99 lines
5.1 KiB
Plaintext
99 lines
5.1 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: SYNOPSIS OF WILLIAM G. HYZER'S _THE GULF BREEZE PHOTOGRAPHS
|
|
|
|
FILE: UFO2220
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BOGUS?_ (Second edition, March 15, 1992)
|
|
|
|
by Rex and Carol Salisberry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Late in 1990, Mr. Walter Andrus, International Director of MUFON, requested
|
|
Mr. William G. Hyzer to undertake a photo analysis of the Walters photos.
|
|
Mr Andrus made the request at the suggestion of Mr. Jerry Black, who had
|
|
made the initial contact with Mr. Hyzer.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Hyzer is a nationally-recognized photogrammetrist, who was honored by
|
|
an award from the American Academy of Forensic Sciences at their annual
|
|
meeting in February 1992. Mr. Hyzer was assisted in his analysis of the
|
|
Walters photos by his son, Dr. James B. Hyzer. Mr. Andrus provided copies
|
|
of photos 1,2,5,9,13,14,16,17,18,19,21,22,36L&R,37L&R and 38L&R for their
|
|
work. It is unfortunate that Mr. Andrus could not provide Walters' original
|
|
photos or at least first-generation copies to Mr. Hyzer for his analysis.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Hyzer has now completed his work and a copy of his final report, _The
|
|
Gulf Breeze Photographs: Bona Fide or Bogus?_ (second editon, March 15,
|
|
1992) was sent to Mr. Andrus on April 1, 1992. We have been priviledged to
|
|
read the report and we find it most definitive.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Hyzer's report indicated that the dark rectangular areas (portholes)
|
|
in all of the photos analyzed are either slightly lighter or no darker than
|
|
the scenic backgrounds. This would indicate that the objects are either
|
|
self-luminous, internally-illuminated, externally-illuminated from the
|
|
general direction of the camera, or the result of photographic fakery.
|
|
|
|
The report also indicated that the UFOs possessed chameleon-like
|
|
characteristics. The images of the UFOs are of the same colorations as
|
|
their scenic backgrounds. This would indicate that the objects are either
|
|
semi-transparent, color-variable, or the result of photographic fakery.
|
|
|
|
Late in 1991, Mr. Ray Stanford noted that the reflection of the tree line
|
|
in photo 19 is visible on the hood of Walters' truck (see photo section
|
|
preceding page 129 in Walters' book). Mr. Stanford requested that Mr. Hyzer
|
|
analyze this aspect of photo 19. Mr. Stanford had mentioned the lack of
|
|
reflection from the UFO to Dr. Bruce Maccabee back in 1988. Dr. Maccabee
|
|
claims to have conducted tests using a flashlight and Walters' truck to
|
|
determine why there were no reflections from the UFO as expected (see
|
|
MUFON Journal, #252, April 1989). Dr. Maccabee found that because the hood
|
|
of Walters' truck was supposedly bent, illuminations below seven feet above
|
|
the ground at 200 feet away would not cause reflections. He later changed
|
|
the seven feet to six feet.
|
|
|
|
A series of experiments was performed, in which we assisted Mr. Hyzer, to
|
|
establish the envelope within which light sources would reflect from the
|
|
hood of a Ford 150 XLT truck. The light sources were moved laterally from
|
|
30 feet left and right of the centerline of the road and vertically from
|
|
ground level up to 10 feet above the surface. Distances varied from 500
|
|
feet to 20 feet from the camera. The light-source reflections within the
|
|
described envelope were visible and photographed on the hood of the truck.
|
|
All of the data, which we helped to collect, was provided to Mr. Hyzer in
|
|
raw form (including negatives). This was necessary so as to preclude any
|
|
possibility of biasing the information.
|
|
|
|
Since Dr. Maccabee has now moved the UFO to a position 370 feet from the
|
|
camera and two feet above the ground, about 13 feet of the top part of the
|
|
UFO would have been above the six-foot restriction claimed by Dr. Maccabee
|
|
above. Therefore, the crescent-shaped illuminated dome and the dome light
|
|
should have made a visible reflection on the hood of the truck since both
|
|
were as bright or brighter than the background sky, though they do not
|
|
reflect.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Hyzer also notes that since the UFO is now supposedly 370 feet from
|
|
the camera and two feet above the surface, there should be a pattern of
|
|
increased luminance directly beneath the power ring. His photometric
|
|
analysis did not reveal the increase in luminance as expected. Mr. Hyzer's
|
|
results therefore indicate that there was no UFO present and that the photo
|
|
is the product of multiple-exposure camera techniques. These results of
|
|
Mr. Hyzer's analysis lead him to conclude the in his professional opinion,
|
|
photograph 19 is a fake produced by multiple-exposure photography.
|
|
|
|
Since photo 14 is very similar to photo 19, it also is probably a fake.
|
|
The other of Walters' photos depicting the same objects as photos 14 ad 19
|
|
then become highly suspect. Couple this with the brightness and
|
|
chameleon-like factors reported by Mr. Hyzer and there appears to be a high
|
|
probablility that all of Walters' photos are fakes.
|
|
|
|
We hope that Mr. Hyzer will publish his report in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rex and Carol Salisberry
|
|
|
|
ed note: William Hyzer has no particular interest in ufology and should
|
|
be considered an impartial analyst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |