Railroaded by the little Heflin engine that could...

[Jeff Davis]

This is a VERY interesting UFO Photo blog. UFO FOTOCAT BLOG: 2013/11/04

Certainly not the first time I had heard of the Heflin photo hoax, we here on the paracast forums have discussed it prior. However this blog provides a most excellent link to a detailed photo analysis that IMO pretty much concludes the Heflin photos were unquestionably hoaxed.

Oh the pain. If there is one thing I have learned with respect to the paranormal, NOTHING is written in stone.

Take a look around on this site. It's truly a monumental effort. The following is the specific link contained in the blog's relevant passages.

http://www.thecid.com/ufo/uf00/uf1/001816.htm

 

[chikane]

I didn't read the stuff with the haze but concerning the stereographic thing, IMO it's totally BS. The conditions required for a stereographic effect (the object must not move between the two pictures ie they have to be shot at the same time, they have to be shifted a very short distance in a perpendicular plane ie pointing in the same direction) are clearly not met. You just have to see the difference in position and shape of the object!!

Which doesn't disprove the photos could be a hoax...

 

[Jeff Davis]

I didn't read the stuff with the haze but concerning the stereographic thing, IMO it's totally BS. The conditions required for a stereographic effect (the object must not move between the two pictures ie they have to be shot at the same time, they have to be shifted a very short distance in a perpendicular plane ie pointing in the same direction) are clearly not met. You just have to see the difference in position and shape of the object!!

Which doesn't disprove the photos could be a hoax...

Hi,
I am in NO WAY familiar with stereographic imagery, but as I read the details contained in the UFO DNA link, it was extremely compelling to myself as a layman. Now if we were talking stereo music, I could really go to town and understand it better quickly for myself as you did here. Maybe, you could provide some form of comprehensive substantiation for your own qualifications in this field, and in plain dumb people language, maybe you could substantiate how fixed land marks that don't move, and not just the moving object itself, MUST remain stationary in the photos for any type of accurate analysis to take place, please? I am not claiming or believing you are wrong or misleading in your post, as you see, I liked the post immediately after reading it yesterday. I am just HOPING for a further, or clearer, understanding of why this test information is BS in your estimation apart from the over simplified, "because I said so" approach.

I remember when this model train wheel info first broke several years back, including the fact that Heflin himself was an avid model railroader, and also enjoyed a good piratical joke from time to time according to his peers. I was honestly a bit stunned as I had always considered these photos to be classic undeniably authentic flying saucer photos as they were scrutinously presented. The smoke ring has always seemed a bit off to me, but the train wheel or flying saucer seemed "on". Thanks.

 

[chikane]

Hi,
I am in NO WAY familiar with stereographic imagery, but as I read the details contained in the UFO DNA link, it was extremely compelling to myself as a layman. Now if we were talking stereo music, I could really go to town and understand it better quickly for myself as you did here. Maybe, you could provide some form of comprehensive substantiation for your own qualifications in this field, and in plain dumb people language, maybe you could substantiate how fixed land marks that don't move, and not just the moving object itself, MUST remain stationary in the photos for any type of accurate analysis to take place, please? I am not claiming or believing you are wrong or misleading in your post, as you see, I liked the post immediately after reading it yesterday. I am just HOPING for a further, or clearer, understanding of why this test information is BS in your estimation apart from the over simplified, "because I said so" approach.

I remember when this model train wheel info first broke several years back, including the fact that Heflin himself was an avid model railroader, and also enjoyed a good piratical joke from time to time according to his peers. I was honestly a bit stunned as I had always considered these photos to be classic undeniably authentic flying saucer photos as they were scrutinously presented. The smoke ring has always seemed a bit off to me, but the train wheel or flying saucer seemed "on". Thanks.

Hi, no problem! I do not by any stretch claim any expertise in stereographic imagery, I just came to be interested in it for a little time, quite some time ago now. Just to clear up what I said which was apparently misunderstood (but maybe it's my fault, english is not my native language and I have sometimes hard time to express exactly what I'd mean ) : the stereographic effects comes from the shift of position of the object between the two images, but if the object is moving, it has to be captured simultaneously by the two cameras (which was obviously not the case for the "flying saucer"), in order for the shift between the two pictures to have a meaning relating only to the stereographic effect.

