Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Legends, Hoaxes and the Big Lie: Doubly Exposed Parties

Tommy Smith and Hank Bolland weren’t the only teenagers involved with the Gulf Breeze UFO hoax. Ed and Frances Walters often hosted parties for their son, and his friends. Consequently, they had access to a number of teenagers. But unlike some chaperones who would avoid the party in some other room and be on call for an emergency, or others who would watch every minor every second for any signs of hanky-panky, the Walters seemed to actively engage the teenagers in attendance. As Tim Printy noted, researchers found rumors of strange, if not untoward behavior at these parties:

In a series of interviews that summer, [conspiracy theorist Zan] Overall learned much about the parties thrown by the Walters and circumstances surrounding the photographs. He discovered that the parties were often ritualistic, had seances, and highlighted Ed's ability as a storyteller and trickster. The kids recounted numerous stories that Ed had told. Many of these tales seemed to have been made up on the spot! Frances, demonstrating that she tended to be involved with Ed's pranks, also played a part. It seemed that these parties were far from what Ed and Frances tried to present.
MUFON relied heavily on the analysis of naval optical physicist Dr. Bruce Maccabee in declaring the photos genuine. Part of Dr. Maccabee’s opinion stemmed from his disbelief that Ed Walters had sufficient photographic knowledge to fake a UFO picture by means of double exposure. While admitting Walters could have taken the photos that way, Dr. Maccabee nonetheless pointed out the difficulty in doubly exposing a photo using a Polaroid camera. In order to do that, you’d have to have the coordination to activate the button, keep the print from ejecting out, and keeping your hands out of the range of the camera lens at the same time. A bit tricky, but far from impossible.

One of the teenaged partygoers, Nick Mock, told investigator Don Ware that Walters indeed knew how to make double exposures using a Polaroid, and had discussed the matter with him. He mentioned a specific photo in which Walters superimposed a sort of ghostlike image of a demon behind the smiling face of an unsuspecting young lady. Moreover, Mock said that Walters ruminated about something he called “the ultimate prank.”

Walters reacted to Mock’s insinuations by labeling a troublemaker, a druggie who most likely had a criminal record. Furthermore, Walters said that he had to eject Nick from one party, and subsequently banned him from future ones.

Investigators found that Mock had no criminal record, or history of drug abuse. And he wasn’t quite the rowdy described by Walters. Moreover, Mock could provide concrete evidence he was telling the truth. He simply went to the girl in the ghost-demon photo, and asked her for it. She gave it to him.

Figure 1. Ghost demon photo



The above image is a reproduction of the original photo, so the details of the ghost image aren’t as clear as they are in the original, a fact that Printy and others point out. But taken in account with other information, it becomes clear that this is a double-exposure.

Walters first claimed that he created the effect by playing around with the focus. The effect cannot be reproduced that way. Defenders tried to say that the image was caused by a reflection from a glass door on the other side of the room. Dr. Maccabee instructed Walters to recreate the effect. Ed took some similar photos using balloons as a subject. The reflection provided by the door produced ill-defined blobs of light, but nothing resembling the ghost image.

With nothing else to account for the image, the only thing one can conclude is that it is a double-exposure. Thus Walters knew how to fake Polaroid shots before the UFO photos he produced in November 1987.

That would appear to end the discussion of whether Walters hoaxed UFO photographs. But there’s one big nail for this coffin, and it comes from one of the most spectacular of the photos.

13 comments:

  1. i used to have an old polaroid. i don't think it would be that hard to create a double exposure with a bit or practice.
    i'm just not getting a good feeling about walters at all.
    he's creepy ..

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just keep us waiting...

    As usual.

    Great series thus far.

    ReplyDelete
  3. so what is going on with the current crop of UFO sightings in China. Supposedly an airport was shut down for a while? I'm just starting to hear about it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. if you want to discredit a real story, surround it with faked versions.

    recently there have been reports of retired military types making statements about ufos shutting down nuclear reactors and so on, and right beside the story on the yahoo homepage there is a picture of an alien halloween mask.

    i spent years reading, listening and watching reports of ufos, only to become discouraged by the sheer amount of disinfromation surrounding what potentially could be real reports of devices and so on.

    and yes, i`ve had my own experiences of seeing things i couldn`t explain, but i`m not foolish enough to publicly speak about them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Foam, I would suppose that you would know more than anyone how to go about double-exposing a Polaroid. I won't make a definitive statement on Walters, other than to see that his actions are consistent with that of a hoaxer.

