160 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
160 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DEBUNKING EFFORTS FILE: UFO2317
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following represents material provided by Mr. EdwardWalters, a central figure in the Gulf Breeze UFO flap.Mr. Walters presents informat
|
|
|
|
ion which places in questionthe efforts and objectivity of a few individuals who havebeen critcal of the case. ---------------------------
|
|
-
|
|
--------------------------------May 22, 1989THE FOLLOWING IS A REVIEW OF THE DEBUNKING EFFORTS OF A FEW MOTIVATED CRITICSThe debunking eff
|
|
r
|
|
ts involve dozens of pages, some withdetailed math, but do not be deceived, they do not offerany hard evidence to refute the authenticity
|
|
f
|
|
the photos.Upon review of the following highlights it should be clearthat the debunkers consistently re-write witnesstestimony, omit deta
|
|
l
|
|
s and invent stories to supporttheir efforts.PHOTOS #1 thru #51. The photograph direction is verified to be Northwest. Thedebunker change
|
|
|
|
the photo direction to Southwest.2. The UFO is shown in the video tape to illuminate itselfand later in the same tape, cloke it's midsect
|
|
o
|
|
n. The debunkerignores this self illumination and boldly says, "It is obviouslynot glowing." (The debunker must expect us to believe that
|
|
e
|
|
knows how UFO's are designed and operate. He furtherdemonstrates his knowledge of UFO design with his argumentthat the "window" spacing
|
|
s
|
|
arbitrary.)3. The clouds in these photos were at approx. 18,000 feet andmoving at 90 knots which supports the 4 min. elapsed timebetween
|
|
t
|
|
he photos. The debunker changed the weather reportsto 30 knots so he could increase the elapsed time to 30 min.4. In photo #5 the clouds
|
|
c
|
|
an not be seen and seem to have moved away at 90 knots. (Plus more tech. info. on the shutter speed.) As the debunker ignores the 90 knot
|
|
e
|
|
ather report henow claims the clouds should be seen in his 30 knot wind.5. The weather reports also verify that the wind is blowing the cl
|
|
o
|
|
uds from left to right. The debunker printed a multi pagereport to the contrary, saying that he would resign if he waswrong. The next day
|
|
|
|
he was forced to admit he was wrong andretracted his statement on TV (But he did not resign.)6. The 1st signting (photos 1 thru 5) has bee
|
|
n
|
|
re-enacteddemonstrating how I held the camera. Contrary to the photoevidence the debunker argues that a tripod was used.7. The computer a
|
|
n
|
|
alysis of the photo #5 rules out any support(Dr. Maccabee and Dr. Carlotto). Similar to the debunker's fakeUFO hovering over the Chrysler
|
|
b
|
|
uilding in N.Y., it now seems that the debunker has 'fixed up' a computer print out using a COPY of photo #5. (Watch for it!)PHOTO #68. Th
|
|
e
|
|
electric transformer on the light pole is dull gray. Thedebunker changed it to aluminum.9. The photo shows that I moved the camera with t
|
|
h
|
|
e UFO'sdirection. The debunker says he does not believe that. PHOTO #710. The computer analysis of this photo confirms the UFOwas beyond t
|
|
h
|
|
e tree and the tree overlapped the UFO. Thedebunker ignores the analysis done using the original.PHOTO #1311. This is one of the multiple
|
|
p
|
|
hotos taken that night inwhich the UFO was at different elevations during the incident.Before the size of the UFO was established to be 13
|
|
f
|
|
eet(type #1), I consistantly said I thought the UFO was about30' dia. I therefore would naturally mistake a smallerobject to be farther aw
|
|
a
|
|
y.PHOTO #1412. The UFO rocked back and forth as it hovered. The debunkerargues that we should not see the bottom edge of the tiltedUFO. (H
|
|
e
|
|
ignores the witness testimony.)PHOTO #1613. I reported the UFO to fly 'overhead' (but not 90 deg.overhead). The debunker picked out the
|
|
d
|
|
escription 'overhead' and then uses a page of math to show that theUFO was not 90 deg. overhead. (He unwittingly supported mytestimony.)14
|
|
.
|
|
The photo shows the glow of the UFO bottom to be anuninterrupted circle. The debunker claims the glowing circleto be a round fluorescen
|
|
t
|
|
light. (He ignores that a fluorescent light has a dark power plug that interrupts the circle.)PHOTO #1715. Photos #16 and #17 were taken
|
|
o
|
|
ver 50 feet apart. Thedebunker changes the location of #17 to be the same as #16.(A team of reporters verified this and later tossed out th
|
|
e
|
|
pages of math that the debunker uses to impress and said"this guy can't be a real scientist, even we can see that hisfigures don't measure
|
|
|
|
up.")PHOTO #1816. The trees in this photo are measured to be 175 feet away.The debunker uses another page of math and then moves thetrees
|
|
t
|
|
o better fit his theory to 440 feet away. 17. This photo and most of the others have 'white spots' and'emulsion streaks' that are verified
|
|
|
|
by Polaroid engineers asfilm defects. The debunker calls these defects "water drops"and "supports" or any other thing that will help his t
|
|
h
|
|
eory.PHOTO #1918. As recorded in the early reports, the UFO rocks back andforth. The debunker ignores the testimony and again questionsth
|
|
e
|
|
tilt of the UFO over the road. 19. There was no rain as verified by the Weather Service. Thedebunker makes up rain so he can claim that t
|
|
h
|
|
ere should bereflections.20. During the photo #19 incident I did nothing that could bedescribed by the word "calmly." The debunker change
|
|
d
|
|
mytestimony to include "calmly."PHOTO #2121. I reported the UFO to be "over the truck toward the trees150 feet away." The debunker drops
|
|
|
|
the "toward the trees 150 feet asway" and uses several pages of math to show thatthe UFO was not "over the truck" (as in 90 deg.). He again
|
|
u
|
|
nwittingly supports my testimony.22. The two other witnesses testified to being 600 feet awayand report seeing an orange glow. The debunk
|
|
e
|
|
r changed their testimony by moving their location to within 100 feetand said they saw nothing.23. Earlier the debunker boldly says the UF
|
|
O
|
|
and it's "arbitrary windows" are never seen again after photos #1thru #9. But he now changes his mind and says it issimilar to Photo #21.
