3 Vintage UFO pictures - best ever

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I had done a lot of research on the Helfin photos and pretty much concluded they were likely fakes before i ever read that article, so I did do independent research on that case in particular. The contrast is all wrong for a distant object like he claims it is.

Fair enough and your prerogative to dismiss the latest computer analysis of the Heflin photos which say exactly the opposite

To quote

...
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.

From ...

www.scientificexploration.org...

reply to post by anubisone


Good pix anu1, and the kind which debunkers will gladly feast their skills with.
myself, dont want to dip anymore of this ufo stuff,theres more to this alien stuff than ufo's, but i do have some images to share with you and to corroborate your image. Only this one (though there is more of them in my ats album) is taken from the moon, to be exact somewhere in the komarov crater...
now if this is a hoax, its definitely a moon made hoax not man made...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/18714b3b7550.jpg[/atsimg]

as a side note, a few days back i revisited this site but the clear google window on this area is now totally blurred and obscured...
heres komarov 3 months back...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/025d77a24d01.jpg[/atsimg]

the area circled in red is where the UFO sits...
ooops the whole image did'nt fit the screen...you may view them in my ats media photo album, my photos

media.abovetopsecret.com...&action=list_photos&album_id=16656

Originally posted by FireMoon
Fair enough and your prerogative to dismiss the latest computer analysis of the Heflin photos which say exactly the opposite

www.scientificexploration.org...

My friend, this report is co-authored by the owner of the photos so I definitely do discount the report as biased, though I did read the report and found it interesting, if unconvincing. Studying that report was part of my research.

A psychologist could explain why if someone pays for some UFO photos, and then embarks to write a paper about those photos, the paper is psychologically more likely to reinforce the buying decision of the purchaser of the photos. It's unlikely someone will pay for some UFO photos, and then write a report saying they were an idiot to pay for the photos because they're fakes. That's true from a psychological perspective irrespective of the facts of the case.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Unless of course, the person had bought them to debunk them and then the opposite would be true? Unless of course the person hasn't seen a UFO and never photo'd one and has a bit of a thing about those who do so is predetermined to find fault with anyone who does? Unless of course you have a huge ego and simply can't accept that something might be happening you don;'t know about or have control over you feel the need to demand air time to state your point How far do you want to go with the shrink analysis?

Has anyone challenged their analysis of the photos and managed to make it stick?..Ah no..so let's wheel out the last resort, lets have a go at them as people.

reply to post by FireMoon
So if someone pays for some UFO photos, and then writes a report about them, do you consider that to be an unbiased report?

I'm not attacking the people, I'm saying that I wouldn't consider that an unbiased source, even if I was the purchaser of the photos, and had the best of intentions in writing the report. I wouldn't consider it an attack on me to consider my report on the photos I bought biased. It seems like common sense. It doesn't mean the report is wrong, but a report from an unbiased source would be preferable.

reply to post by heineken


YOur wright so wright, and the Wright brothers had that same shizzy too.
Well .....shut up

Originally posted by heineken

Originally posted by BadBoYeed
I still think that the clunky saucers of the past were american/german. thats why we don't see them anymore

just my opinion

be good

listen..are you sure you know what your saying....how do you think it was ever possible for americans or germans to fly such shaped flying machine with their technology way back ww2 era...do you have an idea how much computer power is needed to keep a modern aircraft in the air ???...so basically if this was a nazi secret experiment for me its a stunner...so first we shall get clear the most critical point of all..is this picture true or false (referring to the first one posted by OP) than..what technolog was used??..i lean more towards hoax though

Are you using the information given to you by the mass media in reference to the technology available in the 50's 60's?? Remember now, the sr-71 blackbird was used in vietnam

and how after WWII we obtained the nazi scientists who were working on projects exactly like the first picture

really?

be good

Does any one notice the apparent evolution in technology of UFO's?

They have gone from this:



To this:



There comes a point when you need to ask yourselves why.
Has the alien technology improved? or has the ideas about alien technology improved?

Unless there is a mass sighting with multiple photos and video taken from different locations,I'm afraid most skeptics will discount most photos and or videos.

As it should be-the evidence needs to be clear and without doubt.
When this happens my friends, you will have had "proof" we all cannot deny.

Originally posted by anubisone
source unknown, taken 1964, United States

If my eyes aren't playing tricks on me I believe this photo is actually from 1870 (most people usually grab the photo from the UFOcasebook photo gallery). Assuming they're the same picture then it's not a UFO. The original image was from a book titled, "Mount Washington in Winter."



