GULF BREEZE: A THOUGHTFUL OPINION

Or lots of reasons [reason: logical justification; rational thought] why I think Ed and Frances Walters/Hanson are pulling a hoax. Sources: MUFON UFO JOURNAL Mar.88, Apr.88, GULF BREEZE SIGHTINGS by Ed and Frances Walters & GULF BREEZE/DOUBLE EXPOSAED by Zan Overall.

REASON 1. PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE.

As an amateur photographer of 20 years, (having once had my own darkroom w/ color capabilities) I think I might be able to comment on the photographs from a position of knowledge.

A. PHOTOS 1 thru 5. MUFON UFO JOURNAL March 1988 & GULF BREEZE SIGHTINGS. This is the first set shot by Ed on November 11, 1987, between approxi- mately 4:30 & 5:00 PM. They show the "UFO" over a street, lined with homes.

1. It is not difficult at all to produce a double or tripple exposure with that camera. Simply use a black backdrop, that way the emulsion is not dis- turbed with reflected light. You then go outside and take the second expo- sure. The remaing emulsion then picks up the second exposure. You then have a UFO in the night sky. To do the same procedure in daylight would produce a very light UFO.
2. One thing that suggests a staged photo is the fact that the UFO has the same placement in each of the pictures, the upper left hand quadrant. The photographer memorizes the placement of the UFO on the first exposure and and superimposes it on the second exposure.
3. The background and foreground of the photos is blurry, but the UFO is

CRYSTAL CLEAR. Every detail can be seen.

5. Anyone who uses the same camera for 17 years knows its capabilities. Ed comtended that he had no idea that he could take a double exposure with it. Yet many independent witnesses testify that he used to take double exposed photos at parties ie the "Ghost Demon" photo. As a matter of fact, in a let- ter to Willy Smith from Don Ware, Ware is quoted as syaing, "We asked Ed a- bout the photo with the "ghostlike" image, and he produced two of them for us on single exposure. They have no bearing on the UFO photos." The photos were destroyed. (Personal correspondence Ware to Smith, June 17, 1988.)
6. Also, there is a descrepancy in Ed's testimony about that night. In the MUFON Journal of March 1988 he is quoted as saying that he shot photos 1 thru 4 and then ran out of film and shot #5. In the book he does not address this issue in the text but does comment under under the photopage that he took photos 1, 2 & 3, then shot 4 & 5. If one looks at the photos, it is apparent that photos 3 & 4 are identical. The UFO is stationary, it does not change position, nor does Ed's viewpoint, the position from which he took the photo. Also, photo 5 is EXTREMELY bright, both UFO and part of the background. If this photo was shot last it should be darker than photo 4.

   
   
   B. THE SWIMMING POOL SHOT.
   
   

   There are two photos in this series. Ed is in the shower when the UFO ar- rives. His wife alerts him and he comes outside. The UFO hovers; in the first shot the dog is seen, in the second Ed is present.

   1. Again, the "UFO" never changes position. It is in the top center half of the photo. If one compares the dog photo w/ the Ed photo the dog and Ed are standing in the same place at the pool. The UFO is stationary, only the camera moves to another position.
   2. In the light blasted version in the book, it becomes apparent that the UFO is actually small and located AT or NEAR the rear fence post.
   3. The "UFO" appears to be lighted by an external source...the flash which would coincide with a close small object.
   4. Ed has supposedly been rousted from a shower and is furious. In anger he raises his arms, fists clenched and shouts at them to leave. The major prob- lem is that there is NO REAL TENSION in Ed's body. His arms are in the wrong position for someone who is angry. As he stands they are raised to his sides above his head, not in front as one would expect if one were confronting an object above and in front. Also, by having ones arms to the side, the entire front of the body is open and vulnerable to assault. This photo is staged.

   
   
   C. THE ROAD SHOT.
   
   

   January 12, 1988. Ed hears the familiar hum. He has to check on a job sight and leaves his home. The UFO traps him. He gets out of the truck and shoots two pictures. Only one takes.
   ED: (From GBS) "The sun was setting and cast long shadows of pine tops across the narrow road, which curves through a pine woods thick with under- brush and black jack oaks. I pressed the gas pedal and rounded a curve. Everything turned bright white..."

