON), 103 Old-towne Road, Seguin, Texas 78155-4099 U.S.A. .ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDNo part of this document may be reproduced in any form by photostat,microfilm, xerograph, or any other means, without the written permissionof the Copyright Owners.The Mutual UFO Network, Inc. is exempt from Federal Income Taxunder Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. MUFON is a pub-licly supported organization of the type described in Section 509(a)(2).Donors may deduct contributions from their Federal Income Tax. In addi-tion, bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts are deductible for Fed-eral estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions ofSections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the code.The contents of the MUFON UFO JOURNAL are determined by the editor, anddo not necessarily represent the official position of MUFON. Opinions of con-tributors are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editor, thestaff, or MUFON. Articles may be forwarded directly to MUFON. Responses topublished articles may be in a Letter to the Editor (up to about 400 words) or ina short article (up to about 2,000 words). Thereafter, the "50% rule" is applied:the article author may reply but will be allowed half the wordage used in theresponse; the responder may answer the author but will be allowed half the wor-dage used in the authors reply, etc. All submissions are subject to editing forstyle, clarity, and conciseness. Permission is hereby granted to quote from thisissue provided not more than 200 words are quoted from any one article, theauthor of the article is given credit, and the statement "Copyright 1989 by theMutual UFO Network, 103Oldtowne Rd., Seguin, Texas 78155" is included.
  3. 3. The Scale Remains UnbalancedBy Bruce MaccabeeA recent article by Richard Halland Willy Smith (H&S) concerningthe Gulf Breeze UFO sightings,Balanc-ing the Scale (reference 1), was writ-ten to "balance the picture by pres-enting a skeptical view, focusing onunanswered questions and investiga-tion that remains to be done before ahoax hypothesis can be ruled out."The article discusses a number ofspecific issues and makes severalgeneral points. The general points are(1) both favorable and unfavorableconclusions about the sightingsreport-ed by Mr. Ed were publicized prema-turely, i.e., before the analysis of thesightings was completed, (2) therehas been insufficient publication ofthe results of the various investiga-tions carried out, not only of Edssightings and photographs, but alsoof the sightings of the other GulfBreeze" witnesses, (3) there is "nega-tive evidence" which reduces thecredibility of Eds reports and sug-gests that Ed and his wife (and alsochildren and a friend and perhapsothers in Gulf Breeze) have contriveda UFO hoax and (4) "the positiveevidence has been reported in greatdetail," but legitimate skeptical ques-tions and issues have received farless attention. It is my consideredattempt to demonstrate.The numerous incidents and pho-tos referred to in this paper havebeen described in considerable detailin reference 2, A History of the GulfBreeze, Florida Sightings which wasfirst published in the MUFON 1988International UFO Symposium Pro-ceedings. A corrected and updatedversion is available from the Fund forUFO Research. The updated versionincludes an analysis of the stereophotos of February 26 and May 1,and also copies of the viewgraphspresented at the Symposium. Manyof the incidents and photos referredto here nave been published inseveral issues of the MUFON UFOJournal, references 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8MUFON UFO Journal, No. 252, April 1989and 9 (March through September,1988).Not Primarily APhotographic CaseBefore beginning my responses tospecific questions I would like tomake general comments regardingthe numerous photographs whichcomprise a very important part of theGulf Breeze sightings. My initial impres-sion (and that of other investigators)was that Eds sightings constituted aprimarily photographic case. In factmost investigators (myself included)initially felt that they could rely uponthe photographic evidence alone tomake or break the case. Therefore I,and others, diligently searched forirregularities and oddities which wouldclearly prove that hoax techniqueswere used in creating the pictures. Icould find no convincing proof. As Isearched, however, I recalled some-thing that I had learned years agowhile studying previous photographicUFO sightings (e.g., Trent, 1950;Mariana film, 1950; Gemini 11, 1966;New Zealand, 1978), namely, that thevalidity or invalidity of photographicreports cannot be based solely upona study of the photos because photo-graphic evidence is "unfairly biased"for the hoax hypothesis. This biascomes about because a single UFOphoto could contain evidence that, byitself, proues the sighting is phony.(For example, there might be a verti-cal linear image above the image of a"UFO" indicating that it was sus-pended by a string or thread; theremight be an image below the UFOimage suggesting that the UFO wassupported from below; there might bea discontinuous variation in bright-ness or color between the edge of theUFO image and the background indi-cating a photo montage; or there mightbe overlapping images indicating adouble exposure.) However, it is mypresent opinion that no single photocould contain evidence which would,by itself, prove a sighting report to bevalid ("a photo does not a UFOmake") because the failure to findevidence of a hoax could mean thatthe hoaxing was done well enough tobe undetectable. A corollary of thisconclusion is that the truth or falsityof a photo which contains no clearevidence of a hoax must be provenusing some other information.If by some other means the photois proven to be a hoax then the factthat the hoax was not detected in thephoto means that the hoaxer waseither very lucky or had access tosophisticated photographic equipmentand had developed an excellent photohoaxing technique.It seems to me that, given enoughequipment and capability any photocould be hoaxed. Therefore it appearsa UFO photo which contains no clearevidence of hoaxing has no "value"other than to provide a reasonablyaccurate depiction of what the wit-ness(es) saw, assuming that the otherinformation obtained from the sight-ing investigation is sufficient to provethat the witness(es) actually did see aUFO.There is another very importantcorollary to this argument: the "bet-ter" a photo is (the more convincingit is) the more difficult it is to fake.Therefore one can properly ask whetheror not the level of technical abilityand the quality of the equipmentneeded to produce the photo wouldbe available to the witness. In orderto answer this question the investiga-tor must (a) study methods by whichphotos can be hoaxed and determinewhether or not the witness was famil-iar with any of these methods and (b)determine whether or not the witnesswould have access to the necessaryequipment. It may be possible toshow that the witness does, indeed, un-derstand the methods of hoax photo-graphy and has access to the equip-ment necessary. If this is true then3
  4. 4. the hoax hypothesis is supported.Alternatively it may be impossible toshow that the witness has neither theknowledge of hoax photograph tech-niques nor the access to the requiredequipment. In this case the hoaxhypothesis is not supported. In thiscase one could state that the photowas probably not hoaxed. (Of course,if it were possible to prove that thewitness had neither knowledge northe necessary equipment, and if itcould be proven that no one hoaxedthe witness, then the hoax hypothesiswould be disproved.)Proper PerspectiveI have presented this general dis-cussion to set Eds photos into theproper perspective. Ed has beenaccused of hoaxing the photos (orhaving an accomplice hoax them) andthis raises the question could he (oran accomplice) have done it? Adetailed study of his photos showsthat they could only be hoaxed usingrather complicated techniques, forexample, by using models in combi-nation with matted double exposures,in combination with reflections inglass or in combination with photom-ontages and rephotography (paste aphoto of a model on a much largerprint of the background scenery andphotograph the combination). I andother investigators have searched forany conclusive evidence that Ed hasany more than a rudimentary know-ledge of photography. We have foundno such conclusive evidence. Furth-ermore, there is no testimonial evi-dence or physical evidence that Edhas had a camera more complicatedthan his old Polaroid (until February,1988, when the MUFON investigatorsgave him a camera to use). This lackof even slightly sophisticated cameraequipment, such as a 35mm variablefocus, variable f/stop, variable shuttertime camera, "bodes ill"for the hoaxhypothesis since it would be likelythat he would have one or moresophisticated cameras if he werefamiliar with photographic techniques.One of Eds acquaintances ("PatrickHanks," who is also a witness to oneof Eds sightings when a photo wasnot taken; Dec. 27, 1987) works in avideo rental store which also accepts4film for developing. Some investiga-tors advanced the idea that perhapsEds photos were created by this per-son using equipment at the store.However, it was subsequently deter-mined that the store sends out thefilm for processing and has no equip-ment of its own. Thus it appears thatEd had neither the knowledge nor theaccess to the equipment necessary tomake his supposed hoax photos. Ofcourse, the failure to find evidence ofphotographic knowledge and capabil-ity is not sufficient evidence to provethat the photos werent hoaxed. Ifthey were, Ed would naturally attemptto conceal any information whichOcould suggest he was capable ofhoaxing them. But, on the otherhand, this line of investigation hasprovided no support for the hoaxhypothesis even though one wouldexpect it to provide some support forthat hypothesis if the photos were, infact, hoaxes by Ed or someone else.Besides Eds photos there are twoother sets of photos which show thesame type of UFO: "Believer Bills"photos that were delivered to theGulf Breeze Sentinel office during theevening of Dec. 22, 1987 and "Janes"photos that were delivered to thenewspaper in late November, 1987.These photos were made with differ-ent types of cameras (110 format and35mm format). The photographershave not revealed their completeidentities, and therefore have notbeen interviewed. It should be possi-ble to establish that these photo-graphers were in collusion with Ed(or that Ed actually took these pho-tos) if all of the Gulf Breeze photosare hoaxes.I have studied Eds photos andhave found no clear evidence ofhoaxing (no strings, no supports,etc.) Yet, there are odd features ofthe UFO images. The operative ques-tion is, do any of these odd featuresprove that