It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New 3-D Analysis of 1965 Heflin UFO Photos Shows Small Model

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strodyn
just look at any red/green pics to see how little difference there is between a distant object and a close one......compare where the red and green parts are without the glasses...........there are millimeters difference

hopefully that explains why I dont think this is acceptable science.


Just take a look at the red-blue image I made. Yes, there were some minor adjustments that had to be made, but the fact that I was able to create a perfectly good 3-D image that can be easily viewed with the simple glasses proves that it can and has been done. Yes, and the millimeters make all the difference between seeing something as distant (such as the trees across the field) and seeing something as close up (like the mirror, or the saucer).

All I can tell you is to find some red-blue glasses and see for yourself. The image I made is no different than the ones created by NASA by the rovers, except that they were created by one camera at two different times, rather than two cameras at the same time.

And as I mentioned, because the UFO image is viewable at different times in essentially the same size spot and the same size (particularly the top part of the top hat, which matches very well), adds even more weight to the notion that it was stationary and only a few feet away from the truck.

I think I'll mosey over to the UFO Updates List and see what they say about it.




posted on May, 22 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
I'm not particularly fond of these photos, but I don't see how you could get a correct stereoscopic image from them. Looking at the mirror on the vehicle, you can see that both pictures were taken at very different angles. Far wider than any human eyes would be. So I would imagine you would get a very incorrect 3D view as a result.


I don't think you understand how 3-D works. The images don't have to always be taken exactly the same distance apart as your eyes. Everybody's eyes are different distances apart. If you could only see the 3-D if the photos were only as far apart as your eyes, View-Masters wouldn't work for pretty much everybody.

I was able to put together a perfectly viewable red-blue image even though I have no idea exactly how far apart the original photos were taken. Because of some adjustments I had to make, I've been able to determine that they were probably taken about 3-4 inches apart, with the right-eye image about two inches closer to the window than the left one. I compensated by very slightly reducing that image in size.

The beauty part is that because I was able to virtually move the images from side to side when they were recombined, I was able to compensate for the horizontal difference. The separate images are now virtually approximately 5-1/4 inches apart and can be easily viewed by anyone with red-blue glasses. Try it!



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
What is it about people that makes the need to debunk so pressing?


As I said, I was hoping for a different outcome. I was hoping as much as anyone could that the image would show a nice, big saucer approximately 25 feet in diameter, hovering several hundred yards away from the truck. That would have been the coolest!


If you look at the foreground you will see that the thorn bushes are very different. It's impossible to know how far away they are, but they are in different positions. Likewise, the object appears differently-sized in each picture.


Not so. In 3-D, the thorn bushes are remarkably consistent and make perfect visual sense. They appear to be about 15-20 feet away from the truck. The truck is parked next to a ditch, front end to the left. The photographer is sitting a foot or so back away from the window (?), but I don't think as far as the driver's seat. Which makes you wonder why he wasn't all the way over with his camera completely out the window. Just guessing, I'd say the trees in the distance are about a mile away.


No meaningful triangulation data can come out of this. It's a pointless exercise, from which you might get literally seconds of fun.


I disagree. I don't have the training in optics to calculate the distances, but there are others who do. All anyone has to know is the actual width of the mount holding the mirror, and they can figure out all the other sizes and distances. In fact, I would be willing to guess that the nut on top of the mirror is a 1/2-inch nut.


I'm as loath to be hoaxed as the next person. But I'd prefer my debunking with a little more rigour, thanks.


My only suggestion is to find some red-blue 3-D glasses, click on the image below and take a look at it. Tell me what you think. It doesn't have to be exact, as long as the relative distances can be estimated.

Visually line up the top part of the saucer. Even though the saucer's at a different angle in each photo, you can still see the top part, which is approximately in the same position and the same size. Does the top line up better when you're looking at something close, like the mirror mount, or does it line up better when you focus your eyes on a mid-point out in the field, or the tree line in the distance? Does it show a big saucer floating at a distance over the field, or does it show something smaller and closer? You tell me.




posted on May, 22 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I am not questioning your skill, those are impressive images, and yes they do look 3D. That does not however mean they accurately represent the situation at the time. Let me explain.

You have admitted that you had to make 'adjustments' to the picture, and that millimetres make a big difference. Those two facts completely mean that nothing can be concluded that could not in original images.

