UFO Research HOME PAGE http://kenny.anomalyresponse.org/ E-mail questions or comments to Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 Titles "UFO REPORT" and "UFO REPORT MAGAZINE" by Kenny Young Copyright protected, ©2003 All Rights Reserved Internet trial version pending No issue currently available, UNPUBLISHED

UFOlogical "Mystery Payments" AN INTERVIEW WITH JERRY BLACK Jerry says that Gulf Breeze mystery payments and aone-sided investigation has led to an embarrassment for UFOlogy   By Kenny Young   The interview takes place in the television studios of the CommunityProgram Center, a cable access facility near Covington, Kentucky. Jerryseats himself on a stool in front of a large black curtain and prepareshimself for the interview as the studio lights blare to life. As the technicalassistant helps J erry 'mike-up,' he proudly holds out a copy of a postcardhe once received from Ed Walters, and also one page from a letter to himby Bruce Maccabee. These two items, and many others, proves to him thatthe case is a fraud. "Can we get an audio check please?" came the voice of the technicianover the studio intercom. "Testing, one two three," Jerry said in compliance. "Gulf Breezeis a hoax and the investigators who handled that case did a lousy job,they are an embarrassment to UFOlogy." Although Jerry was having fun with the technician testing hismicrophone, he is more than a little serious about the Gulf Breeze case,his convictions are well known. And in case you don't know his position,he would be more than happy to tell you. KENNY YOUNG: Why does Gulf Breeze remain controversial today? JERRY BLACK: I think the only reason Gulf Breeze remains controversialis because it was very poorly investigated from the beginning on. The MUFONorganization did not handle the case properly. Many of the investigatorsin the Gulf Breeze area were new investigators. Certainly Mr. Walt Andrusdid not take charge and lead these investigators. Mr. Ray Fowler, who wasMUFON's Director of Investigations, never worked on Gulf Breeze at all.I find that unusual. In reality, I think the Gulf Breeze case could havebeen handled much more efficiently had the investigators been seasonedinvestigators and been led properly by someone who had experience, suchas Mr. Walt Andrus, but he certainly failed in that responsibility. KY: That leads into my next question, which would have been the competencyof the investigators who were interested in Gulf Breeze...

KY: You have been one of the most aggressive investigators to delveinto the Gulf Breeze story. What draws you to the Gulf Breeze case eventoday? What is the attraction to what is apparently such a poor and obvioushoax-case?

JB: I became involved in the case shortly after 1990 when I beganto realize that all these pictures had come forth from Ed Walters and yetthinking back through all the years of UFOlogy, we've never had a personpresent that many pictures and be considered a valid case; George Adamskibeing a good example, Daniel Frye and others. So I thought this was a uniqueand tremendous situation, here was a man who took picture after pictureof 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 therewere a lot of holes in the story. So I contacted Polaroid to learn moreabout the Polaroid camera that Ed had used, and they put me in touch withWilliam G. Hyzer, a top-notch photoanalyst and James B. Hyzer, they workedtogether. Upon calling him, he was intrigued that this was a UFO pictureand he had never before handled or worked with a UFO picture. He was interestedand agreed to undertake analysis, waiving his $200 per hour fee. The credentialsof Hyzer are unbelievable, but he is probably one of the top ten photoanalystsin the country. So I was able to obtain his services, and there is an additionalstory behind that. I contacted Walt Andrus and told him that we could geta second-opinion of Ed Walter1s photos from Hyzer. Andrus agreed, but aftera few months of not hearing from him, I called him up and asked if Hyzerhad begun looking at the pictures, and he said: "Jerry, I have a bulletinto get out, we1ve doubled our membership and I'm very busy," I told himthat I understood but I did send a couple of the MUFON journals with thepictures on the cover to Mr. Hyzer, and he said that by looking at thepictures that they weren't hoaxed photographs. Walt Andrus very quicklysaid "Really? He couldn't say they were hoaxed?" I told him that Hyzercouldn't say they were hoaxed simply by looking at the front page of thejournal. Within 24-hours, Walt Andrus had sent copies of ten pictures toHyzer, I found that to be very interesting. You might say it was a wayof tricking Andrus to Hyzer, which I believe that he later regretted doing.

KY: Does the Hyzer analysis today stand as the definitive conclusionto the Ed Walters case?

JB: It depends on who you talk to. Again, the MUFON organization,under the direction of Walt Andrus, certainly did not accept the Hyzerreport as being the definitive report on the Gulf Breeze case. They, untilAndrus' retirement, continued to support the Ed Walters case and his photographsand claim of abduction. Most UFOlogists, including some people who haveleft MUFON, do not feel the case is real. Consequently, it's a dividedcommunity. The evidence is overwhelming in my opinion after 4 1/2 yearsof investigating the case with Rex Salisberry and his wife Carol and ZanOverall, that the Gulf Breeze photos are hoaxed. Hyzer said that on Photograph#19, the famous 'road shot,' Hyzer said conclusively in his final reportthat Photograph #19 was a double exposure. With his technical capabilityand experience, I value the Hyzer analysis. All other Gulf Breeze photographsmust be considered suspicious, the whole case is a hoax from beginningto end.

KY: Ed Walters and the Gulf Breeze situation was glorified in thebook "UFOs, Here's The Proof"co-authored by Ed Walters and Bruce Maccabee.What are your feelings on an investigator collaborating with a claimantin this manner, and why would Dr. Maccabee be such a proponent of Ed Waltersdespite the Hyzer analysis?

JB:  There are some hot ethical issues involved here. In myopinion, it's wrong. In this particular case, it is especially wrong becauseEd Walters had not even started his second book when Bruce Maccabee accepteda $20,000 fee for writing a chapter in the book. What we must rememberhere, and some people are not aware of this, that $20,000 (less $2,000for agents fee, let's be fair) that $18,000 came out of Ed Walters' pocket.That money was taken out of his advance. Once he had accepted that $18,000,he became too close to Ed Walters to objectively investigate the case anyfurther. When you get $18,000 from a person, you'll have some hesitancyto say anything bad about the photos or the person, it's human nature.Had I been in charge of MUFON at that time and learned that Bruce Maccabeehad accepted this money, I would have taken him off the case for conflictof interest reasons. As I said, I have a post-card from Ed Walters thatstates that much earlier than the book, Maccabee accepted a professionalfee in July of 1988 of an undisclosed amount of money, just before Maccabeewas to speak at the '88 MUFON symposium in support of the Ed Walters photos.

KY: So you are saying that Maccabee's acceptance of all this moneyhad distracted him from being an objective investigator?

JB: Totally, absolutely. That kind of money, and we don't know thereal amount, would distract anyone. Maccabee has denied that he receivedanything other than the $18,000 from the book, there's no amount listedfor this 'professional fee' that Ed Walters makes reference to in thispost card. It would be fair to say this professional fee may well havebeen in the 10 to 20-thousand dollar range, especially when you considerthat Bob Oechsler, who also worked on the Gulf Breeze case, and supportedEd Walters, personally told me that he received $5,000 for some work doneon the original photographs that Ed Walters took. Now that's a lot of moneyfor work on photographs and I don't know what he actually did, but thatwork was not turned over for Hyzer's consideration. Certainly that $5,000that Oechsler took home d