Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume I Number 323

  

                Info-ParaNet Newsletters   Volume I  Number 323

 

                          Wednesday, October 31st 1990

 

Today's Topics:

 

                               Gulf Breeze Report

                                Gulf Breeze No. 2

                                Gulf Breeze No. 3

                                Gulf Breeze No 4

                                Gulf Breeze No. 5

                            Conclusion - Gulf Breeze

                                   Correction

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)

Subject: Gulf Breeze Report

Date: 29 Oct 90 14:33:00 GMT

The following six messages are from an interview with Rex and Carol 

Salisberry conducted by Ray Griffin.  It was uploaded to ParaNet for 

distribution.  ParaNet will issue a statement in a short time after talking 

with the Salisberry's.  Bear in mind that what is occurring does not prove 

that Gulf Breeze is a hoax, however it does provide us with a look at what 

is going on.  ParaNet has always continued to rate Gulf Breeze as a probable 

hoax, and continues to do so.  It is not our intention to continue looking 

at Gulf Breeze as we feel it is very unproductive.  We wish to focus our 

efforts on cases which provide solid data for study and investigation such 

as the Belgium sightings.

                      *  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.  

 

--  

Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)

Subject: Gulf Breeze No. 2

Date: 29 Oct 90 14:53:00 GMT

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

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.  

 

--  

Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)

Subject: Gulf Breeze No. 3

Date: 29 Oct 90 15:06:00 GMT

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

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.  

 

--  

Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)

Subject: Gulf Breeze No 4

Date: 29 Oct 90 15:16:00 GMT

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

Question: 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.  

 

--  

Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)

Subject: Gulf Breeze No. 5

Date: 29 Oct 90 15:24:00 GMT

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

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.

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

 

--  

Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)

Subject: Conclusion - Gulf Breeze

Date: 29 Oct 90 15:34:00 GMT

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

                     *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."

[END]

File Name:  GULFREP.UFO  

 

--  

Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f320.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael.Corbin@f110.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)

Subject: Correction

Date: 30 Oct 90 08:00:00 GMT

I was informed that Ray Griffin did not actually conduct the 

interview with Rex Salisberry.  He transcribed the material that 

Rex prepared in anticipation of questions that might be asked of 

him in his report.

Mike

--  

Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:207/109

UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name

INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f110.n207.z1.FIDONET.ORG

********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to********

                      'infopara' at the following address: 

UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara

DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com

ADMIN Address infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com

{ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request

 

******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************