Gulf Breeze UFO: Fairly damaging evidence against Ed Walters

reply to post by jritzmann


Hello Jeff and thank you for the professional and prompt response. A nice report you posted to be sure. A couple things:

You state that when Dr. M received the originals (negatives) when they were exposed they turned out very dark originally and it wasn't until the originals (negatives) were "light blasted" that the previously unseen details became visible. In regards to this, are there any comparison "before" and "after" treatments to these photos in question? Are they posted somewhere? I cannot remember if these are in Ed's book.

Also in regards to the article in my OP, I've not heard of the source and he sounds like he had a hard on for Ed. What is this guy's story if there is one? I did notice that he used some of Klass' stuff for reference. A red flag for me. So is he just a debunker? Disinfo Agent? Do you know?

I still find it all very disturbing.

Thanks for the tip off to that episode of Paratopia. I have it on my iPod already. Just haven't got around to it yet as I am about five episodes behind on The Paracast. Doh!! Good job to both you and Mr. Vaeni by the way. It's fastly turning into another one of my favorite Podcasts.

Not that you need them, but I will let you know my thoughts on what Dr. Maccabee says in regards to the Walters photos. I'm on the fence just yet and ultimately we have to make up our own minds based on the best evidence. Suffice it to say your post has temporarily resurrected Mr. Walters' cred from the grave in my book.

Thanks and Cheers, Jeff and keep up the good work. Appreciated.

Erik

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Look at this case with a grain of salt but not with an empty salt shaker!

Absolutely, as with *any* unknown. When you don't know what it is, how else can you go? And I do believe that Dr. M goes over the stereo camera and the Nimslo shots on the show. I was more interested in the video of the silver ball objects that shoot away with zero acceleration. Those fascinate the hell out of me. One because of the unreal nature of what you're looking at in movement, and 2, that the blowups of those objects seem oddly reminiscent of Walters craft, but different in other ways. Like upgrade. But, again, the movement makes your eyes go "yeah I see that", and your mind go "that's not possible".

The bottom line is this for me: If the classic photos are faked time WILL tell. As advancement of technology proceeds, we surpass previous case evidence. That's the true test: Time. Same with the Trent photos, O'Hare, LaSalle, etc.

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Ed Walters has been given a bad, undeserved rap. Here are some of the facts as remembered by me.

He was not the only to videotape UFOs in Gulf Breeze. The newspapers constantly reported on the latest footage by others.

Regarding the UFO model found in his former home, there was a documentary in which the individual that found the model was interviewed and one can see that there is some manufacturing of questions and answers which were asked and the answers given are not based on fact.

Ed Walters was given a 3-D camera which he did not handle and was set up by either Bruce Maccabee or someone associated with MUFON. The reason I'm not clear on everything is because it's been a long time although I still have the videotapes from the '90s.

The resultant 3-D photos are found in Ed's book and if you have free vision as I have you don't need a special viewer to see the photos in 3-D. You can hoax all you want with single photos but not so easy to do with 2 photos taken at slightly different angles to represent the separation of the eyes. The "UFOs" in the photos are way in the distance and the shrubery in front of the camera is in great 3-D.

Ed Walters was shown on the beach with his camcorder and the videographer showed a UFO in the distance with Ed in the foreground.

Look at this case with a grain of salt but not with an empty salt shaker!


[edit on 22-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

Now, see this is what I remember and thank you for posting this, Ed. I remember that Dr. M had told Mr. Walters something or other about parallaxing and what he needed to do make this better and as I understand it, he not only followed Maccabee's suggestions but went on to further better it by instilling a double parallaxed photography situation thus better able to judge distance and size I'm guessing.

I haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater yet and Jeff's appearance here is to thank for that in no small way as I know he has vested a lot of his time in this case/s. I'm waiting to see what Jeff know's about the debunker yayhoo who posted the article and what his spiel is before I make any more gross and potentially false statements more than I possibly already have. Oh well. Collateral damage. We'll see.

Thanks and Cheers for the input, Ed

Erik

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
Look at this case with a grain of salt but not with an empty salt shaker!

Absolutely, as with *any* unknown. When you don't know what it is, how else can you go? And I do believe that Dr. M goes over the stereo camera and the Nimslo shots on the show. I was more interested in the video of the silver ball objects that shoot away with zero acceleration. Those fascinate the hell out of me. One because of the unreal nature of what you're looking at in movement, and 2, that the blowups of those objects seem oddly reminiscent of Walters craft, but different in other ways. Like upgrade. But, again, the movement makes your eyes go "yeah I see that", and your mind go "that's not possible".

The bottom line is this for me: If the classic photos are faked time WILL tell. As advancement of technology proceeds, we surpass previous case evidence. That's the true test: Time. Same with the Trent photos, O'Hare, LaSalle, etc.

"Stereo Camera" Thanks again, Jeff. I was trying to remember that danged thing when I was mentioning double parallaxing to Skeptical Ed in a previous response. You must have been reading my mind!

Cheers,

Erik

edit to add: So was it Nimslo who used the stereo camera or Walters or both? Can't remember. Thanks.

[edit on 22/SeppmTue, 22 Sep 2009 15:40:33 -0500/08 by redwoodjedi]

The world is full of liars and crooks. This story does not surprise me. The real stories are those who do not come forward. It's these deceivers who make it difficult for real stories to be told.

I would not be surprised if the guy was working for the government to discredit real stories. By putting out a bunch of hoaxes and stringing people along they can then open the case up to show fraud thus creating a lot of disenfranchised people. So when a real story hits the public they just dismiss it.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by cloakndagger]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by cloakndagger]

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
You state that when Dr. M received the originals (negatives) when they were exposed they turned out very dark originally and it wasn't until the originals (negatives) were "light blasted" that the previously unseen details became visible. In regards to this, are there any comparison "before" and "after" treatments to these photos in question? Are they posted somewhere? I cannot remember if these are in Ed's book.

They were not negatives, they are the old Polaroid peel apart photos - not the shake a develop type. One of the stupid debunks I see out there is that in the road shot, there are vertical bars on the photo after light blasting/dodging that I saw one guy claimed was evidence of double exposure. Those are marks made by the rollers on the camera that the pic slides out through, which squeezes the developer and emulsion.

I do not know of the original states of the photos have even been shown-as they aren't all that impressive (at least they weren't to me). I can ask Dr. M if he has any as they were seen raw if ya like the next time I write him.

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
Also in regards to the article in my OP, I've not heard of the source and he sounds like he had a hard on for Ed. What is this guy's story if there is one? I did notice that he used some of Klass' stuff for reference. A red flag for me. So is he just a debunker? Disinfo Agent? Do you know?

I don't know his involvement, but I think Dr. M addressed him on the show. Most arguments for me fall short, including those of Jerry Black. There's also a personal...I dunno....angle to this, that I think might stem from professional jealousy. That's just my opinion. One man who lived in GB said to me years ago that the whole thing had become quite a soap opera. Too many personalities, egos and nonsense (he wasn't referring to Dr. Maccabee and such, but I think others that had entered the fray).

Like many other times, the enigma seems to follow discord and anti-structure. It's not surprising, you see this across a lot of unexplained paranormal events. (See George Hansen's "The Trickster and the Paranormal" - who we've also interviewed 2 times on the show.)

Ed's "regression" hypnotherapy stuff: Since I don't buy into regression therapy, I don't put stock in that. But, Ed did seem to have that element of weirdness in his experiences. Who knows. Was he abducted? I don't. I mean how do you qualify anyone's experiences like that...hell I can't qualify my own. But regression therapy is never a good idea in my book.

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
So was it Nimslo who used the stereo camera or Walters or both? Can't remember.

Nimslo is a camera. There was a stereo camera setup, and a Nimslo camera used. Both were utilized to gauge size of the object.

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by Skeptical Ed

 

How is he the worst thing that has happened to UFOlogy? I just want to know i have seen him making some pretty good points on numerous documentaries the only thing I have seen him support which i dissagree with was the MJ-12 documents? Just to make it clear im not arguing with you i just want to know.
Who is the best thing for UFOlogy?

The best thing for UFOlogy are honest reporters who unwillingly may not be including all of the facts because they're not aware of them or because their research is shoddy.

Stanton Friedman is aware of everything since he's been around long enough. But you have to give Stanton credit for recognizing that the truth would hurt his bank account. Lies sell, truth doesn't. He knows damn well that what happened at Roswell had nothing to do with UFOs but this is not what the romantically-inclined wants to hear; they want a fantasy and he provided the fantasy.