the photos are hoaxes, ormight any of these oddities be inher-ent properties of the UFOs them-selves? Many of these features cer-tainly bear discussion (and will bediscussed), but none of these, in myopinion, proues that they are hoaxphotos.Thus I feel that this is not primarilya photographic case because thetruth or falsity of Eds reports mustbe based on non-photographic infor-mation.No Lack of SkepticismHall and Smith have complainedthat there has not been enough skep-ticism about Eds reports on the partof the "pro" investigators. However,to the contrary, the investigatorswere skeptical from the beginning(Walter Andrus initial thought was"shades of Billy Meier," reference 3,page 15). My initial response in hear-ing about the case, in early January(1988), was similar. A few weeks laterI first saw (poor) copies of the firstfive photos and I wasnt impressed. Ipresumed that they were hoaxes andI wasnt interested in studying them.In late January I saw better copies(black and white, 8" * 10" printsmade by Robert Nathan) and I wasimpressed by the lack of image over-lap in the first photo (more on thislater). "Tough double exposure," Ithought. However, I still consideredthem to be hoaxes. It wasnt until Igot a call from Budd Hopkins, nearthe middle of February, 1988, that Ibecame more interested. Budd hadvisited Ed and had gained the impres-sion that neither Ed nor his wife werelying about their encounters (evi-dently the same impression that thelocal investigators had gained in Jan-uary) and he told me that Eds sight-ings could be of considerable impor-tance and suggested that I study thephotographic evidence to see if therewas evidence of a hoax. I was stillskeptical and thought that the localinvestigators were probably being abit soft-headed in even thinking thatthese photos might be valid.Budd also told me that the GulfBreeze sightings (not just Eds sight-ings) had received a lot of pressattention and that there was going tobe a TV documentary on Eds sight-ings. This worried me a lot. I felt thatit was premature to be publicizing so"shaky" a case. I was afraid that afterall the publicity was over the casewould be proven to be a hoax andthen, once again, UFO investigatorswould be the butt of jokes from thepress and skeptics. Although I wasreluctant to get involved because IMUFON UFO Journal, No. 252, April 1989
  5. 5. figured it would be a waste of timeinvestigating a photographic hoaxcase, I decided to go to Floridabefore the major publicity got started.I hoped to be able to resolve the con-troversy (by demonstrating that thephotos had been a hoax) before theTV documentary was completed sothat the expose would not occur afterthe media blitz.My own investigation began onFeb. 19 when I flew to Florida andmet the local investigators and Ed. AsI carried out my investigation overthe next few days I felt the "weight"of the impending press attention andI didnt like it. The press is alwayspushing for answers or at least forquotable statements and this pres-sure hinders the investigation. As Iworked with the local investigatorsand with Ed I found more and morequestions were being raised and fewanswers of the type I sought (provinga hoax) were forthcoming. I wasntable to find immediate proof of ahoax, but neither could I prove thatthe sightings were real. My responseto a press query about my opinion ofthe case was that it was "impressive."I knew that this was certainly true: itwas impressive whether real or ahoax. Because I could arrive at noconclusion I felt even more stronglythat publicity was premature. (Thedocumentary was shown on March4.)Skeptical of the SkepticsI remained skeptical through thespringtime as I worked on the MUFONsymposium paper (ref. 2) and as Icommunicated with Ed and the localinvestigators. However, my skepti-cism was "tempered by reality" as Edcontinually responded to my requestsfor technical information, some ofwhich could have damaged his caseby helping me prove a fraud. I care-fully listened to what Ed was sayingand I checked and cross-checked. Ofcourse, my investigation was not per-fect. "Loose ends" have cropped upsince my report at the MUFON sym-posium. Nevertheless, I could find no"smoking gun," although several skep-tics claimed that they had found sev-eral reasons, both photographic andnon-photographic, to doubt the case.MUFON UFO Journal, No. 252,April 1989I felt that many of their argumentswere weak or just plain wrong and soI became skeptical of the skeptics.Nevertheless I remained skepticalof Eds case until the middle of May,after I had analyzed Eds last photos.These were "SRS" camera stereophotos taken at about 1:15 AM, May1, 1988, just before Ed had a "missingtime" experience (which he reportedto me about twelve hours after itsoccurrence). These stereo photoscontain images of two UFOs of dif-ferent types and sizes and at differentdistances. The more distant UFO("Type 1", about 475 feet away) wascalculated to be quite large (e.g.estimated at over twenty feet acrossthe center section and 14 feet high).It was of the same general type as hehad photographed numerous times inDecember, 1987. The closer, smallerUFO ("Type 3," 132 feet away) wasdifferent: it strongly resembled theUFO he had photographed on Feb-ruary 26 with the Nimslo stereocamera. My calculations showed thatthe size of this type of UFO asdetermined from the SRS cameraphotographs of May 1 was about 2.5feet. Independent calculations for theNimslo camera photos yielded arange of possible sizes from 2.5 to 4feet (the Nimslo camera could notresolve distances as well as the SRScamera). In other words, the calcula-tions for the two cameras agreedupon a size of about 2.5 feet eventhough the distances were very dif-ferent (about 132 feet away on May1, about 40 to 70 feet on Feb. 26)and the cameras were totally differ-ent (the Nimslo uses 35mm film, theouter stereo lenses are separated byabout 2.5 inches and the focal lengthis about 31mm; the SRS camera ismade up of two Polaroid Model 600cameras separated by two feet andthe focal length of each camera isabout 110mm). I was struck by thisagreement in size as i realized the dif-ficulty anyone would have in creatinghoax photos with one type of stereocamera, to say nothing of two differ-ent types. I was also impressed withthe May 1 photos themselves becausethe sighting lines to the UFOs, as deter-mined by identifiable ground lights(lights on a bridge), placed themmore than a hundred feet from thebeach, over the water of Santa Rosasound.This information was presented atthe MUFON symposium although itwas not published in the symposiumproceedings paper because the analy-sis of the May 1 photos and theNimslo photos occurred after thepaper was completed. However, thisinformation is included in ref. 2.Limits of DisbeliefBy May 1 my skepticism of Edsstory was reaching its limit for manyreasons including, but not limited to,the following: (a) Eds previous SRScamera stereo photos of March 17and 20 (references 2 and 6) thatstretched the photographic hoax hy-pothesis to its limits, (b) the fact thathe passed two lie detector tests givenby a skeptical examiner (references 2and 5), (c) the failure of the localinvestigators to find any proof of ahoax despite havingEd "under a mic-roscope" for several months, (d) thediscovery of an unexplained circulararea of dead grass, about 14 feet indiameter, in the field behind hishouse (references 2, 5 and 6), (e) thetestimony of his wife (ref. 2), (f) theDecember 28 videotape which con-tains no evidence of a hanging model(ref. 2), (g) the reports of numeroussightings, including some with photo-graphs, by other people in the area;several of these occurred on some ofthe same days that Ed reported sight-ings (references 2, 3 and 4), (h) thesighting flap which occurred in Marchand April in Gulf Breeze (ref. 2), (i)Eds obvious distress as he describedto me, only twelve hours after theevent, his May 1 sighting and missingtime experience of the night before,(j) my failure to find any reason inEds background or present socialstatus for him to want to create aUFO hoax and (k) his continualcooperation in carrying out my re-quests for information, measurementsand camera tests, even though manyof these requests could have resultedin the discovery of discrepancies thatwould be indicativeof a hoax.Yet, in spite of all of these reasons Iremained skeptical until I completedthe calculations that established theidentity between the small ("Type 3")
  6. 6. UFO in May 1 photos and the UFOin the Nimslo photos, as describedabove. The result of these calcula-tions surprised me. I spent some timetrying to figure out how this resultcould have been hoaxed. I did dis-cover how to hoax this result, butthen I realized that it would requiremuch more technical capability thaneven "normally sophisticated" hoaxtechniques require (because these arestereo pictures). I subsequently reject-ed the idea that Ed or an accomplicecould have done it.This was the "last straw." The lim-its of my skepticism had now beensurpassed. To be honest with myself Ihad to admit that I had not been ableto find proof of a hoax and, instead,had found evidence that would beextremely difficult to hoax, assumingthat a hypothetical hoaxer wouldeven think of trying to hoax stereophotos. To be honest with myself Ihad to accept the idea that Ed wastelling the truth (along with his wife,family and other members of the GulfBreeze community). In other words, Iconcluded that his sightings werereal.At the MUFON symposium I pres-ented arguments which tended tosupport Eds claims so that, as Istated in the symposium proceedings,his sightings would not be rejectedprematurely (i.e., before conclusiveproof of a hoax was discovered).However, I did not state my conclu-sion because / mas still allowing forthe possibility that someone mightturn up conclusive proof that would"break" the case. (However, no onedid come forward with conclusiveproof of a hoax.)Subsequent to the MUFON sym-posium I learned of the results ofpersonality tests administered by aclinical psychologist, Dr. Dan C.Overlade, who has publicly statedthat Ed is normal by conventionalstandards (see the article followingref. 1 in the December MUFONJournal). I also learned that, aftermany hours of hypnotic regression byDr. Overlade, Ed had described theabduction of May 1 and five previousabduction experiences (including oneon Dec. 17, 1987). Thus Ed hasturned out to be a "classic" abductee.Dr. Overlade told me that, in his6opinion, Ed believes what he is say-ing is true.I also had a long discussion withHarvey McLaughlin,the polygraphist.He told me that, in his opinion, Edwas not a sociopath (a type of personwho is capable of passing a polygraph[lie detector] test even though lying)and that Ed was not on drugs whenhe took the tests. McLaughlin secondedOverlades opinion that Ed thoroughlybelieves that he is telling the truth. Inorder to get an independent opinionof the polygraph results I asked alawyer friend of mine who is familiarwith the use of the polygraph to tryto determine whether or notMcLaugh-lins test was conclusive. After heinterviewed Mr. McLaughlin he toldme that the test was probably asconclusive as any such test could beconsidering that Mr. McLaughlin hadno previous experience in dealingwith UFO matters. (Mr. McLaughlinhad contacted Don Ware and Cha-rles Flannigan to ask them for ques-tions to use during the examination.)The lawyer agreed with McLaughlinsconclusion that the test results showthat Ed believes he is telling the truth.I also learned that Ed has passed apsychological stress evaluator test(PSE) carried out by Michael Kradzof Dektor Counterintelligence andSecurity, Inc. The test was carriedout on several taped conversations inwhich Ed was discussing his expe-riences. The PSE machine picked upsome stress when Ed discussed hisinitial story about being an interme-diary for a "Mr. X" who, Ed originallyclaimed, took the photos. Since thisstory was, in fact, a lie (Ed took thephotos, not "Mr. X") it is not surpris-ing that some stress should bedetected here. The rest of the inter-view produced no reactions thatcaused the examiner to doubt Edsanswers.The same PSE examiner studiedthe taped interview of "Patrick Hanks."He found noticeable stress at onlytwo points: when Patrick discussedhis feeling that the reason that theUFO disappeared when Ed saw him(Patrick) is that the craft can sensethings through Ed (see ref. 2), andwhen Patrick discussed the withhold-ing of his real name and signed hispseudonym. In the first instance anycommunication by the craft wouldhave to be pure speculation onPatricks part, and such speculationmight well produce some stress in hisvoice. In the second instance he wasintentionally "lying" by signing anunreal name to the sightingform. Therest of the interview, including Mr.Hanks discussion of the sighting andof the UFO, produced no evidentstress, indicating that Patrick believedwhat he was saying.Now, over a year after the sight-ings began, what appears to be themost important evidence against thesightings has been compiled and pub-lished by H&S. The rest of this paperwill discuss in detail the questionsraised by H&S. I will show why, inmy opinion, this "evidence" is insuffi-cient to contradict the mass of evi-dence which supports Eds claims. Iwill show why "the scale remainsunbalanced" in Eds favor.Premature PublicityI agree with the criticism by Halland Smith that there was a "rush tojudgement" by both sides. I havealready recounted my distress atlearning in February, 1988, that a TVdocumentary had been planned onEds sightings even before the photoswere analyzed. This "pro" publicitywas clearly premature.Also premature was the publicrelease, in the latter half of April, of astatement that Eds reports were"most probably" a hoax. This .state-ment was made while I was still com-piling my report for the MUFONsymposium. The investigators whomade the statement (e.g., RobertBoyd, Ray Stanford) had not read myanalyses of the stereo photos, whichtended to rule out a hoax, nor didthey have any of the other volume oftestimonial evidence that I had com-piled and, of most importance, theyhad no good photographic analysis tosupport their statements. Neverthe-less they announced to the local Pen-sacola press and TV that Eds sight-ings constituted a hoax ("News Release"dated April 18, 1988, ref. 10). Rayeven wrote two long papers, basedon his analysis of weather conditionsand upon his analysis of the directionof motion of the clouds in Eds firstthree photos, that purported to proveMUFON UFO Journal, No. 252, April 1989
  7. 7. that the first five photos could nothave been taken in the order Edreported (A Strange Breeze in GulfBreeze and A Strange Breeze in GulfBreeze, Part Two, ret. 11). On April20, WEAR, the Pensacola TV station,ran a short news story in which Stan-fords paper and the CUFOS pressrelease were discussed. A phoneconversation with Ray was shown onTV in which he explained how theweather reports and the images ofclouds contradicted Eds report. Alsoin that news story the Mayor, EdGrey, stated his opinion that Edssightings were hoaxes. The fact thatthe mayor was given the opportunityto state his opinion on TV was adirect result of the CUFOS pressrelease and Stanfords paper. Mr.Grey indicated that he was dismayedthat Gulf Breeze was being made thebutt of jokes and getting a "badimage" because of the UFO sightings.He further stated "I believe (that)with us going on record that webelieve it is a hoax that image will beturned around and we will get backto the image of it (Gulf Breeze) beinga good quality place to live." Evi-dently Mr. Grey attached more impor-tance to the "image" of Gulf Breezethan to the necessity of establishingthe truth or falsehood of the manyUFO sightings in his fair city.It is "amusing" (actually depressingto one who believes that, to have anyvalue in UFO investigation, UFOskepticism should be credible) tonote that, on the very same TV showwhich presented Rays claims hisargument was refuted by Don Warewho showed that Ray had used thewrong sighting direction in his analy-sis. In the April 21 issue of the Pen-sacola News Journal an article basedon an interview with Ray on April 20quoted Ray as saying "If Im wrong, Iwill completely resign from the field."However, Ray did not resign. Insteadhe admitted on WEAR TV that hisanalysis was wrong because it wasbased on incorrect sighting directioninformation and upon partially incor-rect weather information. (Ray repeatedhis opinion that the sightings were ahoax, however. Rays retraction wasa result of investigationand analysisofof weather data by Ware and RobertOechsler. Subsequent analyses byMUFON UFO Journal, No. 252, April 1989Boyd and myself confirmed the Ware-Oechsler conclusion that the cloudmotion is not inconsistent with whatis shown in the photos.)General Basis For SkepticismH&S have pointed out that theanswers to certain fundamental ques-tions have never been published. Thefirst question they raise is what didEd know about UFOs before Nov.1987? What books had he read? Hadhe read Communion?Ed says that he has read no UFObooks and has had no more than apassing interest in the subject such asone might get from seeing CloseEncounters of the Third Kind, ET,and such movies. The investigatorsasked him this during the initial inter-views. When I visited his house inFebruary, 1988, I looked at the booksin his library. I saw nothing thatremotely resembled a UFO book. Eddid attend the MUFON symposium inJune 1988 and has taken more of aninterest in the subject, as might beexpected. However, the local investi-gators asked Ed, in January, 1988, tonot read any UFO books and Ed hascomplied with this request. He statesthat he has not read Communion(nor Intruders) nor any of the otherbooks presently on the market. Hehas never given to me any indicationthat he has any background in thefield of UFO studies and instead hasrepeatedly asked questions whichalmost any UFO researcher couldanswer "at the drop of a hat" (Iwould hope).What is Eds background andcharacter, including his reputation asrevealed by investigations? The sim-ple answer to this is, highly favorable.It is unfortunate from the point viewof the investigators that Ed hasrequested anonymity for himself andhis family. This means that theMUFON investigators have had towithhold his name from publication,although Ed is known to all the inves-tigators who have been involved,including Smith and Hall. Because Edis a well known personality in hiscommunity his request foranonymityhas also prevented the MUFONinvestigators from discussing his bus-iness. (Although Dr. Smith broke thisconfidence and publicized Eds nameand business at a late summer UFOconference, MUFON continues tohonor this confidence.) In order tomaintain this confidence, despite thedifficulty this places me in, I willsimply say that Eds business consistsof performing a certain type of per-sonal service for his customers. Thisservice is quite expensive and suc-cess in his business depends uponhim being able to gain the completeconfidence of his customers and toconvince them of his capability toperform the service to the customerssatisfaction for the price agreed upon.Any suggestion that he might beunreliable or incompetent to performthe service would be sufficient tocause a potential customer to requestthe service from one of Eds competi-tors. This is one reason that Ed hasrequested anonymity. The main rea-son, however, is to avoid the impactof publicity on his family.) Eds cus-tomers have been appreciative of hisservices. That is, he has been verysuccessful because he has done hisjob well. Because his services havebeen in demand he has becomewealthy, by normal standards, fromhis work. His success in this businessattests to his truthful personality (hewould not get far in his business bymaking grandiose promises and thenfailing to meet those promises). Fromthe point of view of UFO investiga-tion his business success provides aprime reason why Ed would not wantto be in any way involvedwith UFOs.Although Dr. Smith has suggestedotherwise, the fact is that Ed is aprominent personality in his commun-ity. He is active in city affairs and infund raising for worthy projects, mostnotably projects oriented toward theyouth of his community. He has per-sonally donated thousands of dollarsor time and money to the communityand has been personally thanked bythe Mayor several times for hisgenerosity.H&S state that "Little indicationhas been given of a rigorous study ofEd ... from a skeptical viewpoint."Whereas it is true that not much hasbeen published which is skeptical ofEd, the fact is that the investigatorsdid investigate Ed. Furthermore, al-though the "negative evidence" referredto by H&S was not published, it was7
