Question 5: 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 thevertical 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 6: 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 thataspect".

 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.


 GOTO page 3.


Translate This Page

Make a Free Website with Yola.