He supports whatever fantasy comes down the pike and because at one time in his life he was a nuclear physicist, he still bills himself as one, the cache, so to speak. As some have said in criticizing him, he probably wouldn't recognize what goes on in labs devoted to nuclear physics nowadays. But that's beyond my ken.

I don't like him because of what he represents: lies of the biggest magnitude. He supports the various bogus documents associated with almost every UFO case from Roswell to MAJIC12, to the Hills, the Phoenix flares, etc. He may impress those who don't research what he talks about for the minute they do so they can find the holes in his stories.

He specializes in knowing how to make a buck and he doesn't have to provide any evidence, his audience eats it up. Ask Bill Moore how he feels about Stanton.


[edit on 22-9-2009 by Skeptical Ed]

Well i think the MJ-12 stuff is bogus, the bad story starts out the same as the davinci code, a mysterious document comes out of nowhere and boom holly grail.
Im on the fence with the roswell thing, Flying saucer wait no weather baloon see? but on the other hand finding a craft the impacted with such great speed that the "idestructable" metal was reduced to debris and among the rubble one or two alien bodies. How can 2 alien bodies survive a crash that indestructable metal could not?
The hills is up for debate. Why would a white and black couple in the early 60s do anything to attract more attention. In that case betty describes a pregnancy test that was not really being used at the time.But i think abduction cases are something like an MK-ultra program.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by zaiger]

reply to post by jritzmann


[Ed's "regression" hypnotherapy stuff: Since I don't buy into regression therapy, I don't put stock in that. But, Ed did seem to have that element of weirdness in his experiences. Who knows. Was he abducted? I don't. I mean how do you qualify anyone's experiences like that...hell I can't qualify my own. But regression therapy is never a good idea in my book.]

Regression has various levels. The level you want to stay away from is the type where former lives were "remembered." But properly used under expert guidance, buried memories can be brought to the forefront and many criminal cases have been aided by clinical hypnotherapy where additional details were revealed whether a license plate or clothing worn by the people involved or auditory comments forgotten temporarily.

I also do not accept any regression hypnosis done by unqualified practitioners claiming alien abductions whether it is David Jacobs or Budd Hopkins. By what they write in their books it's easy for a trained hypnotist to see the failure in proper questioning and leading the subject into proper mental depths.

Hypnosis can be helpful until it is abused.

Originally posted by zaiger
Well i think the MJ-12 stuff is bogus, the bad story starts out the same as the davinci code, a mysterious document comes out of nowhere and boom holly grail.
Im on the fence with the roswell thing, Flying saucer wait no weather baloon see? but on the other hand finding a craft the impacted with such great speed that the "idestructable" metal was reduced to debris and among the rubble one or two alien bodies. How can 2 alien bodies survive a crash that indestructable metal could not?
The hills is up for debate. Why would a white and black couple in the early 60s do anything to attract more attention. In that case betty describes a pregnancy test that was not really being used at the time.But i think abduction cases are something like an MK-ultra program.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by zaiger]

The sadder story is that "THE DA VINCI CODE" is misnamed and is meaningless since DA VINCI simply means "from Vinci' and since Dan Brown meant to imply Leonard da Vinci (Leonard from Vinci) it should have been titled "THE LEONARDO CODE." It still would have been meaningless, although a good, fast-paced read. An analogy is the mythical person name "Christ." That's a title as in "Jesus the Christ" or "Jesus the Anointed." But even John Lennon said "Christ, you know it ain't easy..."

BTW, I had an article published at rense.com back in the '90s complete with photos about the claim in "THE DA VINCI CODE" where it is mentioned that there is an disembodied hand holding a dagger in a menacing manner. I got to work real fast and posed with a big kitchen knife in the same position as St Peter holding the knife against his hip.

Even though there will be those (in the majority!) who want to believe a UFO crashed near Roswell (and Corona, and Aztec, and...) one has to accept the original statemtn by "Mac" Brazel as to the debris that he found that was not alien in origin. Karl Pflock and Kal Korff wrote the best investigations into who, what and where.