"In the foreground are frost formations on Lizzie Bourne's cairn, just below the summit of Washington on a day with high overcast. (A cairn is a purpose-built pile of rocks). This is a very close photo. The "mystery" object is only a few inches long. There is a clear demarcation between ground and sky in the background on what was a rare winter day with moderate visibility. The background below the horizon line is wind-sculpted ice and snow, not clouds."

More details can be found here.

To me, it seems like a good case for a lot of these craft being USA built. They seem to get sleeker over the decades - these old ones look old even by our 2010 standards - to my eye.

reply to post by Xtraeme
I remember seeing that in another thread, it took ATS quite a while to solve it but it was identified.

I can't tell if it's the same photo or not, could be, the object looks very similar, and it definitely looks cropped. And if it is a mountainside, that would explain what I thought was leaves don't have the appearance you normally expect with leaves, it could be exposed rock.

Were there other photos in the series besides the two you posted? The second photo (on the right) you posted seems close but maybe not exact?

So maybe that's where it came from, but even if it's not, my guess is that it's something along those lines, there's just no detail in the image of the object.

reply to post by Xtraeme


I don't think it's the same photo.

Although the "UFO" looks the same, the rest of the photo does not.

Great thread!

This is another oldie from Norway, taken sometime in the beginning of the 1970s. Almost nothing is known about this photo, which was recently uncovered by the Norwegian UFO organization UFO Norge. I've written about it here (disclaimer: my own site, has ads.)

Originally posted by ufoeyes
Great thread!

This another oldie from Norway, taken sometime in the beginning of the 1970s. Almost nothing is known about this photo, which was recently uncovered by the Norwegian UFO organization UFO Norge. I've written about it here (disclaimer: my own site, has ads.)

whoa, thats one of the best for sure if real..i see it for 1st time

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What the debunkers don't tell you about the Helfin photographs...

Heflin did not say he photographed an alien craft. in fact for several years he thought he had captured a photo of a secret craft operating out of the El Torro base.

Did Heflin seek publicity for his photographs immediately.... No he didn;t in fact he showed them to a few friends and family and that was it. it was his own relatives who showed them the media by handing them over to newspaper.

Rex had little or no interest in UFOs at the time and continued to think that the object he'd photographed was an experimental craft from El Toro Marine Base. Within a few weeks, however, many people had become interested in the photos, and some of Heflin's relatives gave the first three photos, which Heflin had lent them, to the SANTA ANA REGISTER, a prominent newspaper in Orange County

The debunkers also neglect to mention that Heflin, at the time of the sighting was in radio contact with his boss back at base. Plus, the radio contact was lost at the point he spotted the craft and this was corroborated by his superior.

According to Heflin's superior Herm Kimmel, the sudden cutoff was akin to "button-release," except that there was no so-called blip, a sound occurring when the button was released normally.

The debunkers love to give the impression that Heflin, took the pics, rushed home and sought publicity for them and that he had an interest in UFOs. This is patently untrue and the radio contact and its' subsequent interruption is totally missed out. One can draw one's own conclusions as to why that might be. The argument the methodology cannot be trusted is simply clutching at straws because the evidence, as it stands, does not back the hoax explanation in any way shape or form.




Mod note: external tags added.

reply to post by FireMoon


If the text in italic is a quote from some online source, could you please provide a source for it?

Thanks in advance.

Took me a while to track it down... Here's the page you are looking for... I'd saved the text to a file on my comp as it's quite along read.

Hekfin Photos

reply to post by stirling

Thank you so much for posting those amazing photos and their accompanying stories all of which were new to me.

UFO Ohio.. Flat Saucer first image

2 more of the same sighting .. no reference in page that I saw

Actually noticed one is a reverse image.
I think as the story goes there might be a third photo.
See VW bug as an old foo pilot in the flat saucer might have been eying it for old times sake.
Or looking to put some coils in it.
The flat saucer was also photographed by Rex Heflin.
Also sighted at a base by Travis Walton.

On any Tesla ship theory you have to put a flat spiral in as the cone of force is seven foot high.
Each wire has a force pulling it along based on voltage and frequency as it was discovered to
react in one way of force direct from electricity. More theoretical is the sound waves or actual
pressure waves at the speed of light that builds up and carry the ship and crew along.
This is told in the second link on one of the pages.

reply to post by anubisone


The black dot said to be a true UFO is apparently a blast of light from the ship.
Otherwise low flying and slow ships give the most detail.
There are many recreations that involved slow and low flying ships that were
put in unsolved mysteries and give great details on the vehicle.