Saturday, October 16, 2010

Legends, Hoaxes and the Big Lie: The Ties that Blind

With the exception of Rex and Carol Salisberry, Jerry Black harshly criticized MUFON’s investigation of the Gulf Breeze UFO incident. First off, he felt that the initial investigators were too inexperienced to handle a case of that magnitude. Moreover they had become personally close to Ed Walters, and the resulting friendships with the claimant biased their investigation of his claims. As he told Kenny Young:

Maccabee and Andrus allowed rookie investigators, Charles Flannigan, Don Ware and others, to run with the case and use their own judgment. MUFON itself, I believe, wanted this case to be real....When I talked to Don Ware and told him about all the red flags and what was going on, he became real quiet and said: ‘Jerry, I don't care what evidence comes out. Ed will still always be a friend.’ He had got to close to Ed Walters. You can't do that. You can't get that close to a claimant where he's your buddy or your friend, you're not going to investigate sincerely.
Investigating friends would be a bit awkward, right? There theoretically might not be any conflict of interest in one friend investigating, or pronouncing judgment on the other. But most of us understand that a negative judgment might have later repercussions (e.g., the loss of that relationship). Worse, a positive verdict gives off a definite impression of impropriety.

It would be one thing for Flannigan and Ware to conclude the investigation, let the chips fall where they may, and then develop a friendship with Walters after that determination. It’s quite another for them to develop a closeness to him while the investigation’s still ongoing (if that indeed was the case). If so, then Walters could have played a substantial role in directing the investigation of himself. Somehow, I don’t think he would find himself to be a fraud.

Black leveled more substantive criticism at Dr. Bruce Maccabee for having not only emotional ties to Ed Walters, but also financial ties, which called into question the credibility of Walters' story. Sometime in 1988, Maccabee agreed to co-author a book with Ed Walters titled UFO’s Are Real: Here’s the Proof, originally published by Avon in 1990. As part of the agreement with Walters’ literary agent, Dr. Maccabee received a $20,000 advance (minus the agent’s 10% cut). According to Maccabee, the agreement and final deal came about in November 1988, six months after he presented the Walters’ case as factual at the annual MUFON Symposium. But Black said that Walters had made an undisclosed payment for “professional services” as early as July of 1988, much closer to the time of the MUFON symposium. This gives the impression (although certainly doesn’t prove) that Maccabee’s affirmation of the Ed Walters photos at the Symposium, and his subsequent support of them in the future was contingent on a bribe. Black felt that this “professional fee” was in addition to the advance (and subsequent royalties) from their book. He based this suspicion on a postcard Walters sent him.

Figure 2. Postcard from Ed Walters to Jerry Black, dated 26 November 1991




In order to save your eyesight, the above card reads:

Jerry,

I did not pay Dr. Maccabee $5,000.

I did not have an appointment w/Mr. [illegible, but refers to the independent polygraph examiner originally scheduled to interview Walters]. (Flannigan asked me if I would agree to a p. test. I was offended but a week or so later I had it done. Flannigan might have talked to Mr. [illegible polygraph examiner] but I never heard of him.) Dr. Maccabee received a professional fee in 1988 Dec. for the work he had finished almost 2 years before the book was published. (July 1988). Book pub. March 1990) [sic]

You have been told ½ truths–and your voice is full of hate. I’m sorry for you. May God bless and keep you.

Ed W. [emphasis X. Dell]
Obviously, Black made an error here. By both Maccabee’s and Walters’ accounts, the payments didn’t begin in July 1988. Nor did Maccabee conclude his investigation at the time, but rather a couple of months earlier, before the symposium.  That jibes completely with Walters' statement here. Moreover, both Walters and Maccabee agreed that the later received payments in the fall of 1988; although there is a tiny discrepancy in the date–Nov. as opposed to Dec.–it’s close enough for general agreement. Since the only payment Walters alludes to here (the “professional fee”) fits with the advance checks Maccabee received from the publisher (via Walters’ agent), there’s no reason to believe Black’s contention that there was a second payment of unspecified amount. We also have every reason to believe that Dr. Maccabee is telling the truth when he says he only received royalty advances starting months after he had concluded his research.

