are there better UFO photos than '65 heflin ones?

reply to post by Bosko

---

Wouldn't something circular flying in the air look like a hubcap thrown in the air ?

Especially when somebody is pre-disposed to dismiss the possibility that it is something flying in the air, not necessarily through personal belief but purely because it is not an accepted scientific fact.

It's a sad reflection on society, even the section of it that visits ATS, that the only responses the OP solicits are arguments as to whether it is a brake disc or a hubcap.

If anyone does seriously want to propose that as a theory identify a period hubcap or brake disc that is identical.

Surely a more coherent theory would be that someone built a model of a flying saucer and threw it in the air !

How did they know what a model of a flying saucer should look like, by basing it on other similar photos and witness descriptions ? Who started all this off, was their some eccentric model maker in a shack in Roswell ?

It's the perennial issue with photos and lately video, I don't believe it could be therefore I accept this more mundane explanation that doesn't fit the facts.

reply to post by Regenstorm

---

Attacking how other people view things as ignorance shows a bias in your own right. The public forum invites differing views.

These pictures are of an object. Which object I or others see may be different then your own. The pictures are real yes. That does not mean that they in fact are a flying saucer from beyond this world.

Then is no proof that this is indeed a flying saucer. They may look like a flying saucer to you and others, to some they may not.




edit to include pic



[edit on 4-11-2009 by Seiko]

I did not misread. What you had written was quite clear.
If I misunderstood you, then it was a problem with how you chose to present your false facts
You did read the rest of my post didn't you?


Wikipedia

WWII started in 1939. So thats 37 Years BEFORE WWII
That's 12 Years BEFORE WWI even
AND 63 Years before the photograph was taken!
To put it into a slightly better perspective on how wrong you are, it was a year BEFORE 1903 when the Wright brothers were at Kitty Hawk making their debut powered flight, there by your logic concludes the disc brake was invented for aircraft BEFORE aircraft were invented.
(...this is not taking into consideration Richard Pearse who is believed to have taken his first powered flight in 1902 (1 year and 9 months before the Wrights), but still does not invalidate my point, as you tend to invent something then patent it)

I stand by my statement. Your facts are flawed.




I know what they're made of (although some modern disc brakes are actually made from composites to reduce weight). If I can throw one of these suckers as high as in the photograph, I don't think a strong farm hand is going to have any problems.
Besides, who said it was thrown? It could be hung on fishing wire. Photographs taken at such a distance would not show the line up, under even the best scrutiny. What you can't see in the photograph is what it could be suspended from, with the wind blowing the dust off it as it hung there.

I suggest instead of frothing at the mouth, you read my post, especially the last line
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You may notice, I have not edited it, so my original point remains unaltered.

Someone said it could be a model (chunder). Why not?
Someone said it looks like a hat. Yes it does.
Someone said it looks like a hubcap. Yes it does.
I said it looks like a brake disc. Yes it does

[edit on 4/11/09 by Daisy-Lola]

reply to post by Daisy-Lola

---

Please watch from 5:40 onwards.

YouTube Link

reply to post by Regenstorm

---

It's an interesting clip and shows Heflin's written report quite nicely, good details (but shaky camera. Hate it when directors think this makes the program look more dynamic) . One of the things that they don't entertain on the program, is his job. Rex Heflin was a Highway Accident Investigator for the Los Angeles County Highway Commission. So it is within the realms of possibility that he would be able to gauge measurements and the distance of an object quite well, even from a photograph. Thinking of this works for and against him

I've not declared these photographs either true or fake, I'm undecided on that.
If it is genuine, then they're astounding photographs and show what happens when aliens drink too much at the controls.
If it is fake then I hope he gets what he wants and his photos to remain controversial with arguments on both sides.

Let me just say it again: IT STILL LOOKS LIKE A BRAKE DISC!
If it is an alien craft flown by a drunken alien, then its craft looks like a brake disc!

reply to post by bobbinika

---

Im afraid i have to disagree with you there.

On the first image if you use an art app with a magic wand selection , put the tolerance to 0 and select the pixels that make up the shadow on the UFO you will notice it contains some shades of grayish color that don't appear anywhere else in the entire picture. A lot of the shadow pixels that do show up in the image elsewhere only show up in the first 30ft going away from the camera. This process cant be 100% accurate though because the source image is a JPG which is a lossy compression format.

Im not sure how you are calculating the grey values as the image is not in greyscale. When you split the colors up into RGB values you will see there are no true grey's. The whole image is Red deficient with a slightly higher Green value.

If you look at the telegraph polls you will see that as they get further away they get lighter, that is an example of distance fading over a relatively short distance.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by VitalOverdose]

Based on the limited information I have I'm tending to agree more with VitalOverdose and less with bobbinika on this issue.

However, I have a question for both of you...what is the source for your photos you are analyzing? I think there's a lot of 4th and 5th generation copies floating around cyberspace and the photo shown in the OP looks like such a photo, as evidenced by the foreground being cropped out (That's one of the telltale signs of the copies not made from the original, many of them have been cropped).

I found the link to the Druffel, Wood and Kelson paper here:

www.scientificexploration.org...

I saved some images from the pdf, but I suspect they have better quality originals I'm not sure how to access. But I'll show you what I mean about part of the photo missing in the OP, here is the OP photo:


And here is the photo I extracted from page 585 of the publication the Druffel, Wood, and Kelson paper appeared in (scroll photo to the right to see the telephone pole shadow missing from the photo in the OP, that's helpful information for the sun angle reference):



Now what I would like to find is a copy of this photo from Druffel, Wood and Kelson better than what I extracted from their pdf. I think Druffel has the original photos (amazing that Helfin got them back after they went missing for 28 years, that's why there are so many bad copies floating around, nobody had the originals, or at least nobody knew where they were). But the original has problems now too, there's a huge fingerprint on the lower right of the one I posted here for example, and I read all 40 pages of their paper and they mentioned fingerprints but they don't say if they tried to clean them off and couldn't, or what.

If we are going to do analysis we should at least try to not work with 5th generation copies and find a good source photo to analyze. By the way, the analysis in that pdf is pretty interesting. Does anyone know a good source for high quality images from the original photos, like in the pdf but a more direct source than the pdf?

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

I totally agree. I would be happy to analyze a first gen copy of the image.

I will have a look at the larger pic you have posted. But as its a JPG the image will be somewhat degraded . A PNG format would be a more suitable for analysis and web display.


[edit on 4-11-2009 by VitalOverdose]

reply to post by VitalOverdose

---

True, however I gave you the link to the pdf so you can work with the original source in that if you choose, as the settings I use to extract even a png file will have varying degrees of degradation depending on how I do it. Actually I capture a bmp image of the enlarged pdf file and then I can convert the bmp to png, jpg or whatever. And I'm not sure if there's a size limit to the images we can post on ATS, the png file will be larger. But if you're not sure how to make your own png from the pdf I can take a crack at it with the same settings I used for the jpg and see how it turns out.

I was really hoping to find a better source than the pdf though.

edit to add: I see you edited your post so I'm editing to reply to your edit! The purpose for my posting that extracted photo was to show that part of the original image was missing in the OP photo. The image extraction process I used may have introduced some jpeg artifacts, so while I think it has value to show the photo content, it's probably not suitable for detailed pixel color analysis.

So I'm still looking for a better source of photos to analyze.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

Thanks for the link Arbitrageur ,I took a screenshot of the PDF image and that is much more suitable for some decent analysis. It seems the shadows on the UFO only match up with the shadows on objects up to about 40ft away from the cam. I cant find any unique pixels so im leaning more towards this object being something small and close to the cam. This would explain the high amount of shine on the object. More than likely something just thrown into the sky like a Frisbee.

I just watched the UFO hunters vid posted by Regenstorm and i would totally agree with the project bluebook findings.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by VitalOverdose]

The scale looks a bit iffy to me. To me it seems like a small object not too far from the car.

Could he have used a trap thrower, like they use for clay pigeons?
Just thinking out loud here.

reply to post by Daisy-Lola

---

I have to agree with you there Daisy-Lola. As the Terrance Masen says in the video 'its simple trigonometry' . Rex would have been able to measure the object in the image and then with his claim of the UFO being 20ft in diameter & 150 ft off the ground he could easily calculate the correct distance. Especially as he was a Highway Accident Investigator for the Los Angeles County Highway Commission.


[edit on 4-11-2009 by VitalOverdose]

Apparently it looked iffy to the Air Force also. see below.



While I would like to find better quality photos to analyze, the photos I do have suggest the same conclusion. The telephone poles for example show the gradually decreasing contrast with increasing distance, and reference to the telephone pole contrast versus the UFO contrast does seem to suggest a UFO distance less than 40 feet in my analysis as well.

While I don't trust the Air Force conclusions and know they were involved in some disinformation, I do have to say the photographic evidence doesn't really contradict their assertion that the object was closer to the camera than 40 feet, and not as far as the 700 feet claimed by Helfin.

See page 589: www.scientificexploration.org...


My conclusion is not the same as the Air Force. They concluded that it WAS a hoax. I don't think we can prove it's a hoax beyond a reasonable doubt, only maybe to a preponderance of the evidence. that is, the photo contrast suggests it's more likely to be a hoax than not, however, I don't think it's conclusive enough to rule out that he may have photographed a real UFO other than a frisbee/pie tin/hubcap/model or whatever. So I agree with the way you phrased your statement "im leaning more towards this object being something small", I would describe it similarly, it's a leaning rather than a definitive conclusion.

The other sticking point the experts had a big problem with was photo number 4. If you read the PDF in the link I posted, the authors give pretty good evidence for some of their claims. But when it comes to explaining the problems with the 4th photo, they claim they resolved all the problems with it, but they don't present their evidence for that like they do their other claims. So despite the conclusion of the paper that they addressed and resolved all the photo # 4 problems, I don't see sufficient evidence presented in their paper to support that conclusion.

IF The UFO Hunters had processed the photos as in days of old, IOW, emboss, use different filters, etc., instead of their cute but useless animation I would have more respect for TUFOH. The reason I say this is that although the originals photos have been given a clean bill of health, I remember seeing in the '60s the processing done by GSW (Ground Saucer Watch) which resulted in the photos being published and one of the photos seen from the driver's side through the passenger window showed a support holding up what could have been a model.

Now, the results of GSW have been "exposed" and I don't know who to trust as far as the photos being real or not. BTW, the lady responsible for the photos being brought to prominence, Ann Druffell, was my friend. We went out one night in L.A. to look for UFOs from nearby mountains. Her daughter was my chiropractor! What a small world.

The UFO hunters had some good episodes but their 3D model analysis in this case was a joke. Helfin knew trigonometry from his training and had to use it in his job, so if his size and distance estimates didn't match up, the only conclusion one could make was that he was incompetent at trignometry and therefore at his job. So why should anyone be the least bit surprised that he knew trigonometry, and why would Bill Birnes misinterpret this as some kind of confirmation? Because the show is about entertainment and not about factual verification.



She has the original photos now, right? Maybe if you take her out to dinner she'll let you look at them! Just don't get any more fingerprints on them, they have enough already. She said she would make them available to accredited researchers but I have no accreditation as a UFO researcher so she probably won't show them to me

But seriously maybe next time you talk to her you could ask if there is anywhere we can download high-quality scans of the photos she or her team that wrote the paper made from the originals. The images in the pdf of her paper are pretty good but there have to be better scans not in pdf form.

---

---

As a simple straight forward answer to the question posed, I would respond no, these are the best IMO !

reply to post by chunder

---

I read your thread on the Maslin photos:

reply to post by chunder

---

Yes that's how the claim goes.

JRitzmann questioned the haze but unlike the Helfin photos, we don't have a string of telephone poles to see what the natural haze looks like on other objects in the photo, so I wasn't really totally convinced by the lack of haze argument in the Maslin photos like in the Helfin photos.

I must admit I don't know how the aliens build their craft, but having worked for a supplier to the aerospace industry, I have a pretty good idea how Earth-based aircraft manufacturers build their craft, and there is one thing inconsistent with that that I didn't see anyone mention yet about these photos (I just read your thread and a few other articles).

In the #1 photo, the side view, the craft is tilted slightly down on the left side, which I've represented with a blue line drawn where the light upper part of the craft meets the dark lower part at the left and right edges. No problem with that.

However the rectangular shape in the center, is not tilted with the craft! I drew the light brown line parallel to the bottom of the center rectangle and you can see by comparing the two lines that this rectangle, whatever it is, is placed "crooked".



I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen on a manmade craft, and I'm guessing but I have doubts that the aliens would install their windows (or whatever that rectangle is) crooked either, so it screams "poorly made model" to me. Because of this I also discount the claims others have made that it resembles a smokeless ashtray, or part of a boat ventilation system, etc, as those items too would have symmetry if manufactured items and not crooked openings (unless perhaps the model maker used one of those items and made a crooked cutout in that, but I've seen no convincing evidence to support those claims).

Ziggystar60 made some interesting observations about those photos here, I've excerpted a few:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


So there might be more problems with the credibility of the story with the Maslin Beach photos, for example, Helfin mentioned his sighting and photos right away, which is what you'd expect most people to do if they saw and photographed something this amazing, right?

So I have to say that I don't personally find the Maslin Beach photos more convincing than the Helfin photos, sorry about that my friend.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

For comparison, two reconstitutions of the Heflin phots :

One done for the USAF in 1965 : a 9" vaporizing tray tossed in the air.

Report in Project Blue Book archive :
www.bluebookarchive.org...

One done a few months ago with a 5" plastic saucer suspended by an invisible nylon fishing line. The same polaroid camera was used for the reconstitution as for the original.

(click image for a hi res scan)

Blog article (in french) :
www.ufofu.org...

reply to post by nablator

---

Thanks for posting those nablator, I'd heard about the Air Force photo but I hadn't seen it.

Regarding the more recent one, suspended by invisible fishing line, one thing I noticed about the telephone poles in the Helfin pictures, is that there are no telephone wires visible between them! Since it seems unlikely to me that telephone poles have no telephone wires, I' don't think they would have to work too hard to make a line invisible if we can't even see telephone wires. I sort of suspected it was thrown only because that seems easier than bothering with wires to suspend it, but I wouldn't rule that out either especially after looking at that recent re-creation. And if somebody says that "no strings were found by experts" then I have to ask if the experts can see the telephone wires, as I can't.