Legends, Hoaxes and the Big Lie: Hey, Nineteen

Cincinnati-based ufologist Jerry Black (left) began his study of the Gulf Breeze UFOs sightings in 1990. Something bothered him immediately about the case. All the photographic evidence had come from a single source, some guy named Ed Walters. As someone who had studied the UFO phenomenon for decades by that point, Black knew that past single-source stories turned out to be hoaxes. As he recalled in a 2003 interview with Covington (KY) local access cable host Kenny Young:

I became involved in the case shortly after 1990 when I began to realize that all these pictures had come forth from Ed Walters, and yet thinking back through all the years of ufology, we've never had a person present that many pictures and be considered a valid case: George Adamski being a good example, Daniel Frye and others. So I thought this was a unique and tremendous situation, here was a man who took picture after picture of alleged UFOs and had actually been abducted, according to his testimony. It didn't take long after being involved in the case to learn that there were a lot of holes in the story.

In order to resolve the issue, and verify that Walters was on the up-and-up, Black approached MUFON head Walt Andrus about getting a second, independent assessment of the Gulf Breeze photos by William G. and James B. Hyzer, two photo analysts recommended by Polaroid (Walters’ preferred camera). Andrus agreed. But after several months, MUFON still hadn’t sent the photos to the Hyzers. Black sent instead a cover of a MUFON Journal to the analysts, who told them him they couldn’t determine anything from a multi-generational photocopy. Black then telephoned Andrus, encouraging the MUFON founder to send more pictures, since the one he had already sent couldn’t be proven fraudulent (Black admitted this was a mild ruse to get Andrus to get off the stick). Andrus sent the Hyzers ten more photocopies of Walters’ photographs within twenty-four hours of Black’s call.

The copies were good enough to prove that beyond doubt that Walters faked at least one of his pictures by means of double exposure. Photograph #19 provided the smoking gun in terms of Walters’ expertise with trick photography, and his intent of hoaxing the public.

Figure 1. Ed Walters Photograph #19, and comparison of a photograph taken at the identical location



Photograph #19 shows an appropriate reflection of the UFO on the road’s surface. Note the lack of light from the sides of the craft, which could explain why the trees behind the putative disk were not illuminated. But the problem here is not the reflection of the road or the trees, but rather the reflection off the car. As grainy as the copy of Walters’ was, one can still discern the tree line on the hood of the car. The comparison shot shows the tree line more clearly. But what the original Photo #19 doesn’t show is a reflection of the saucer on the hood of the car.

In a rebuttal to the Black interview, Dr. Bruce Maccabee defended the honor of Photo #19.  He insisted that the lack of corresponding reflection resulted from a car defect, specifically a dent on the hood that blocked the reflection from the camera’s lens. Dr. Maccabee also (rightfully) pointed out other factual errors in Black’s TV interview. Moreover, Black made further accusations against Maccabee (more about that in the next post) that were more or less overgeneralized, and black-and-white. Maccabee, like most of us in that situation, was inclined to defend himself with a (more likely) accurate version of events.

Of course, a TV interview isn’t the same as a written piece. Personally, I deal with so information that I’m constantly double- and triple-checking various items before committing them to screen, and then check again before posting them here. Were I to go on a TV show, I’m fairly sure that in order to provide substantive commentary I might mangle a minor detail here or there, for I wouldn’t have my notes with me. So, if Black occasionally fractured a factoid, that wouldn't bother me all that much. But when maligning someone’s character and conduct, one should make sure that they portray the grievances as they are, and without embellishment.

Black’s badmouthing of Dr. Maccabee detracted somewhat from what would have been substantive criticism of the Navy analyst’s handling of this particular case. After all, one thing we can certainly see about Photo #19 is that a possible ding would not explain the lack of reflection on the hood. We can clearly see parts of the background trees that the putative UFO should have obscured. If nothing else, the are-you-going-to-believe-me-or-your-lying-eyes explanation given by Maccabee should give us pause to wonder why the good doctor insists on maintaining this version of events.