|
|
2
|
|
4. The photo evidence shows the UFO to be self illuminating.Again the debunker pretends to know the correct designproperties of a UFO with
|
|
|
|
regard to illumination and symmetry.PHOTOS #22 AND #2325. The camera used was the same 108 Polaroid verified to have a manual adjustable f
|
|
o
|
|
cus. The debunker changed thecamera and said it has a fixed focus type. (It's easy to debunka photo if you change the witness testimony a
|
|
n
|
|
d the camera type.)26. Again the debunker asserts his design knowledge of UFOsand insists they cannot self illuminate.PHOTOS #25 thru #342
|
|
7
|
|
. I was given the special 4 lens camera and asked to useit if I had an opportunity to photograph the UFO. 16 dayslater, 4 days longer tha
|
|
n
|
|
the previous sighting, I took thephotos along with my wife. The debunker argues that it took"a long time (almost three weeks)" before I h
|
|
a
|
|
d the opportunity.28. As I looked through the 4 lens viewfinder, the lights fromthe UFO seemed very far away and therefore the UFO seemedt
|
|
o
|
|
me to be very big. The photo analysis showed it to be smalland close. (Maybe a type of unmanned probe.) This small'probe' showed up in ph
|
|
o
|
|
tos #38L and #38R. The debunker argues that I lied and ignores that my wife reported what shesaw with her naked ey (w/contacts) to be smal
|
|
l
|
|
and close.Note: I find it interesting how the debunkers have avoided the video tape and the stereo photographs.29. When we are outside ou
|
|
r
|
|
Spitz dog is always at our feet,unless she is fending off an intruder which is what she is shown doing in photo #22. The debunker says th
|
|
e
|
|
dog is"totally indifferent."30. A daytime re-enactment of Photo #22 and #23 show thatthe top of the wooden wind screen did not reflect in
|
|
|
|
the pool.The debunker ignores the re-enactment and wants the UFOto reflect in the pool even though the reflecting angle isimpossible. OTHER
|
|
|
|
DEBUNKING EFFORTS NOT RELATED TO THE PHOTOSMy wife and I deliberately omitted reference to the blue beamand telepathy and intentionally cha
|
|
n
|
|
ged minor points towithhold our identity and therein reported the 1st sightingas if a friend "Mr. X" had taken the photos. The debunkers f
|
|
i
|
|
ndthis unreasonable and say the blue beam and telepathy were added later.I am well known in my community as ED WALTERS and as a respect to
|
|
m
|
|
y stepfather (deceased), the only father I can remember, I sometimes add his name (Hanson) to mine. Thedebunkers have twisted this and trie
|
|
d
|
|
to make much of this.I am an average family man. The debunkers describe meas "not prominent or ourstanding in any perceptible way."There
|
|
a
|
|
re several photographers, all of whom have photos ofless quality. They are known to Dr. Maccabee and D. Cook.The debunkers ignore these ph
|
|
o
|
|
tos and the 100 plus witnesses.I have never photographed the UFO in the presence of aninvestigator. The debunker states the contrary but c
|
|
a
|
|
n nottell us who.I speak basic 'country side' Spanish. I lived in Costa Rica forapprox. 5 years. One debunker is fluent in Spanish anddoe
|
|
s
|
|
n't like my Spanish.By far the debunkers have had their greatest joy with their"ritual seance" story supported by another story, the "ghost
|
|
p
|
|
hoto" story. Both of these stories were finally destroyedwhen the photo re-enactments showed time after time thatthe fuzzy blur ("ghost")
|
|
t
|
|
urned out to be reflections off a 9 foot glass door.One debunker added a basement to my house, ie darkroom.In Florida coast line propery th
|
|
e
|
|
re are NO basements.When I passed two lie detector tests the debunker said "itis well known that a sociopathic personality can pass liedete
|
|
c
|
|
tors."When I passed 8 hours of psychological tests, they said nothing.When I under went 8 hours of hypnotic regressions, they saidnothing.T
|
|
h
|
|
is five page recap of the debunking charges points outthat the debunkers offer NO evidence. They only changethe witness testimony, then al
|
|
t
|
|
er or omit the real details.I believe these few people are indeed very motivated. I believe that they will stop at very little to discredi
|
|
t
|
|
thephotographs, my family, and all the other witnesses inGulf Breeze. Their personal attacks go a long ways in portraying the scope of th
|
|
e
|
|
ir desperate attitude to supress the Gulf Breeze sightings. They have tried to label me a "conman", liar, occult master, etc. but my comm
|
|
u
|
|
nity knows me and rejects these charges.When the first person accounting of our book UFO - PROOF POSITIVE is available to the general publi
|
|
c
|
|
,the debunker will be defeated. He will no longer findit so easy to twist the testimony. The absolutedocumented account will be there for
|
|
a
|
|
ll to see.The overwhelming events that rocked my family and our small town will not be hidden away by a few debunkers.The questions will be
|
|
|
|
asked and the answers will one daybe discovered, "WHO ARE THEY AND WHAT DO THEY WANT."Ed Walters
|
|
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |