Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/ftp-stuff/gbreport.ufo

Text File | 1990-11-14 | 45.5 KB | 950 lines

                      *  THE PRESS RELEASE *

Carol and Rex Salisberry
State Section Directors for
Pensacola MUFON

Interview, questions and answers bearing on recent
investigation of the Walters' Case.
**************************************************************
We wish to release to the public a progress report on our work
involving the reopening of the Walters' UFO case. First, two
voice stress analyses have been made on a tape recording of
the telephone conversation among Mayor Ed Gray, Chief Jerry
Brown, Craig Meyers, Mark Curtis and Tommy Smith on 15 June
1990. These analyses both indicate that Tommy Smith was
telling the truth in all respects regarding the allegations
which he made concerning Mr. Walters and the UFO case. Second,
we have investigated the writing on the model which Mr. Menzer
found in the attic above his garage and have determined that
the paper used in the model could not have been made from a
house plan that Mr. Walters claims to have drawn in September
1989 for the Lynn Thomas family. This second point has been
independently verified by others including Mr. Phil Klass.
Third, we have conducted analyses of Photos 14 and 19 in the
Walters' book and have concluded that there is a very high
probability that the reflections shown in these photos could
not have been made by a hovering object as described by Mr.
Walters and validated by Dr. Maccabee. It is a virtual
impossibility for the reflections to have occurred as depicted
in the photos. It is, however, very easy to have created these
photos by using a small model and double exposure camera
techniques as demonstrated by Mr. Mark Curtis of WEAR-TV. With
Photos 14 & 19 shown to be probable fakes, scientific and
intellectual integrity dictate that other photos depicting the
same models should be considered as highly suspect. This
includes the " Believer Bill ", the " Jane " and the so called
" Tommy Smith " photos ( the voice stress analyses indicate
that Tommy Smith did not take these photos).

Question: Are you making this disclosure on behalf of MUFON,
or is MUFON intending to release your information through a
press conference or other means?

Answer: We are providing this information of our own volition
and are not speaking for MUFON. We don't know at this point
what MUFON intends to do.
**************************************************************
Question: Why are you making this disclosure without sanction
of MUFON?

Answer: Over the past several weeks, many people have advised
us of their opinions that MUFON will not acknowledge or
release any information from our investigation which tends to
disprove the Walters' case. WE have continued to believe in
the objectivity of MUFON and believed that they would accept
the results of our work at face value. However, in the past
few days we have come to believe that others may be correct in
their assessment of the situation.
**************************************************************
Question: What has caused you to change your opinion in this
regard?

Answer: We first provided Mr. Andrus, International Director
of MUFON, with our preliminary analysis by telephone on 9
Sept, 1990. At that time we described for him a simple
demonstration that he could perform to convince himself that
we were correct. It was decided at the time to seek additional
analysis from other experts to support our own work. We did
this and sent Mr. Andrus an Interim Report on 23 Sept, 1990
which contained additional expert analysis confirming our
conclusions. We talked with Mr. Andrus by telephone in late
September and learned that he had not even done the simple
demonstration that we had suggested to him. This tends to make
us believe that he is not giving serious consideration to our
analysis or the supporting analysis of other experts. Also, we
have now learned that elements of MUFON are attempting to
discredit us as " debunkers " which we deem eminently unfair
in consideration of the large amount of time and effort we
have devoted to objective reassessment of this case.
**************************************************************
Question: Can you describe the simple demonstration for us and
could our readers do the demonstration for themselves?

Answer: Yes, it is very easy to do. It is basically a
demonstration to show what the reflection in Photo 19 should
look like when reflected from the flat road surface. The data
to use can be taken from Dr. Maccabee's article in the 1988
MUFON Symposium Proceedings. These are as follows: distance
from the camera to the object is 185 (+/- 5) feet; the
diameter of the light ring at the bottom of the object is 7.5
feet; the height of the object above the road is about 3 feet;
and the height of the camera is about 5 feet. You then set up
a scale of 1 inch = 1 foot to do your demonstration. For
example.... Cut a circle of white paper 7.5 inches in
diameter, place the white circle on a flat service and move
away 185 inches to simulate the camera location, then raise
your eye level to 5 inches above the elevation of the white
circle, and you can see how the reflection should look. If you
look at this photograph which we took of our own demonstration
you can see that the reflection should appear as a narrow
horizontal line and not as the much taller reflection as shown
in Photo 19 of Walters' book. Walters' photo depicts the
reflection as " hanging in mid air " instead of flat on the
road as should be expected. It could be argued that the
Walters' camera might have been higher than the 5 feet which
we have used, but we have shown that the camera height would
need to have been about 45 feet in the air to produce the
reflection in Photo 19. If you will look at photo 19 in
Walters' book, you can readily see that the higher elevation
was not possible. Also, here is another photo which we took of
our demonstration to show the results of the higher camera
height, and you can see that the image of the reflection now
approximates those in Walters' photos. This next photo shows
the result if the road surface had been slanted up by about 14
degrees under the object. You can again see that this
approximates the reflections in Walters' photos. The point
here is that there is a strong indication that a small model
and double exposure camera techniques were used by Walters' to
take photos 14 and 19. There is strong support for this in the
work done by Mark Curtis of WEAR TV. He made the same mistake
in setting up his model which produces the same " impossible
reflection " results as shown in Walters' photos.

Your readers can get an idea of what we are talking about here
by observing the reflections of car headlights on the road as
they drive at night, or by noting shadows on the ground in the
early morning or late evening.
**************************************************************
Question: You said that you have also done a mathematical
analysis, what does this show.

Answer: Since the three-dimensional appearance of the
purported reflection is converted to two dimensions on film,
we calculated what that two-dimensional presentation to the
camera should be. The horizontal component is essentially
unchanged because of the geometry of the scene, but the
vertical presentation is calculated by trigonometric
relationships as shown here. You can see that the vertical
dimension that the camera would see is about 2.5 inches. You
can compare this to the measured and calculated value of 22.5
inches from photo 19 and readily see that vertical
presentation to the camera  in Walter's photos is roughly 9
times " taller " than it should be. This should present
conclusive evidence that photo 19 was faked. The same
conclusion can be made for photo 14 since it is essentially
identical to photo 19 except for the geographic location and
the use of different models. With these two photos shown to be
fakes, all other photos which show the same model, should also
be suspected of being fakes. This would include the " Believer
Bill " and " Jane " photographs as well as the so called "
Tommy Smith " photos. By the way, an independent analysis
conducted of the purported " Smith " photos by a Ph.D. level
photogramatrist indicates his conclusion that, " The sequence
looks systematic and staged with a model at 6-9 feet. " This
tends to support Tommy Smith's allegations that Mr. Walters
had taken those photographs of a model.
**************************************************************
Question: What about the other experts which you claim have
validated your conclusions?

Answer: We have had an analysis done by a local Analytical
Physicist who hold a Masters Degree in Physics and does these
types of analyses for his employer. He has constructed a
rigorous mathematical model to show what the expected
reflection should be under almost any set of conditions. When
Maccabee's data, which I mentioned earlier, are substituted
into this model the results are essentially equivalent to our
own, i.e. that the reflections in Walters' photos 14 & 19 are
about 9 times taller than they should be, which again
indicates that the reflections in Walters' photos are
suspended in air and not off of the road or field as one would
expect. The conclusions of this analyst are, " A direct
measurement from photo 19 reveals that r=4. This is physically
impossible, in view of the above analysis. Therefore photo 19
is a physically impossible representation of reality and is
faked. The above analysis is rigorous and leaves no room for
doubt. It assumes only cylindrical symmetry of light emissions
with respect to the object axes of symmetry and the accuracy
of Maccabees's calculations." ( r in this conclusion refers to
the aspect ratio of the horizontal divided by the vertical
dimensions.)

We have another analysis done by a Ph.D. level
photogrammatrist who is a friend. His results agree closely
with those of ours which we demonstrated earlier. His
conclusion is, " The reflection in Gulf Breeze photo 19 is
inconsistent with the reported events." We will not use his
analysis because of his need for anonymity.

We have also shared our work with Dr. Robert Nathan who is
doing an independent analysis of his own at our request. He
has expressed his agreement with our analysis and conclusions
verbally over the telephone, but because of his busy schedule,
he has not yet completed his own analysis.

We have also consulted with another Ph.D. level
photogrammatrist who has done previous analyses of the
Walters' photos. He has expressed verbal agreement with our
analysis with the comment " I wish that I had thought of that
aspect".

