The UFOs That Never Were: Classic Photos Now Exposed As Fakes

If researchers are genuine in their quest to find truth in the UFO phenomena, they must be prepared to accept when cherished UFO "evidence" turns out to be the result of fraud. Such is the case with some very famous flying saucer photos from the early years that are forever emblazoned in many of our memories. They have appeared in countless books and magazines and today on numerous websites. They have continued to keep our minds in wonder over the decades. But we need not wonder any more about four pieces of such "photographic evidence."

It can now be revealed that the world-famous Rex Heflin Photos; the Cumberland "Spaceman" Photo; the Zanesville, OH Barber's photos and the William Rhodes 1947 photos were all hoaxes.

Source

Though there is no smoking gun evidence here (save the Zanesville case) to debunk these sightings, the detailed prosaic explanations will produce doubt in any critical-thinker about these famous UFO related photos. In particular perhaps the silliest sacred-cow of the UFO field, the Cumberland Spaceman photo.

The analysis of the Solway Firth photograph is beyond laughable. They haven't a clue what they are talking about. The horizon in many hundreds of feet behind the girl's head, by their reckoning the bloke in the frame would have been about 25 foot tall. Still when did facts ever obstruct a good * debunk*. Theses sort of people are every bit as laughable and weak minded as the sort who claim every light in the sky is an alien ship.

i dont think that the blog author did a very good job in debunking the photos.
-----
also It is blindingly obvious this was a beekeeper

wow what a strange coincidence, i was actually reading about that spaceman photo this morning and it was the first time i had seen it for about 18 years, and now we have a thread about it being debunked . weird...

thanks

rich

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


The best evidence is, by definition, whatever at the present point in time remains valid or not dis-proven. Sacred cows will come and go but the phenomenon continues. Each encounter is a unique thing. There is no statistical or popular group of evidence that if discredited, discredit the phenomenon. Trying to do so is a futile attempt at a shortcut to confirm one's own biases that nothing is happening in our skies. When one sacred-cow is proven false another one will take its place, and again and again into eternity until whatever is HAPPENING stops happening.

Originally posted by MR BOB
i dont think that the blog author did a very good job in debunking the photos.
-----
also It is blindingly obvious this was a beekeeper

edit on 18-10-2010 by MR BOB because: (no reason given)

its not a beekeper..... its THE STIG
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/226305a834b7.jpg[/atsimg]

thanks

rich

Most of the "debunking" in your article is weak at best....

Just because we can reproduce similar effects with technology (or everyday household items- you pick), doesn't mean what was captured on at least some of the photos in question is the same thing.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


I don't like the title of the article or this thread. Quite misleading.

As for the debunking itself, there isn't much there. These photos have been long ago examined and have been essentially forgotten if not for the internet being a sort of archive that waxes and wanes on this type of content that sometimes comes back for discussion every once in a while on conspiracy message boards.

At this point you either think they're real or they're not and a short article with one person's opinion on what he believes to be real on the subject isn't going to change minds now.

The Cumbrian Spaceman picture itself would likely not even be remembered now if it wasn't tied to that Blue Streak rocket launch that happened shortly after the picture was published in which two similar looking guys in white suits were allegedly seen near the rockets. That added a large amount of seeming credibility to the picture and this blog didn't even bring that up.

The Heflin photos have been determined NOT to be a hoax.
I refer you to "Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 583–622, 2000"

Our reanalysis of the August 3, 1965, Heflin photos confirms that Heflin’s
account of the sighting is entirely consistent with his pictures and reconfirms
that the witness/photographer was not involved in a hoax.

Originally posted by WhiteWash
The Heflin photos have been determined NOT to be a hoax.
I refer you to "Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 583–622, 2000"

Our reanalysis of the August 3, 1965, Heflin photos confirms that Heflin’s
account of the sighting is entirely consistent with his pictures and reconfirms
that the witness/photographer was not involved in a hoax.

