are there better UFO photos than '65 heflin ones?

I've never been a fan of old classic UFO pictures. Mainly because most of them looks... retarded in terms of aerodynamic design or what not. Than again, I'm not an Alien, how do I know they don't fly in basketballs?

The thing is, arguing about whether if the pictures have been tampered or not doesn't gain you any merit. I can go out to a hardware store, make my own Saucer Frisbee, tell my friend to stand across the field to shoot a few shots at it when I toss it in the air. There you go, I will have my own UFO photos up online in no time.

I'm not debunking the pictures, but just feel like they shouldn't be considered as hard evidence.

To me, without a benefit of a doubt, Aliens exists. Have they visited us already in the past? Are they observing us everyday? They might live among us. I believe it all. However, for me, real evidence would be something happening similar to the new TV show "V", or Independence Day style. In my own opinion, real evidence and real proof would be that.

Some of these old photos are the best evidence out there, since they can't be summarily dismissed as CGI or photoshopped.

I find it hilarious when people "debunk" them by saying "Oh, that looks like someone tossed a hubcap and snapped some photos.. case closed." How about you actually read all the research on the subject before commenting? Do you have any idea how many hundreds of hours of scrutiny and research this case alone has had? And you really think you are so smart, that saying "Oh that's a brake disc" has solved it?

This is a place to learn and study and discuss. I don't know why some people think it's actually a spot to try to prove how "smart" they are by "debunking" all cases, even ones with hundreds of hours of professional research, with their 3 minute in-depth study of the photos.

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.

Originally posted by Wormwood Squirm
Aliens are not going to come to earth and pull bank maneuvers for some hick dude.

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

This is supposed to be an intelligent answer? You can dismiss (though fallaciously) practically any sighting with this.

Seems to me the pseudo-skeptics are the "hick dudes" here.

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.

Now that the orig polaroids or 1st Gen prints were returned to Heflin's estate, is there a place to buy high quality reprints of the photo set?

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:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1bea2534e364.jpg[/atsimg]
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.

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..

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Ophiuchus13]

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Ophiuchus13]

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.

Yes, these are about the best UFO photos around because they pre-date Photoshop and were taken with a Polaroid camera, which precludes tampering in the dark-room. Unfortunately they do look like an Unidentified Tossed Object. The bar for photographic proof is now raised much higher than it was then. Multiple images from multiple photographers at differing angles with corroborating witnesses is now the minimum evidence worth considering. Not that I'm suggesting that there aren't interesting photos out there, but between mistaken identifications and deliberate hoaxes, a UFO sighting needs to be extremely well documented to be taken very seriously as evidence.

The argument that the subjects in these pictures shouldnt be in-focus because of the distances is false. Im a photographer and I can show you pictures of background and foreground objects that look equally sharp.