While Black does come across as “full of hate,” as Walters suggests, he still has a valid point in all of this. Whether or not the payment was eighteen grand or more, and regardless of whether it was in the form of a professional fee or a book advance, the problem remains that Maccabee had a financial incentive to maintain and perpetuate a provable hoax. It’s a conflict of interest that forces us to question his final analysis.

Of course, I don’t believe that financial reasons influenced Dr. Maccabee’s opinion on this matter. If nothing else, one can argue that the desire to prove the existence of extraterrestrial visitation is so strong that some people (including Andrus) believed in things in spite of what their good sense told them. And if the thoughts of other researchers (including Dr. Jacques Vallee) have any merit, then we can see the Gulf Breeze hoax in an entirely new light.

8 comments:

  1. And that's why we need to know about those kinds of financial arrangements. The whole hoaxing thing is so irritating to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. the people in this series just annoy the hell out of me ..
    sorry that i don't have anything wiser or insightful to say about the events.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chales, hoaxing for the sake of a good laugh is one thing. In fact, that could very well have been Walters' goal. But this would have very serious consequences both inside and outside of ufology.

    That's okay, Lilith, if they annoy you. They get worse from here on out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. hmmm. when i was a kid i thought it would be great if i could actually see a flying saucer, it would be thrilling to my pre-adolescent way of thinking.

    today it think that we live in such a cnn type rabbit hole that nothing is real and everything is an infomercial (or viral video...) for something else.

    recently the lights over new york city had people aghast looking up at balloons floating around a thousand feet above their heads.

    a p.r. stunt.

    p.t.barnum was right.

    and my word varification is "synin"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alistair, my WV is "wrati." Seems like that should mean something.

    I'd happily swap my adolescent experience of seeing a flying disc up close for not seeing one at all. Then again, that might be a case of the grass being greener on the other side.

    I was thinking too, dovetailing with your observation of CNN, that I had just watched (literally less than 120 seconds before typing this) an A&E presentation on the death of RFK. The way they handled the case, and the arguments was in a way saying something. Thus leaving the viewers' original viewpoint unchallenged.

    No wonder why so much stuff goes down the rabbit hole. Instead of relying on memory we might be relying on our reaffirmations, our "gut" instinct, our prejudices, or other extra-rational crutches.

    ReplyDelete
  6. we are conditioned to believing media.

    if the media says it`s a flying saucer, then that`s what it is.

    often in the u.f.o. videos someone will say "this proves that there are civilisations from other planets visiting us" and the man with the microphone will nod quietly.

    give a witness a voice from some unproveable position, and all of a sudden the narrative contains "proof".

    like the new and improved tide cleans our clothes better than the other stuff did...because some actress in a commercial says so.

    media constantly sets us up to give up our critical thinking skills for a split second and slides in an inference to be taken as fact.

    clever.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Still enjoying this series immensely.

    Wish I too had something insightful to add to the conversation. Everything seems covered.

    However, we are (as a society) terribly gullible when it comes to media claims. No wonder people act the way they do. The the dimwitted gullibility of a generation ago is amplified and compounded with fear in this modern age. Not that this is a new observation. doc alistair already went there, it just rings true.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dr. Alistair, as I had written earlier in the MJ-12 series (and again recently regarding an earlier series about Jimi Hendrix), when people receive information from an authoritative source, they often don't look at that information critically, especially if it purports to divulge some long-held secret. I would posit that the degree of believability is connected to how credible the source seems. In this case, we have someone who seems like Mr. Solid Citizen telling us he's been abducted with no hint of whimsy on his face, and a very competent (and from what I can tell honest) optical physicist. At the very least, one might be confused by the conflict this might have with other evidence, or even common sense.

    Eric, I guess it's the question here of whether we can believe anything we see, if the press (in this case in the form of Unsolved Mysteries, originally a main proponent on the story) can get a story so wrong.

    ReplyDelete