SUBJECT: GULFBREEZE ACTIVITY SUMMARY FILE: UFO1681
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
**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS -
http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************
