To: Walter H. Andrus, Jr. 103 Oldtowne Road Sequin, Tx 78155-499
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
- The object and the light ring at the bottom are circular (source - Mccabee, 1988 MUFON Symposium
Proceedings).
- The distance from the camera to the object is 185 (+/- 5) feet (source - Maccabee, page 145 of 1988 MUFON
Symposium Proceedings)
- The diameter of the light ring at the bottom is 7.5 feet (source - Maccabee, same as #2).
- 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")
- The height of the object above the road is about 3 feet (source - Maccabee, same as #2).
- The height of the camera was about 5 feet.
- 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
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- Cut a 7.5 inch diameter circle from a piece of white paper.
- Place the 7.5 inch circular piece of paper on a flat surface to represent the reflection on the
road.
- Move away 185 inches to simulate the distance from the camera to the object.
- 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.