are there better UFO photos than '65 heflin ones?, page 4

reply to post by reject

---

I just seen a ufo hunter episode on these I think. They had a Polaroid expert on.

Apparently, all photos were taken within 20 seconds. Some people said that camera couldn't take that many snaps in 20 seconds. The expert did it in 17 secs.

The clarity of the photo is because the polaroid camera is set to infinite and everything in the frame stays in focus.

In the last photo, it was said there are suddenly clouds in the sky. It was explained that the first photo from inside the cab and had the interior of the cab in the photo (black). These caused the contrast to mess up in the first pic.

Oh, they also ran a computer program where they took the witness specifications of size and distance of object.

Then created it in a CAD type program and when they took a 20' object and moved it 200' away (I forget the actual #'s) it shrinks the size of the object on screen. They overlayed the photo onto the display and it was like a totally perfect match. (Which I thought was kinda amazing since I couldn't judge something that size & distance)

This was supposed to rule out a frisbie or brake or whatever being tossed into the air.


Anyway a little more info to go with the pictures..
thanks for the pics.

Originally posted by ByteChanger
reply to post by reject

---

I just seen a ufo hunter episode on these I think. They had a Polaroid expert on.

Here's a link to the whole episode online:
aliencasebook.blogspot.com...

I think the Helfin case pretty much starts in the 2nd clip there.

Then created it in a CAD type program and when they took a 20' object and moved it 200' away (I forget the actual #'s) it shrinks the size of the object on screen. They overlayed the photo onto the display and it was like a totally perfect match. (Which I thought was kinda amazing since I couldn't judge something that size & distance)

This was supposed to rule out a frisbie or brake or whatever being tossed into the air.

Someone posted a clip from that part of the UFO hunters show earlier in this thread, and we already commented that it only proves that the photographer knew trigonometry, which he was required to know and use in his job, so it didn't really prove anything about the UFO.

The only conclusion one can draw from the 3D modeling part of the clip, is that if it didn't match up perfectly like it did, then the guy should have been fired from his job for being incompetent.

But I guess they met their objective if they got some people to think it really does prove something, they must be counting on some people not knowing any better, but you should have known better since we shared this information with you in this thread on the previous page. And it certainly doesn't rule out the model/hoax possibility as they suggested on that show. The 3D modeling part was a complete waste of time, but I like the show and they have done much better and more helpful analyses than that one on other episodes.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

Nothing to be sorry about, I appreciate your comments !

I had tried to find out more in relation to the Maslin case and the alleged timeframe and non-reporting aspects but was unable to confirm anything, at least from my armchair. There does appear to be a couple of different versions around but yes, that does all need to be taken into account.

The only issue I have with the model theory, aside from the depth not looking right for a model but then I am no expert, is why. Especially if then waiting that length of time to release photos !

reply to post by falcon51

---

You've got a U2U. Please click here.

Originally posted by Regenstorm
reply to post by Bosko

---

Unbelievable, ignorance rules this thread!
People should really do some research before commenting!

What research do you think they should do? Don't be ridiculous and defend an obvious toss and shoot so adamantly. It makes you look unwise.

The truck is pulled over to the side of the road.
Someone tossed something.
Someone shot it.
someone sold the photo.

Don't be foolish.

Aliens are not going to come to earth and pull bank maneuvers for some hick dude.

PS Don't bother to flame my response and tell me to do research or try to explain to me how much research has been done on this topic. IMO all research into this photo group is a complete waste of time.
Use Occam's Razor with this case. What does that tell you? An obvious hoax is all this is to me. Don't waste your breath.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by Wormwood Squirm]

reply to post by Wormwood Squirm

---

Notwithstanding Truthseekers avatar I assume from your post that you have a fair bit of experience of tossing and shooting.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

That photo:



has the dirt underneath the saucer being lifted up as spikes and not
being blown away by any pressure or force from a levitating or exhaust
thrust of force to enable the hover or suspension.

The force pulling up the saucer continues through the saucer to the ground.

reply to post by thepixelpusher

---

As I posted on page 3 of this thread, I think Druffel has the photos now. Druffel gave Helfin some money and Helfin gave Druffel the photos, according to the book I cited there.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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]

So you may try contacting Druffel, I don't know if the photos have been subjected to high quality scans or not, but I think they have some nasty fingerprints now.

BYW one of the ATS members apparently knows her:

Originally posted by Skeptical Ed
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.

I think Ed's going by "The Shrike" as his ATS ID these days, sp if you can't find any contact information for Druffel. you might try U2Uing him about it.

reply to post by reject

---

[edit on 20-1-2010 by seethelight]

Originally posted by Ophiuchus13
I alway's wondered this....

Why do the UFO's in old photo's look not so aerodynamic...Like for example this photo was taken in '65. the technology for aero dynamic's was not really up to par.. front's of the vehicle's were flat and boxy no contour really..

Flash forward 40+ years and the vehicle's of today are all streamlined and aerodynamic and so are the photo's of UFO's they are all sleek and smooth..Even though it's only 40+ years for us..These UFO's are allegedly flown by advanced being's from light years away..how come these UFO's didnt look like they do today back then...

I think the govt' stole the technology from the NAZI's (The Vril Disc) and as we grew in technology so did the UFO's.

I'm not saying that there are no such thing's as UFO's.. I'm just pointing out the irregularities i see with the photo's..

That's the same reason to me believe that 99% of pictures we can are from objects man made. If you check the design trends/desing from 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s etc. you will see the ufo follow the same trend in design of aircraft / cars and any other object. Kinda fun coincidence, dont you think?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 20/1/10 by blackcube]

UFO Hunters did another great job on this Ring Exhaust or remnant
of UFO position.

Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 8 days ago with 65 member flags

Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 16 days ago with 60 member flags

UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 11 days ago with 31 member flags

The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 18 days ago with 28 member flags

The Edge of Reality - Updated Report on the Illinois Police UFO case, January 5th, 2000.
  Posted 4 days ago with 27 member flags

The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 2 days ago with 27 member flags

Famous Argentinean painter observed UFO studying parabolic antennas
  Posted 19 days ago with 21 member flags

1/28/2012 craft in sky From Puerto Rico - Need help getting more info!!
  Posted 6 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: