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.

 

Ninth entry - Heflin photos (1965)

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
A slightly longer article, this time (hopefully) complete with centred images - thanks to the tip from WOS.

This one relates to photographs taken by Rex Heflin in Santa Ana, California on 3 August 1965.

All the best,

Isaac




posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
those are some cool pictures we need pictures like those today



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
that last "smoke ring" photo is a man made entity.

here are 2 shots of them my friend todd took the last time we camped in the black rock desert. another camper named mark was creating these large and sooty rings. really cool to view live.







[edit on 12-05-2006 by zooplancton]

[edit on 12-05-2006 by zooplancton]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Isaac, another good entry.


However, this one is problematic. The only reference you have to the Druffel/Wood/Kelson analysis is by way of a link to the NICAP website, which provides its own link to the report. Why so removed when you could provide the link yourself? Why no mention of the report in your summary? It's the most thorough report I've seen, utilizing the original photos and state of the art methodology.

Also, you've weighted summary conclusions heavily towards the hoax camp. Both the NICAP and Druffel/Wood/Kelson analyses conclude the case is genuine. Where in your entry do you indicate that?

Compare the short blurbs in your "Claims to fame" section to the multiple entry "The Skeptics" section. I'm not suggesting it's intentional on your part, but anyone thoroughly familiar with this case would conclude your entry is biased through sheer omission.

[edit on 9/1/2007 by yuefo]



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by zooplancton
that last "smoke ring" photo is a man made entity.


Zoo, I want to point you to page 36 and 37 (see link below) of the Druffel/Wood/Kelson analysis in which computer enhancement shows the smoke ring beginning to form behind the object in photo 3, and in which the particulate formation matches that of the smoke ring in photo 4, just as Heflin described it. This is a very important finding in that no state-of-the-art enhanced enlargement of this phenomenon using the original photographs was previously done.

Druffel/Wood/Kelson analysis



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuefo
Isaac, another good entry.


Thanks.



Compare the short blurbs in your "Claims to fame" section to the multiple entry "The Skeptics" section."


Personally, I think it would be fairer to compare "The Skeptics" section with everything above it. The summry of Heflin's claims plus the "claims to fame" section combined are about the same length as "The Skeptics" section.

I must say that I don't find it easy trying to give an objective and completely balanced view in Tinwiki entries. It's a matter of trying not to reinvent the wheel, where to draw the line and how to achieve balance.

I don't mind adding a direct link to the Druffel/Wood/Kelson analysis or - and this is part of the attraction of the wiki approach - if you consider this necessary to provide a balanced article then you could do it yourself. If anyone thought you'd gone to far, they could amend your contribution or add more of the skeptic arguments. [I had, as you noted, provide an indirect link to that analysis AND referred to Druffel's book (with an indication of the length of the discussion in her book)].

If you add a reference to the Druffel/Wood/Kelson analysis then I'd consider it necessary for someone to go into the issues about granting skeptics access to the original prints and/or the making high resolution scans available (plus, from memory, I think a further Druffel/Wood/Kelson analysis is needed).

Kind Regards,

Isaac



posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Personally, I think it would be fairer to compare "The Skeptics" section with everything above it.


Lets do that.

1. Everything above "The Skeptics" section (that suggests the photos' authenticity or lack thereof):


Robert Sheaffer has referred to Heflin’s photographs as “one of the most highly regarded series of ‘classic’ UFO photos of all time”.


Note: Sheaffer, a skeptic of the photos, isn't suggesting the photos are authentic, only that they're "highly regarded."


The Condon Report states that the case regarding these photos “must remain inconclusive” and comments that the case is “of exceptional interest because it is so well documented”.


Not much of an endorsement from the Condon Report either. And that's it for what's above "The Skeptics" section. Nothing indicating authenticity.

2. The Skeptics section:

Project Blue Book:


Its evaluation of them was: “Other (HOAX)”.

...the Air Force had “classified it as a photographic hoax on the basis of extensive photo analysis”.


The Condon Report:


this has led me to conclude that the case is of little probative value.”

The case must remain inconclusive.

The evidence for the reality of the UFO is not sufficiently strong to have probative value in establishing the existence of extraordinary flying objects.


Menzel:


Donald Menzel and Ernest Taves stated that they considered this incident “as most likely a hoax”.


Sheaffer:


states that “among other reasons for suspecting a hoax...

...which concluded that the photographs were a hoax...


See what I mean? The way you could balance this is by including a section after "The Skeptics" that concisely counters the specific objections you mentioned in "The Skeptics" section. Those counterpoints are all contained in the Druffel report. It's remiss to detail criticisms without a counterpoint. In fact, "Claims to fame" isn't the reverse side of "The Skeptics" at all. Another section is required in my opinion.