I am sure you could make that thing look 100ft wide and 3 miles away with the right adjustments.

The original images clearly show that the object is in a different position, just look at its vertical position over the ground; therefore in the generation of your red/green image (presumable by making one pic green, and one red, then superimposing), the object is going to look very close, as the difference in the red/green seperation is very large compared with distant objects.

That could either be because it is a close object, that has not moved; or that it is something in the distance that has moved.

Your pictures cannot answer this....no other 3D pictures will use any significant period of time seperation exactly due to this very reason. If an object moves in the distance, then the two images will show when superimposed that it is a lot closer, thereby altering the true representation of the scene.

The NASA pictures that you mentioned have no optical basis for their 3D effect....unless the time difference between the photos taken is hundreds of thousands of years a part (or millions of miles), there would be no visible difference in the relative positioning of the stars.......basically they are computer generated.

I personally do not know what that object is, and I have no desire for it to be a UFO over a model. I do not however think that your pictures confirm anything either.

The postioning of the camera man could very well explain the apparent movement of the object, and therefore the reason why it looks looks close......closer analysis of the original two images may confirm this, but unfortunately your pseudo 3D images will not.

I am not an optical expert, but if you think through what I have tried to explain I am sure you will agree that time seperation of two images will not produce an accurate 3D image if there is movement between the images, by virtue of how they are actually created.

Added to the fact that these images were taken from significantly different angles, I reiterate that these images cannot prove anything scientifically. They are however a very impressive art form, and I would hope you continue to produce them.

I find photoshopping as enjoyable as knee surgery. If you need further evidence find a video with something moving in the background, work your magic on a few frames or so apart, then produce the 3D image. Whatever moves in the background will appear (very much) closer when rendered with the funky specs.

[edit on 22/5/06 by Strodyn]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strodyn
You have admitted that you had to make 'adjustments' to the picture, and that millimetres make a big difference. Those two facts completely mean that nothing can be concluded that could not in original images.


Nope. The fact that I did nothing to change the relative appearance or position of the UFO in either photo can be verified by looking at the original photos I worked with.

They can be found in this document:
Heflin UFO Analysis, 2000 - Druffel, Wood, Kelson


I am sure you could make that thing look 100ft wide and 3 miles away with the right adjustments.


Yes, I certainly could, but it's easy enough to verify that I didn't modify the position.


The original images clearly show that the object is in a different position, just look at its vertical position over the ground, therefore in the generation of your red/green image (presumable by making one pic green, and one red, then superimposing), the object is going to look very close, as the difference in the red/green seperation is very large compared with distant objects.

Not compared to the trees in the distance. The red-blue separation of those objects iis very large, particularly compared to either the mirror or the UFO. The closest objects, the window support, for instance, actually have the red-blue reversed, indicating an even closer distance. That's what the 3-D effect does.


That could either be because it is a close object, that has not moved; or that it is something in the distance that has moved.

I brought this up earlier. Yes, it's possible that the UFO moved between the time the first photo was taken and the second. But it would have to move exactly horizontal to the way the camera moved, because there's no apparent difference in the size of the top part of the ship. It could only tilt forward. It didn't go up or down, and it didn't get nearer or closer. The odds of that happening are pretty slim.


Your pictures cannot answer this....no other 3D pictures will use any significant period of time seperation exactly due to this very reason. If an object moves in the distance, then the two images will show that it is a lot closer, thereby altering the true representation of the scene.


You know what I think it shows? I think it shows that Heflin probably took a photo, got out, tilted the model a little so it looked more like a saucer, got back in, and took another photo from a slightly different spot inside the cab of the truck. As far as the time is concerned, because there is no apparent change in the shadows or lighting from one photo to the next, the time separation was probably very short.

Actually, had he been a little smarter, he could have physically moved his model to one side or another so that it would appear to be larger and farther away in a stereo photo. But then he would have had to anticipate that 40 years later some guy with a computer would come along and squeeze the 3-D information from the photos.

Like I said, I was really hoping for a different outcome. Had it conclusively showed a big craft, hovering several hundred yards away, that would have been awesome! But it didn't. Maybe there are some other photo pairs out there from other sightings, that will, though. I'm still looking. Next, I think I'll try to find some good stereo pairs of Billy Meier photos. Just to see.


