FROM:  Carol A. & Rex C. Salisberry                23 September 1990

             8520 Gulf Blvd. - Unit 10

             Navarre Beach, FL. 32566-7235

 

TO:      Walter H. Andrus, Jr.

             103 Oldtowne Road

             Seguine, TX.  78155-4099

 

SUBJECT:   Interim Report on the reopening of the Walter's UFO case.

 

BACKGROUND:  The investigators, Carol & Rex Salisberry had not been involved with the prior investigation of the Walters' 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 investigatiors doubted them and in fact, made several public statements in support of the Walters Case. After the press conferences on 19 June 1990, were in 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. Since we were very busy doing other things, we had no desire to take on the additional work, but agreed to help because of personal affection and regard for Mr. Flannigan. During a meeting among 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 result 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 suportive 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 a 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 demonstrated by Mr. Mark Curtis of WEAR-TV. Mr. Curtis and his associate, a biologist and model maker have been harshly criticized for their work, but the point of their efforts was conveniently missed by the 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 circumstance.) 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 we 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 the 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 camera in his hand" at the various activities at which he was present. These young people also confirmed that 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.

 

Carol A. Salisberry                              Rex C. Salisberry

 

One Attachment - Analysis of Photo 19

 

Copies to:  Mr. Charles Flannigan

                   Mr. Dan Wright

 

Make a Free Website with Yola.