Review of debunking efforts
The following represents material provided by Mr. EdwardWalters,
a central figure in the Gulf Breeze UFO flap.Mr. Walters
presents information 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 effrts 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 detals 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 midsecton. The debunkerignores this
self illumination and boldly says, "It is obviouslynot glowing."
(The debunker must expect us to believe thate 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 timebetweenthe photos.
The debunker changed the weather reportsto 30 knots so he could
increase the elapsed time to 30 min.4. In photo #5 the cloudscan
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 eather 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 clouds 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 been re-enacteddemonstrating how I
held the camera. Contrary to the photoevidence the debunker argues
that a tripod was used.7. The computer analysis of the photo #5
rules out any support(Dr. Maccabee and Dr. Carlotto). Similar to
the debunker's fakeUFO hovering over the Chrysler building 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.
The electric transformer on the light pole is dull gray. Thedebunker
changed it to aluminum.9. The photo shows that I moved the camera
with the UFO'sdirection. The debunker says he does not believe
that. PHOTO #710. The computer analysis of this photo confirms the
UFOwas beyond the tree and the tree overlapped the UFO. Thedebunker
ignores the analysis done using the original.PHOTO #1311. This is
one of the multiple photos taken that night inwhich the UFO was at
different elevations during the incident.Before the size of the
UFO was established to be 13 feet(type #1), I consistantly said
I thought the UFO was about30' dia. I therefore would naturally
mistake a smallerobject to be farther away.PHOTO #1412. The UFO
rocked back and forth as it hovered. The debunkerargues that we
should not see the bottom edge of the tiltedUFO. (He ignores the
witness testimony.)PHOTO #1613. I reported the UFO to fly 'overhead'
(but not 90 deg.overhead). The debunker picked out the description
'overhead' and then uses a page of math to show that theUFO was
not 90 deg. overhead. (He unwittingly supported mytestimony.)14.
The photo shows the glow of the UFO bottom to be anuninterrupted
circle. The debunker claims the glowing circleto be a round
fluorescent light. (He ignores that a fluorescent light has a dark
power plug that interrupts the circle.)PHOTO #1715. Photos #16 and
#17 were taken over 50 feet apart. Thedebunker changes the location
of #17 to be the same as #16.(A team of reporters verified this
and later tossed out the pages of math that the debunker uses to
impress and said"this guy can't be a real scientist, even we can see
that hisfigures don't measure up.")PHOTO #1816. The trees in this
photo are measured to be 175 feet away.The debunker uses another
page of math and then moves thetrees to better fit his theory to
440 feet away. 17. This photo and most of the others have 'white
spots' and'emulsion streaks' that are verified by Polaroid engineers
asfilm defects. The debunker calls these defects "water drops"and
"supports" or any other thing that will help his theory.PHOTO #1918.
As recorded in the early reports, the UFO rocks back andforth.
The debunker ignores the testimony and again questionsthe tilt of
the UFO over the road. 19. There was no rain as verified by the
Weather Service. Thedebunker makes up rain so he can claim that
there should bereflections.20. During the photo #19 incident I did
nothing that could bedescribed by the word "calmly." The debunker
changed mytestimony to include "calmly."PHOTO #2121. I reported
the UFO to be "over the truck toward the trees150 feet away."
The debunker drops the "toward the trees 150 feet asway" and uses
several pages of math to show thatthe UFO was not "over the truck"
(as in 90 deg.). He againunwittingly supports my testimony.22.
The two other witnesses testified to being 600 feet awayand report
seeing an orange glow. The debunker changed their testimony
by moving their location to within 100 feetand said they saw
nothing.23. Earlier the debunker boldly says the UFO and it's
"arbitrary windows" are never seen again after photos #1thru #9.
But he now changes his mind and says it issimilar to Photo #21.24.
The photo evidence shows the UFO to be self illuminating.Again
the debunker pretends to know the correct designproperties of a
UFO with regard to illumination and symmetry.PHOTOS #22 AND #2325.