The NASA pictures that you mentioned have no optical basis for their 3D effect....unless the time difference between the photos taken is hundreds of thousands of years a part (or millions of miles), there would be no visible difference in the relative positioning of the stars.......basically they are computer generated.


I'm thinking of the Mars Orbiter and Rover shots in particular. The Orbiter takes a photo, then takes another photo of the same spot after it has traveled several miles in orbit. Those two images, with eyes as far apart as a giant, are combined to create a stereo image. On the Rovers, they usually use two cameras. Check them out here:
Mars Analglyphic 3-D Images


The postioning of the camera man could very well explain the apparent movement of the object, and therefore the reason why it looks looks close......closer analysis of the original two images may confirm this, but unfortunately your pseudo 3D images will not.

The position of Helfin when he took the photos won't change the relative positions of anything in the photos. The window will still look close, the bushes and the trees will still be farther away, whether the photos were taken with the lenses an inch apart or a foot apart. And that UFO thing will still be closer to the truck than the bushes, no matter what.

P.S. -
Another Excellent Site for 3-D Mars Images

[edit on 22-5-2006 by Enkidu]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Well i give up then. Purely because it took me at least an hour to compose the prior post and I really cannot be arsed to even answer this again....

I thought tbh as a '3D' artist you would understand what I explained, I will almost certainly explain tomorrow when I am a) not drunk, b) more familiar with my drawing packages.

Perhaps you consider yourself a scientist, well may I make the recommendation that you research your 'science' tomorrow before I present fundamental basic optical principals that will completely dismiss your pictures.



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strodyn
I thought tbh as a '3D' artist you would understand what I explained

I understand what you explained. And I agreed with you on several points, in principle, such as my ability to manipulate the image to prove my own point (I also showed you how I didn't). I admitted that the UFO could have moved and made it only appear small and close, but I also explained why I thought that was unlikely.

But the thing is, there are several points about stereo imagery where you're just wrong... plain and simple. When you say it's impossible to come up with a good, referential stereo image from the individual photos, and I have a nice, big one posted in all its red and blue multi-dimensional glory, then there's nothing impossible about it. And the manipulations I did to create the image still wouldn't change what the images themselves (individually or combined) present. They only help add the missing depth information.

Oh, well. I know most people aren't as familiar with the process as I am after 30 years. But there are certain basic, fundamental things involved that should be pretty clear, even if you're not an expert.




posted on May, 22 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Well, if you are very tired due to a wonderful night of insomnia like me and need a better way to superimpose the pics because you do not have, and cannot make 3D glasses, do this:

Put your finger between the pics, focus on your finger while moving finger towards you until the pics merge, stop, keep your finger there, keep using your finger to guide your focal point.

Gad! me eyes still hurt!



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Enkidu,

Don't get discouraged if the two images are angled differently.

Although stereoscopics requires the same angle with a lateral distance between the focal points, more general rules apply to recreating a 3d scene from multiple images taken over slightly different positions in a quick succession of time. (Due to shadow casting, etc.)

I'll try to dig up the paper about this. I might be able to write code for an analysis, but that might be a year long project.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Enkidu, so far in this thread you have stated :


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.


Hey, whatever works. I just arranged the photos cross-eyed because of the large size. I find it's easier to see larger stereo pairs by eye-crossing, rather than de-focusing.

But, yeah, I'm one of those people who prefers less bunk.


As I said, I was hoping for a different outcome. I was hoping as much as anyone could that the image would show a nice, big saucer approximately 25 feet in diameter, hovering several hundred yards away from the truck. That would have been the coolest!


Like I said, I was really hoping for a different outcome. Had it conclusively showed a big craft, hovering several hundred yards away, that would have been awesome! But it didn't. Maybe there are some other photo pairs out there from other sightings, that will, though. I'm still looking. Next, I think I'll try to find some good stereo pairs of Billy Meier photos. Just to see.


So if you "hope the thing is real and not a hoax" and you also prefer less bunk, then i find some of your comments in other threads regarding Ufo's / aliens / secret bases and the supernatural just a little confusing. Here are some quotes of yours from other threads :


Continued lack of convincing physical evidence. UFOs and aliens sure are good at covering their tracks, aside from a few questionable ground traces. And the ground traces the have been found usually don't have much "alien" about them. Well, of course they wouldn't, if they came from Earth in the first place.