  8. 8. known to the investigators and it wasanalyzed.Ed refused to participate in a back-ground check, but he made no effortto prevent one. Furthermore, he didprovide background information whichwas checkable. Intensive characterchecking was done by Donald Ware,Charles Flannigan, Robert Reid andGary Watson in the early spring of1988. Don Ware even had a "spy" atEds house numerous times startingin late November, 1987, because hesuspected as early as late Novemberthat the first five photos were takenby Ed and not "Mr. X." This "spy"was a friend of Eds son. He attendedmany of the parties for teenagerswhich Ed has on a monthly basis. Atvarious times he was in every roomof Eds house and was a witness tomany party activities. He reportedback to Dan Ware that he foundnothing unusual in the house and nounusual activities at the parties, andcertainly nothing remotely related toa UFO hoax. Robert Boyd and WillySmith were informed of the failure ofthe "spy" to find any evidence ofUFO hoaxing on the same day thatthey visited their "secret witness"(Mr. NM, a teenager). However, theychose to ignore the findings of the"spy."Another intensive character checkwas done in late December, 1988, byRobert Oechsler on behalf of theFund for UFO Research. Bob talkedto several people who had employedEd. They were fully satisfied. He alsotalked to others in the communitywho knew Ed, as have I. Everyonehas given Ed a positive characterreference.Eds character has been severelytested four times by skeptical profes-sionals: twice by Mr. McLaughlinusing the polygraph, once by Mr.Kradz using a PSE device and onceby Dr. Overlade using a battery ofpsychological tests. He has beenfound to be entirely normal. Thesetests have found no evidence thatwould suggest that Ed had perpe-trated a UFO hoax, or any hoax,either for profit or for fun.Ed attended college where he learnedthe basics required to perform the ser-vice he provides. He has stated thathe did not complete the course work8(leaving after three years) because ofa "joyriding incident." That was twentyyears ago. Since then he has been asuccessful business man who has awife and two children.Ed will eventually come forwardpublicly and then each person canmake up his own mind as to Edscharacter andcredibility.MUFON InvestigationHow thorough and objective hasthe MUFON investigation been? H&Ssuggest that the MUFON investiga-tion was not sufficiently thorough,although ref. 2 (based on the investi-gations by the local investigators andmyself) was "admirable." (I agree!)They point out that in a complexcase like this with its potentially greatsignificance, "additional analysis andreplication is essential." I agree com-pletely. It is certainly true that not allof the questions were answered bythe initial MUFON investigations.Yet, things are not as "bad" asH&S portray them. The investigationby the local MUFON members andby myself has been supplemented bythe investigations of numerous otherswho are residents of the area or whohave traveled to Gulf Breeze to try todiscover "the truth." Most notable ofthe latter are Walter Andrus (whohas visited Gulf Breeze three times),Budd Hopkins (who has visited threetimes), James Falvo, George Filer,James Moseley and Robert Oechsler.Mr. Andrus reports on the case havebeen published in the MUFON Jour-nal (references 3-9). Budd Hopkinshas communicated his findings pri-vately. Mr. Falvo talked to a numberof people in the area and foundnothing to contradict the results ofthe MUFON investigation. His find-ings were reported in a letter (ref.12). Mr. Filer, an ex-Armyintelligenceofficer and a State Section Directorfor MUFON in New Jersey, traveledto Gulf Breeze where he talked tonumerous "people on the street" aswell as to Ed. Not only did he find noreason to disbelieve Eds claims, hefurther found out that virtually eve-ryone in Gulf Breeze either has seena UFO such as Ed reported or knowssomeone who has (ref. 13). Mr.Mose.ey spent 16 hours interviewingEd on Dec. 16 and 17, 1988. Althoughhe had been very skeptical of Edsreports (and had publicly called thesightings a probable hoax), he foundno proof that Ed had perpetrated ahoax and he even began to questionthe accuracy of Eds critics (ref. 14).The results of Mr. Oechslers investi-gation were similar to those of Andrus,Hopkins, Falvo, Filer and Moseley.He found strong evidence of Edsgood character and good standing inthe community (ref. 14).The local TV and Pensacola news-paper reporters were on the scenecontinually. Mark Curtis of WEARTV conducted numerous interviewswith the witnesses, including Ed, withthe local investigators and with RayStanford and Robert Boyd. Curtisinvestigated various aspects of thesightings and did a rather extensivephotographic evaluation which includedseveral attempts, using several pho-tographers, to duplicate Eds photos.(He failed.) Reporters DavidRichard-son and Mike Burke investigated thesightings for the Pensacola NewsJournal. They confronted Ed withone of Dr. Smiths calculations whichpurportedly showed that Ed had been"lying" about the distances to theUFOs in one photo. When Ed pro-tested that Smiths calculated dis-tance was wrong the reporters mea-sured it and found that it was,indeed, wrong. (This made themskeptical of Dr. Smiths calculations.)They, too, found no evidence thatproved that Eds sightings were ahoax.Several "documentarians" have travel-ed to Gulf Breeze. Most notable ofthese are the "Unsolved Mysteries"TV crew (Kris Palmer and Asso-ciates), and the "UFO Cover-UpLive" TV crew (headed by TracyTorme). These people interviewed Edand numerous other witnesses. Theywere impressed with Ed and disco-vered, as had many investigatorsbefore them, that Ed is far from alonein reporting sightings. Consistentwith what I reported in ref. 2 (thatthere were many witnesses in thearea), the Unsolved Mysteries filmedabout 30 people who admitted to hav-ing seen a UFO. They featured two ofthe most priminent Gulf Breeze civili-ans, Dr. Fenner McConnell (the dis-MUFON UFO Journal, No. 252, April 1989
  9. 9. trict coroner) and his wife as theydescribed their sighting of July, 1988.They found no evidence that Edssightings were a hoax.Tracy Torme talked with manywitnesses, including Ed. He becamethoroughly convinced of the realty ofthe sightings. During the UFO Cover-Up Live TV show there were severaldozen witnesses present in the audit-orium where the Gulf Breeze seg-ment wasfilmed.A TV station from Miami alsoinvestigated Eds reports in the fall of1988. This TV station presented ashow that was completely from theskeptical viewpoint. Featured on theshow was a photo which, it wasclaimed, indicated that Ed knew howto make double exposure photos withhis Polaroid camera. I will discuss thisphoto later on. However, for thepresent suffice it to say that the pic-ture does not prove that Ed knewhow to make a double exposure. Thereporters who put this show togetherwere not able to find any convincingproof that any of the Gulf Breezesightings were a hoax.The point of this discussion is that,although the local MUFONinvestiga-tion was definitely weak (because of alack of manpower in the face of anextremely large number of reports), itwas supplemented by many otherinvestigators from various professionalbackgrounds. In a sense Ed, and thewhole of Gulf Breeze, has been undera "microscope" for over a year now.One would suspect that if a hoaxwere involved someone would havefound some conclusive proof some-where. The fact is that, after a yearof investigation by numerous people,no one (and this includes the skepti-cal investigators) has yet steppedforward to say "I can prove that thephotos and sightings are a hoax."How do the Gulf Breeze incidentsfit in with UFO history? Here H&Sargue that "basically they dont fitvery well," i.e., the incidents reportedin Gulf Breeze fall outside the normof the historical phenomenon. In par-ticular they suggest that Eds sight-ings and photos are so inconsistentwith UFO history that they probablyconstitute a hoax.Actually this argument is a doubleedged sword: it "curs both ways."MUFON UFO Journal, No. 252, April 1989One could just as well argue that ahoaxer would attempt to make hisreports consistent with UFO historyin order to be believed. Thereforeone could argue with equal force thatbecause Eds sighting reports are sounusual they are probably real.There is no doubt that H&S arepartially right: certain aspects of thesightings do fall outside the norm,particularly the number of photostaken by one person. However, cer-tain major aspects of the Gulf Breezesightings are consistent with UFOhistory even though they are unusual:• Theoccurrence ofa large numberof sightings in a short period of timein a small region is called a concen-tration. Excluding Eds sightings, thesightings of the other Gulf Breezeresidents are unusual only in regardto the duration of this concentrationwhich ran basically from November(1987) through the middle of April(1988).• It is true that the number ofsightings by Ed himself (and hisfam-ily) is anomalous from the historicalpoint of view and, in fact, would havebeen considered grounds for dismiss-ing them ten or more years ago.(Repeaters are not "welcome" inUFO history.) However, in recentyears we have learned from abduc-tion experience reports that repeti-tion is the rule rather than the excep-tion. Historically, i.e., ten, twenty,thirty, etc. years ago such an ideawould have been considered heresy.However, the work of Budd Hopkinsand Dave Jacobs, as well as ofnumerous other abduction researchers(and abductees such as Whitley Streiber)has shown that, not only might a per-son have an abduction experienceseveral times in a lifetime, but evenseveral times in a year. As I havealready pointed out, Dr. Overladeswork with Ed has shown that he hashad several abduction experiences inhis lifetime, including the experienceon May 1, and a (recently revealed)experience on December 17, 1987.Thus, as an abductee, Eds multiplesightings are less "outside the norm."• Where the Gulf Breeze sightingsclearly fall outside the norm of acceptedsightings is in the number of photo-graphs. Previously, investigations ofpeople who have taken a largenumber of UFO photos have turnedup highly suspicious photographicand non-photographic evidence thatstrongly points toward a hoax. ThusEds case immediately came undersuspicion. However, Eds reports act-ually fall outside the norm for hoax-ing. Previously large numbers of pho-tos have been produced by UFO"contactees" who have had somepseudo-religious message to give tomankind (from the "Space Brothers,"of course). If Ed had made any effortto promote his sightings, to reveal"new and important information fromthe Space Brothers" or if he haddone any of the other things thathave been done by "contactees" inthe past (report on trips to otherplanets or accept donations from "fol-lowers," for example) the local inves-tigators would have dismissed Edssightings early in the spring of 1988.However, there are no contacteeaspects to Eds reports. Since Edsreports are not consistent with thehistory of UFO photo hoaxes onecannot argue that his sightings mustbe a hoax because he took lots ofpictures. (Ed is clearly not a contactee.)Besides the fact of the unusuallylarge number of photos by one per-son, there is also the fact that thedepicted UFOs are highly unusualand do not "fit in with UFO history."As H&S have pointed out, thedepicted UFOs have even been called"hokey," but this description couldapply to many UFOs which are con-ventionally accepted (e.g., the Trentphotos — McMinnville, Oregon, 1950— in which the UFO has a "pole" onthe top which is off center and tilted).But is this a reason to reject theirreality in favor of a hoax? I think not.A hoaxer, it would seem to me (as Istated above) would be more likely tomake his UFOs fit in with main-stream ufohgy rather than be unique.Certainly many "acceptable designs"would be availablein the literature.I conclude that the fact that Edssightings fall outside the norms ofUFO history is not convincing proofthat they constitute a hoax.The PhotographsBesides referring to "hokiness" as areason for questioning Eds photos, H&S9
