173 lines
9.3 KiB
Plaintext
173 lines
9.3 KiB
Plaintext
GULF BREEZE, FLORIDA ACTIVITY SUMMARY
|
||
(As of May 1, 1988)
|
||
|
||
A. Biased one-sided investigation
|
||
|
||
1. The principal investigators have made public statements auth-
|
||
enticating the photographs prior to the conclusion of the investi-
|
||
gation. (Attachment #1, "For the Record" dated April 25, 1988)
|
||
|
||
2. Negative aspects of the reported events in and around Gulf
|
||
Breeze, Florida have been restricted and covered-up by principal in-
|
||
vestigators. In fact, the investigators have actually taken sides
|
||
with the photographer of the objects to the point of furnishing that
|
||
photographer with internal correspondence pertaining to the investig-
|
||
ation and research of the reported events. (Attachment #2, corres-
|
||
pondence referenced or distributed on a limited basis.)
|
||
|
||
|
||
B. Questionable factors concerning principal witness/es
|
||
|
||
1. The principal witness made his initial report to the _Sentinel_
|
||
newspaper; not to an official agency such as the police department,
|
||
for whatever reason he may give. This is a factor always considered
|
||
when reviewing a UFO report. In the Hickson/Parker case, for exam-
|
||
ple, the two witnesses went first to Keesler AFB, Mississippi and
|
||
then to the local police department. (Report content)
|
||
|
||
2. No known person independent of the principal witness has report-
|
||
edly observed the same object/s, despite the number of photographs
|
||
taken, in presence of the photographer.
|
||
|
||
3. The witness has been writing and submitting manuscripts to Mr.
|
||
Budd Hopkins' agent, Ms. Phyllis Wender, for possible publication of
|
||
a book. (Correspondence from Mr. Donald Ware, Mr. Budd Hopkins and
|
||
verbal confirmation by the photographer)
|
||
|
||
4. Some residents in the Gulf Breeze, Florida area have related a
|
||
number of disturbing incidents in regard to the principal witness
|
||
that causes concern to several investigators and researchers in the
|
||
UFO phenomenon community. One example is a statement alleged to have
|
||
been made during the summer of 1987 by the witness: "The Ultimate
|
||
Prank". (Interview with sources by four witnesses.)
|
||
|
||
5. The witness has not impressed me, as well as other investigators
|
||
and researchers, of having had a truly traumatic experience. (De-
|
||
rived from several personal visits with the witness,a review of a
|
||
fairly lengthy video tape and investigation report content)
|
||
|
||
|
||
C. Conflicting and inconsistent characteristics to actual known pat-
|
||
terns of the UFO phenomenon
|
||
|
||
1. The area in which the majority of related experiences are said
|
||
to have taken place is a heavily populated residential and business
|
||
location. The great majority of high quality UFO encounters occur in
|
||
rural areas away from such populated areas.
|
||
|
||
2. The number of reports made by local residences were prompted pri-
|
||
marily by the news media (assisted by the principal investigators).
|
||
Flaps or waves (large distribution of sighting reports over a geo-
|
||
graphical area) created by the phenomenon itself cover a larger area
|
||
than what has occurred in the Gulf Breeze/Pensacola reports. This is
|
||
additional evidence that the reports were primarily generated by the
|
||
news media although some of the independent sighting reports may
|
||
very well be legitimate reports.
|
||
|
||
3. Although one experience related by the witness involved an "at-
|
||
tack" by the UFO as it moved over and in front of his vehicle (in an
|
||
isolated location for that particular incident) there were no E/M
|
||
effects reported. Also, the progression of events are dissimilar to
|
||
other low level encounters in higher quality cases.
|
||
|
||
4. Repeated sightings and experiences related by the witness are
|
||
similar to other questionable reports and "contactee" claims. In
|
||
most high quality reports the witness experiences a single short
|
||
duration encounter. In longer term encounters the witness/es often
|
||
relate a time and/or memory lapse following the experience.
|
||
|
||
5. Repeated abilities by the witness of being able to resist the
|
||
anomaly (UFO/occupants) have been claimed. This is contrary to the
|
||
results of studies in the field.
