SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DEBUNKING EFFORTS FILE: UFO2317
The following represents material provided by Mr. EdwardWalters, a central figure in the Gulf Breeze UFO flap.Mr. Walters presents informat
ion which places in questionthe efforts and objectivity of a few individuals who havebeen critcal of the case. ---------------------------
-
--------------------------------May 22, 1989THE FOLLOWING IS A REVIEW OF THE DEBUNKING EFFORTS OF A FEW MOTIVATED CRITICSThe debunking eff
r
ts involve dozens of pages, some withdetailed math, but do not be deceived, they do not offerany hard evidence to refute the authenticity
f
the photos.Upon review of the following highlights it should be clearthat the debunkers consistently re-write witnesstestimony, omit deta
l
s and invent stories to supporttheir efforts.PHOTOS #1 thru #51. The photograph direction is verified to be Northwest. Thedebunker change
the photo direction to Southwest.2. The UFO is shown in the video tape to illuminate itselfand later in the same tape, cloke it's midsect
o
n. The debunkerignores this self illumination and boldly says, "It is obviouslynot glowing." (The debunker must expect us to believe that
e
knows how UFO's are designed and operate. He furtherdemonstrates his knowledge of UFO design with his argumentthat the "window" spacing
s
arbitrary.)3. The clouds in these photos were at approx. 18,000 feet andmoving at 90 knots which supports the 4 min. elapsed timebetween
t
he photos. The debunker changed the weather reportsto 30 knots so he could increase the elapsed time to 30 min.4. In photo #5 the clouds
c
an not be seen and seem to have moved away at 90 knots. (Plus more tech. info. on the shutter speed.) As the debunker ignores the 90 knot
e
ather report henow claims the clouds should be seen in his 30 knot wind.5. The weather reports also verify that the wind is blowing the cl
o
uds from left to right. The debunker printed a multi pagereport to the contrary, saying that he would resign if he waswrong. The next day
he was forced to admit he was wrong andretracted his statement on TV (But he did not resign.)6. The 1st signting (photos 1 thru 5) has bee
n
re-enacteddemonstrating how I held the camera. Contrary to the photoevidence the debunker argues that a tripod was used.7. The computer a
n
alysis of the photo #5 rules out any support(Dr. Maccabee and Dr. Carlotto). Similar to the debunker's fakeUFO hovering over the Chrysler
b
uilding in N.Y., it now seems that the debunker has 'fixed up' a computer print out using a COPY of photo #5. (Watch for it!)PHOTO #68. Th
e
electric transformer on the light pole is dull gray. Thedebunker changed it to aluminum.9. The photo shows that I moved the camera with t
h
e UFO'sdirection. The debunker says he does not believe that. PHOTO #710. The computer analysis of this photo confirms the UFOwas beyond t
h
e tree and the tree overlapped the UFO. Thedebunker ignores the analysis done using the original.PHOTO #1311. This is one of the multiple
p
hotos taken that night inwhich the UFO was at different elevations during the incident.Before the size of the UFO was established to be 13
f
eet(type #1), I consistantly said I thought the UFO was about30' dia. I therefore would naturally mistake a smallerobject to be farther aw
a
y.PHOTO #1412. The UFO rocked back and forth as it hovered. The debunkerargues that we should not see the bottom edge of the tiltedUFO. (H
e
ignores the witness testimony.)PHOTO #1613. I reported the UFO to fly 'overhead' (but not 90 deg.overhead). The debunker picked out the
d
escription 'overhead' and then uses a page of math to show that theUFO was not 90 deg. overhead. (He unwittingly supported mytestimony.)14