  10. 10. have also pointed out that severalseem "stagey," as if constructed forthe benefit of the viewers. However,these photos are consistent with theverbal reports which accompany themand the verbal reports do not suggest"staginess."At any rate, although, as H&Shave said, experience certainly "doescount for something," "hokiness" and"staginess" are subjective impressions.As H&S point out, "intuitiveimpres-sions of UFO photographs do not,alone, constitute science; objectiveanalysis must be done." The firstphotos which they discuss analyticallyare #22 and #23 which were, accord-ing to Ed, his wife and his daughter,taken by Eds wife. Number 23, inparticular could not have been takenby Ed inasmuch as Ed appears in thephoto (in a towel). The story behindthese photos is summarized in refer:ences 2 and 5. H&S quote ZanOverall as claiming that "the picturecontains convincing evidence to himthat the object was flashlit and modelsized." Mr. Overall and I have had arunning discussion of these picturessince he first asked me about them atthe MUFON symposium. I had, indeed,considered the possibility that a modelhad been used to make these photos,just as I had considered the possibil-ity for all of the photos. In these pho-tos, as in the others, I also had con-sidered the possibility, favorable toEd, that the illumination was fromthe object itself. If one could provethat the main body of the UFO inphotos 22 and 23 (and in the others)was not luminous (i.e., not a sourceof light) then it must have been illum-inated by an external source. (Note:no one questions the idea that thebrightest parts of the depicted UFOs,i.e., the "top light" and the "bottomring" must be sources of light; thisargument only applies to the dimmercentral body parts.) The most likelyexternal source for photos 22 and 23would be the camera flash itselfwhich illuminated foreground featuresthat appear in the pictures. I askedEd to carry out a series of tests todetermine just what the range of theflash was. Experiments with his oldPolaroid showed that it was about 40feet at the most. (I carried out similartests and found results consistent10with what Ed reported.) Based onthese experiments it appears that, toget an image of the main body of theUFO as bright as it appears on thephotos using flash illumination only, itwould require that the UFO be within20 feet or so of the camera. In thiscase the UFO would be small, i.e.model-sized.The preceding discussion says thatif the main body of the UFO werenot luminous then it was probably anearby model. Therefore the keyquestion is could the main body havebeen luminous and therefore beyondthe range of the flash? H&S pointedout in a footnote that I have disco-vered evidence that the UFOs whichEd photographed are self-luminous.This evidence comes from two sour-ces: first, the December 28 videotape,and second, the March 17 stereophotographs (references 2, 3 and 6).The videotape clearly proves that thecentral body of the "Type 1" craftthat Ed photographed could be butdid not have to be luminous. In thefirst half of the videotape the centralbody is easily seen between the "toplight" and the very bright "bottomring" lights. In the second half of thevideotape the central body is invisibleeven though the top light,and bottomring are clearly visible.The second element of proof thatthe central body of the UFO can beluminous is contained in the March17 stereo photos. The distance to theobject, as calculated from the stereoeffect, is estimated to be well over130 feet and probably even greaterthan 180 feet. Yet, in spite of thisgreat distance, which is far beyondthe distance at which the flash couldhave any observable effect on thefilm image, the central portion is(barely) visible.Admittedly this second element ofproof assumes that the March 17photos were not, themselves, some-how hoaxed. However, I have inves-tigated the circumstances under whichthey were taken and have concludedthat under the conditions pertainingat the time, ro fake stereo photos ofa hoax object almost in the presenceof several people and to have thesephotos develop as these people watchedwould require photographic capabili-ties far beyond those of most profes-sional photographers and certainly farbeyond any capability that Ed hasdemonstrated.The "discovery" that the UFOsphotographed by Ed can have lumi-nous bodies is not a major discoveryabout UFOs themselves. For yearsluminous shapes have been reportedduring nighttime sightings. Thus "EdsUFOs," although shaped differentlyfrom previous UFOs, have this asone of several characteristics incommon with other UFOs, withsilence, maneuverability and highspeed travel being other commoncharacteristics.H&S have pointed out that the firstnine photos deserve particular atten-tion because they "established" thephotographic context of Eds sight-ings. Several of these photographshave been subjected to computer-aided analysis, as H&S have sug-gested (the computer analysis wasdone late last spring, long before theH&S suggestion). They have alsobeen analyzed extensively using con-ventional photo enhancement tech-niques. H&S have claimed to find"several problems with the early pho-tographs." In particular,they say that"Nos. 1 and 7 show UFO imagesclosely adjacent to and possibly ouer-lapping a foreground tree. An over-lapping image would suggest a doubleexposure." (my emphasis) Computeranalysis done by Dr. Mark Carlattoof The Analytical Sciences Corpora-tion (Boston) failed to find any indica-tion that the images of the UFOsoverlapped the tree images in eitherof these photos. This finding is con-sistent with what I determined fromconventional analysis and it was con-firmed again by Robert Oechsler whohas done an extensive photo analysisusing conventional techniques. Dr.Robert Nathan at JPL also failed tofind evidence of image overlap (seeAppendix 1).The fact that the UFO images donof overlap the tree images does notrule out a hoax, but it does make thehoax much more difficult. To use adouble exposure technique to createone image "behind" another wouldrequire a matted double exposure inwhich an opaque object of the sameoutline shape as the UFO (a "cutout")is used to block the portion of theMUFON UFO Journal, No. 252, April 1989
  11. 11. background where the UFO wouldappear while the exposure of thebackground scene is made. This isquite difficult to do well even under"laboratory" conditions such as in aprofessional studio.The "double exposure" was onephotographic technique investigatedexperimentally by Mark Curtis ofWEAR in Pensacola and by severalother photographers who helped him.They found that to produce a doubleexposure hoax of a UFO silhouettedagainst the clear sky was quite easy.But to make the UFO appear to bebehind the tree using the doubleexposure method was beyond theircapability. (Curtis also investigatedthe "reflection on a windowpane"technique and found that even moredifficult.)H&S have stated that "Photos 1-3show a surprisingly invariant back-ground for allegedly having beentaken hurridly with a Polaroid cameraby someone who had to lower andraise the camera between exposures.Contrary to the witnesss story, thissuggests the use of a tripod or otherstabilizing surface." This is a not-well-thought-out criticism because it iseasily explained. Furthermore, thestatement is wrong in its basic claimthat the background is "invariant." Byexamining the parallax effect (positionshift) between the image of the leftedge of the nearby (ca. 4 feet) treeand the image of the distant (ca. 70feet) light pole one can easily see thatthe second picture was taken from aposition that was a few inches (atleast) ahead (i.e., west) of the firstpicture, and that the third picturewas taken from a location slightlybehind the second. Thus the horizon-tal position was not invariant. Thevertical position was, however, quiteconstant. But this does not mean thatthe camera was on a tripod. Since Edsighted through the camera beforeeach shot he obviously placed theviewfinder to his eye. He did notreport bending over or stretchingupward to take a picture. It is there-fore reasonable to theorize that hiseye, and thus the camera, was alwaysthe same height to within a fractionof an inch, even if he did raise andlower the camera. The obvious corol-lary of this is that the camera wasMUFON UFO Journal, No. 252, April 1989always at the same height when thepicture was taken. Consequently theclaim that the camera must havebeen mounted on a tripod is not sup-ported by the pictures nor by the"theory" that Eds eyeball would havebeen at the same height for the firstthree pictures.(When I suggested this theory asan explanation for the constancy ofthe position of the camera to RobertOechsler he was skeptical. He testedthis "constant eyeball height" theoryduring his December investigation.He asked Ed to take three picturesfrom the same location on his frontdoorstep from a point very close towhere his UFO pictures had beentaken. Ed did not move between thepictures. One can see from the paral-lax between the nearby tree and thedistant light pole and wires that thealtitude and position of the camerawere constant to within an inch eventhough Ed raised and lowered thecamera between pictures.)H&S have claimed that there are"vertical line markings suggestive ofsupports for a UFO model" thatappear in some early photos (in par-ticular, photo #5). These lines havebeen analyzed extensively using con-ventional and computer-aided tech-niques and have been found to beflaws in the development mechanismand chemical process. They arefound in non-UFO pictures as well asat various locations in some of EdsUFO pictures. The lines usually donot intersect the UFO images, but insome pictures they do. The line inphoto #5 in particular runs from thetop of the picture to the bottom andpasses right through the image of theUFO. As H&S pointed out in a foot-note, computer aided analysis hasmade it clear that this is a film flawand not a supporting thread for theUFO (see Appendix 1). (Robert Nathanat JPL told me that he, too, wasunable to find evidence of supportsfor the UFOs.)H&S have claimed that non-symme-tries in the images of the first UFOs,in particular the irregularly spaced"windows," could "easily" be "inter-preted as evidence of a distortedimage due to photographic trickeryor a crude model." The "distortion"they refer to is the irregular "window"spacing in some of the UFO images.This irregular spacing is not likely aresult of photographic trickery sinceany optical effect which could pro-duce that magnitude of distortion ofthe "window" position would producelarge, easily noticed distortions of thewhole UFO image. The irregularitiescould be attributed to a poorly mademodel, although from what I know ofEd it seems unlikely to me that