SUBJECT: A NEST OF INFO ON GULFBREEZE UFOs FILE: UFO1635 PART 21 The follow are two reports by UFO investigator/researcher Bob Oechsler, from Annapolis, Maryland. They provide insights and technical information relating to the Gulf Breeze, Florida UFO phenomena. The reports were received 9/22/88. DBC --------------------------------------------------------------------- THE GULF BREEZE PHOTOGRAPHIC SIGHTINGS CASE AS VIEWED FROM WITHIN THE INVESTIGATION One of the most often asked questions by investigators unfamiliar with the Gulf Breeze Case is to provide the single most compelling piece of evidence that proves the case valid. In the final analysis of the Gulf Breeze UFO photographic sightings case, it's not the photographs or the 8 mm home video of the flying UFO, or the landing site or any one particular sighting or piece of physical evidence that makes this case authentic. It's the people behind the story that make this case believable in spite of it's incredibility. The UFO phenomenon is rich in a foundation of historical documentation. This case has a certain uniqueness with no precedence in the literature. It has challenged the investigation team right to the core of their individual areas of expertise. Putting the case in perspective, however, has been an even greater challenge. There probably can be no singly conclusive piece of the puzzle that would validate the case. Given adequate resources someone probably could closely duplicate the photographic evidence. Missing, however, is any evidence that any of the principals in this case involving six months of active UFO sightings has the technological background, resources or ability to duplicate the evidence. So we must ultimately evaluate the human factors in which we are on firmer ground. We must ask ourselves can more than 135 witnesses be lying about what they saw, is it possible that a dozen well trained investigators and professionals be so naive and incompetent as to allow even a sophisticated hoax to go undetected under their very eyes for half a year. Are at least nine victims of missing time collectively hallucinating, and how can we deny the concerns of a mother whose three year old daughter has since last summer reported ghosts in her room, ghosts with big black eyes, who take her away and bring her back. And upon seeing photos of the UFOs the child told her mother that she'd seen that and had been in it! The evaluatable evidence in this case is abundant and available for close scrutiny. It is imperative to note that no specialist to date has been capable of duplicating even one single piece of the evidence, and I've personally witnessed a number of such attempts. One day someone will inevitably duplicate some of the evidence as will we one day be capable of duplicating the technology many have witnessed this year. But for now we must consider, has an alien culture from the stars initiated a long awaited Glasnost Policy of their own. If indeed that is the case, what will it mean to our society and the rest of the peoples of the Planet Earth in the years to come! Broadcast Reporter Bob Oechsler Investigator/Researcher Annapolis, Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INVESTIGATIVE ANALYSIS The photographic and video taped evidence in the Gulf Breeze case was brought to my attention approximately two months after the first reported sightings of UFO activity on November 11th of 1987. An exhaustive series of polygraph tests were conducted on the primary photographer in the case, one of five known to the investigative staff. It seemed pertinent under the circumstances that additional methods be employed to verify the veracity of the witnesses. Following a background check of the primary photographer with his verbal permission, various investigation interviews were subjected to Voice Stress Analysis using state of the art Psychological Stress Evaluator equipment operated by one of the nation's top expert analysts. There were no reactions in the analysis that would indicate that any of the three witnesses interviewed were telling anything short of the truth about what they observed. Meteorologic and Site Survey analyses were performed as a check against the details reported for the first photographic sighting. The conclusion verified that the photographs were likely to have been taken on the day and time period reported as no other similar conditions existed over a two week period prior to publication of the photographs. An investigation into the photographic equipment used was conducted through field tests and close consultation with Polaroid Corporation engineers. It was determined that the camera used through February 7th could perform double exposure techniques with the 108 type film. Investigators provided the witness with a 35mm Nimslo stereo camera and employed controls that were not subsequently breached as determined following inspection of the camera and film after a photographic sighting. A more sophisticated Polaroid Sun 600 camera was purchased on March 7th. The following day the camera was first used during a photographic sighting opportunity. It was determined by the Polaroid engineers that a double exposure was possible but extremely difficult to effect. On March 17th a second Polaroid Sun 600 camera was combined with the first in a stereo array to create a parallax for measuring the distance and size of objects by comparing two photographs taken simultaneously. The degree of difficulty in a double exposure had now increased beyond reasonable proportions. The final piece of equipment used was a Sony 8mm home video camera with sound and without zoom capability. A one minute and thirty eight second two part video tape was shot on December 28th. An extensive analysis of the two part video tape was started in March and continues today. Various enhancement techniques were performed at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Among those tests a variable speed element was employed to make tapes for viewing the entire tape at one tenth speed. A Sony Video Editor model BVU820 was used with a digital time base corrector to supply a direct signal to a Video Hard Copy Unit made by Tektronix, model 4632. The thermal printer generated photo images of both phases of each frame. A ten second portion of the video tape requires 600 single copy prints. Each print is measured to define altitude, flight path, rotation characteristics, frequency of beacon lights, ring aberrations, attitude in flight, air speed/velocity, acceleration/deceleration and an analysis of direction reversals. A preliminary analysis of the audio track indicated that no sound could be identified with the object. More sophisticated equipment is being sought. A preliminary analysis concludes that the object observed in the video tape closely resembles objects photographed with the Polaroid cameras. The object has a clockwise or left to right rotation. The dome or beacon light blinks on and off at no consistent rate or pattern and displays a variable luminosity with each cycle. The object loses altitude moving to the left of the camera just prior to blinking out. A ghost image appears in the first phase of the next frame approximately two object widths to the right that may be related but is apparently not visible through the transmission medium. There are certain restrictions in the evaluation of the video tape. Due to the horizontal resolution lines, we are viewing the object through what is analogous to jail bars turned sideways. Nonetheless it appears conclusive that the bottom or power source light has a variable luminosity characteristic which is not synchronic with the beacon light on top of the object. As an experienced robotics technician I've built many remote controlled devices in the past ten years. As a prototype designer I am well versed in exotic techniques used to operate various sizes of apparatus from very small to very large using sometimes inexpensive semi-automated frequency controlled equipment. The specifications detailed in this case, most notably the absence of audible sound from the UFO craft in the 8mm home video and the rotational characteristic, create enormous difficulty when an attempt is made to re-create what is observed by constructing a model to examine the technology. Further research is continuing in many areas relating to this photographic sightings case. It is quite clear to this investigator that we are examining a truly anomalous technology. On May 9th, 1988, I initiated an official appeal for assistance through the Office of the President of the United States and various members of the Sanate and House of Representatives. Government or at least military interest in the events that were occurring in Gulf Breeze, Florida was quite apparent in light of newspaper reports bearing photographs of vessels with elaborate radar gear, military vehicles with telescoping radar gear (all deployed in the vicinity of the sightings) and a reported visit to the primary photographer's residence by purported officials requesting original photographic materials. Responses received from the Office of the Secretary of the Navy revealed concern over evidence of federal airspace rules violations, responses from congressional representation revealed concern over human rights violations. The Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (Air Warfare) ultimately declined to investigate citing scarce Navy financial and personnel resources. It might be interesting to note that in a civilian capacity, Navy physicist, Dr. Bruce S. Maccabee conducted an extensive photo analysis of the evidence and found no evidence contrary to the existence of anomalous objects in the photographs. Bob Oechsler UFO Investigator, Researcher, Broadcast Reporter Annapolis, Maryland ********************************************** * THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo * **********************************************