Interim Report on the reopening of the Walters' UFO Case

 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.