Except for this issue however I like your entry.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by yuefo
Lets do that.


I don't want to make a big deal of it because I'm happy with making the additions you suggest, or (even better) you could jump right in and make them yourself - but I think you missed my point. I was suggesting that I thought it fairer to compare the skeptics section with section setting out Heflin's claims (including the summary of his report to NICAP) combined with the short "claims to fame" section. In other words, the section setting out an uncritical account of Heflin's claims could (and possibly should) be viewed as part of the pro-ETH section.

As I say, I'm quite happy with your suggestions - I just wanted to highlight the difficulties of the issues regarding balance.

Kind Regards,

Isaac



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   
I did miss your point Isaac because it never occurred to me you'd see it that way. It's apples and oranges comparing a witness's account with case analyses that cast doubt on that account.

What I'm suggesting doesn't necessarily involve adding much of anything. For instance, rather than pointing out the specific elements of Heflin's account that cast doubt on it, you could just add quotes from the skeptics that express their general skepticism, and likewise you could include quotes from the other side expressing belief in the authenticity of the case. Then you'd have balance. But you can't have specific skeptical reports and specific elements of Heflin's case criticized without also pointing out that positive reports also exist--reports that weren't subject to the debunking agenda of Project Blue Book and the Condon report, I might add, and reports that address the specific skeptical elements you detail.

I'm sorry if I'm being a huge pain in the butt, it's not my intention. But I did want to give constructive criticism because I think it's very cool that you're doing all these tinwiki entries. I just think in a short summary you have to try to strike the right, fair balance and then let the references and links speak for themselves. I actually don't know how you feel about the case yourself, but if I were going just by what you presented and knew about the positive Druffel report, I'd guess you had a skeptical bias, and I'm sure that's not your intention.

As for editing it myself, I don't want to step on your toes, I assume you're posting your entries for suggestions/opinions, and I haven't made the necessary inquiries into how to go about that. Some kind of permission and qualifications are required to be an editor, and I believe I read it involves submitting 10 entries. Well it'll be a while before I have the time and discipline to do that! Besides, you're taking all the really cool cases!!



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   



Zoo, I want to point you to page 36 and 37 (see link below) of the Druffel/Wood/Kelson analysis in which computer enhancement shows the smoke ring beginning to form behind the object in photo 3, and in which the particulate formation matches that of the smoke ring in photo 4, just as Heflin described it. This is a very important finding in that no state-of-the-art enhanced enlargement of this phenomenon using the original photographs was previously done.

Druffel/Wood/Kelson analysis


thanks for the point out on this. but the photo you are referring to is a different type of thing altogether. the first two rings are my photo - then your referring photo, then the different one from page 36. the entity on poge 36 of the pdf is not one of these rings.




then helfin:




then the pdf page 36 photo:



that last image (on page 36) is something else. (ufo)

my post was just to point out that in the original posting, those "rings" are a simple man-made entity. just trying to help in the big picture here.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by yuefo
I'm sorry if I'm being a huge pain in the butt


Not at all. I appreciate your comments. They've been polite, sensible, and informed. Even if I don't entirely agree with them, I can certainly understand and respect your view.

I'll incorporate your comments, unless I can persuade you to have a go yourself (see below).



As for editing it myself, I don't want to step on your toes, I assume you're posting your entries for suggestions/opinions


I did indeed post my entries for suggestions and opinions - but I'd be more than happy for you to incorporate your suggestions yourself rather than having to persuade me.

I really want to encourage other members to post to, or edit, the Tinwiki.

I'm putting a fair bit of time into certain Tinwiki entries so that I can do an article for the ATS weekly newsletter which (amongst other things) seeks to encourage people to at least look at the Tinwiki (in case they don't know it's there) and make them at least think about adding to, or editing, it.

I'm not claiming, and don't particularly want, some sort of ownership of the entries that I've been drafting. They are a gift to the ATS community. As with all Tinwiki entries, they should be viewed as a starting point in relation to each of the relevant cases - not as something set in stone, only to be varied or supplemented by me or someone with the title of "Tinwiki Editor".



Some kind of permission and qualifications are required to be an editor, and I believe I read it involves submitting 10 entries.


One of the editors will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are talking about the title of "Tinwiki Editor" [a bit of ATS bling bling] rather than actually being an editor (in the sense of actually being able to edit).

Can I encourage you to try an edit - even a small one? Apart from answering any doubt about whether you have permission to edit, that first step might give you the encouragement that you need to do more.

How about trying an edit on the Heflin photographs that we've been discussing?

Use the link in the line above, click on "edit" at the top and then scroll down to the bit that you want to edit. You'll see the formatting commands that I've used [which are largely pretty basic, other than centering images etc].

