Orbiter - No 11 - 1988

Magazine Overview

Title: ORBITER
Issue: #11
Date: September 1988
Publisher: The New England Aerial Phenomena Report
Country: USA

This issue of "ORBITER" delves deeply into the controversial Gulf Breeze, Florida UFO photo case, presenting a collection of articles and commentaries that highlight the significant divisions and debates within the ufological community. The publication aims to provide a more critical and scientifically grounded perspective on the events.

Commentary on Gulf Breeze Events

The issue begins with a "COMMENTARY" section that reprints several articles related to the Gulf Breeze events. One article notes that the Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS) felt compelled to issue a position statement due to the case's repercussions on the broader ufological community, extending beyond CAUS's usual focus on government involvement.

Another featured article, "What If The Photos Are Real?" by Dr. Willy Smith, critically examines the Gulf Breeze case. Dr. Smith, who presented a paper titled "The Gulf Breeze Saga" at the National UFO Conference, argues that "controversy" has become a tool used by the media to typify unresolved issues with emotional considerations rather than substantiation. He asserts that in science, issues are resolved through judicious consideration of facts, not rhetoric, and questions whether this scientific method has been applied to the Gulf Breeze sightings.

Dr. Smith's analysis breaks down the case into several points:

1. The Objects: The photos allegedly depict superior intelligence with control over space-time, featuring peculiar machines operating discreetly. Four distinct models are mentioned, with initial craft showing asymmetries and later ones exhibiting cylindrical symmetry, possibly indicating evolving technology or a replacement craft.
2. Control of the Witness: The witness claims to perceive a hum before craft approach. Dr. Smith notes that while this might be true, it's secondhand information. He highlights the witness's uncanny ability to anticipate craft and prepare his camera, suggesting the controlling intelligence has the power to contact and influence this specific witness, as photographs are only obtained when he is present.
3. Apparent Inappropriateness of the Witness: Dr. Smith questions why this particular witness, who lacks prominence in society due to education, profession, intelligence, or wealth, was selected. He points out shortcomings, including the use of different names and deception about his education, and suggests that the entities' use of rudimentary Spanish is illogical. He concludes that either the witness is lying, destroying his credibility, or the entities are sloppy, neither of which is satisfactory.
4. The Strieber Connection: The issue draws parallels between the entities described by Ed (the Gulf Breeze witness) and those described by Whitley Strieber in "Communion." It argues that these similarities are too numerous to be coincidental and that a confrontation between Strieber and Ed is of utmost importance for resolving the UFO question.
5. The National Security Angle: Dr. Smith emphasizes that if the photos are genuine, they imply the presence of unknown origin machines with terrifying weaponry, posing a serious national security risk. He criticizes ufologists like Dr. Bruce Maccabee and Don Ware for not bringing this information to the US Government's attention, deeming their inaction a "fundamental sin of omission."

Dr. Smith concludes that his paper raises questions and offers a new perspective on the Gulf Breeze events, hoping to prompt creative thoughts.

Open Letter from Robert Boyd

An open letter from Robert Boyd to "Associates in Ufology" is reprinted, informing readers of his upcoming 50+ page report titled "Failure at Science." This report is described as complete, detailed, and containing illustrations, pertinent data, anomalies of photographs omitted from the MUFON journal, suppressed negative evidence, and a critique of Bruce Maccabee's 1988 Symposium paper. The letter recommends the report to anyone seeking the "other side" of the Gulf Breeze events and provides contact information for obtaining a copy.

Repercussions on the UFO Community

The author expands on the repercussions of the Gulf Breeze case, noting the electronic media's lust for sensationalism. He criticizes the tendency to focus on outlandish claims by UFO buffs rather than objective researchers, leading to the misuse of the Gulf Breeze case as proof of E.T. visitation. The issue questions MUFON's scientific claims, stating that true science requires reporting all data. It highlights that warnings from prominent ufologists and scientists about the case's problems were ignored by MUFON.

The article expresses concern that MUFON's biased reporting is affecting grassroots organizations and the uninformed public, leaving them in the dark. It calls for objective researchers and investigators to ensure all Gulf Breeze material is made available for study, allowing ufologists to draw their own conclusions.

Editorial: The Gulf Breeze Controversy

The editorial addresses the "disturbing situation" and "serious controversy" surrounding the Gulf Breeze photo case, which it claims threatens the integrity of the UFO subject. It notes the development of "character assassination" between MUFON and Gulf Breeze supporters on one side, and CUFOS and critics on the other, predicting that this conflict will harm the study of UFOs by perpetuating its perception as a fragmented and disorganized field.

The editorial states that the burden of proof lies with the Gulf Breeze supporters, a burden it feels has not been met. It deems the questions posed by the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) as serious, legitimate, and unanswered by the MUFON side. The editorial expresses dismay at the removal of Robert Boyd, MUFON's State Director for Alabama and a critic of Gulf Breeze, from his directorship, interpreting it as retaliation for his vocal opposition to MUFON's endorsement of the case as authentic.

It argues that if an organization endorses a controversial incident and attacks criticism, its support must be considered "lightweight" and its influence will fade. The editorial calls for total and amiable cooperation between UFO research organizations, acknowledging the difficulty given four decades of experience. It supports CUFOS's position on the Gulf Breeze Case and hopes for a quick resolution.

Letter to Associates in Ufology

This section contains a letter from Robert D. Boyd, dated August 1988, addressed to "Associates In Ufology c/o The Orbiter." Boyd discusses the potential outcomes of the Gulf Breeze events: either the field of study will remain in the "dark ages," or a coalition of serious associates will form to overcome inhibiting factors. He identifies these factors as "UFO Buffs" presenting themselves as investigators, sensationalist media involvement, and "De-buffers" (debunkers) who are fearful or egotistical.