if Edwere to make a model it would bepoorly made. The irregularity couldalso be an actual feature of the UFOas viewed from different angles, orperhaps these rectangular dark patcheswhich have been loosely referred toas "windows" do not have fixed loca-tions on the craft, i.e., they mightmove left or right from nominal posi-tions. (They might not be "windows"as we think of windows as being partof the physical structure of a craftand therefore fixed in position relativeto the structure of the craft.)I reiterate what I stated in ref. 2:we dont know what UFOs are sup-posed to look like. No one can saythat a UFO cannot have irregularitiesor non-symmetries, just as our owntransportation devices have non-sym-metries, (as well as symmetries).From the point of view of establishingor "disestablishing" Eds photos asreal the operative question is, are thenon-symmetries sufficient ground toprove that the photos are hoaxes? Inthe absence of any information thatwould strongly support Eds case andif there were other substantial evi-dence, photographic and non-photo-graphic that pointed toward a hoax,these non-symmetries could be adeciding factor in calling the photos ahoax. But, in view of the voluminousother positive evidence that supportsEds claims and the lack of convinc-ing contrary evidence, I think not.H&S quote Robert Boyd as sayingthat Photo 6 contains "strong evi-dence of double exposure." I pre-sume that he has based his statementon my claim in ref. 2 that "Photo 6appears to provide pictorial evidencethat argues for such a hoax." I madethis statement because in photo 6 theimages of the distant power wires andstreetlight are somewhat smeared inthe vertical direction whereas theimage of the UFO does not appear to11
  12. 12. be verticallysmeared by image motion,although it is a bit fuzzy around theedges. The different amounts of motionsmear in this picture could have beencreated in only two ways: (a) (the realpicture hypothesis) the camera pannedwith the UFO as it moved (downw-ard) while a single exposure wasmade, or (b), (the double exposurehoax hypothesis) the camera movedupward (or downward) slightly as thefirst (or second) exposure was madeof the background but was steady asthe second (or first) exposure of theUFO model was made. If there wereno other photographic evidence inthis case then the double exposurehypothesis would be preferred andthe photo might well be thrown outon this account. However, there areequally impressive "smeared imagedata" which argue againsf a hoax. Inphoto 1 the motion smear of theimage of the UFO is in the samedirection and has the same magni-tude as the smear of the background(as determined mainly by the smearof the streetlight image) as nearly ascan be determined. This is easy toexplain if the picture were a singleexposure. If the picture were a dou-ble exposure it would mean that thecamera was vibrated in exactly thesame way (by hand motion or forwhatever reason) during both expo-sures; not an impossibility,but highlyunlikely for a hand-held camera.Photo 4 also is smeared with thesmear of the UFO image and thesmear of the image of the light beingidentical. Thus in my opinion theimage smear data are a wash: onephoto (#6) has differential smearsindicative of a double exposure andtwo photos (#1, #4) have identicalsmears indicative of a single expo-sure. Since the differential smear in asingle picture can be explained with-out resort to the hoax hypothesis,i.e., it can be explained as a result ofpanning of the camera as the UFOmoved, it is not possible to use photo6 to prove that the photos arehoaxes."Road Shot" & Other PhotosOn January 13, Ed reported toCharles Flannigan that he had beenconfronted by a UFO and alienswhile driving along route 191-B the12evening before. The events are sum-marized in references 2 and 3. In ref.2, I erroneously claimed that thephoto was taken from a location tothe right of the center of the cab. Eddid not remember it that way (herecalled being just to the right of thesteering wheel), but I disputed hisrecollection basing my conclusion onmy experiments at the site. However,an extensive analysis of reflections inthe hood of the truck, done after theMUFON Symposium, has provedthat Ed was correct: the photo wastaken from a location to the left ofthe center and it shows the left handwindshield wiper.H&S stated that, after the whiteillumination came through the wind-shield and caused Ed to swerve thetruck off to the left side of the road,he "reached for his shotgun behindthe seat, then changed his mind andtook the photograph (my emphasis)."Actually he didnt "change his mind."As stated in ref. 2, he pulled the seatforward, grasped the shotgun andplaced it on the seat beside him.After he had the shotgun he reachedfor the camera and took the picture.Although Ed didnt report any rainor effects of rain during his encounteron the road, Walter Andrus (ref. 3)conjectured the bright spots in thephoto might have been caused byrain drops on the windshield reflect-ing light from the bottom of the UFO.This suggestion seemed reasonableconsidering that the clouds in the skymight have been rainclouds. In ref. 2 Ialso suggested that there had beenrain and that the road was wet. (Inthe original symposium report I, too,suggested that the bright spots in thepicture might be reflections fromraindrops on the windshield. I subse-quently discovered that the spots areactually tiny holes in the emulsion.The suggestion of reflections fromraindrops was removed from therevised version of the symposiumpaper as presented in ref. 2.) Theassumption that there had been rainand that consequently the road waswet is now known to be wrong. Hadthe local investigators obtained theweather report for that day soonafter the event they would havefound, as Robert Oechsler did manymonths later (in December, 1988),that there had been no measureableprecipitation for several days preced-ing January 12,1988.H&S have, unfortunately, built anargument against the reality of the photoon their exaggeration of my errorregarding the rain: they claimed thatthe "environment was dripping withmoisture." They protest that becauseof the wetness there should be reflec-tions of light from the nearby vegeta-tion as well as from the road and thatEd should have mentioned encounter-ing the effects of wet ground. Eddidnt mention being wet and muddyas a result of crawling under histruck. (Now we know why Ed didntmention being wet — there was norain. He wouldnt have been muddyfrom crawling on the ground anywaybecause the ground at that location,like most of coastal Florida, is sand, afact that should have been known toWilly Smith, if not to Richard Hall.The sand does not hold water and isnot as sticky as mud.)Although the suggestion that thereshould have been numerous "envir-onmental reflections" because of thepresumed wetness is wrong, theirsuggestion that there should be areflection from the hood of the truckis still worthy of consideration sincethe hood, being a smooth surface,would reflect light whether it was wetor not. The problem of the lack of areflection in the hood was researchedin the late summer of 1988. By hold-ing a flashlight at various heightsabove the road and about 200 feetaway it was determined that noreflection in the hood appeared untilthe light was seven or more feetabove the road. This is because thefront of the hood was bent by a colli-sion in the fall of 1986. The effect ofthe bend is visible in the "road shot"itself: the front edge of the hood is"outlined" by a relatively bright reflec-tion of the sky. If the hood hadntbeen bent the dark ground ahead ofthe truck would appear reflected bythe front of the hood rather than thesky. Since the bright bottom of theUFO was less than 4 feet above theroad (see ref. 2) it was below the min-imum height that would reflect intothe camera from the bent hood.H&S have protested that Edsbehavior, "after being semiparalyzedMUFON UFO Journal, No. 252, April 1989
  13. 13. by a manifestly alien apparition ... isnot what you would typically expect."That may be true, but then, H&Swerent there to actually experiencewhat Ed experienced. H&S go on to sug-gest that instead of firing the gun atthe UFO Ed "casually" took a pic-ture. The use of the word "casually"is highly inappropriate. Ed has saidthat nothing he did during that timewas "casual." He did manage to get apicture, but he did so as quickly ashe could, before the UFO movedback toward the truck (where itzapped him a second time as hecrawled underneath).H&S point out that the videotaperequires extensive analysis with thefull application of "checks and balan-ces of the scientific method." Theyare correct and I am surprised thatDr. Smith did not do some of this"extensive analysis" of the videotapehimself. Most of it has been availableto researchers ever since it wasshown on the WEAR TV documen-tary in March, 1988. Furthermore, Edhas made numerous copies for peo-ple to work on. Much of what I havedone could have been done byanyone with a good stop-frame VideoCassette Recorder and a copy of theTV documentary. (However, I workedfrom a first generation VHS copy ofEds 8mm video original.) By carefullymeasuring frame by frame the motionof the UFO relative to fixed distantstreet and building lights I determinedthat the UFO did not exhibit any ofthe characteristics of a simple hang-ing model (such as appears in one ofBilly Meiers movie segments). RobertOechsler and Edward Weibe (a God-dard Space Flight Center employee)used some very sophisticated videoequipment to study the motion. Com-paring the UFO video with a daylightreconstruction by Ed they determinedthat the UFO went on the other sideof a tree that lies behind Eds house,outside his fenced yard, at a distanceof about 50 feet from the cameraposition. I made a schematic recon-struction (diagram) of Eds back yardand, with the aid of an excellent stop-frame VHS machine (which I pur-chased just for this analysis!) I con-firmed that the UFO went behind atree. I also found that, at the verybeginning of the videotape, it went onMUFON UFO Journal, No. 252,April 1989the far side of a windscreen boardthat was about 20 feet from thecamera and that is adjacent to Edspool. This suggested that the UFOwas quite far away over the field inback of Eds house, consistent withwhat Ed said had happened.I tried to imagine how the motionof the UFO on the videotape couldhave been created by a model. I con-cluded that the model would have tomove along a rigid track that wouldbe more than thirty feet away, morethan 60 feet long and ten or so feetabove the ground. This track wouldhave to be built outside Eds yard andsloped downward (i.e., not level).Whereas it would be possible to buildsuch a track, it is likely that it wouldhave been seen by someone in Edsneighborhood.I studied the variations in bright-ness from frame-to-frame of the topand bottom UFO lights. I found thatthe fluctuations in brightness