Question 8: 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.


Question 9: 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.


GOTO page 5.



Translate This Page

Make a Free Website with Yola.