The camera used was the same 108 Polaroid verified to have a manual
adjustable focus. The debunker changed thecamera and said it has a
fixed focus type. (It's easy to debunka photo if you change the
witness testimony and the camera type.)26. Again the debunker
asserts his design knowledge of UFOsand insists they cannot self
illuminate.PHOTOS #25 thru #3427. I was given the special 4 lens
camera and asked to useit if I had an opportunity to photograph the
UFO. 16 dayslater, 4 days longer than the previous sighting, I took
thephotos along with my wife. The debunker argues that it took"a
long time (almost three weeks)" before I had the opportunity.28.
As I looked through the 4 lens viewfinder, the lights fromthe UFO
seemed very far away and therefore the UFO seemedto me to be very
big. The photo analysis showed it to be smalland close. (Maybe
a type of unmanned probe.) This small'probe' showed up in photos
#38L and #38R. The debunker argues that I lied and ignores that
my wife reported what shesaw with her naked ey (w/contacts) to be
small and close.Note: I find it interesting how the debunkers have
avoided the video tape and the stereo photographs.29. When we are
outside our Spitz dog is always at our feet,unless she is fending
off an intruder which is what she is shown doing in photo #22.
The debunker says the dog is"totally indifferent."30. A daytime
re-enactment of Photo #22 and #23 show thatthe top of the wooden
wind screen did not reflect in the pool.The debunker ignores the
re-enactment and wants the UFOto reflect in the pool even though the
reflecting angle isimpossible. OTHER DEBUNKING EFFORTS NOT RELATED TO
THE PHOTOSMy wife and I deliberately omitted reference to the blue
beamand telepathy and intentionally changed minor points towithhold
our identity and therein reported the 1st sightingas if a friend
"Mr. X" had taken the photos. The debunkers findthis unreasonable
and say the blue beam and telepathy were added later.I am well known
in my community as ED WALTERS and as a respect to my stepfather
(deceased), the only father I can remember, I sometimes add his name
(Hanson) to mine. Thedebunkers have twisted this and tried to make
much of this.I am an average family man. The debunkers describe
meas "not prominent or ourstanding in any perceptible way."There
are several photographers, all of whom have photos ofless quality.
They are known to Dr. Maccabee and D. Cook.The debunkers ignore
these photos and the 100 plus witnesses.I have never photographed
the UFO in the presence of aninvestigator. The debunker states the
contrary but can nottell us who.I speak basic 'country side' Spanish.
I lived in Costa Rica forapprox. 5 years. One debunker is fluent
in Spanish anddoesn't like my Spanish.By far the debunkers have
had their greatest joy with their"ritual seance" story supported by
another story, the "ghostphoto" story. Both of these stories were
finally destroyedwhen the photo re-enactments showed time after
time thatthe fuzzy blur ("ghost") turned out to be reflections off
a 9 foot glass door.One debunker added a basement to my house, ie
darkroom.In Florida coast line propery there are NO basements.When
I passed two lie detector tests the debunker said "itis well known
that a sociopathic personality can pass liedetectors."When I passed
8 hours of psychological tests, they said nothing.When I under went
8 hours of hypnotic regressions, they saidnothing.This five page
recap of the debunking charges points outthat the debunkers offer
NO evidence. They only changethe witness testimony, then alter or
omit the real details.I believe these few people are indeed very
motivated. I believe that they will stop at very little to discredit
thephotographs, my family, and all the other witnesses inGulf Breeze.
Their personal attacks go a long ways in portraying the scope of
their desperate attitude to supress the Gulf Breeze sightings.
They have tried to label me a "conman", liar, occult master, etc.
but my community knows me and rejects these charges.When the first
person accounting of our book UFO - PROOF POSITIVE is available
to the general public,the debunker will be defeated. He will no
longer findit so easy to twist the testimony. The absolutedocumented
account will be there for all to see.The overwhelming events that
rocked my family and our small town will not be hidden away by a
few debunkers.The questions will be asked and the answers will one
daybe discovered, "WHO ARE THEY AND WHAT DO THEY WANT."Ed Walters
Go back to UFO and Aliens index page