are there better UFO photos than '65 heflin ones?

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
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]

apparently you didnt try hard enough to compare shadows between the ufo and other objects. Top left corner which shows part on the truck is darker; bushes are also darker and the poles are equal in brightness.
first image:
ufo averages to about 60% gray
poles about 60% gray
bushes about 70% gray
top left corner of of image (truck) is about 67% gray
without checking the grays, the shadow on the ufo does look darker but thats because its surrounded by whiter whites which make it more a high contrast area making the grays appear darker

i dont know what lens is on a Model 101 Polaroid camera is but if its like a lot of other polaroids then it probably have a focus free lens. probably has a fix focus at about 20ft... so pretty much everything from like 3ft to infinity will be in focus.

And you have no idea how close or far away the ufo could be. objects do progressively lose contrast and color further away from the camera. but this area looks pretty arid and dry so i dont think there would be that much particulate matter to haze any objects except those 30 miles away. I checked the grays on the ufo and some close objects to those in the distance and they are pretty much the same

[edit on 3-11-2009 by bobbinika]

[edit on 3-11-2009 by bobbinika]

Getting back to your original question, I like pre-photoshop photos. I've always thought that the Trindade Island photos unlikely to be a hoax and also the famous McMinnville photos are interesting.

Some of my favorite photos came before commercial aviation. Ufoevidence.com has a few but I've seen other ones elsewhere on the net.

[edit on 11/3/2009 by niv]

FYI

Here is Druffel- Reanalysis of the 1965 Heflin UFO Photos:

Some interesting stuff from a study of the photos

www.scribd.com...

It really looks like someone threw something in the air...but that is just my opinion.

Also, (regarding the first photo), why would an advanced craft from some far away civilization not be able to fly level?

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Jimmy Jingles]

Also, (regarding the first photo), why would an advanced craft from some far away civilization not be able to fly level?

What a silly comment to make, have you read any UFO reports lately? Yes peeps, you read it here first, an alien advanced craft will _always_ fly level. This golden nugget of knowledge was brought to you by none other than Jimmy!

[edit on 3-11-2009 by jclmavg]

Low and slow flight seems to give the best results.
So you decide if the saucer is real.
Consider Travis Walton saw three sauce shapes and one was flat.
Also a Pacific Island sighting had people standing on top of the
flat saucer that had a four strut landing gear.
An officer in New Mexico saw a oval ship land and takeoff.
That craft use struts for its landing.
So not too many close up sightings.
ED: The saucer is not alien technology, its citizen technology
and the wobble is from the internal rotary engine.
If they used the full Tesla plan of counter rotating turbines the
tipping would be lessened.



[edit on 11/3/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by jclmavg

Also, (regarding the first photo), why would an advanced craft from some far away civilization not be able to fly level?

What a silly comment to make, have you read any UFO reports lately? Yes peeps, you read it here first, an alien advanced craft will _always_ fly level. This golden nugget of knowledge was brought to you by none other than Jimmy!

Jimmy didn't say that, he just asked a question, there's a difference.

We know our own earthly airplanes bank when turning so there should be no surprise if other craft don't fly level. However I must admit that when someone describes a wobbling motion:

www.ocregister.com...

Heflin's original account: that he snapped three daytime photographs of a wingless, hat-shaped object – approximately 20 feet in diameter and about one-eighth of a mile from his truck – and that the structured craft wobbled slightly before it stabilized and flew off silently toward the northeast.

That wobbling is not necessarily the type of motion that I would have tended to associate with an advanced and highly sophisticated interstellar spacecraft, but wobbling is what I'd expect the object to if it's a frisbee-like object that his friend didn't throw quite right.

But it only wobbled slightly so maybe it was an advanced craft and maybe that's what they do, wobble slightly before they stabilize.

I'm really not as concerned with whether it's level or not, as much as I am about the fact that the object looks too close to the camera to be as large as he said. But it's hard to judge distance accurately from a 2D photo.

I also think that the author of the article might not know what UFO is:

In conclusion, it would appear that Rex Heflin 1) photographed an odd-shaped and silent experimental aircraft that in the 44 years since has not been reportedly seen again or identified; 2) he perpetrated an amazing hoax that no one yet has unraveled; or 3) he was fortunate enough to have taken several clear pictures of a genuine unidentified flying object.

You decide.

So option 3 is a UFO, option 2 is a hoax, and option 1 is what? Also a UFO, right? (but perhaps with earthly origins)?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That wobbling is not necessarily the type of motion that I would have tended to associate with an advanced and highly sophisticated interstellar spacecraft

Where was it conclusively established that it was a) an interstellar spacecraft and b) that "highly sophisticated interstellar spacecraft" do not wobble?

but wobbling is what I'd expect the object to if it's a frisbee-like object that his friend didn't throw quite right.

This even makes less sense to me. Hefflin added to his testimony that the object wobbled because he hoaxed the event by throwing a frisbee-like object which wobbled?

reply to post by Daisy-Lola

Originally posted by susp3kt
Disc brakes had only been invented since WW2, and for military aircraft at that.

You misunderstood/misread me on this. I was aware that disc brakes were invented before this sighting. I was referencing that they had just been invented since WW2, making this one hell of an expensive frisbee in my humble opinion.

