Question 7: Dr. Bruce Maccabee has done considerable work on these photos and seems to have concluded that they are real UFOs. Your analysis and conclusions seem to be in conflict with his. How do you explain that?

 Answer: Numerous experts have applauded Dr. Maccabee on his analytical work, however, many of them have questioned his assumptions and his logic ised in drawing his conclusions. For example, on page 145 of the 1988 MUFON Symposium Proceedings, Maccabee states " The reflection in the road below the object is unusual because of its shape and brilliance. It is not  round, but more diamond shaped, indicating that the object was emanating a non-circular pattern. The reflection beneath the object in Photo 14 ( Figure 19 ) is also diamond shaped." Here he draws the conclusion that the circular source ( to which he admits on the same page ) made a diamond shaped reflection, which as an optical physicist, he should know to be impossible. He goes on to say " ( From a hoax point of view this is surprising because a model with a bulb inside would very probably give a circular illumination pattern.)" This sentence indicates that Maccabee assumed that one needed to put a bulb inside of the model to create a hoax. He conveniently ignored other hoax scenarios, such as the one used by Mark Curtis ( and probably by Mr. Walters ) wherein the shape of the " reflection" was designed into the model set up. Maccabee goes on to say " The brilliance of the reflection is also surprising, considering that it was reflecting off a (wet) road." We find it surprising that Dr. Maccabee did not address this incongruity in more detail since it is known that he and Mr. Charles Flannigan conducted experiments in this regard. When you consider that the surface of the road (Black top) is highly absorptive, it should be obvious to even the casual observer that the intensity of the " reflection" is much too great when compared to the intensity of the source. We find it surprising that Dr. Maccabee did not address some of these important considerations which lead directly to conclusions that Photo 19 is a fake.

 Another incongruity in Dr. Maccabee's work can be found in the  last paragraph on page 169 of the 1988 MUFON Symposium Proceedings. In this paragraph, Dr. Maccabee explains the difficulties that Mr. Walters would have in photographing a model in Photos 36 L&R with the time elements involved and with witnesses nearby in the parking lot. He ignores the fact that Mr. Walters' wife, Frances, was with him and could have greatly reduced the difficulties. In fact, it would have been a rather simple process for two people as pointed out elsewhere by Maccabee in the article. Maccabee also fails to report that Frances did not emerge from the bushes at the same time as Mr. Walters and had ample time to have hidden away the model and other paraphernalia involved. Other witnesses haveconfirmed that Frances did indeed remain concealed by the bushes for some period of time after Mr. Walters appeared with  the photos. Dr. Maccabee has also asserted that rigorous proceedures were used to record the numbers of the backs ofthe photos to track them and obviate the possibility of substitution. These assertions have been refuted by Mr. Charles Flannigan and the witnesses who were present at the time. None of the witnesses recorded the numbers!

 The public may not be aware that Dr. Maccabee was paid for his work concerning the Walters' case. At this point, we have not been able to ascertain when he was paid, how much, who paid him, when he was paid, or what he was expected to do for the pay. With this in mind, we have excluded him from our investigation team to avoid accusations of bias in our results. Now, with our conclusions in conflict with those of Dr. Maccabee, we expect the accusations anyhow.

 We understand that Dr. Maccabee and Mr. Robert Oechsler have done analyses on the so called " Tommy Smith " photos. We requested the results of their analyses as early as July, but neither shared them with us, which we find strange. Along the same line, many investigators around the  country have shared their results with us, but we have not been able to reciprocate in kind because of our loyalties to MUFON.

 We do not want this misconstrued as any kind of personal attack on Dr. Maccabee for that is not our intent. He has written and spoken profusely on this case and we simply disagree with many of his assuptions and conclusions.


GOTO page 4.


Translate This Page

Make a Free Website with Yola.