UFOs' and Photography

I was watching a re-run of UFO Hunters,(cant ref. the episode). They were dicussing Ed Walters poloroid photos with Dr. Bruce Macabie. I noticed that he never considered that the original print may have been done as a double exposure, and the final polaroids were a copy of that print. IE. using the polaroid camera as a copy camera. There would be no need to fiddle with the film drive motor, to do a double exposure that way. Copies are always less sharp than the original, but no one ever considered those point and shoot cameras as tack sharp any way. Given the lenses are plastic too. I've been in photography and photofinishing all my adult life, and of all the ufo photos I've seen the Walters ones look most suspect to me. Also Doctor B. Mac's degrees are far greater than mine, but experience and hands on work do count for something too.
Bill Thomas/Saberjet
Sunny Fla.

Something else that I should have added to the above post, and didn't think of until later. If you use a polaroid camera to make a copy, then the print your copying needs to be large. A print in the area of 24"x 30" or 28"x 34" should fill the polaroid frame. This would have been done pre-digital age. Another thing too, is with using an enlarger, there is no need to use a double exposed negative.
You would double expose the print, using two negatives and a litho mask, and one piece of print stock. The digital age made this so easy, compared to what you'd have to go through with optical photography. Which is why photographic evidence is so suspect. Prints from the optical age had to be done perfectly, to hide a hoax, but might be tripped up by part of the image showing a coarser or finer grain (silver film grain), than in another part of the print image. This would indicate two negative were used. Those point and shoot polaroids were in focus from thirty-six inches to infinity, which is why you'd need a copy print that large, for the polaroid to be acceptably sharp.