The Hills are another story from the fact that their doctor did not accept mainly her tale as having really happened to the fact that Betty was very active in UFOlogy prior to their alleged sighting and the fact that some of the details that Barney gave under hypnosis can be found in an episode of "The Outer Limits." See "The Eyes That Spoke" at: www.csicop.org...

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
I also do not accept any regression hypnosis done by unqualified practitioners claiming alien abductions whether it is David Jacobs or Budd Hopkins. By what they write in their books it's easy for a trained hypnotist to see the failure in proper questioning and leading the subject into proper mental depths.

Hypnosis can be helpful until it is abused.

That's exactly the "regression" I'm talking about. Although I have issues with *any* use of it at all based on what I've read lately about it. I sent you a U2U about coming on the show to talk about this particular aspect (hypnosis), as I saw you mention you formerly worked in that field.

I still say the regression procedure is grossly used in UFO research, just as you mention with Hopkins and Jacobs, but there's also the idea of cultural contamination, and the notion that the person going to be regressed by say, Hopkins or any UFO related personality, is going because they think they've been abducted.

It may be good for license plates or facial recognition on some level...but this experience? Something as subjective, deep and weird as this? I just don't buy it. That's just my personal feeling after talking to therapists out of the field - all of who were aghast at what was being done in the name of "hypnosis" in the UFO arena.

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
You state that when Dr. M received the originals (negatives) when they were exposed they turned out very dark originally and it wasn't until the originals (negatives) were "light blasted" that the previously unseen details became visible. In regards to this, are there any comparison "before" and "after" treatments to these photos in question? Are they posted somewhere? I cannot remember if these are in Ed's book.

They were not negatives, they are the old Polaroid peel apart photos - not the shake a develop type. One of the stupid debunks I see out there is that in the road shot, there are vertical bars on the photo after light blasting/dodging that I saw one guy claimed was evidence of double exposure. Those are marks made by the rollers on the camera that the pic slides out through, which squeezes the developer and emulsion.

I do not know of the original states of the photos have even been shown-as they aren't all that impressive (at least they weren't to me). I can ask Dr. M if he has any as they were seen raw if ya like the next time I write him.

Originally posted by redwoodjedi
Also in regards to the article in my OP, I've not heard of the source and he sounds like he had a hard on for Ed. What is this guy's story if there is one? I did notice that he used some of Klass' stuff for reference. A red flag for me. So is he just a debunker? Disinfo Agent? Do you know?

I don't know his involvement, but I think Dr. M addressed him on the show. Most arguments for me fall short, including those of Jerry Black. There's also a personal...I dunno....angle to this, that I think might stem from professional jealousy. That's just my opinion. One man who lived in GB said to me years ago that the whole thing had become quite a soap opera. Too many personalities, egos and nonsense (he wasn't referring to Dr. Maccabee and such, but I think others that had entered the fray).

Like many other times, the enigma seems to follow discord and anti-structure. It's not surprising, you see this across a lot of unexplained paranormal events. (See George Hansen's "The Trickster and the Paranormal" - who we've also interviewed 2 times on the show.)

Ed's "regression" hypnotherapy stuff: Since I don't buy into regression therapy, I don't put stock in that. But, Ed did seem to have that element of weirdness in his experiences. Who knows. Was he abducted? I don't. I mean how do you qualify anyone's experiences like that...hell I can't qualify my own. But regression therapy is never a good idea in my book.

Thanks again, Jeff.

It is unfortunate that this field without a doubt is permeated with strong egos and personalities as is any noted or edgy field of science. It can be a real detractor to what is real and evident whatever those may be. My theory on this is simple and maybe too simple. It might be a gross generalization to say that when validity of any kind is scarcely found we Westerners like to make popstars out of it's pursuers to the point that that which was being validated takes a back seat to relevance, but there you have it. Case in point, how many Third World investigators do you know in relation to the enormous amount of manifested events coming from said Third World? Almost none. Yet in the West I am amazed that what with the prolific amount of people in this field evident, that Topps hasn"t made trading cards for them with all of their ugly and irrelevant stats on the back. The science is important not the scientist. That is not to say that the scientist's credibility and training should not be brought to the fore for scrutiny and associative relevance.

As far as anything internal is concerned (regressive hypnosis) I think that until a USB port is mounted on the side of the Human skull with a direct link to the brain images of mind's experiences floating on a monitor for all to see, we will have to throw esoterica into the "interesting but non-qualifiable" dept. as it is intimate, personal and as such, highly subjective.

And let me just post a thanks on this response in lieu to an answer you gave me on another post concerning the Nimlos issue. My ignorance in these matters is in some degrees if not all, very prevalent.

Cheers,

Erik

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
I also do not accept any regression hypnosis done by unqualified practitioners claiming alien abductions whether it is David Jacobs or Budd Hopkins. By what they write in their books it's easy for a trained hypnotist to see the failure in proper questioning and leading the subject into proper mental depths.

Hypnosis can be helpful until it is abused.

That's exactly the "regression" I'm talking about. Although I have issues with *any* use of it at all based on what I've read lately about it. I sent you a U2U about coming on the show to talk about this particular aspect (hypnosis), as I saw you mention you formerly worked in that field.

I still say the regression procedure is grossly used in UFO research, just as you mention with Hopkins and Jacobs, but there's also the idea of cultural contamination, and the notion that the person going to be regressed by say, Hopkins or any UFO related personality, is going because they think they've been abducted.

It may be good for license plates or facial recognition on some level...but this experience? Something as subjective, deep and weird as this? I just don't buy it. That's just my personal feeling after talking to therapists out of the field - all of who were aghast at what was being done in the name of "hypnosis" in the UFO arena.

Thank you for the invite to talk about hypnosis but I'm going to have to pass on it simply because when I express my opinion about certain uses of hypnosis, it isn't based on any recent activity with hypnosis and so I would be so rusty on the subject that I could contaminate! I learned hypnosis from Joe Lampl (library.syr.edu...) who was the featured hypnotist in the book: "THE SEARCH FOR THE GIRL WITH THE BLUE EYES" by Jess Stearn. Joe Lampl was no Milton Erickson but he saw that I was a good student, being the first to bring in a subject to the classroom and showing everyone how to do it as Joe taught.

This was in 1964 and while I graduated at the top of his class and did some successful-but-unexplainable experiments with friends I never used it for anything but as a learning tool. I did keep up with the latest news but eventually it became a past activity.

In the early 1980s when books such as "MISSING TIME" were introduced, my hypnosis knowledge led me to see that there was something coming that was not going to be good for UFOlogy and I wrote a scathing review of it but held back on having it published to my regret for if I had submitted my review those reading it would have learned how to look at the book's content from a different perspective than a believer's.

As you know, history proved me (privately) right for a plethora of similar books came out of the woodwork and those writing the books were now seen as reliable sources and exalted AND rich!

In 1970 I hitchhiked from NYC to Nebraska to attend a convention on hypnosis/reincarnation!

Again, thanks for the honor. If I can answer questions about hypnosis I will give it a try.

BTW, I think I know what U2U is, I have no idea or how or where to retrieve it.

Originally posted by zaiger
Well i think the MJ-12 stuff is bogus, the bad story starts out the same as the davinci code, a mysterious document comes out of nowhere and boom holly grail.
Im on the fence with the roswell thing, Flying saucer wait no weather baloon see? but on the other hand finding a craft the impacted with such great speed that the "idestructable" metal was reduced to debris and among the rubble one or two alien bodies. How can 2 alien bodies survive a crash that indestructable metal could not?
The hills is up for debate. Why would a white and black couple in the early 60s do anything to attract more attention. In that case betty describes a pregnancy test that was not really being used at the time.But i think abduction cases are something like an MK-ultra program.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by zaiger]

I'm also in line with the "Bogus MJ-12 Docs" way of thinking. There is a fairly substantial amount of evidence now pointing squarely at Richard Doty a.k.a. "Falcon" as the fabricator of said documents thusly solidifying any suspicions about him being a Disinfo Agent. Him and Moore worked hand in hand apparently on A LOT of the Roswell stuff and thereby muddying the waters of true signal with plenty of noise. It's too bad that Stanton and Linda Moulton-Howe bought the goods hook, line and sinker. By taking Doty seriously they pretty much relegated themselves to be interviewed by only George Noory and Larry King. Bummer. They both had decent cred until the MJ-12 events.

That's about as off-topic as I will take this thread. Back to Gulf Breeze! The weather is nicer anyway.

Cheers,

Erik