New 3-D Analysis of 1965 Heflin UFO Photos Shows Small Model, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 19-5-2006 @ 12:49 PM by Enkidu
I've had an interest in 3-D, or "stereo," photography for quite a few years, and lately I've been interested in what I guess you could call "found" 3-D, created accidentally when someone takes two consecutive photos of the same scene but slightly separated horizontally. The resulting stereo pair instantly provides you with depth information you would not have with a single photo, and gives you a way to estimate approximate sizes and distances without having to guess at focal depths or atmospheric haze. This works particularly well with old UFO photos if you can get good copies.

I recently came across an analysis of the 1965 "Top Hat" UFO photos taken by Rex Heflin in Santa Ana, California. These photos have been the subject of 40 years of debate and analysis, since the photos themselves are of relatively high quality and there's a sequence of them. Heflin took 4 photos, 3 out the window of his pick-up truck, showing a flying saucer, and one that shows a dark, irregular ring in the clouds that supposedly appeared when the saucer vanished.

It turns out that 2 of the 4 four photos are taken out of the side window of the truck, relatively close together, and (by chance) slightly horizontally offset. BINGO!

So I've taken the 2 photos and placed them together in such a way that they can be "free viewed" as a 3-D stereo pair by crossing your eyes and bringing the image back into focus. I've even provided a little caption guide to help with this little visual trick. Here are the results. Click on the image for the larger version.



Other than crop, rearrange, and slightly adjust the brightness of the images, they're pretty much as Heflin took them.

Once your eyes get used to viewing the center image in 3-D, you should be able to see how the depth changes from the close-up window frame, to the mirror, to the bushes in the ditch at the side of the road, and finally all the way across the field to the hazy trees in the distance. So we're getting some good visual depth cues here, even though the distance between the 2 photos might not have exactly been the average 5 or so inches between most people's eyes.

Now, by getting used to how you have to focus to see at various depths, you can get a rough approximation of about how far away things are in your field of vision. The mirror is only a couple feet away. The ditch is maybe 20-30 feet. I suppose by knowing exactly how wide the mirror post is, you can figure out exact distances, sizes, and how far apart the photos were taken. But that's not necessary here.

What you need to look at is the saucer. This is a little tricky, since they're not exactly the same in both photos. One has more of a tilt. But try to ignore that, and only concentrate on where the saucer is located distance-wise in the picture. That is, when you focus on the far-away trees, do you have to do the same thing when you look at the saucer? Or is the saucer maybe a little closer than that?

If it's relatively big and far away, then you'd have to focus your eyes on it in the same way you would when you look out past the bushes and into the center of the field. So pick a spot you'd think might be 75 yards out or so and focus on it. Does that make the saucer line up? No, it doesn't.

If you play with the image, after a while, you'll probably notice, as I did, that the saucer is actually more aligned and in focus when you're focusing on the truck mirror, which is obviously pretty close to the truck. What does that mean? Well, it means that the saucer is also probably pretty close to the truck, and not floating in the sky halfway across the field. And if that's the case, then it probably isn't very big, either.

My very, very rough estimation is that the saucer is maybe 2 or 3 feet away from the roof of the truck, and only a couple of inches across (in diameter). An exact measurement can be determined by somebody who is a better photo analyst than me.

Of course, I could be wrong about the size and the distance. Because if the saucer moved in the sky relative to when the photos were taken, it's possible that it will appear closer than it really is. Does that make sense? If, for instance, the first photo taken was the left one, and the saucer moved to the right a little before the right one was taken, the depth won't be accurate.

But here's the deal. See how well the two saucer images line up with each other in the different photos? In order for them to do that, it would have to have made a nearly perfect lateral motion from one photo to the next, in line with the camera. If it moved farther away, the width of the saucer would be different in the two pictures. It can't have gone up or down in altitude, or it wouldn't match up at all. The chances of the saucer making an absolutely lateral move between the two photos is very, very unlikely.

So that leads us (or me, anyway) to a relatively simple conclusion. That the UFO in these pictures is probably a small model, a few inches across, maybe suspended from a string by a pole extending from the cab of the truck.

Play with the images a little. See if you don't see the same thing I do. I'll also try to create a blue-and-red analglyphic 3-D photo from the pair, so you folks with 3-D glasses might be able to see it better. I've read that nearly 30% of the population can't see in 3-D at all, and free-viewing is a bit tricky. I'll see what I can come up with to make it easier.

And if you can analyze the photos better than I can, let me know what you come up with. I'd rather have the thing be "real," and not a hoax, but the proof is in the pictures. At least a little more with 3-D, anyway.



[edit on 19-5-2006 by Enkidu]


reply posted on 19-5-2006 @ 06:08 PM by Enkidu
Originally posted by jritzmann
Try buying the new album by TOOL, they include stereo viewer lenses within the album design.

Although I can really appriciate the hard work it took to put this together, I dont know if it really holds it's wieght in terms of actual data.

Stereo shots usually have to be accurately measured and secured to fixed mounts to really be "testable" worthy. Otherwise I dont think they really do much more then make for interesting optical illusions.


I personally don't have the technical background in optics to be able to pin things down to the foot or inch. However, as I said, if someone knew specifics about the size of the mirror or its mount, or the window support, the rest of the information can be figured out mathematically. The specifics about relative positions of the camera can be determined that way, too.

Everyone's depth illusion apex isnt the same, so youre going to get vastly different impressions of depth and perspective.


Quite true, because people's eyes are not all exactly the same distance apart or at the same level. But it doesn't change the relative effect. A satellite taking a 3-D picture of Olympus Mons on Mars is like a giant, with eyes miles and miles apart, but you still get a relative 3-D effect. Same thing if you have two photos only a few millimeters apart and take a close-up picture of a bug. The bug will look huge in 3-D.

So determining approximately how far away the saucer is in the Heflin UFO photos is going to be a matter of estimating the relative distance, compared to other objects in the image. It doesn't matter if we know precicely that the bushes are 14.65 feet away, or whatever. All we need to know is if the UFO is closer or farther away than the bushes. And it looks like it's closer.

When I first put the shots together, I expected (maybe even hoped) the saucer would show up farther away. It took me a while to see that the saucers "joined up" much better when I was focusing closer on the mirror than on a point out in the field. At first I thought that maybe the saucer had moved, and that was why it was showing up so close. But it's about the same length and height in each separate photo. It actually lines up TOO well, which indicated to me that between the first and second shot (no matter what order they were taken in) it hadn't moved, just tilted a little. That doesn't say a whole lot for the authenticity.

But still, great stuff, and ya gotta admit it does make you feel a bit more "there" then a flat shot.

That's one of the reasons I've always liked 3-D photos. That extra dimension really brings you into the scene and gives it more immediacy and life.

You get a lot of folks trying to determine distance and size of a UFO from a single photo, using focal length and diffusion and focus and atmospheric haze, and so on, but it's really hard that way and you do need very exact measurements of the camera. And you still aren't necessarily going to be accurate. But a stereo pair makes it relatively easy and surprisingly accurate without having to know the exact specifics of the binocular parallax.


Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 6 days ago with 63 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 14 days ago with 60 member flags
New UFO footage from my hometown
  Posted 18 days ago with 34 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 9 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 16 days ago with 28 member flags