Arguments may be advanced that a non uniform illumination
might be able to produce the reflections as shown in the
photos 14 & 19. The experienced analysts mentioned before
assure us that such non-uniform illumination should still
produce an elliptical pattern for the reflection. However, the
brightness of the reflection might be " spotty " ( i.e.
brighter in some places and dimmer in others. ) Also, The
diamond shape of the reflections in these two photos is not a
normal expectation and is probably the result of error in
planning how the reflection should look when the model was
photographed for double exposure process.

**************************************************************
Question: 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 have
confirmed 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 of
the 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.
**************************************************************
Question: What have you determined about the model found in
the Walters' former home?

Answer: We have statements in writing from the current owners
of the home and we have interviewed them on several occasions.
We, as well as other investigators, have determined that the
house plan segment used to build the mid-section of the model
could not have come from the plans which were drawn in
September 1989 as claimed by Mr. Walters. Those plans specify
that the exterior of the home to be " Sinergy " whereas the
plans in the model specify a brick exterior. The address for
the home to be built from the plans drawn by Mr. Walters in
September 1989 would have been 700 Jamestown Dr. whereas the
address on the plans in the model appears to be 712 Jamestown
Dr. The residence at 712 Jamestown DR. was apparently built by
Mr. Walters in early 1987. This represents a direct
contradiction to the claims of Mr. Walters that he drew the
plans found in the model in September 1989.

Mr. Walters has also publicly stated that the model was in
plain sight in the attic when Mr. Menzer found it. This is a
contradiction to Mr. Menzer's statement in which he indicates
that he did not notice the model until he moved a considerable
amount of loose insulation aside. The question begs to be
asked, " Did Walters have foreknowledge of the location and
relative visibility of the model in the attic prior to its
discovery by Mr. Menzer?"

If you look on the bottom of page 28 in Walters'  book where
he provides a description of the "UFO" that he saw: " There
were also some diamond shapes between some of the large black
squares and, unseen on the photos, there were definitely
horizontal lines going around the main body. ( see drawing
following page 64)". The drawings following page 64 do not
show any horizontal lines except for the seams between the
various sections. In the book, " photo 14, light-blasted and
enhanced for detail, enlargement" show these same seams, so
Walters could not have meant them when he described the
horizontal lines. However, the model found in Menzer's atic
have neatly drawn horizontal lines around the main body of the
model, which is the only place that we can find the horizontal
lines as described by Mr. Walters. This seems to indicate that
Mr. Walters knows more about the model than he has admitted.

It is also noteworthy that 12 and 14 in Walters' book bear a
marked resemblance to the model found in the Menzer's attic.
**************************************************************
Questioon: What about the witnesses that have come forward and
have claimed to have seen what Ed Walters has photographed?

Answer: We agree that a few witnesses came forward in late
1987 and in 1988, after they had seen the photos, and claimed
to have seen a similar UFO. It is not our purpose to discredit
those witnesses. We examined their case file reports and news
accounts, and we have been able to interview most of them in
person or over the phone. Under the conditions of observation
(altitude, time of day, length of sighting, angle of view
etc.) and general descriptions given, what they saw was
similar in some cases but not an exact match to the Walters'
photos. For example, we interviewed Charles and Doris Sommerby
recently. They said that the UFO that they saw in Nov. of 1987
was at least 150ft. across, had one row of round portholes
with bright lights shining out of them, had a large lighted
dome on the top that covered most of the top-half of the UFO,
and it had a circle of smaller bright lights on the bottom.
According to Dr. Maccabee's calculations the UFO that Mr.
Walters photographed was only 12 to 25 ft across, had 2 rows
of square portholes, had a small light on the top, and a solid
ring of light on the bottom. Because they saw it on the same
day that Walters reported photographing his UFO, they assumed
it was the same. We have found that other witnesses did not
see all the same details that are included in the photos, and
because they made their report after they had seen a photo, a
psychological principal known as "gestalt" may have influenced
their report.

(The MUFON Investigators Manual cautions against contaminating
the witnesses by showing them photographs of other sightings
prior to their own independent description.) But it is also
important to recognize that witness testimony is supportive,
but does not prove the authenticity of the Walters' photos.
These two issues must be separated in the final analysis.


**************************************************************
Question: What about the lie detector tests that Mr. Walters
claims that he has passed?

Answer: The Lie Detector Tests-- A misleading Issue.

In the Aug. 16, 1990, Gulf Breeze Sentinel, Ed Walters wrote
an article entitled " Tommy Smith's Statements Questioned." In
this article Ed writes: On June 19 I was challenged by Tommy's
father to take a lie detector test. On that same evening I
took the test and passed. Ed Walters has now taken 4 seperate
tests with three different examiners and passed them all. My
wife Frances and Hank Boland were also tested previously."

In an interview with Ed and Frances in Sept. 1990 in which
Charles Flannigan and the Salisberrys were present, we asked
Frances if she had ever taken a lie detector test and she
said, "No"

She explained that a taped interview had been tested by MUFON
without their specific approval. Two tapes were submitted by
Bob Oeschler to an examiner in Maryland. The examiner stated:
" The way the interviews were done and the type of information
discussed does not give the examiner the verbal material
necessary for him to be able to say if these individuals are
being completely truthful with the interviewer.

This examiner does find two areas in Mr. Hank's ( Hank Boland)
interview that showed meaningful reaction which indicates a
problem with his answer. The answer he gives regarding the
reason for the object disappearing when Ed saw (Hank). Mr.
Hanks said that the craft communicates through Ed and can
sense things through Ed. The other area is where he does not
want to sign the form with his true name."

On June 19 Ed had himself tested with the Psychological Stress
Evalutator, voice stress test by Robert Lauland in New
Orleans. ( It is interesting to note that a test is only as
good as its questions, or that the questions will determine
the outcome, pass or fail) Here are a few of the questions
that were asked: " Is it true that you did not kill a circular
area of grass on the soccer field of G.B. High by using a
trampoline?" A better question might have been, Did you tell
Tommy Smith that you killed the grass with a trampoline? The
real issue is whether or not he told Tommy certain things. (
see additional questions below)

In Feb., 1988 Mr. Charles Flannigan arranged to have Ed tested
by a reputable examiner. Mr. Flannigan and other investgators
created a list of questions that the examiner could use. Ed
chose not to be tested under these supervised conditions.
Instead he went by himself, on 2 occasions, to another
polygrapher and paid for a polygraph. The questions that the
investigators prepared were not used by the examiner, and no
one from MUFON accompanied him to the testing site or observed
the conditions of testing. This examiner stated that, " He
(ED) claims to desire no personal gain or renumeration from
these sightings. " ( However, Ed and Frances did have a book
in preparation at this time and were actively seeking
publication, which usually means money.)

It would be desirable for Ed, Frances, their son Danny, Hank
Boland, and Tommy Smith to all take supervised polygraph tests
to insure the validity of the results. So far the Smith family
has agreed to these conditions if the Walters family would
agree also. The Walters family has so far refused.
**************************************************************
Questions from Lauland voice stress analysis June 19, 1990 and
observations on these questions:

1... Is it true that you did not make the UFO model that was
found at 612 Silverthorn Drive in Gulf Breeze, Fl, ? Ans: Yes
( observation: Someone could have made the model for Ed, and
he could be answering this question truthfully)

2... Is it true that you did not have a model of a UFO at 612
Silverthorn Dr. in Gulf Breeze, Fl. Ans: Yes. ( observation:
If Ed had more than one model of UFOs at the house, this
answer could be truthful but misleading.)

3... Is it true that you do not know who made the UFO model
found on Silverthorn Drive in Gulf Breeze, Fl. Answer: Yes.
(observation: The question has been skillfully juggled from
the previous pattern by substituting ON for AT and omitting
the house number. Ed could be answering truthfully in that the
model was not found on the street, but inside the house.)

4... Is it true that you have never taken stereo camera photos
of any airplane landing any time in your life? Answer: Yes.
(observation: Ed could be answering this question truthfully
since it is the wrong question, The question should have read,
" Is it true That you told Tommy Smith that you went out and
took a picture of an airplane landing at night, held the
camera sideways, " since that was the allegation made by Tommy
Smith)

5... Is it true that you did not kill a circular area of grass
on the soccer field of Gulf Breeze High School by using a
trampoline? Answer: (observation: again this is the wrong
question. Tommy Smith's allegation was, " If I remember
correctly, he told me that he turned a small trampoline upside
down on it for a while and jumped up and down on it."
Obviously the question does not address the allegation.