To be specific, you could:
(1) scroll down to the external links section, and (probably above the link to the NICAP website) add a direct link to the Druffel/Wood/Kelson analysis. You can see the format used to add a link by looking at the other examples in that section.

(2) only slightly more ambitious, add a new para (probably where the "References to discussions in books" para is at the moment), to deal with your concerns, e.g. a short section entitled "The Skeptics - A rebuttal" or something that suits the content that you add (or you could add some comments to the relevant existing sections on each skeptic). Again, you can see the relevant formatting command [which is basically putting "==" before and after the title of the new section, and simply typing the relevant content].

If you mess things up, no problem. One of the regulars (or me) can sort them out (or simply undo them).

[Typing the above has taken longer than making the edits would take - but I think it is worth trying to encourage you (and anyone else reading this thread) to have a go].

Really, it isn't as hard as some people seem to think (or, indeed, as hard as I thought before I gave it a try).

So, have I managed to persuade you to try an edit (or, for that matter, a new entry)?



Well it'll be a while before I have the time and discipline to do that!


*Cue an impersonation of Marvin the Paranoid Android, from "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"* "Time, don't talk to me about time..."



Besides, you're taking all the really cool cases!!



I don't think so. Not yet anyway...

Seriously, I have several lists of cases which are not covered in the Tinwiki yet and it would take a heck of a lot of time for me to write entries for each of them by myself.

I mentioned above an article that I'm planning to submit to the ATS newsletter - that newsletter is about 10 photographic cases. I want to include links to relevant Tinwiki entries. One existed at the beginning of last week, I've now added 5 - so that leaves 4 just for the purposes of the article that I want to submit now. [Let's put to one side for now the article that I've written about the "Top 100" UFO cases, based on frequently of discussion in a sample of UFO books...]

If anyone reading this thread wants an interesting case to try out an entry, I'd be more than happy to provide the name of a case plus a few details which I've already typed up (including a few references to discussions in books, links etc). It would probably be easier to send such this material by email, but I could probably do it by U2U.

Kind Regards,

Isaac


[edit on 2-9-2007 by IsaacKoi]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by zooplancton
the entity on poge 36 of the pdf is not one of these rings.


I realize that. But what I'm pointing to is the fact that the smoke ring appears to be forming before the UFO departs. That is the significance and importance of the latest photo analysis, since Heflin's smoke ring photo has produced considerable controversy. I encourage you to read the discussion regarding photo #3 as it relates to the smoke ring in photo #4.

In addition, I suggest that just because a phenomenon (smoke rings) can be reproduced through prosaic means does not necessarily mean that an alternative means of producing the phenomenon (a UFO produced smoke ring) is out of the question.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Isaac, you've already been successful in raising the profile of Tinwiki (at least as far as I'm concerned), since I was unaware of it (even after being a member for 6 months!) until seeing your posts.

I've been terribly slow on the uptake, but I think I'm starting to get the gist of it now thanks to your patience. I guess I'll go ahead per your encouragement and get my feet wet with the Heflin entry, trying my best to not gunk up the works. Thanks!



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
yuefo,

I just want to confirm what IsaacKoi said that Editor is a status that can be given to a user account, whereas working on tinWiki pages is open to all, even those who aren't registered users at all. If you have access to a button, basically that means you are free to use it. Certain features like deleting a page are restricted, and so are only possible to use if one's account has the necessary status -- but if you find you can see and use some feature, it's just to go ahead (with good intentions, naturally).

Let me also just mention there is a test page called Sandbox where people can try out how writing tinWiki pages works. I would say that writing wiki pages is a little different from writing ATS posts, but not that much. (I'm talking about the formatting codes and that "technical" part of it now...)

Anyway, I hope you'll like what tinWiki works like and is all about and so on, and if there's anything you feel unsure about, feel free to ask and I will do my best to inform you. One way of contacting me is my discussion page (click the plus sign to post).

By the way, there are a couple of statuses a user account can have which mean access to certain "sensitive" features that aren't good to make available to just anyone who visits the site. What I can do with my user account's Editor status is use automatic move feature (to move an entire article, including its version history and discussion, to a page with another title), delete an entire page, use an automatic rollback feature to revert edits by vandals and spammers, block a user from editing, and perhaps a couple of other things I can't remember right now. What all the other user account statuses are called I'm not entirely sure, but they have more features and are held by those who have more responsibility, like for example Wiki Master William One Sac.

But, again, the basic thing of writing and working on articles, and discussing articles, that is what is the normal use of tinWiki and that is open to absolutely all.

Those who want more responsibility and who want to do perhaps some more chores, so to say, beyond the normal use can let William One Sac know, I read in the Help pages, and so can be considered to get access to do some things like what I mentioned, moving an article (to another title) and so on.

Optimist



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join