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

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND

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

its not a beekeper..... its THE STIG

Not with an elbow that bends backwards, it isn't. I'd say it was someone, probably a woman, wearing a sweater and scarf of some sort. You can see the scarf fold on the back of the shoulders. She wasn't seen by the photographer at the time because most people just don't look at backgrounds and framing when taking photos.

reply to post by WhiteWash


You beat me to it I was just looking at that paper while searching for stuff written by ROBERT M. WOOD who is the guy who did all that UFO research for McDonnell Douglas that was recently released




UFO Conversations - Dr. Robert Wood



Dr Wood also runs this site

www.majesticdocuments.com...


So if he says that one is not a hoax, I tend to take his word for it

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND

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

its not a beekeper..... its THE STIG

Not with an elbow that bends backwards, it isn't. I'd say it was someone, probably a woman, wearing a sweater and scarf of some sort. You can see the scarf fold on the back of the shoulders. She wasn't seen by the photographer at the time because most people just don't look at backgrounds and framing when taking photos.

erm.... i was just having a joke, i think you must have missed it!.

thanks

rich

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND

Beekeeper works for me as the beekeepers 'helmet' of mesh is 360 degrees, thus explaining the bent albow

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/513e2d92784c.jpg[/atsimg]

How is this a sacred cow of UFOlogy? Never even heard of it

reply to post by zorgon


i agree on the beekeeper analysis, it does seem to be a close fit, but as always we will never ever know for sure.

and it was so long ago that i doubt we would find info on beekeepers in that area now, plus as someone pointed out, we don't know if the photo was taken where claimed, and it does look like a hill to me.

and again just to make sure everyone is clear, i was joking about THE STIG!


thanks

rich

The Heflin Photos

Conclusions

Our team’s reanalysis of the set of four Heflin UFO photos lead us to draw the following conclusions: (a) The clouds in all four photos are consistent; (b) we have detected a wake, never before reported to our knowledge, impressively suggesting a real object moving through the atmosphere; (c) the mid-1970s GSW analysis that showed a “string” was a stunning error, certainly not based on legitimate copies, and possibly hoaxed itself, by persons unknown, on the copies Spaulding and GSW used; (d) the notations on the back of the first three photos suggest they were part of a covert analysis; (e) James E. McDonald, erroneously led to believe that the fourth photo was taken at a different time and place from the first three Heflin photos, missed a golden opportunity to identify the finest photo evidence available at the time; (f ) the trail of particulates
detected behind the craft in Photo 4 clearly demonstrates that the smoke ring in that photo is apparently the same as the black band of particulates detected in Photos 1 and 3; and (g) all of the photographic evidence remains totally consistent with the statements of the photographer, Rex Heflin.

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. This analysis represents a general study that specifically addressed the historical issues behind these photographs. An in-depth analysis is underway that will characterize the blur of the object and incorporate this information into determinations of size and distance. This analysis will be offered for a forthcoming issue of this journal.

www.scientificexploration.org...

A beekeeper? On the Solway Firth marshes?? What exactly was this "beekeeper" supposed to be doing in full riot gear in the middle of nowhere?

You call this a Marsh?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/74435936eec1.jpg[/atsimg]

Looks more like a meadow with lots of yummy flowers for bees

"Coastal turf" would be a better term for it. The point is that the area is flat, open land near the sea that doesn't have beehives on it.

Originally posted by Mogget
"Coastal turf" would be a better term for it. The point is that the area is flat, open land near the sea that doesn't have beehives on it.

edit on 19-10-2010 by Mogget because: (no reason given)

Beekeepers And Bee Farmers in Burgh-By-Sands local business results - 6
www.yell.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/486d1621fff4.png[/atsimg]

The photo was taken....

The Solway Firth Spaceman (also known as the Solway Spaceman and the Cumberland Spaceman) refers to a photograph taken in 1964 at Burgh Marsh, situated near Burgh by Sands and overlooking the Solway Firth in Cumbria, England.

You were saying?

reply to post by zorgon


good work zorgon, can you find any history on those beekepers to see if they were around in 1964?.

thanks

rich

hey Why do I gotta do all the work? :puz;

I needz sleepzzz zzzzzzz

RICH-ENGLAND:

It's not Stig...
It's unknown stuntman Ben Collins

S

Originally posted by zorgon
hey Why do I gotta do all the work? :puz;

I needz sleepzzz zzzzzzz

i did actually start searching but all i could find were addresses but had to stop because i have to go out now, i'll look a bit more when i get back.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by stucoles
RICH-ENGLAND:

It's not Stig...
It's unknown stuntman Ben Collins

S

edit on 19-10-2010 by stucoles because: to sender

i guess you missed the schumacher unveiling then?.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND

Originally posted by stucoles
RICH-ENGLAND:

It's not Stig...
It's unknown stuntman Ben Collins

S

edit on 19-10-2010 by stucoles because: to sender

i guess you missed the schumacher unveiling then?.

thanks

rich

Hehe, that too was exposed as a Hoax. I guess we're not going off topic with this thread.

S

The camera man is either lying or telling the truth about they being alone on that field.. why not ask the "little" girl today and hear if she remember a guy in a white jacket that day ? or/and use the lie detector on the man, I think he is telling the truth, I can hear it in he´s voice, and why should a old man lie like that ?

The debunking article is just so random.. with todays tech you can repreduce almost anything.. dont say if it happened or not

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Source

Interesting explanations.

I didn't know this:

RAND has been secretly involved in official UFO analysis on behalf of the US government for a very long time.

I was pretty sure UFO analysis didn't stop with the closure of project bluebook, so I'm not surprised by that.


The article didn't really discuss the Heflin photo analysis but I have to add my comment on that:



The contrast of the object looks so much greater than the rest of the photo that it always seemed very close to the camera to me. I don't know if he proved it's a train wheel but I wouldn't rule it out. I do agree with the observation that it's uninteresting in appearance. Even without the influence of Hollywood I expect structured craft to have more structure, than some uninteresting UFO photos, as I illustrated here for some other space based UFOs using Hollywood examples for comparison:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8686ff2c2a4f.jpg[/atsimg]

While such a comparison doesn't debunk a photo, it merely illustrates that the object in the photo, whatever it is, is relatively uninteresting. I'd have to agree with the author, that applies to Heflin's photos.

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

The landscape is patently flat as a pancake.

Go a little bit after that time in your video and you can see the landscape is NOT flat as a pancake, I can see some very clear variations in elevation. I did my own analysis on that photo and came up with something like 8 feet tall for the person, which does seem a little too tall, but I probably made an error of some sort due to the fact I don't know the exact topography, I assumed it's flat which your video shows it's NOT:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/801453cdc347.jpg[/atsimg]

I couldn't come up with the 25 feet you suggested. That's the back of a person's head and it looks like they are wearing glasses to me, there's a hint of an outline of glasses:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8bb82de565a8.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


nice work on that analysis, and i agree, the heflin photos look totally fake. ithe object looks far to sharp and in focus compared to the background and i would agree, something small and close to the camera, typical forced perspective.

thanks

rich