Here’s an article, link found on UFO Review, from the Miami Herald:GULF BREEZE: Town recalls heyday of UFO sightings
Two decades ago, the area around the Florida Panhandle town of Gulf Breeze was the center of sightings of unidentified flying objects, byline Dusty Ricketts.
County Commissioner John Broxson saw something in Gulf Breeze in 1987:
Something bright was hovering above his home, a parade of lights of different colors and intensity. He quickly had his wife, Christina, and their friends come out to see it for themselves. No one knew what they were watching.
The unidentified flying object hovered for several moments before quickly flying straight until it was out of sight.
As the article points out, Ed Walters wasn’t the only witness to the UFO sightings. Hundreds of witnesses saw these things.
Between 1987 and the end of 1993, when most of the sightings ended, Ware said hundreds of people reported seeing UFOs in Gulf Breeze. Walters and others took more than 125 photographs of supposed UFOs just between Nov. 11, 1987, and May 1, 1988, Ware said.
The distraction of “proving” or debunking Walters, from his character to the model of a flying saucer found in his home, doesn’t address the real issues surrounding the Gulf Breeze events.
Walters described weird beeping, electronic type noises coming from one of the robotic type “aliens” he saw. It reminds me of older cases in many ways; of humanoids and robotic beings, of Mothman type electronic sounds. In other weird events, like some Hairy Biped encounters, strange beeping or electronic sounds occur.
As already mentioned; hundreds of witnesses observed UFOs in the area at the time.
Many of the images Walters took of the UFOs are similar to the clunky flying saucers from the 1950s, like Adamski’s images.
Contactee George Adamski's flying saucer, 1952
The paper model of the UFO found in Walter’s home after he moved out seems ridiculous; why leave such damning evidence behind? Why stick it where it wouldn’t be easily found, yet found it was?
Then there was the strange story that appeared in the news around the same time; something about three (if I remember it right) G.I.’s who went “crazy,” and talked about UFOs, among other things. There was a Gulf Breeze connection there; I don’t know if they were from Gulf Breeze, or went there on a “mission” listening to some voice they heard, or what. I tried to find some links to this but didn’t find anything. (Plus, I was in a hurry.) If anyone recognizes what I’m talking about, I’d appreciate the info.
As far as hoaxes go, the article quotes Barry Karr, Director of CSI (formerly CSICOP) who supports the late Philip Klass’s belief Gulf Breeze sightings were a hoax:
'I really don't think there's any question the Gulf Breeze sightings were a hoax,'' Karr said.`There are things in the sky that can't be identified, especially near an air base. Just because it can't be identified doesn't mean it's a visitor from another planet.''
This is typical chronic skeptic disingenuousness; while it’s true that it’s an assumption, and only an assumption, that these UFOs and entities are extraterrestrial, there’s still a whole lot of strange things going on that validate investigation.
(I also wonder at Karr’s syntax: he says “there’s (no) question the Gulf Breeze sightings were a hoax,” which implies intentional deception, but in the same breath says “There are things in the sky that can’t be identified, especially near an air base. Just because it can't be identified doesn't mean it's a visitor from another planet.''
Which is it, a hoax, or misidentifications, or misperceptions, of military craft? It’s as if Karr is trying to cover all bases; hoax, assumptions, misinterpretations/misidentifications -- it’s all bunk, no matter the reason. Just dazzle them with blanket dismissal and move on.)
Personally, I think the entire Gulf Breeze events were military experiments on an entire town, and Ed Walters was their prime guinea pig. If this is true, it’s almost as astounding as entities from outer space. To brush the thing off as mere lights in the sky that can’t be identified ignores this possibility.