of thelights on the UFO are basically ran-dom as opposed to periodic. I foundthis by using the stop-frame VCR incombination with a "frame grabber"and associated computer analysis equip-ment to measure the peak frame-by-frame (voltage) of the UFO lights asrecorded on the videotape. I askedEd to carry out some experimentswith his video camera. These involvedfilming known lights (incandescentflashlight bulbs, a fluorescent light) atknown distances. The tests showedthat random brightness fluctuationscomparable to those of the UFOlights also occur in a videotape of avery small steady light source (aflashlight bulb) if it is filmed from adistance of several hundred feet ormore. Considering this result fromthe point of the hoax hypothesis thiswould require a random amplitudemodulation at a high rate of speed(1/30 sec) of a light on a nearbymodel. If the model used batterypowered steady lights it would haveto be hundreds of feet away andtherefore quite large. At such a dis-tance the rigid track framework referredto in the above paragraph would haveto be several hundred feet long,twenty or so feet above the groundand quite close to the school build-ings on the far side of the field behindEds house.My study of the UFO dynamics,the flight track and the brightnessfluctuations has led me to concludethat it would have been somewherebetween extremely difficult and vir-tually impossible for Ed to have fakedthe video.H&S have also referred to theNimslo camera photos. The Nimslocamera photographic data indicatedthat the UFO was between 40 and 70feet away (see ref. 2). Since theactual length of the UFO was calcu-lated from the image size and fromthe calculated distance (actual size =image size times distance divided byfocal length), the result is a size range2.5 to 4 feet, rather than a specificsize. H&S point out that "A sup-posed alien spacecraft of that sizecould only accommodate very tinybeings." This is a "cute" but unneededstatement. If they were sufficientlyastute they would have noticed thatin the May 1 photos, in which theType 3 UFO was found to be 2.5 feetlong and about 130 feet away, therewas also a much larger craft esti-mated to be more than twenty feet atits maximum diameter and 14 feethigh at a distance of about 475 feet.As I reported at the MUFON sympo-sium this larger craft moved veryquickly (in a few seconds) over Edwhere he saw it above him justbefore he "whited out" (and wasabducted). Presumably it was thislarger craft, and not the small one,which was involved in the abduction.(Perhaps the smaller craft is a "scoutship.")Other WitnessesH&S state that, despite the "hordesof investigators, newsmen and towns-people that were staked out in GulfBreeze at the height of Eds encoun-ters, not one ever witnessed Ed tak-ing a photograph or separately wit-nessed a UFO that coincided withone of Eds reports, while he tooksome 40 pictures over a six-monthperiod."How H&S could make this state-ment in a supposedly scientific article,I dont know. Perhaps they didntreally read the available literature. Orperhaps they are saying indirectlythat they dont believe there are anyother valid sightings in Gulf Breeze.If13
  14. 14. the latter is true, they should offerexplanations for the other of thesightings rather than simply assert, inan indirect way, that there were no oth-er sightings.First of all, the premise of thisstatement is false: there were no"hordes" of any type "staked out."Most of the townspeople didnt knowwho the photographer was and Edssightings were late at night whenpeople were in their houses and notoutside looking for UFOs. The fourlocal MUFON investigators (Ware,Flannigan, Reid and Watson) did thebest they could and even had a hot-line to Ed starting in January, 1988.For a couple of weeks they main-tained a late night vigil, but eventuallyit was too much for them (after work-ing all day) so they gave up. Duringone of these "stakeouts" (Jan. 21) Eddid have a brief sighting, but theMUFON investigator (Reid) and Edwere separated by several hundredfeet when it occurred. Ed tried todescribe the location of the UFO asseen against the background skyusing the walkie-talkie communicatorsthey used to maintain contact. How-ever, not knowing the names of con-stellations he could not tell Bob Reidwhere to look and Bob looked in thewrong direction. Ed ran to him, butthe UFO was gone by the time Edreached him to point it out.The H&S claim that "not one ever... seperately witnessed a UFO thatcoincided with one of Eds reports" isat least misleading, if not just plainwrong, depending upon what is meantby "coincided with one of Eds reports."At the MUFON symposium I pres-ented a graph of the sighting reportsas a function of the day from Nov. 11through May 1. I showed that onNov. 11 there were 7 reports otherthan Eds. (Since then I have learnedthat there was another sighting, byArt Hufford and his wife, which wasduring the second week of Novemberand could well have been on Nov. 11.See Appendix 2 for a listing of sight-ings.) The sightings by Charlie Some-rby and his wife occurred only min-utes before Eds sightings.They claimedthat the photos showed what theysaw. When the Somerbys last sawthe UFO it was headed in the direc-tion of Eds house. Mrs. Billie Zammit14reported to the newspaper that shesaw a UFO at about 2:30 AM thatsame day, i.e., about twelve hoursbefore Eds sighting (see references 2and 4).There were other sightings thathave been reported (ref. 2) includingthe one by Jeff Thompson. However,I would like to single out this sightingfor a special discussion because ofthe way the public skepticism impact-ed on Mr. Thompsons decision tocome forward publicly with his story.According to Mr. Thompson, at8:10 AM on Nov. 11 he saw the sametype of UFO that Ed photographed.He reported his sighting to the Sen-fine/ on Nov. 20 (the day after Edspictures were published;see ref. 2 fora brief summary of his description).Unfortunately he left no address orphone number where he could bereached (he had no phone of hisown) so the local investigators wer-ent able to contact him for a directinterview. Furthermore, he did notrespond to a public appeal for wit-nesses to come forward. However,on June 24, 1988, Mr. Thompsonwalked into the WEAR TV studio andsaid that he was upset over the pub-lic skepticism about Eds photos. Hesaid that he had watched a recent(June 23?) TV special "follow up"story on the photos in which reporterMark Curtis investigated some possi-ble ways that Ed might have hoaxedhis photos (Mark Curtis tested sev-eral methods for hoaxing but failed toproduce convincing photos!). On thesame show Robert Boyd claimed thatEds sightings were "most probably ahoax." Mr. Thompson told Mr. Curtisthat he decided to tell his story pub-licly because he knew what he hadseen. He said that he was "tired ofone man taking allthe heat."Several weeks later Jeff was inter-viewed by Charles Flannigan. Herepeated in greater detail the sightinginformation which was presented inthe Nov. 25, 1987 issue of the Sen-fine/. He also provided a sketch of anobject similar to Eds "Type 1" UFO.In August Jeff agreed to be on NBCTVs "Unsolved Mysteries" show aboutthe Gulf Breeze sightings (which wasshown on Oct. 5). During the pre-show interview (in August) he stated"They were saying that the pictureswere fakes. And I was maintaining alow profile for a while. But then itstarted kind of ticking me off becausethe man that took the pictures ...(and the other witnesses are) ... allupstanding people of the community.(So) I came forward then, you know,letting them know that I did see itthat day." The interviewerasked him,"Did it make you kind of angry thatpeople were saying this was a hoax?"Jeff responded, "Yeah, it did. But Ican understand, maybe, them sayingthat, you know. Something that sup-posedly doesnt exist, you have tosee it to actually believe it." It isamusing to realize that this veryimportant witness came forward be-cause of the public skepticism.Two more witnesses who reactedto the skepticism in the same way arechemist Arthur Hufford and his wife.They saw a UFO in Pensacola duringthe second week of November, 1987.(Nov. 11 was in the middle of thatweek.)Mr. Hufford was also on the"Unsolved Mysteries" show. He toldthe interviewer that he had not readof the sightings in the Gulf BreezeSentinel (because he lives in Pensac-ola) and that it wasnt until late Feb-ruary, 1988, when the Sentinel pub-lished a four-page special section onEds sightings and photos, that he"realized something bigger had hap-pened. It wasnt just a one time affairin November. That there was some-thing strange going on." He thenwent on to say that he became awareof the controversy but he knew thatit wasnt a hoax because "I had seenit in the sky, and nobody was playingwith mirrors on my windshieldon mycar ... if there was a hoax involved,itwasnt the photographer pulling thehoax." At that point Mr. Huffordstarted to "come out of the closet."He informed some of his friends thatthe sightings were serious. He wenton to say "I was bothered when Iread particularly one of the debunkersthat was quoted in the paper, said itwas obviously a hoax, and he wasnteven going to look at the photo-graphs. And I just ... I just laughedbecause this is crazy, beause it isreal." (Note: Philip Klass is quoted inthe May 21 issue of the PensacolaNews Journal as saying that there isMUFON UFO Journal, No. 252, April 1989