Mr. Lauland states in his opening paragraph, " ...and the
questions were reworded for clarification..." (This gave
Walters the opportunity to carefully word the questions so
that he could answer truthfully without providing any
meaningful results.)
**************************************************************
Question: What do you foresee will be the official MUFON
position to your disclosure of this information?

Answer: We really don't know, but we feel that we have an
obligation to share the results of our efforts with the
citizens of Gulf Breeze and the Pensacola area. Remember that
we too were believers of the Walters case and only changed our
minds after the preponderance of evidence indicated that there
was a hoax involved. We hope that MUFON will consider our
evidence and support our conclusions. We sincerely hope that
MUFON will continue to be an objective investigative agency of
the UFO phenomena.
**************************************************************
Question: You probably know that Mr. Walters is running for
the office of City Council member. What effect do you forsee
that your disclosure will have on his campaign?

Answer: We are not residents of Gulf Breeze and hence have no
interest in the elections of the city. Our timing on the
release of this information is precipitated by the lnowledge
that some elements of MUFON are attempting to discredit us. We
also would like to bring the investigation to a close because
we have many important things to do that have been deferred
because of our work on the case. We even gave up our usual
summer vacation because of it.
**************************************************************
Question: Is there anything else that you would like to add?

Answer: Yes, we would like to repeat that the validity of the
hundreds of other UFO related events which have been reported
in the area is not affected by this disclosure and the outcome
of the Walters case. We still remain students and
investigators of the UFO phenomena and are grateful to the
many witnesses who have shared their experience with us. We
hope that they will continue to do so.
**************************************************************
**************************************************************

                     *THE PRINTED NEWS ARTICLE*

PENSACOLA NEWS JOURNAL
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1990
..............................
INVESTIGATORS DOUBT UFO AUTHOR
BY CRAIG MYERS
NEWS JOURNAL
..............................

Two investigators for the MUTUAL UFO Network said Friday  they
believe Gulf Breeze author Ed. Walters faked some of the
photos of UFOs that appear in his book.

" We believe that UFOs exist," said Rex and Carol Salisberry
of Navarre of their study of several of Walter's photos. " We
entered this investigation with a natural and favorable bias
toward the Walter's case, " but " our investigation and
analysis lend to the conclusion that several, if not all of
the photos are probable hoaxes."

Walters, who co-wrote " The Gulf Breeze Sightings" with his
wife Frances, maintains the photos are real and that they were
taken during numerous encounters between November 1987 and
March 1988.

Walters has appeared on numerous radio and television shows,
including " Unsolved Mysteries " and the Oprah Winfrey Show,
to recount his experiences with UFOs.

He was reported to be out of town Friday and could not be
reached for comment.

In July the couple was named " Investigators of the Year " at
a MUFON Symposium in Pensacola.

Walt Andrus, MUFON's international director, said Friday that
his organization is not yet ready to give its stamp of
approval to the Salisberry's four month investigation of the
photos.

" I don't know how they arrived at that decision." Andrus said
from his office in Sequin, Texas. " It is certainly premature.
He has no business talking to reporters. It has never been
cleared through here. He can't make representations for the
organizations."

Andrus, who has for two years endorsed the Walters case,
appointed Salisberry in July to take a second look at the case
after questions surfaced about the credibility of Walter's
photos.

The first question arose after a model was found in the
Walter's former residence in Gulf Breeze in March. The
Styrofoam and drafting paper model was found in the attic of
the home and strongly resembled a drawing Walter's made of one
of his UFO sightings.

The second question arose when Tommy Smith, formerly of Gulf
Breeze, said in July that he witnessed Walter's fake UFO
photos. Smith said Walters asked him to take some faked UFO
photos to the Gulf Breeze newspaper and claim they were real.

But Andrus on Friday said Smith is lying and the UFO model was
hidden in the attic by someone who wants to discredit Walters.

"Tommy Smith can't prove any of his statements- they are
outlandish lies," Andrus said.

The Salisberrys said Smith's testimony and the model
contributed to their conclusion, but more convincing was an
analysis of Walter's so-called " road shot " that shows a UFO
hovering over a road.