* General elusiveness. These aliens and UFOs are sure slippery rascals. The always seem to stay just out of reach, and never quite leave any evidence that could pin them down. Sort of like Gilligan always screwing things up just enough so the castaways don't get off the island. It's ridiculous. As skeptics say, how come, with all the sightings, isn't there even one piece of completely convincing evidence found?


I don't agree. I think most people think some kind of ET life exists, and probably intelligent life, to boot.

Of course, they're completely and utterly WRONG, and don't have a single iota of proof upon which to base that belief.


Anyway, after nearly 40 years of interest in UFOs and space and other similar stuff, I prefer to take the harsh skeptical approach first, since it saves so much time when the information is later proven to be junk.



I would just like to point out that the White Chinese Aliens who built the White Pyramids and left holographic Dropa Stones of their incredible journey were mostly responsible for building the first Hidden Moon Bases on the Dark Side, using advanced Vimana, as well as more crude Chemical Rockets. The Nazis stole this technology, but were unable to create the necessary Machine-Mind Links to make their Vril Saucers stable enough to with the "War." Only after God-Fearing Americans captured the technology were they able to refine the Machine-Mind Link using specially-trained Schoolchildren raised in an Atomic Environment by the Rockefellers. The Roswell Saucer crashed upon returning from a mission to find and reactivate a Hidden Alien Moon Base. With the aid of a large Tesla Trans- Dimensional Power Station constructed in 1957 in a Crater on the Dark Side, we have been able to make Peaceful Contact with the Annunaki from the Interstellar Planet Nibiru, who in turn paved the way for our Personnel Exchange with the Greys of Planet Serpo, who are helping us develop our Zero-Point Energy systems and Stargates.
But I could be wrong.



They don't give an answer, because any answer they give will force them to prove that their own ricidulous whiz-bang alien stories are something other than a load of crap, and they won't be able to do it. It's so obvious! That's been standard operating procedure for these dopey contactees since day one. If somebody else comes up with a similar stupid story, don't debunk it, because somebody will turn around and debunk you in the process. I mean, after all, if the cosmos is just one big, happy smorgasbord of interacting planets and civilizations, then all the stories would be pretty much the same, right? Using the same names and everything. But the stories AREN'T the same, because they're mostly made up by individual whack-jobs out of their own fizzled-out neurons. Because there is no such thing, nobody can prove it, and if you go along with one of these liars, then why not go along with them all? It all adds up to the same thing. Bad, bad, really bad science fiction from dull people with limited imaginations. And not to insult you personally or anything, but if you believe this stuff, you're a drooling idiot and a dolt. No insult intended.



I think it's the reflection off some kind of line or tether. Ever see a single strand spider web stretched out in the sun? Well, it doesn't reflect all the way along the strand, but usually in just one, bright, saucer-shaped point. And if the strand or line moves up and down, or changes angle in some way, the reflection point will appear to move backwards and forwards against the background. Fast, too. Like moving a laser pointer along a wall. You can make the dot "move" faster than a bullet along the wall.

See the trick with this video is how white the clouds are. They make it seem like the shiny spot is moving back and forth behind the far clouds, when it's probably really in front of the clouds and a lot closer than you think.

I happen to think that it's probably some kind of thin transparent fishing line or something, either being moved by somebody or blowing in the wind. As a matter of fact, the motion looks a lot like somebody reeling in a fish or a lure.

DEBUNKED!



Does it? Or does it just look like it? The shiny dot "disappears" against the clouds, but what makes you think it's going behind them? Your expectations? The dot and the clouds are both so bright, it's impossible to tell the difference, and because you believe the dot is behind the clouds, that's what it looks like to you.

I'm telling you, think about some kind of line. Maybe not fishing line. Maybe some long ELF transmitting antenna from an airplane. My guess is fishing line or some other kind of shiny line. If the clouds weren't so bright, or the contrast was a little lower, you could probably see it against the clouds.

Ahem. Debunked.



quote: Originally posted by masterp
Of course I am not saying alien civilisations do not exist. Of course they do.

originally posted by Enkidu No, they don't. There's not a single shred of evidence for it. And any "statistical" speculation still gives you a pretty strong bottom range of zero.


Now im confused as to where you actually stand, are you

(a) just confusingly hypocritical
or
(b) trying a bit of subtle dis-info.

my money's on b. This seems to be the way it works, first offer up evidence that you feel you can debunk all the while professing to hope that its wrong and that your really a believer. When someone posts a contrary opinion you would then drag out your evidence while still of course stating that you hope your wrong but unfortunately you dont think so. Soon theres a whole heap of opinions being offered up, a few debunkers join in and any thing meaningful is soon lost in a sea of rhetoric. If all you are doing is trying to debunk some photo's then come out and say so, stop pretending to be sympathetic to the cause just to try and validate your case.

M4S



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale
Now im confused as to where you actually stand, are you

(a) just confusingly hypocritical
or
(b) trying a bit of subtle dis-info.

my money's on b. This seems to be the way it works, first offer up evidence that you feel you can debunk all the while professing to hope that its wrong and that your really a believer. When someone posts a contrary opinion you would then drag out your evidence while still of course stating that you hope your wrong but unfortunately you dont think so. Soon theres a whole heap of opinions being offered up, a few debunkers join in and any thing meaningful is soon lost in a sea of rhetoric. If all you are doing is trying to debunk some photo's then come out and say so, stop pretending to be sympathetic to the cause just to try and validate your case.


Let me just say first off that you're paying way too much attention to me.

Except in cases where I'm having fun purposely pulling people's chains by offering what I consider to be obviously ridiculous replies to what I think are foolish statements, I think I've been pretty consistent. But if you try to use the old categorizations and lump me into either the "believer" or "skeptic" camps, then you're going to be disappointed.

I think the idea of extraterrestrial life and intelligence is fascinating, and I would very much like it to be real. That being said, I've also followed space exploration and the UFO field for nearly 40 years, and I have yet to find anything that convinces me of the reality of life or intelligence anywhere other than here. None. Zero. I know how big space is. I have a good layman's knowledge of how things work. I've looked into the possibilities of time travel and parallel universes. I've wondered about tulpas and other mind phenomena. There is nary rock in the UFO universe I haven't looked under and considered. I do think it would be exceptionally cool if such a thing as ET life and intelligence were proven beyond all doubt. That it was accepted to exist on the same level as Hoover Dam. But that hasn't happened.

And in order for it to happen the way I want, so I'm not just kidding myself, or buying some liar's cockamamie story, or being fooled by some kids with a couple of thrown hubcaps, I am very, very critical of anything purporting to be UFO evidence. In my efforts to prove it all real, I have become the harshest skeptic of them all, and I will do my best to investigate and prove for myself whether or not an incident cuts the mustard.

Will I debunk? You bet I will! Because after all this time, I'm sick and tired of bunk and the people who will go along with it because they "believe." I have no patience for them, and when I get to a point where I know there's nothing I can do to convince them to adopt a more critical attitude, I'll purposely wind them up with a big load of happy nonsense and send them on their way.

My efforts with the Heflin UFO photos is just another attempt to see what the real deal is. And just like everything else, it failed to meet the criteria I have established to prove it true. To me, it showed a small saucer model. If someone can see where that's wrong, I'd like to see it.

I don't want to "believe," I want to "know." And at the moment, the only real evidence of ET (or trans-dimensional, or time traveling, or thought generated) life and intelligence is the sheer number of sightings by a wide range of people. But I also understand that numbers don't necessarily count for anything, like even though there may be a billion planets in this part of the galaxy, until you find life on one, you can't say there's life. You just can't. That's the way it works.

Otherwise, if you truly believe, without reasonable and logical and testable proof, that Earth is controlled by the Lizard People from Zeta Reticuli II, who genetically engineered monkeys to mine gold and who now operate from secret bases in Atlantis, which is buried in Antarctica, well, good for you. You're an idiot.




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by EnkiduOtherwise, if you truly believe, without reasonable and logical and testable proof, that Earth is controlled by the Lizard People from Zeta Reticuli II, who genetically engineered monkeys to mine gold and who now operate from secret bases in Atlantis, which is buried in Antarctica, well, good for you. You're an idiot.


No i dont believe any of the above, but i have seen something that i am unable to categorise.Whether it was a ufo, a secret govt aircraft or a trick of the light i dont know, but i did see something.I tend to believe things that i see with my own two eyes, if that makes me an idiot then so be it, that said i wont resort to petty name calling either if i dont agree with your point of view, that is obviously your answer to anyone who dares to question your motives. The first part of your answer to my query was well thought out and i was willing to accept it as is, but the last part above.........Oh well dunce cap on and i shall sit in the corner.I have been told.My bad or what.

