home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
Text File | 1994-06-10 | 47.9 KB | 1,002 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.
-
- *END OF RELEASE OF MATERIAL*
- **************************************************************
- **************************************************************
- **************************************************************
- *COMMENTS*
-
- Few UFO cases have captured the attention and interest of both
- Ufologists and the general public such as the Gulf Breeze saga
- has managed to do. For that reason this information is being
- distributed to the public and interested parties for their
- evaluation in determining their views toward case.
-
- After review, any person wishing to submit their comments may
- write to the various parties involved and share their opinions
- on the integrity of the case or those points which they would
- like to make in regard to the investigation. This may be done
- either by letter or responding via various BBS Networks. Each
- sysop who carries MUFONET can download your comments directly
- into the MUFON organization. Others may respond by sending
- their messages and comments to ALL with the subject or file
- named GB-?-USA.XXX(your initials)
-
- This information is being supplied in the interest of making
- details well known locally in GULF BREEZE available to the
- public at large.
-
-
-
-
-
- The information which is included in this release is as
- factual a reproduction of the material just released assuming
- no errors in composition under the time restraints in getting
- this information made public. Actual copies of all the reports
- are available and final decisions should be based on those
- documents, as necessary for supporting conjecture. However,
- the presented information is as accurate a reproduction as can be
- evaluated by the submitter.
-
- 10-28-90 Phillip Ray Griffin - Rainbow BBS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-