Salisberry said the reflection of the spacecraft, which should
be flat, actually is at an angle that does not match the
road's surface. The triangular shape of the reflection also
does not match the round light source on the bottom of the
craft, he said.

The Salisberrys said the photo and a second photo probably was
created by a double-exposure-- a process by which a model is
photographed and the image is exposed again onto the same
frame of film.

" With these photos reassessed as probable hoaxes, the other
photos... should be considered as highly suspect, " Salisberry
wrote in the preliminary report.

Seven MUFON members investigated the sightings in 1988 and
concluded Walter's story was true. The Salisberrys were not
among the original investigators, but joined MUFON in November
1988.

Andrus said that while the Salisberrys are good investigators,
they cannot yet speak for MUFON.

" They ( the Salisberrys ) do not have grounds to arrive at
that conclusion until it is submitted to us. We will have to
look at their facts," Andrus said.

The Salisberrys have not yet submitted their report to MUFON.

Phil Klass, a contributing editor to Aviation Week & Space
Technology magazine and a longtime Walters critic, said Andrus
is too " proud and stubborn " to accept the report.

" I think the Salisberrys should be commended for being
willing to change their earlier opinion," said Klass.

But Dr. Bruce Maccabee, a photographic analyst who has
defended Walter's photos. said the road reflection does not
discredit the photo.

Maccabee said his analysis of the photo shows light from
beneath the object was projected at an angle-like car
headlights shinning ahead of a car on a wet road.

Maccabee said Friday he still is open-minded about the
Walter's sightings, but said it would take more convincing
evidence than Salisberry's report to convince him of a hoax.

" Nothing I have seen has changed my mind," Maccabee said.

Salisberry said his conclusion on Walters' photo does not
shake his own belief in UFOs. And he said his report won't end
the Walters' debate.

" The problem with Walters' story isn't a UFO problem, it is a
human problem". Salisberry said. " If the Walters' case is
typical of most UFO cases, the debate will probably go on for
years in spite of any evidence pro or con."


**************************************************************
**************************************************************
               *THE INTERIM REPORT TO MUFON*

From:        Carol A. & Rex C. Salisberry    23 September 1990
             Navarre Beach, Fl. 32566-7235

To:          Walter H. Andrus, Jr.
             103 Oldtowne Road
             Sequin, Tx 78155-4099

Subject:     Interim Report on the reopening of the Walters'
UFO Case


Background: The investigators, Carol & Rex Salisberry had not
been involved with the prior investigation of the Walter's
Case and had accepted the MUFON assessment of its validity
without close personal scrutiny. When Tommy Smith came forward
with his allegations on 15 June 1990, the investigators
doubted them and, in fact made several public statements in
support of the Walter's Case. After the press conferences on
19 June 1990, wherein Mr. Charles Flannigan ( Florida MUFON
State Director) announced the reopening of the Walters' Case
and the commitment by MUFON to finding the truth, we were
asked by Mr. Flannigan to assist him in the next phase of the
investigation. During a meeting of Mr. Walter Andrus, MUFON
International Director, Mr. Flannigan, and Mr. Salisberry on
Thursday 5 July 1990, Mr. Andrus expressed his capacity to
accept the result that the Walter's Case was a total fraud if
that was proven to be the case. We deemed this to be a
critical commitment on his part , because we didn't want the
results of our work to " be swept under the rug" if they were
contrary to the then prevailing views of many MUFON officials
and others. Upon receiving this commitment from Mr. Andrus we
proceeded with the investigation with an open mind and with
the greatest degree of objectivity that we could muster. Our
previous, personal supportive views of the case had to be
subjugated so as not to influence the fact finding process.

Tentative Conclusions: Although there is much work remaining
to be done in the investigation of this case, we have arrived
at  result that we deem should be brought to the attention of
MUFON before it is uncovered and released to the public by
outside interests. On 9 September 1990, our analysis of Photo
19 of the Walters' case indicated a very high probability that
the reflection on the road could not have been made by an
object hovering over the road as described by Mr. Walters and
validated by Dr. Maccabee. It is a virtual physical
impossibility for the reflection to occur as depicted in Photo
19. Perhaps one of the easiest methods of producing the photo
is by use of a small model (photographed at close range) and
double exposure techniques as demonstrated by Mr. Mark Curtis
of WEAR TV. Mr. Curtis and his associate, a biologist and
model maker, have been harshly criticized by their critics. We
were allowed to witness their effort and know that their
intent was to demonstrate that the process was feasible and
their purpose was not to duplicate the Walters' photo. (It is
interesting that they too introduced the fatal flaw of
creating a reflection which was not possible under the
circumstances.) The detailed account of our analysis of Photo
19 is shown in Attachment 1.