My facts...were not flawed.

Furthermore, Mr. Heflin would have had to have an Olympic discus thrower ride shotgun with him to get such a shot, seeing that brake assemblies weigh quite a bit (made from cast iron). Which you would already have known.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by susp3kt]

reply to post by reject

There appears to be a stream of "black particulate matter" trailing behind the UFO, which was not apparent under normal viewing.

From the OP.
Wake of the ether engines no doubt.
More like radiation only seen in photos.
We have seen this many times before but agents of the Illuminati
refuse to recognize this tell tale sign of ether pressure waves.
So I'm telling you.

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That wobbling is not necessarily the type of motion that I would have tended to associate with an advanced and highly sophisticated interstellar spacecraft

Where was it conclusively established that it was a) an interstellar spacecraft and b) that "highly sophisticated interstellar spacecraft" do not wobble?

no those haven't been established nor do I claim they have been established. You seem to have a tendency to read into people's comments things that aren't said, based on this comment and your comment on Jimmy's post. In fact my post already answers your question:

But it only wobbled slightly so maybe it was an advanced craft and maybe that's what they do, wobble slightly before they stabilize.

so why would you even ask me if it's been established that "highly sophisticated interstellar spacecraft" do not wobble when I explicitly stated that is possible that they do?

but wobbling is what I'd expect the object to if it's a frisbee-like object that his friend didn't throw quite right.

This even makes less sense to me. Hefflin added to his testimony that the object wobbled because he hoaxed the event by throwing a frisbee-like object which wobbled?

Well it could be a real UFO. But if it's not and if it's a hoax, and he knew the object was wobbling when he (or another person) threw it, then saying the object was wobbling when he photographed it would be a good cover should any photographic analysis experts determine that the object was wobbling when it was photographed because then the photos would be consistent with his story. Right?

Heflin's estimated size and distance have been compared by a computer model and matched perfect. Watch the videos in the link provided in one of my previous posts.

Originally posted by jclmavg

Also, (regarding the first photo), why would an advanced craft from some far away civilization not be able to fly level?

What a silly comment to make, have you read any UFO reports lately? Yes peeps, you read it here first, an alien advanced craft will _always_ fly level. This golden nugget of knowledge was brought to you by none other than Jimmy!

[edit on 3-11-2009 by jclmavg]

Calm down there kemo sabe...no need to wake your inner simpleton.

I NEVER said that "an alien advanced craft will _always_ fly level". I was just asking a question. Check what I actually wrote before ridiculing me, k?



Have a good day.

Brake disc? Really? I don't see how a human could throw a brake that far. Look at the 2nd picture. If that was a brake disc, it would have had to be a good 20ft from the vehicle to appear that size. Plus at that point when the photo was taken it is still higher than the car. Even if it's only 10ft away, no one could throw it that far with it still being that high in the air. Gravity would have done it's business very quickly. Just because it's disc shaped doesn't mean you can throw it like a frisbee and expect it to stay in the air like one. Frisbee's are specifically designed to do that, brake discs are not.

reply to post by Bosko

I agree it's not a brake disc but because brake discs weren't even used on cars back then, not because it's impossible to throw one. (Autozone gives a weight of 13.72 pounds for a popular 275mm brake rotor, I'm sure I can throw that but throwing a hubcap would be a lot easier). I've seen some old hubcaps that have roughly the shape in the photo which are a better match than the shape of the brake disc anyway, so I think we can drop the brake disc idea.

Regarding the OP question about better photos, you may want to peruse this link:

The Best UFO Pictures Ever Taken

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Seiko


yeah plus the truck is pulled over on the side of the road notice in the mirrors probably someone chunking a brake disc or hub cap

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Many UFO reports and alledged footage describe or show a wobbling motion, it is a very common characteristic of "traditional flying saucer" sightings.

The fact this was reported adds credence rather than detracts from the veracity.


As far as a hubcap, brake disc or whatever then really it's a moot point unless positively identified.

Everything resembles something else.

So, turns out the universal design for interplanetary travel is hubcap shaped, if it was round it would be football shaped, quivering plasma jellyfish shaped, triangular then well, triangle shaped.

Really it's ridiculous, science fiction writers and graphics peeps spend an awful lot of research and creativity to design supposedly possible futuristic vehicle designs.

Something similar is then seen but it can't be true, it looks too much like we imagined it would look like.

So, getting down off the soap box, this guy goes out in the middle of nowhere, gets someone to throw an interplanetary vehicle shaped hubcap across the road and pictures are taken. No point asking for what purpose because it will be pointed out who can ever fathom the motives of a hoaxer.

So you pays your money and makes your choices. Based on weight of evidence overall, not just these photos but the whole subject matter. And frankly, anyone who doesn't come to the conclusion that, after passing detailed expert scrutiny, these photos like many others are quite likely real, is not taking a balanced view.

Originally posted by havok
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.

You mean a strawman argument?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I would say hub cap before a brake disc. I guess in the end we'll never really know what it is. I do like old UFO pictures a lot and there are some that I believe are genuine, but it just looks like it could easily be something thrown in the air in this case.

reply to post by Bosko


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