Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

SYNOPSIS OF WILLIAM G. HYZER'S _THE GULF BREEZE PHOTOGRAPHS: BONA FIDE OR 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.


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank