271 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext
271 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext
|
SUBJECT: REOPENING WALTER'S UFO CASE FILE: UFO3289
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
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.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
*********************************************************************
|
||
|
|
* -------->>> THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo <<<------- *
|
||
|
|
*********************************************************************
|