Does the picture of the train wheel not mean a thing? The fact that it is exactly the same is a coincidence?

Great find, Rex. It's good to see that there's still some investigation happening with the classic sightings as well as the modern ones.

just chek out the shape an airodynamics of the 1965 heflin ufo its about as advanced as we were (like car bodies they get much more airodynamic as time goes on) its a hoax it looks like a hat! very good looking shape for 1965 lol an if it was sited in year 2000 it would be much more airodynamic, im not saying all ufo photos are suss but i cant help to think that from siteings in 1940 1950 there not very airodynamic an as years go on they seem to get more airodynamic think about it ???? if it was alians space craft youd think it would of been abit more slick looking than that hat thats just my thout anyway , lets triad or space ship in on the next modle lol

Originally posted by FireMoon
The analysis of the Solway Firth photograph is beyond laughable.

The idea that it is an alien is beyond laughable.

Originally posted by FireMoon
The horizon in many hundreds of feet behind the girl's head...

Supposedly. But he isn't on the horizon. But don't let the facts get in the way of your laughable belief it's a 25 foot tall alien.

Originally posted by Signals
Most of the "debunking" in your article is weak at best...

Just because we can reproduce similar effects with technology (or everyday household items- you pick), doesn't mean what was captured on at least some of the photos in question is the same thing.

How does that make it weak? It is far stronger than the idea that the photos are explained by virtue of their supposed unexplained-ness.

While you are right, it does not necessarily mean it is the same thing, it produces a cogent argument for a prosaic explanation. The argument they are evidence of aliens by the virtue of their being unexplained is not cogent.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


I find these exposes to be ludicrous. Show me some real evidence. Plausible explanations are not valid to prove a ufo real so it is also not valid to disprove it either. The Rhodes ufo is important because in all likelihood it is the delta shaped craft that crashed outside Roswell in 1947. This is one of the three known photographs of that craft, the other two were taken on the ground during discovery and recovery. I have examined all three numerous times and the comparisons lead me to believe they are one and the same craft, bearing the same passengers.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by FireMoon
The analysis of the Solway Firth photograph is beyond laughable.

The idea that it is an alien is beyond laughable.

Originally posted by FireMoon
The horizon in many hundreds of feet behind the girl's head...

Supposedly. But he isn't on the horizon. But don't let the facts get in the way of your laughable belief it's a 25 foot tall alien.

Who mentioned alien? I didn't so kindly quit putting words into people's mouths they didn't use. I don't know what the heck it is, but the *debunking* is wholly wrong. 1, It claims that the guy is on a slope. You don''t get slopes on Marshes what's more

Go to 1 minute 24 of this video. "I am standing where the photo was taken"




The landscape is patently flat as a pancake. Even if the photographer was bent on his knees, as i guess he was, to take the photo, that would make the horizon over a mile distant as the land is totally flat. The figure's feet cannot be much lower than the girl's eyebrow line, we know that from using the phi ration, which while not totally accurate is pretty much bang on the mark most of the time, for a standing figure. Drawing a line through the girl's eyebrows parallel to the horizon means the figure, if that is what it is, is standing a damn good distance behind her. The so called debunkers, can't actually do something as simple as read a map. Go check it on Google for yourself. The road that runs along the South of the Firth is never less than 100 yards from the coast. and more often than not, some considerable distance further.

I don't have clue what it actually is in the photo and as pointed out before, had it not been for the Department of Scientific Intelligence writing a memo on it for the Ministry of Defense and asking was it similar to the figures that appeared on the Woomera film, it would have vanished into the mists of time.There again just maybe, they were a little concerned that this figure, seemingly similar to others appearing on the other side of the world, in the same time frame, had shown up a couple of miles from where Britain was developing the rocket silo design that was to go on to be adopted by the USA for most of it's land based nuclear arsenal. I don't know, i don;t profess to, however i do know when someone is making stuff up to prove a falsehood.

reply to post by debris765nju


WoW!! you are the only one I've been following thats got a grip on this crazy stuff!!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzKEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by FireMoon
Who mentioned alien? I didn't so kindly quit putting words into people's mouths they didn't use.

Semantic arguments and equivocation don't make you seem as smart as you think they do.

Originally posted by FireMoon
It claims that the guy is on a slope. You don''t get slopes on Marshes what's more

Go to 1 minute 24 of this video. "I am standing where the photo was taken"

Except nothing in the photo conforms to the claimed area, but a hill.

Originally posted by FireMoon
I don't know, i don;t profess to, however i do know when someone is making stuff up to prove a falsehood.

Such as buying a claim that a photo was taken in one certain area when it was clearly not.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


You don't have a shred of evidence to back up your claim the guy was lying about the photos location and that begs the question why no local has come forward and said. "Oh he's lying about the location i know where that actually is".. Plus, there's a difference between semantics and making stuff up which is what both you and the debunkers are doing.

As is so often, the level of actual true investigation and thought that goes into these debunkings makes Greer look like Einstein. The guy who took the picture had everything to lose by being labelled a hoaxer. His job as a fireman for one thing, in an area where jobs were few and far between even in the 1960s. Even more so given that, virtually all the jobs that were available involved signing the official secrets act and either working for British Nuclear Fuels or the Ministry of Defense. In other words he ran the risk of wrecking his family life by perpetrating any sort of hoax.

The the guy himself did not seek any great exposure for the picture. It really only hit the news when a request was sent through to the local paper to send it to Australia for comparison, that it actually became anything more than a local story. Whats more in over 40 years the guy's story has remained the same. No embellishments, just the same tale of the photo and never once claiming to have seen the figure when it was taken.

Be very careful when considering stuff by Anthony Bragalia.

What he passes off as "fact" is actually nothing but supposition on his part. He tried to do similar with the Lonnie Zamora sighting earlier this year, made a buckey load of assumptions and drew his own conclusions. You will find no definitivies in his writings - just supposition.

It is very very easy to "fit" things backwards into a story

I disagree with the Solway Firth analysis. It isn't Bragalia's work either, there's at least one thread from 2007 or 2006 where a member offers the same explanation of a person on a hill. The reason I disagree isn't because it must be an alien...it's because it doesn't look like the back of a person to me. It remains inconclusive.

The Heflin photos are one of those cases I don't particularly care about. Photos are always debatable. The argument here is less about the images and more about discrediting the people involved. Ann Druffel has had a long history in ufology due to her research and close relationship with Dr Jim MacDonald. She's also authored a detailed analysis of the images through the JSE, but if we imply she has a dog in the race, we can ignore that right?

Where Bragalia focuses his attention is on the claims of Riddle and I'm reminded of his Soccorro *revelations* whereby the unsupported claim of someone who wouldn't go on record was enough for him to claim *hoax!* IIRC it was Menzel's original claim. Ignoring the claims of Riddle, can the images be replicated using a polaroid camera and a toy train wheel? The inset image is suggestive, but has no context. Can it be reproduced using the same context? If so, it's likely a hoax. If not, they remain UFO photos.

The Rhodes images are again attacked on the basis of character. He's accused of lying about his education. I sometimes think Bragalia exists in opposition to Kevin Randle. Certainly he reads Randle's blog and enjoys taking exception to the minutiae. Rather than me making a case for Rhodes, it's worth reading Randle's blog where he's spent the past two or three posts shedding some more light on Rhodes' claims and character. He suggests Rhode's was smeared in the Blue Book report. One claim was that he 'shot neighbour's pets.' Pretty strong claim and who'd want that as a neighbour? According to Randles, Rhodes' neighbours had no complaints. Strange, huh?

So yeah, fakes are everywhere and people enjoy a good hoax. Bragalia likes to take the paternalistic high ground on the assumption that UFO witnesses and claimants are all liars, fools and bad characters. It's a familiar approach, but how useful is it? I'm not questioning Bragalia's character btw, just the approach.