SUBJECT: SYNOPSIS OF WILLIAM G. HYZER'S _THE GULF BREEZE PHOTOGRAPHS
FILE: UFO2220
BOGUS?_ (Second edition, March 15, 1992)
by Rex and Carol Salisberry
Late in 1990, Mr. Walter Andrus, International Director of MUFON, requested
Mr. William G. Hyzer to undertake a photo analysis of the Walters photos.
Mr Andrus made the request at the suggestion of Mr. Jerry Black, who had
made the initial contact with Mr. Hyzer.
Mr. Hyzer is a nationally-recognized photogrammetrist, who was honored by
an award from the American Academy of Forensic Sciences at their annual
meeting in February 1992. Mr. Hyzer was assisted in his analysis of the
Walters photos by his son, Dr. James B. Hyzer. Mr. Andrus provided copies
of photos 1,2,5,9,13,14,16,17,18,19,21,22,36L&R,37L&R and 38L&R for their
work. It is unfortunate that Mr. Andrus could not provide Walters' original
photos or at least first-generation copies to Mr. Hyzer for his analysis.
Mr. Hyzer has now completed his work and a copy of his final report, _The
Gulf Breeze Photographs: Bona Fide or Bogus?_ (second editon, March 15,
1992) was sent to Mr. Andrus on April 1, 1992. We have been priviledged to
read the report and we find it most definitive.
Mr. Hyzer's report indicated that the dark rectangular areas (portholes)
in all of the photos analyzed are either slightly lighter or no darker than
the scenic backgrounds. This would indicate that the objects are either
self-luminous, internally-illuminated, externally-illuminated from the
general direction of the camera, or the result of photographic fakery.
The report also indicated that the UFOs possessed chameleon-like
characteristics. The images of the UFOs are of the same colorations as
their scenic backgrounds. This would indicate that the objects are either
semi-transparent, color-variable, or the result of photographic fakery.
Late in 1991, Mr. Ray Stanford noted that the reflection of the tree line
in photo 19 is visible on the hood of Walters' truck (see photo section
preceding page 129 in Walters' book). Mr. Stanford requested that Mr. Hyzer
analyze this aspect of photo 19. Mr. Stanford had mentioned the lack of
reflection from the UFO to Dr. Bruce Maccabee back in 1988. Dr. Maccabee
claims to have conducted tests using a flashlight and Walters' truck to
determine why there were no reflections from the UFO as expected (see
MUFON Journal, #252, April 1989). Dr. Maccabee found that because the hood
of Walters' truck was supposedly bent, illuminations below seven feet above
the ground at 200 feet away would not cause reflections. He later changed
the seven feet to six feet.
A series of experiments was performed, in which we assisted Mr. Hyzer, to
establish the envelope within which light sources would reflect from the
hood of a Ford 150 XLT truck. The light sources were moved laterally from
30 feet left and right of the centerline of the road and vertically from
ground level up to 10 feet above the surface. Distances varied from 500
feet to 20 feet from the camera. The light-source reflections within the
described envelope were visible and photographed on the hood of the truck.
All of the data, which we helped to collect, was provided to Mr. Hyzer in
raw form (including negatives). This was necessary so as to preclude any
possibility of biasing the information.
Since Dr. Maccabee has now moved the UFO to a position 370 feet from the
camera and two feet above the ground, about 13 feet of the top part of the
UFO would have been above the six-foot restriction claimed by Dr. Maccabee
above. Therefore, the crescent-shaped illuminated dome and the dome light
should have made a visible reflection on the hood of the truck since both
were as bright or brighter than the background sky, though they do not
reflect.
Mr. Hyzer also notes that since the UFO is now supposedly 370 feet from
the camera and two feet above the surface, there should be a pattern of
increased luminance directly beneath the power ring. His photometric
analysis did not reveal the increase in luminance as expected. Mr. Hyzer's
results therefore indicate that there was no UFO present and that the photo
is the product of multiple-exposure camera techniques. These results of
Mr. Hyzer's analysis lead him to conclude the in his professional opinion,
photograph 19 is a fake produced by multiple-exposure photography.
Since photo 14 is very similar to photo 19, it also is probably a fake.
The other of Walters' photos depicting the same objects as photos 14 ad 19
then become highly suspect. Couple this with the brightness and
chameleon-like factors reported by Mr. Hyzer and there appears to be a high
probablility that all of Walters' photos are fakes.
We hope that Mr. Hyzer will publish his report in the near future.
Rex and Carol Salisberry
ed note: William Hyzer has no particular interest in ufology and should
be considered an impartial analyst.
**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS -
http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************