   1. Ed says that the sun was setting, and it probably was, however it had been raining prior to the event, and that is what the photo shows...VERY

   HEAVY CLOUD COVER...no breaks in the clouds...no sun...no appreciable light. Yet he says there are "long shadows" on the road.

7. 2. It had been raining prior to the event, yet there are no reflections from water evident on the foilage, road or truck.
   3. It had been raining yet there is no mention in the report that Ed was wet or muddied.
   4. Eventhough he feared for his life, he stayed and took a photograph?
   5. Maccabee says that this shot would be impossible to fake. Not so. Take the same black drape that one has been using all along, leave half of it on the wall and the other part on the floor. Seat the model, the light will be reflected off the floor. Get a tight shot, making the model appear larger and go out and do your second exposure of the road. No big deal.

   
   
   D. SELF-REFERENCING-STEREO PHOTO
   
   

   According to the MUFON JOURNAL of December 1988, Maccabee analysized one of the SRS photos and determined that the photo showed an object that was small and relatively close, approximately 2 1/2 to 4 feet in length & 40 - 70 feet distant.

   E. TWO MODELS. As far as I can tell, there are two types of UFO represented. A "top" type and a "bubble" type. The bubble type shows up in shots taken at a distance, such as 1 thru 5. The top type shows up in closer shots such as the pool photo. Also, I find it curious that with the exception of only a couple of photos, the orientation of the "UFO" remains constant. That is, its tilt toward the camera.

   F. THE MODEL. The model that was recently found in Ed's old house, may not look like any of the UFOs, but it is almost IDENTICAL to the drawing made by Ed and reproduced in the MUFON Journal, March 1988 page 15 and in GBS glossy following page 64. This model could have been a prototype built fol- lowing the diagram or vice versa.

   G. ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.

   1. According to Macabbee there were only TWO witnesses who came forward w/ photos IDENTICAL to Ed's and that was "Believer Bill" and "Jane". [Conven- iently "Jane" telephoned Ed. Notes were taken but no voice recording was made.] Neither of whom have come forward to disclose their identities as far as I know. [If I am wrong about this I am sure someone will correct me!] And According to Macabbee NO ONE has ever seen the UFO WHEN Ed has taken the picture, they have only seen the flash.

   2.    SOMERBY Report. November 11, 1987. The Somerbys reported seeing an ob-      ject "grey with white `porthole' lights on the bottom and one light on top." moving from the northeast to the southwest in the direction of Gulf Breeze, at about 5:00 PM. Their position was 10 miles east-northeast of Ed. Duration of sighting about 2 minutes.

8. 1. Sunset was at 1655 or 4:55 PM. Eds photos are taken before sunset, be- fore 5:00 PM.
   2. This was reported to Duane Cook on November 18, 1987 and investigated by MUFON on November 23, 1987...plenty of time for the witnesses description to be contaminated. As an aside, Doris Somerby is Duane Cook's mother.

   3. HANKS Report. December 27, 1987. Eds' house. 8:15 PM. Patrick Hanks re- ported that upon entering the Walters home that evening he saw a UFO over the school field. It was the same one that Ed had been seeing. In my opin- ion the most damaging admission in this report is Eds when he says, "Many of the `games' [He is referring to the seances held at the home.] that Frances and I organize for the teenagers have Patrick as a key participant." In other words, Patrick is a SHILL, "someone who works as a decoy, as in a gambling game by posing as an INNOCENT BYSTANDER or a customer." Ed always took several of the teenagers into his confidence at these parties to help fool the others. In December this was probably still a game to Ed. It would probably be easy to get one of the kids who normally helped him fool the others to help him pull this off too. At this point it was probably still just an innocent prank.

   This started out to be a small comment on the photos as a part of a larger pic- ture. It has turned into a larger comment, which is still part of a larger pic- ture I hope to present. I am open for debate/discussion long as those who wish to debate this issue provide references to back up their opinions and viewpoints.