Mr. Flannigan and Mr. Salisberry telephoned Mr. Andrus on
Sunday evening 9 September 1990 to inform him of the results
of the analysis. During the conversation it was suggested that
two independent experts be contacted to confirm the validity
of our analysis. Those two experts were provided the details
of the analysis and have orally responded with their
confirmations of the validity of the results.

With Photo 19 shown to be a probable hoax, Photo 14 is
likewise categorized since it is essentially identical to
Photo 19 except for geographic location. With these two photos
reassessed as probable hoaxes, the other photos which depict
an image of the same model should be considered as highly
suspect. Intellectual and scientific integrity then dictate
that the suspect photos be downgraded in the overall
assessment of the validity of the case.

Another aspect of the Walters' case which has come into
question is whether or not he knew how to take double
exposures prior to 11 November 1987. Mr. S. Peter Neumann, of
WEAR TV and a resident of Gulf Breeze, has informed us that
Mr. Walters had told him and his wife much earlier than 11
November 1987 that Walters sometimes used double exposure
photography to amuse the young people who attended the parties
in the Walters' home. Mr. Neumann has declined to provide us
with a written and signed statement to this effect, but
indicated that he would provide the same information to anyone
calling by telephone. Additionally, the young people whom we
have interviewed relate that Mr. Walters consistently "had a
camera in his hand" at the various activities at which he was
present. These young people also confirmed that Mr. Walters
sometimes took what appeared to be trick photos and that they
could not understand how it was done.

Discussion: It is emphasized that the reassessment of the
Walters' Case should not be cause to believe or disbelieve the
hundreds of other UFO related experiences in the Pensacola
area. Each reported case had been evaluated on its own merits
and should stand as reported. It is even quite probable that
the Walters family have had experiences with UFO related
phenomena; however, this is difficult to assess at this point
because of the previous preoccupation with the photos which
may have distorted the data.

Recommendation: MUFON should release the results of our
analysis to the public as soon as practical. We consider this
important to maintain our integrity as an objective UFO
investigative organization.

                           Attachment One

Preliminary Analysis of Photo 19 of the Walters' UFO Case made
by Rex C. Salisberry on 9 September 1990.

ASSUMPTIONS:
     (1)  The object and the light ring at the bottom are
circular (source - Mccabee, 1988 MUFON Symposium Proceedings).
     (2)  The distance from the camera to the object is 185
(+/- 5) feet (source - Maccabee, page 145 of 1988 MUFON
Symposium Proceedings)
     (3)  The diameter of the light ring at the bottom is 7.5
feet  (source - Maccabee, same as #2).
     (4)  The tilt of the object away from the observer is
about 13 degrees ( source - Dr. Willy Smith, page 14 of his "
The Gulf Breeze Saga")
     (5)  The height of the object above the road is about 3
feet
(source - Maccabee, same as #2).
     (6)  The height of the camera was about 5 feet.
     (7)  The reflection on the Flat and relatively level road
should have a round or slightly oval shape. Regardless of the
shape of the reflection, since the cross dimension of the
light is roughly equal to the cross dimension of the
reflection, fore-and-aft dimensions of the light and the
reflection should also correspond.

APPROACH:
     It seemed to be a prudent scientific approach to
determine what the reflection should appear to be under the
given assumptions and then compare that result with the
photograph.

ANALYSIS:
     (1) Since the three-dimensional appearance of the
reflection is converted to two dimensions on film, the two
dimensional presentation to the camera should be determined.
The horizontal presentation is unchanged because of the
geometry of the scene, however the height and depth
presentations are converted to a vertical only presentation as
follows:
                        5ft-> |
                              |90__________> (Angle A )
                                   185ft

Angle A = arctan 5/185 = arctan (0.027027) = 1.54815 degrees

The fore-and-aft dimension (x,) of the reflection on the road
is given by                                ^  <-7.5ft
                                /90
                              /_____________13 degrees
                                     x,
x, = (7.5 feet)/(cosine 13 degrees)= 7.6972813 feet
The vertical dimension (y,) as it would appear to the camera
is then given by
                   |
              5ft  |                ^y,
                   |                |
                   |90_______________7.6972813______>Angle A =
1.54815
                                185ft
y, = ( 7.6972813 feet)( sin 1.54815 deg.) = 0.2979574 feet =
2.49549 inches.