  15. 15. only a "one in a jillion chance" thatthe Gulf Breeze photos are authentic,and "I have not personally investigated.I wouldnt waste the time. I onlyinvestigate those (sightings) that mightbe genuinely impressive to the pub-lic." Assuming that "jillion" is a verylarge number, it would appear thatBeliever Phil was up to his old tricks,calling a sighting a hoax before inves-tigating it.)The relevance of Huffordstestimony to Eds photos is clearfrom a statement made during thatsame interview: "Im convinced thatwhat I saw was the same thing thatwas photographed on November llthand published in the Sentinel. Theresjust no doubt in my mind that thisphotographer took pictures of wha-tever it was that we saw" (myemphasis).Other dates of "coincidental" sight-ings reported by people not related toEd are Dec. 2, (2 others), Feb. 26 (2),Mar. 17 (3), and Mar. 20 (4) (seeAppendix 2). On Dec. 27, "PatrickHanks" (pseudonym), a friend of Edsfamily, saw the UFO at the sametime that Ed and his family saw it. Nopicture was taken, however (see ref.2). On Jan. 24 Duane Cook, the edi-tor of the Sentinel, filmed Ed with avideo camera as Ed took a picture ofa UFO. (Compare this fact with theH&S statement that "no one [person]ever witnessed Ed taking a photo-graph.") However, Duane did not seethe UFO himself. He was looking atEd, in the opposite direction to theUFO, which appeared so briefly thatEd didnt have time to point it out (hejust barely had time to take a pic-ture). Duane did watch the UFOphoto develop only minutes after Edhad taken the picture with his oldPolaroid.On March 17 several witnesses sawEd set up and load the SRS (stereo)camera in Shoreline Park (see ref. 2).They watched as he took test photos.Subsequently they left Eds vicinityfor a short time but they did notleave the park. The saw the SRScamera flashes and returned quicklyand saw the newly taken stereo pic-tures of a UFO develop as theywatched. On the same night, CityCouncilwoman Brenda Pollack reporteda glowing object moved in the skyover Gulf Breeze. She saw it onlyMUFON UFO Journal, No. 252,April 1989minutes before Ed took his SRS pho-tos. When she last saw it, it was mov-ing in a direction toward the area whereEds camera was pointed when hetook the SRS pictures.H&S have stated that the "morethan 130 other cases claimed are —as of this writing — either weak andnot supportive of Eds sightings ornot yet even investigated." This state-ment is wrong on several counts.First, I know of no one who hasclaimed that there are 130 othercases. In ref. 2 I stated that I hadfound 55 "non-Ed" reports and thatmany of these were multiple luifnesssightings. This led me to claim thatthere were probably well over ahundred witnesses. I gathered thesereports from the Sentinel newspaperstories. At the time that I wrote ref. 2most of those sightings had not beeninvestigated, and that condition is stilltrue. However, well over a dozen ofthe most significant reports havebeen investigated (see Appendix 2).These reports are certainly not "weak"and they do support Eds sightings.Robert Oechsler, during his Decemberinvestigation, learned that there weremore witnesses than had been reportedto the paper. The results of hisinves-tigation will be reported elsewhere.H&S have claimed that most of thephotographs show the UFO in "exactlythe same orientation toward thecamera." In particular, the "bottom istilted slightly toward the camera."The significance of this fact for thehoax hypothesis is not clear. Edstated that the UFO rocked back andforth and sideways slightly and thathe intentionally took the photos whenthe UFO was brightest. Since thebottom was the brightest part thismeant that he took the photos, whe-never possible, when the bottom wastilted toward him.Character IssueAs I have already pointed out, it isdifficult to present a clear descriptionof the character of a person whowishes public anonymity. However,he is known to many people in GulfBreeze, including many who dontknow that he has taken photos. Peo-ple who have worked with him,including businessmen, communityleaders, teachers, etc. judge him tobe a man of good character and nota man who would create harmfulpranks or hoaxes.H&S have pointed out that Eduses two different last names. Myresponse to this is a big "So What?"He has never tried to hide his identityfrom any investigator (including Smith,Hall, Boyd and Stanford). He usesthe names of both his father and hisstepfather alternately. By either namehe is well known in the community.H&S have accused the local inves-tigators of not following up leads thatthey have supplied but rather of ask-ing Ed for the answers to skepticalquestions. (Actually the leads havebeen followed up over the manymonths that this investigation haspreceded, although not totally by thelocal investigators.) Their chief com-plaint is that the investigators did notfollow up on "reports" (note the plu-ral) "that Ed had produced deliberatedouble exposure photographs" (notethe word "deliberate" and use of theplural of photograph) "of ghosts forparty purposes and had bragged tolocal teenagers" (note the plural ofteenager) "that he was going to pulloff the ultimate prank which theywould recognize when they saw it."The claim that Ed took "ghost pho-tos" and that he planned an "ultimateprank" has been attributed to onelocal teenager (NM) who has had agrudge against Ed and Eds son eversince Ed barred him from coming toparties because the young man broughtsome of his friends who were knownto be "into drugs." (Ed has been veryadamant that there be no liquor nordrugs at the parties at his house forlocal teenagers.) Apparently this youngman also was quite angry that a cer-tain girl was a close friend of Edsson. In late 1987 he began to writenasty, demeaning letters to Eds son(I have seen some of these). He also"keyed" (scratched) the sons car andput sugar in the gas tank. He endedthe harassment when Ed threatenedto call the police. As H&S havepointed out, Don Ware and the localinvestigators have dismissed the "ghostphoto" and "ultimate prank" as a"false issue." However, according toH&S "the objective facts suggestotherwise."What objective facts? H&S claim15
  16. 16. that there are reports that Ed braggedabout an "ultimate prank." From whomdo we have these reports? We haveonly the testimony of a teenager who,himself, is far from being above sus-picion. David Richardson of the Pen-sacola News Journal tried to checkup on this NMs story by interviewingseveral of the teenagers that NM hadclaimed could support his story.However, Richardson learned nothingto support NMs claim that Ed wasinvolved with an "ultimate hoax."Don Schmitt of the Center for UFOStudies also called several of thechildren mentioned by NM. Schmittwas surprised to learn that theyhadnt been to Eds house for a longtime (months) and that they had noknowledge of Ed being involved in ahoax. Finally, Don Wares "spy"attended numerous parties at Edshouse and found no evidence of aUFO hoax (or any other type ofhoax, which is why Ware rejected theBoyd-Smith hoax theory as a falseissue.)The relevance of the suggestionthat Ed might have intentionally takendouble exposure photographs at par-ties that occurred about two yearsbefore his UFO photos is clear: if itcould be proven that he knew howto take double exposure photos thenthis would provide support for theclaim that the photos were hoaxed,although it would not proue theywere hoaxed. Thus the importantquestion raised by H&S (followingBoyd and Smith in earlier privatepublications) is this: is rhere proofthat Ed deliberately took doubleexposure photographs?When this was first brought up inthe spring of 1988, Ed stated that hecould recall only one photo, out ofhundreds (?) that he may have takenof children who have come to hismonthly parties (for teenagers), hadan unexpected image. The unex-pected image appeared in the photoof a girl who was at a Halloweenparty in 1985. Ed was as puzzled asthe children as to how the imagecame about but, in keeping with theoccasion, suggested that the imagewas that of a ghost. This suggestionwas evidently heard by several child-ren at the party.In the fall of 1988 a Miami TV sta-16tion decided to do an "expose" of theGulf Breeze sightings. With the aid ofthe teenager who had accused Ed,the station managed to acquire twooriginal photos of the girl. The twophotos were taken, one after theother. The first photo shows the girland some background features of theroom. The second picture, which wastaken from a slightly different loca-tion, shows the girl, the backgroundfeatures and some bright spots in arandom array, the "ghost."Until the original photos were ob-tained no investigator had actuallyseen the "ghost" photo. Ed, trying torecall the photo taken over two yearsbefore, remembered only an indistinctblob or blobs of light that made anindistinct "image." He did not recall aclearly defined "ghost" shape. YetRobert Boyd and Dr. Smith and theother investigators (myself included)had discussed it as if it showed a def-inite image of a "ghost" or a "devil."Smith and Boyd had therefore arguedthat it could only have been pro-duced intentionally by a doubleexposure technique or some .trickeryusing mirrors (my emphasis)." Thestory of this photo grew in the skep-tical retelling to the point that Ed was"accused" of deliberately takingnumer-ous double exposure photos at parties.When I saw the actual photo (onTV) I had to laugh. It shows that Edsrecollection was correct. The "ghostimage" is just a number of brightblobs of light in a random arrange-ment at the left of the image of thegirl. There is no definite image.Robert Boyd tried to find a face-like image in the arrangement ofbright spots and, in so doing, provedthat he can pass a "Rohrshach Test."He found that if you look carefullyyou can find two roundish spots thatare side-by-side (the "eyes"?) and alarger roundish spot (the "mouth," oris it a fat nose?). These spots form atilted "face." Of course, you have toignore all the other "non-facelike"blobs of light.In Eds recreation room there is alarge mirror on a wall. Opposite thatis a plate glass wall that separates theliving room from the recreation room.One can easily imagine these glasssurfaces catching the flash and bounc-ing it off other reflective surfaces thatare within the field of view of the pic-ture thus creating unexpected imagesin the picture. An accidental combi-nation of reflections from the mirroror from the glass wall with reflectionsoff reflective objects could easilycreate unexpected images. For example,Ed may have taken the picture whilelooking at an angle (not 90 degrees)toward the plate glass wall. The girlmight have been on the same side ofthe glass as Ed or on the oppositeside (in which case the picture wouldhave been taken through the glasswall.) Under these conditions somereflective objects (pictures, drinkingglasses, white shirts, wall lamps, etc.)on the same side of the glass wall asEd, could have been illuminated bythe flash either directly by the flashcube or indirectly by a reflection ofthe flash off the glass wall. At certainangles of the camera relative to theglass wall, light from these objectscould return to the camera so thatthey would be photographed indi-rectly, by reflection off the glass wall.On the other hand, objects on the farside of the wall would be photo-graphed directly, as through a win-dow. If the objects photographed byreflection from the wall were muchfarther away from Ed (the "opticaldistance") than the girl, then, sincethe camera was well focused on her,their reflections would be unfocused,diffuse blobs. These reflections couldcreate images that would be super-imposed on the images of objects onthe opposite of the wall (the back-ground images). This general arran-gement as I have described (photo-graphing a person who stands next tothe glass wall) has been tested by Edat my request. He has demonstratedthat it is difficult to avoid gettingimages of reflective objects on thesame side of the wall as he standsbecause the flash is so bright. Thus ithas been demonstrated that a "ghost"image similar to the one in the pic-ture of the girl could have beencreated accidentally in Eds recrea-tion room.The collection of randomly placedblobs appears only in the secondphoto, which was taken from aslightly different location than thefirst. It seems quite possible to methat specular reflections of the cameraMUFON UFO Journal, No. 252,April 1989