    Sorry, Eric. Unfortunately, I'm consumed by issues in meatspace while at the same time embarking on a project that might help the functionality of the site.

    Charles, from what I gather, the machines in question are quite real, as opposed to a trick of lightthe or perception. That they are flying, and most citizens of China didn't know what to make of them, they could technically be called UFOs. However, the Chinese government has stepped forward to say that these were military craft (with the exception of the latest report) on exercise. While that's an official story, it's plausible.

    Alistair, I'd reckon that for someone like you (or me, for that matter) who has a stake in academia would be loath to discuss UFO or anomalous sitings in any depth under their real names. With the series I did on MJ-12 last year, I began to articulate what struck me about ufology research: all of it (note lack of qualifier) comes either directly or indirectly from a government source, whether that be a former NASA employee (The Disclosure Project has their fair share of those), astronaut, intelligence or millitary intelligence officer, and so forth. Because these actors were never disciplined for their actions, I can only think they were acting in an official capacity (or at the very least with official indifference). Thus, someone has put a lot of time and effort into putting out a UFO orthodoxy.

    I think the disinformation that you refer to here comes in shaping a narrative that could serve a lot of different PSYOP functions: from the militarization of space to further extensions of black budgeting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. i think you have a point there x. john lear the son of the inventor of the lear jet, and other things, rattles on about all sorts of things, from holographic projections of aircraft on 9/11 to revere engineered alien techn ology.

    he remeinds me of a baptist friend of mine in his attitude, speech patterns, story-telling and voice modulation.

    a classic liar, for those who didn`t get the last bit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This case isn't leading into claims by a certain Stan Romanek, is it?

    And speaking of hoaxed Polaroids, anyone remember Ted Serios and his thoughtographs?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wonder if there is even one,just one true verified, unmistakable sighting of an unidentified out of this planet aircraft.

    Hi Mr. X-Dell! ^_^
    Hope all is well with you.

    •♥•´¯`•.¸¸.♥ •♥•

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah, something seems amiss with Walters.

    I think your discussion with Dr. Alistair would make a fascinating series on its own.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alistair, your comment reminds me of something an attorney told me: "If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither are on your side, then pound the table."

    Sometimes a great show makes an even grander deception.

    Ray, I wasn't going to do anything on Romanek. As for Serios, I had to look him up, for I had never heard of him. I daresay I saw something like that on one of those paranormal reality shows on cable (I can't think of the name, but it stars a former FBI special agent, a couple of geek scientists, a trick photographer, and movie special effects personnel--kinda like Mythbusters, but they only work on "paranormal" cases).

    Lady Roselle, it's so great to see you, old friend. There's plenty of documentation and evidence to prove that these machines exist. What one cannot prove is that they are extraterrestrial in origin. That makes one wonder if that's because they aren't.

    Benjibopper, I've been in the process of reorganizing the archives, and in the process re-living all the tete-a-tetes I've had with everyone here, including Dr. A. I think between the two of us, we've already penned two or three series.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Still, I saw one, in the seventies, in Zwolle, Holland in the middle of the night and I had not been drinking and I had not taken any drugs. I could not identify it. I was on my own. I still don't know what it was.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi X--I am also getting the same "creepy" feelings about Walters that foam is--all of the material you have presented is fascinating ---thanks so much for yet another wonderful series--all the best to you!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Monique, back in the summer of 2006 I posted a story about the first time I saw one. I understand that the machines are real enough, that they are under some type of intelligent control, and so on. But my first (second or third for that matter) guess wouldn't be that the intelligence is extraterrestrial.

    Devin, I'm thinking that I might have colored the understanding of Walters by putting him in a series titled "Legends, Hoaxes and the Big Lie." I'm wondering if that might account for some of the creepiness.

    ReplyDelete