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.

 

are there better UFO photos than '65 heflin ones?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
www.ocregister.com...


The pictures of the object are unambiguously clear and present an immediate problem for skeptics: Either the photos are clever fakes or they are actual pictures of a very unconventional flying craft; there is simply no third alternative explanation.

In the Heflin case, negative tampering was eliminated since his pictures were shot with a Model 101 Polaroid camera on 3000 ASA Polaroid film, i.e., no negatives. And when high-resolution prints of the original Polaroid pictures themselves were reanalyzed 30 years later employing image digitization technology (See Ann Druffel, Robert M. Wood, and Eric Kelson, "Reanalysis of the 1965 Heflin UFO Photos," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, Winter 2000, pp. 583-622), there were no indications of tampering.

First, the latest photo analysis was accomplished with all of the original Polaroid photos and high-resolution first-generation prints and does, in fact, show similar clouds in all four of the photographs. Second, computer enhancement of photo two shows a bright line (or light beam) extending out from the bottom center of the disc to its outer rim, which is exactly what Heflin claimed that he saw back in 1965. And finally, computer enhancement of photo three shows something quite extraordinary: There appears to be a stream of "black particulate matter" trailing behind the UFO, which was not apparent under normal viewing.

This additional discovery is by far the most significant since the reanalysis of the smoke-ring photo shows that the ring appears composed of the same sort of black particulate matter seen trailing the UFO in photo three
it definitely wasn't photoshopped. so, is this the best we got?

I'm aware of the "discredited" meier photos, mainly because of the ray gun.

Please if there are better quality and credible photos, post them here along with the literature.

thanks.



niv

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I've always been interested in these photos. I've never heard a good argument that these were hoaxed, which is the only other possibility.

Thanks for posting.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I'm not a very good debunk-er but some look like hubcaps.

That said they are great photos.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Having just replaced the brakes on my car, I would say they look brake discs


Obviously the picture is for demonstration purposes and not an exact match for what is on the photographs

The stream of "black particulate matter" trailing behind the UFO could be brake dust, rust, dirt from when it was being thrown

That's what they look like to me anyway



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
No, the object is not a hubcap, and no, it is not a brake disc. Disc brakes had only been invented since WW2, and for military aircraft at that.

Did you read in the article? It states that the pictures were subject to numerous tests, which concluded that there was no tampering.


And when high-resolution prints of the original Polaroid pictures themselves were reanalyzed 30 years later employing image digitization technology (See Ann Druffel, Robert M. Wood, and Eric Kelson, "Reanalysis of the 1965 Heflin UFO Photos," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, Winter 2000, pp. 583-622), there were no indications of tampering.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
To be honest, first thing I thought of was an old barbershop hat being thrown out the window of a car. When the angle was right, the picture was taken.

Its black and white, so you could never tell the color.

Like one of these hats:
www.villagehatshop.com...


Just a thought.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by susp3kt
 


Yes I read it. The bottom pic still looks like a hubcap to me.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
The problem is, there may be tons of real authentic UFO pics out there with great detail and all sorts...but accepted as proof...well, that is the issue, isnt it.

Especially now adays when its all to easy to simply say "photoshopped" and voila, immediate discredit of any and all pictures, videos, etc.

So, pictures and videos from anything less than say, a CNN live shot for example, is no longer valid



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
The stream of "black particulate matter" is not obviously created by the UFO. If you look at the Druffel / Wood / Kelson analysis page 33, you'll see on the full picture that there are many other "particles" in the contrast enhanced images of photos 2 and 3. A photographic (emulsion ?) defect seems likely.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The lake Chauvet, France, 1952 photos are impressive.

www.ufoevidence.org...

The analysis is in french, on this site :
adelmon.free.fr...

Click the images to see high resolution scans.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by susp3kt
No, the object is not a hubcap, and no, it is not a brake disc. Disc brakes had only been invented since WW2, and for military aircraft at that.





Around noon on Aug. 3, 1965
www.ocregister.com...

That is after WW2




The first caliper-type automobile disc brake was patented by Frederick William Lanchester in his Birmingham, UK factory in 1902 and used successfully on Lanchester cars



Chrysler's Imperial also offered a type of disc brake from 1949 through 1953, though in this instance they were enclosed with dual internal-expanding, full-circle pressure plates



The first production car to feature disc brakes at all 4 corners was the Austin-Healey 100S in 1954
Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...

Your facts are flawed



Originally posted by susp3kt
Did you read in the article? It states that the pictures were subject to numerous tests, which concluded that there was no tampering.


Throwing a hubcap/brake disc/hat then taking a picture of it, is not classified as tampering. Tampering would be altering the photograph AFTER



[edit on 2/11/09 by Daisy-Lola]

[edit on 2/11/09 by Daisy-Lola]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I use to live near there. That area is a hot bed for UFO'S and high strangness (got that from Linda Moulton Howl) Keven randle did a book on the UFO flap of 1973 lots in that area.