M4S

(btw im not really paying way too much attention to you, i just have a really good memory and remember those that debunk, call it a gift if you like).


[edit on 23/5/06 by mojo4sale]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Deleted redundant post. Having trouble with the forum tonight.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by Junkheap]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
If it's a small model then how do you account for the atmospheric haze attenuating the dark areas of the object?

Plus there's that dust cloud beneath the object in first picture Heflin took which isn't one of the pictures used the stereo views here.

Anyway, I retouched this image a little and drew in where the dark underside of the object would be to correspond with placement of the object in the other picture so the depth perception can be clearer to people with red/blue glasses.

Too me, when looking at the picture, it still doesn't look like a small model to me.
It looks farther away then the bushes in the foreground.



The problem with making a stereoscopic image of this scene is that the camera clearly pointed in two different angles when each picture was taken.

In stereoscopic pictures each lens is pointed in the same direction, but separated by a certain distance.

Perhaps the best way would be to have a computer analyze the pictures and lighting and build a 3d model of the scene in a computer program somehow?

It's too bad these photographs aren't available in a higher resolution and in color.



[edit on 23-5-2006 by Junkheap]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
The 3d doesn't work for me, I think it's these dam prescription glasses I wear.
I've never been of the opinion that the Heflin photos were real. They look staged to me. But that's just my opinion.
I hope you get a response from Bruce Maccabee on the "List" regarding this post since he won't come here.
Now if you could figure out some way the McMinnville photos were faked I'd be really interested.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
omg ur right that is so wierd Congrats on the find



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kklover
omg ur right that is so wierd Congrats on the find

Ain't it cool? That's why I dig 3-D so much.

Aside from the potential "science" of the thing, I just think it's fun to look at! It really gives you a feel for what it was like to be sitting in the driver's seat of Helfin's truck in Santa Ana in 1965. Awesome!



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
Now if you could figure out some way the McMinnville photos were faked I'd be really interested.

That might be a little tougher, since the saucer moved so much from one photo to the next. A long stretch of time between photos might cast a bit of doubt on them.

Otherwise, maybe they're real photos of a real flying saucer from who knows where or when.



P.S. - I was able to find some very large, high-def scans of them on Internet, so I'll see what I can do. You'll probably be able to see the 3-D of the landscape, but I don't know if anything definitive can be found out about the saucer. I'll give it a try.

[edit on 24-5-2006 by Enkidu]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu
P.S. - I was able to find some very large, high-def scans of them on Internet, so I'll see what I can do.


Care t'share?



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I found something you may be interested in. While reading the through the Heflin threads here and on Updates I got curious about where this all happened and started pokinng around. Myford Road (How appropriate? From the look of the window and side panel of the van I figure it for a Ford "pusher", which also would have made it darned difficult for him to get to the passenger seat, since there would be an engine in the way.), anyway Myford has moved over the years, but I discovered old aerial photos of the area, USGS images from 1963, 1972, and 1985, and Corona pics from 1963-1980.

They are almost all stereo-pairable.


The best of the USGS images are cached now, and I've got all their ID numbers. Say the word if you're interested and I'll post the list and/or stash them on ImageShack. These are just the previews, but they still show some interesting things. Full-resolution scans -- think Terraserver quality -- are available for just $1 each, but there's a $30-$60 media charge, and since these are not in my immediate range of interest, and my wife thinks I spend too much on my hobby anyway, I won't be ordering any of these.

As I said, they show some interesting things. For instance, the report you got your images from, in fact, every report on the Heflin affair I've ever read, mentions El Toro (he was a around 1 1/2 mile away) but doesn't mention that he was literally across the street from Tustin Marine Corps Air Station (it may have been an Air Station in 1965); the RR tracks he stopped to photograph skirt the northern boundry of Tustin. (And before Tustin was Tustin, it was NAS Santa Ana, the largest active blimp base on the West Coast; I just had to toss that in, y'know
) He was only about 1000 yards from the control tower (if there was one there in 1965; the 1963 aerials preview shots seem to show the tower, but are a bit blurry and so inconclusive. In any event, he was close to an active flight line.) and directly in line with the longest runway.



PS, keep up the good work; some people understand and appreciate what you're trying to do



[edit on 25-5-2006 by rand]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join