|
||
|
||
6. Several similarities with Mr. Whitley Strieber's book _Commun-
|
||
ion_ have been found. The most curious similarity is the related
|
||
smell of "Cinnamon" with the Gulf Breeze report which can be found
|
||
on Page 19 of Mr. Strieber's book. This is the only known reference
|
||
to that smell in UFO literature to date. It is also of interest to
|
||
note that the book _Communion_ was released during the winter/spring
|
||
of 1987 and that on page 11 of Mr. Strieber's book he states: "I
|
||
have never seen an Unidentified Flying Object."
|
||
|
||
7. The abundance of photographs taken by the witness is a negative
|
||
aspect in itself contrary to the actual exhibits of the UFO phenom-
|
||
enon. Most high controversy reports involve a large number of pic-
|
||
tures -- especially when the photographer claims to be a contactee.
|
||
|
||
8. The majority of high-quality photographs depicting disc or vert-
|
||
ically positioned cylindrical-shaped objects do not exhibit propul-
|
||
sion units as shown in the Gulf Breeze, Florida photographs.
|
||
|
||
9. The objects depicted in the Gulf Breeze photographs are always
|
||
tilted in a manner showing a portion of the base but never the top
|
||
towards the camera. This is also a curious feature because of the
|
||
number of photographs taken.
|
||
|
||
|
||
D. Questionable factors concerning the photographs
|
||
|
||
1. The first 5 photographs taken on November 11, 1987 depict a
|
||
rapidly darkening of the sky that is not consistent with the 3-4
|
||
minute duration that the witness related.
|
||
|
||
2. Accurate cloud movement data for the altitude depicted has not
|
||
been completed although there are questions concerning the speed of
|
||
the clouds in the first 5 pictures. Mr. Ray Stanford (PSI) informed
|
||
me this date that he has reinstated has analysis of weather data and
|
||
that information supported by documents from weather bureau stations
|
||
will be provided in the near future.
|
||
|
||
|
||
E. Inherent flaws with the depicted object/s
|
||
|
||
1. The circular base at the bottom of the object is tilted in a
|
||
manner that creates a non-symmetrical ellipse. An ellipse must al-
|
||
ways be symmetrical. There are, however, certain factors caused by
|
||
the atmosphere and photographic lens that may reduce imaging the
|
||
true symmetry of an ellipse.
|
||
|
||
2. There is an ambient light on the entire surface of the object
|
||
depicted in the first 5 photographs (especially in photograph no. 5)
|
||
that can not be easily attributed to sky light (reflected from
|
||
clouds at a distance), the object itself, the moon, the sun, or
|
||
local utility lighting. This indicates the possibility of artificial
|
||
illumination by the photographer.
|
||
|
||
3. There is a distinct flaw at the base of the object on the out-
|
||
side edge of the rim. This is evident in photograph numbers 11, 14,
|
||
and 17.
|
||
|
||
4. In photograph number 16 inside the bottom base of the object a
|
||
circular light is visible. There is a dimmed area visible at one
|
||
portion of that circular light which is similar to a kitchen fluor-
|
||
escent light where an electrical connection may be. Mr. Ray Stanford
|
||
(PSI) is conducting comparative research with such lighting fix-
|
||
tures.
|
||
|
||
5. There is possible evidence of an overlap between the object and
|
||
a tree in photograph number 7. The object appears to be in front of
|
||
the tree or integrated with the tree itself. Dr. Willy Smith is con-
|
||
ducting analysis of this photograph as well as others.
|
||
|
||
6. The object depicted in the first 5 photographs appears to be non-
|
||
symmetrical; that is, the upper and lower portions of the object are
|
||
off-center from one another. This may be caused by reflections off
|
||
of a glass surface or another form of medium between the object and
|
||
the lens of the camera.
|
||
|
||
7. According to Dr. Willy Smith (UNICAT Project) there is at least
|
||
one "window" that does not line up horizontally with adjacent "win-
|
||
dows" on the object.
|
||
|
||
8. The spacing between the "windows" on the object are not propor-
|
||
tional to one another horizontally. This is obvious to the unaided
|
||
eye and measurements reveal mathematical inconsistencies contrary to
|
||
good geometry.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Robert D. Boyd
|
||
CUFOS Investigator Coordinator
|
||
MUFON State Director, Alabama
|
||
/s/
|
||
May 1, 1988
|
||
|