70 lines
4.0 KiB
Plaintext
70 lines
4.0 KiB
Plaintext
CUFOS' POSITION ON THE GULF BREEZE CASE
|
||
|
||
Readers of the article by-lined by Ware, Flannigan and Andrus
|
||
(though apparently written by Andrus) in the July '88 issue of
|
||
the MUFON UFO Journal may get a misleading impression of CUFOS'
|
||
current stand on the Gulf Breeze, FL CE-III photographic
|
||
episode. Our concern here is not with what we consider the
|
||
author's errors in reporting privately-stated views. We simply
|
||
wish to make clear why we feel its wise to take a cautious view
|
||
of this difficult case, and to await results of the
|
||
still-unfinished investigation.
|
||
|
||
CUFOS considers Gulf Breeze a potentially significant UFO case,
|
||
but one that remains unproven, and it is essential that research
|
||
into every aspect of both photographs and testimony, continue.
|
||
Important questions are yet unanswered, and necessary avenues of
|
||
inquiry yet unpursued.
|
||
|
||
For example:
|
||
1) On November 19, 1987 the Gulf Breeze Sentinel published Ed's
|
||
original, anonymous letter, accompanying his first five
|
||
photographs. His letter stated there were no beams coming from
|
||
the UFO. On December 7th, on his first MUFON report form, he
|
||
mentions no beams in his account of this November 11th incident.
|
||
It is not until his third account of the incident, completed
|
||
January 8th, 1988 that Ed reports a "blue beam"; in fact a blue
|
||
beam which would come to figure prominently in Ed's claims was
|
||
first reported by a Gulf Breeze resident on November 11th,
|
||
according to a November 25th Sentinel article. Critics are bound
|
||
to suggest that Ed retroactively incorporated a blue beam into
|
||
his later account of the November 11th incident.
|
||
|
||
2) Ed has given three different versions of his activity at the
|
||
initiation of the November 11th sighting. Why?
|
||
|
||
3) Questions have been raised about the relationship of the
|
||
MUFON investigators and Ed and his family. Some observers have
|
||
complained that Ed was kept fully informed on the ongoing
|
||
inquiries, including those that were turning up leads that might
|
||
have produced disconfirming evidence. Since all photographic
|
||
cases should be considered at least POTENTIAL hoaxes, it is
|
||
essential that investigators operate independently from those
|
||
whose claims they are checking. An operation that gives
|
||
claimants sufficient advance warning to cover their tracks (if
|
||
there are tracks to be covered) is seriously flawed. We are not
|
||
accusing the MUFON team of committing this kind of
|
||
methodological blunder, but the charge has been made by others,
|
||
and has so far not been answered.
|
||
|
||
We applaud Bruce Maccabee's admirable analysis of the Gulf
|
||
Breeze photographs. He deserves nothing but praise for the care
|
||
and thoroughness he has brought to the problem. But his analysis
|
||
is only the first step. In science, replication of findings is a
|
||
necessary part of the process of inquiry. It is now time for
|
||
another scientist, as skilled and conscientious as Dr. Maccabee,
|
||
to examine the photographs and to report his conclusions.
|
||
|
||
We feel that the Gulf Breeze case has generated too much
|
||
needless heat. We hope that in the future, ufologists will
|
||
devote their energies solely to sober consideration of the
|
||
promises and the problems of these extraordinary series of
|
||
events. Since all of us, we hope, have only one concern: that
|
||
the truth, whatever it is, be found, we can put behind the
|
||
emotion that has so far played far too large a role in the
|
||
debate, and concentrate on the work that needs to be done.
|
||
Whatever the answer turns out to be, ufology can only benefit
|
||
from adherence to the strictest standards of scientific study.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|