(2) Computation of the comparable vertical dimension from the
photo facing page 129 of Walter's book is as follows:

     The ratio of the vertical dimension to the horizontal
dimension is approximately 1 to 4 as measured on the
photograph.
     Then by proportion      Yz / 7.6972813 feet = 1/4
                  Yz = (7.6972813feet)/4 = 1.9243203 feet
which is over 9 times greater than the expected value computed
in (1)

(3) If the road surface was sloped up abruptly below the
object at an angle of about 14 degrees, the presentation of
the reflection as shown on Photo 19 could have been attained.





                              .   |
                         .        |1.9243203 feet
                   .              |
     Angle  B  <________________90|
                 7.6972813 feet

Angle B = arctan (1.9243203)/(7.7972813)= 14 degrees
(This computation is not precise but is a close enough
approximation upon which to draw a conclusion.)

Since the road is known to not have a 14 degree slope at the
point indicated in the photo, this possibility is ruled out.
However, a similar reflection to the one shown in Photo 19 was
produced by Mark Curtis for WEAR TV which indicates that the
reflection could have been made by using a small model and
double-exposure camera techniques. Mr. Curtis and his
associate made the mistake of slanting the top of their light
pipe and then covering it with thin paper to create the image
for reflection. The fatal flaw produced a similar " fat "
reflection as the one shown in Photo 19.

(4) It is possible that the camera elevation could have been
higher than the 5 feet assumed, so the camera elevation needed
to produce the photo image of the reflection is roughly
calculated by using a proportion as follows:

                    |
                 Y3 |         |< 1.9243203 feet
                    |         |
                    |_________|____________________
                                7.6972813 feet
                    |<.............185 feet.......>|

     Y3/185 feet = 1.9243203 feet/7.6972813 feet

    Y3 = (1.9243203) (185 feet)/7.6972813  = 46.25 feet

Visual inspection of photo 19 indicates that a camera
elevation of 46.25 feet was not possible.

(5) It could also be argued that the fore-and-aft dimension of
the reflection on the road could have been greater than the
approximate 7.7 feet calculated in (1) above. Therefore a
calculation of the fore-and-aft dimension needed to produce
the reflection of Photo 19 is as follows:
                   |     .
              5 ft |          | <1.9243203 feet
                   |90........|.....X2.......
                   |>            185ft     <|
        X2 = (185) ( 1.9243203feet)/5 = 71.2 feet

Again, a visual inspection of Photo 19 rules out this
possibility.

(6) Other arguments could be offered, e.g. heat from the
bottom of the UFO heated the wet road which caused steam to
rise. The reflection on the water droplets in the steam would
then cause the reflection to appear " fatter " than expected.
Such arguments employ circular logic and hence must be
discounted. Additional, the case file does not contain any
evidence to indicate that the road was subjected to heat.

(7) Anyone can perform a simple demonstration to convince
himself of the validity of the above analysis. Construct a
model of the scene using a scale of 1 inch = 1 foot as
follows:
 (1) Cut a 7.5 inch diameter circle from a piece of white
paper.
(2) Place the 7.5 inch circular piece of paper on a flat
surface to represent the reflection on the road.
(3) Move away 185 inches to simulate the distance from the
camera to the object.
(4) View the circle from an elevation of 5 inches above the
elevation of the circle as shown below ( You can cut a peep
hole 5 inches above the bottom edge of a piece of cardboard to
help in setting the proper height above the circle of paper):

               (Eye)>|
                     |5 inches
                     |____________________________()7.5inch
white disc
                            185 inches

One can then easily see that the circle appears as a thin line
and not as the "fat" reflection shown in Photo 19

Conclusions: It is virtually impossible that the object as
described in Walter's book and Maccabee's analyses could have
caused the reflection as shown in Photo 19. A small model and
double exposure camera techniques could have been used to
produce the reflection as described in (3) above.

**************************************************************