Boyd advocates for an aggressive approach to oppose these factors, suggesting exposing buffs and avoiding them, criticizing the media, and handling debuffers similarly. He outlines a need for a more concerted effort from a "silent majority" to tap into latent rational people and encourage their involvement. He believes the Gulf Breeze case could be a landmark for the "Dawning of Ufology," leading to greater acceptance by society and the academic community.

Boyd also mentions his forthcoming three-part, 50+ page work titled "Failure At Science," which will include his historic account, a critique of Dr. Maccabee's work, and a technical examination of the photos. He apologizes for his inability to correspond promptly due to previous commitments and his work on this report.

UFOs: Fact and Frivolity

This article, by Robert C. Cowen, science editor of The Christian Science Monitor, discusses the state of UFO research. It highlights a symposium organized by the Smithsonian Institution featuring experts like J. Allen Hynek (CUFOS), Allan Hendry (CUFOS), Bruce S. Maccabbee, James E. Oberg (NASA), Robert Shaeffer, and Philip J. Klass. The article emphasizes the need for scientific rigor and stringent criteria in UFO investigation.

Key points from the article include:

• Prevalence of Identified Flying Objects (IFOs): Approximately 90-92% of reported UFO sightings can be explained by natural or human causes when properly investigated.
• Grass-Roots Phenomenon: UFO sightings are reported by ordinary, rational, and honest people worldwide, not just cults.
• Stringent Criteria: The need for rigorous evidence, such as sightings in full daylight with multiple witnesses and clear angular size, is stressed to reduce observer error.
• Hypnosis: The article cautions against the use of hypnosis in investigations, noting its susceptibility to mental suggestion and the potential for creating false memories.
• Abductee Stories: Panelists generally found abductee stories not credible, viewing them as part of the "noise" in UFO research.
• The 10% Residue: The debate centers on the remaining 10% of unexplained cases. Skeptics like Klass and Shaeffer advocate for the "null hypothesis" (that these also have prosaic causes if more data were available), while others, like Dr. Maccabbee, find enough challenge in the unknowns to warrant further study.
• Dr. Hynek's Role: While advocating for open-mindedness, Dr. Hynek's speculations about alternative realities and alien meetings are seen as potentially undermining his crusade for scientific acceptance of UFO study.

The article concludes by noting the difficulty of getting the press to report UFO stories responsibly, with a plea for less sensationalism.

Why We Should Keep an Open Mind About UFOs

This article by Turner Liddell, from the Journal of the Optical Society of America (April 1953), discusses the phenomenon of "Phantasmagoria or Unusual Observations in the Atmosphere." Liddell argues that while most reports have psychological significance, some optical phenomena are gaining wider interest. He acknowledges that complete interpretation of all reports is impossible due to insufficient data but states that no evidence exists for phenomena not explainable by standard physical concepts.

Liddell traces the historical awareness of atmospheric phenomena, from fear of eclipses to the understanding of lightning. He notes that the concept of "flying saucers" gained traction in 1947 but that unusual atmospheric observations were noted much earlier, citing the Star of Bethlehem and an account by explorer David Thompson in 1792.

He criticizes "hucksters of science" and "pseudo science" for exploiting public interest in UFOs, often being resistant to rational explanations. Liddell recounts instances of misidentification, such as the "Mantell" case (possibly chasing Venus or a balloon) and the "Chies-Whitted" incident (likely a reflection). He also mentions the Fargo report, suggesting it was compatible with chasing a weather balloon.

The article emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between facts (reports of strange sightings by credible individuals) and theories (explanations for these sightings). Liddell warns against mixing the two and substituting theory for facts, such as UFOs being alien spacecraft or paranormal phenomena.

He stresses that while UFO reports exist (a fact), the cause remains unknown, necessitating an open mind. He acknowledges arguments for extraterrestrial visitors but also powerful arguments against them. Liddell advises teachers to help young people distinguish between events that are simply unidentified to some but identifiable to experts, and truly puzzling events.

He criticizes the "trashy speculation" surrounding UFOs and life in outer space, urging calm guidance for students. He advocates for an open mind as good pedagogy and because the answer is genuinely unknown. He mentions that the Air Force has ceased official investigation, and the Condon Report concluded little could be gained from further study, though Liddell himself finds the Condon report a powerful argument for the phenomenon's reality.

The article notes that UFO reports continue globally, with France leading in serious work, followed by the US. Several civilian organizations are dedicated to gathering UFO data, including the Center for UFO Studies.

Liddell concludes by reiterating the need for an open mind, especially as theories of planet formation suggest billions of solar systems, making it likely humanity is not unique. However, he acknowledges the vast distances involved and the difficulty of interstellar travel, suggesting that advanced civilizations might possess incomprehensible means of bridging these distances.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the controversy surrounding the Gulf Breeze UFO case, the critical need for scientific rigor and evidence-based investigation in ufology, and the divisions within the UFO research community. There is a strong emphasis on distinguishing between verifiable facts and speculative theories, and a critique of sensationalism in media reporting and biased approaches by organizations like MUFON.

The editorial stance is one of advocating for a more objective, scientific, and evidence-based approach to UFO research. It criticizes the infighting and character assassination within the community, calling for cooperation and transparency. The publication champions the role of critical inquiry, as exemplified by Dr. Willy Smith's analysis and the editorial's own stance, urging that all data be made available for independent study. The issue also touches upon the historical context of UFO observations and the challenges of maintaining an open yet scientifically sound perspective.