Also the Orange county register had a series that ran for a long time around 1973 on all the UFO sightings in the Tustin (orange county area).

This photo (1965) is still up in the air of course.

I myself saw many things in the sky in the Orange county, LA, and other areas of Calif.

One thing I remember in the archives I went through in the Tustin library (from the UFO series in the "Orange county register") was a Marine jogging (this heflin photo is near El Toro Marine base) and he came across a giant 10 foot Alien!! I believe it zapped him or something.

One of many weird sightings in and around Tustin and Irvine California.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
In the first picture : the UFO is more in focus than the surrounding features at that distance. I just checked and the shadows on the UFO are darker than any other shadow in the entire picture. Its a fake!

In the second picture : you cant have both the foreground and the UFO in focus. Its probably a double exposure
Also the UFO is to dark for something in the distance. It has darker features than any other object outside the car itself. Thats not possible if the UFO is supposed to be 100 ft away or more.

Objects get lighter in color ( or in this case , lose contrast ) the further away they are from the camera so the darkest shadows are always closest to the camera. If the shadows of the UFO are darker than the shadows on objects closer to the camera it HAS to be fake.

The only other way this could have been do is if the UFO was very small and only about 2ft from the lens.



[edit on 2-11-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
It's a poloraid camera not too much depth of fiels the object would be close or very large. It is not a brake rotor.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
A brake rotor would be a little heavy to throw that far.....he would have to get in and out of his truck three times to do this.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by lee63]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


I think you should look into more cases from that time. The Adamski Type or Nazi Bell is worth studying. Although many of these are being ridiculed and debunked, I recommend you to do your research in that era.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


A cohort standing beside the vehicle tossing a disc shaped object in front of the vehicle. Really simple thing to fake. Anyone ever played with a Frisbee? Before Frisbee's kids tossed pie pans.

My first thought in looking at the difference in focus between the object and the things in the background was something small and much closer to the lens. Anything light and disc shaped would do. As with a Frisbee it is easy to make anything of that shape hover for a second or two before it looses forward momentum and starts its trip back.

There is so much aerodynamically wrong with that shape it would be very odd to think it a craft created by an advanced being or even the military.

This follows the pattern of how these supposed photo's show craft that mimic the technology as perceived by the public in that day. If a true alien craft it would no doubt show advanced aerodynamics beyond what we see or at least equal. That is what makes the Meyers images so laughable.

For instance show the Meyer's ray gun to somebody in say 1920 they would be awestruck. Show it to somebody now and they would say who would be dumb enough to fall for an obvious fake like that.

...and yet this remains a UFO because nobody but the original photographer knows (and perhaps his cohort in the hoax; the thrower of the disc). But then again, perhaps the Aliens or military don't care much about things like simple aerodynamics when they design craft to fly through an atmosphere? Why would they waste time worrying about friction or efficiency?

[edit on 11/2/2009 by Blaine91555]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


You should study the case before you comment!
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
I've seen pics almost identical to the heflin ones. Taken in 1994 at Craigluscar reservoir, Scotland. Not sure if they can be found online but they are mentioned here,

entertainment.stv.tv...

(sorry forgot how to make a link).

As the investigator mentions, there was more than one photo taken and the top of the craft stuck up a bit more in the first pic and seemed to telescope into itself and look flatter in the second photo. I'm pretty sure all the pics will be in Malcolm's Robinson's new book.
I seem to remember also that in the original story the witness was told via telepathy not to take a photo, then was told "you can take one now", or something similar.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by susp3kt
No, the object is not a hubcap, and no, it is not a brake disc. Disc brakes had only been invented since WW2, and for military aircraft at that.

Did you read in the article? It states that the pictures were subject to numerous tests, which concluded that there was no tampering.


Doesn't the conclusion of "no tampering" just mean that the hubcap-like object was actually there when the photograph was taken, and not added later through some kind of tampering?

From the article in the OP:


But could Heflin have faked the pictures by using a suspended model or, perhaps, by tossing some object into the air? Very unlikely. The latest computer analysis revealed no string or support-like structures in any of the photos. In addition, shooting convincing pictures of a thrown object would require dozens of trials (and pictures) and the help of a confederate; no evidence for either scenario has ever surfaced.


What I have no evidence for is the veracity of that statement that "shooting convincing pictures of a thrown object would require dozens of trials", what are they basing that assessment on? Personal experience? I don't see why I couldn't make a perfectly good photo of a hubcap-like object the first time my friend throws it.

So, do we infer from this statement that no evidence of another person throwing an object has ever surfaced, to somehow mean that there couldn't have been another person there throwing an object? I think that's a stretch.

It's probably not a hubcap, but it looks a little bit like one especially in terms of the clarity and apparent distance from the camera, it looks rather close which implies a small object perhaps about the size of a hubcap. If the object looked more distant, and not so clear, then it might appear to be larger. But it looks so clear and close that it implies to me a smaller object, closer to the camera.

The smoke evidence is inconclusive as nablator said.



[edit on 3-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join