Actually, what struck me in the link was "In 2005, a researcher noticed that the second and third Heflin photos could be considered as a single stereographic image since Heflin moved in the seat between the two images" which is clearly not the case, and set my mind straight. But I must admit I read the thing quickly and I missed the main point.

If you look at the picture reflected by the rear-view mirror, you can see that Heflin centered himself towards the axis of the rear-view mirror but still keeping the camera oriented almost in the same direction (it seems that there is a small rotation to the left). So the movement would be mostly a translation forward and to the right (forward being the direction the camera is pointed to in the 1st photo). So even if the two pictures can't be used for some real stereograpic imagery, the overall effect of shifting between the two pictures could still show up, the shift being more pronounced for objects close to the camera. The fact that the shift of the "flying saucer" is of the same magnitude of that of the rear-view mirror one, when the trees in the far distance are almost lined up would indeed indicate that these two objects lie on the same plan. Now it could be said that between the two shots, the object has moved, which would false this assumption, but what would be the chance that the object moved in a way that the shift would be the same as the rear-view mirror one? Pretty low I'd believe...That's why I think it indeed indicates the object and the rear-view mirror are quite close.

I must also say that the object appears to me quite sharp and luminous (1st photo) or dark (2nd picture) to me, compared to the surroundings for its supposed distance as if a real "flying saucer" and the comparison with the poles somehow interesting.

For these (and others) reasons , I believe the Heflin photos are a hoax.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Hi, no problem! I do not by any stretch claim any expertise in stereographic imagery, I just came to be interested in it for a little time, quite some time ago now. Just to clear up what I said which was apparently misunderstood (but maybe it's my fault, english is not my native language and I have sometimes hard time to express exactly what I'd mean ) : the stereographic effects comes from the shift of position of the object between the two images, but if the object is moving, it has to be captured simultaneously by the two cameras (which was obviously not the case for the "flying saucer"), in order for the shift between the two pictures to have a meaning relating only to the stereographic effect.

Actually, what struck me in the link was "In 2005, a researcher noticed that the second and third Heflin photos could be considered as a single stereographic image since Heflin moved in the seat between the two images" which is clearly not the case, and set my mind straight. But I must admit I read the thing quickly and I missed the main point.

If you look at the picture reflected by the rear-view mirror, you can see that Heflin centered himself towards the axis of the rear-view mirror but still keeping the camera oriented almost in the same direction (it seems that there is a small rotation to the left). So the movement would be mostly a translation forward and to the right (forward being the direction the camera is pointed to in the 1st photo). So even if the two pictures can't be used for some real stereograpic imagery, the overall effect of shifting between the two pictures could still show up, the shift being more pronounced for objects close to the camera. The fact that the shift of the "flying saucer" is of the same magnitude of that of the rear-view mirror one, when the trees in the far distance are almost lined up would indeed indicate that these two objects lie on the same plan. Now it could be said that between the two shots, the object has moved, which would false this assumption, but what would be the chance that the object moved in a way that the shift would be the same as the rear-view mirror one? Pretty low I'd believe...That's why I think it indeed indicates the object and the rear-view mirror are quite close.

I must also say that the object appears to me quite sharp and luminous (1st photo) or dark (2nd picture) to me, compared to the surroundings for its supposed distance as if a real "flying saucer" and the comparison with the poles somehow interesting.

For these (and others) reasons , I believe the Heflin photos are a hoax.

chikane,
Now, *this* is fascinating! What a lesson! Immediately after reading your post through once, I KNEW what you were conveying precisely.

My friend, your use of English in the above post is stellar in my best estimation. I begged to know more from a sincere and interested stance, and you provided that here lucidly.

As soon as I read the whole second paragraph, boom, it was all just spot on. Your point took on an obvious and undeniable proportion here, so I just want to sincerely thank you for expanding my understanding of the stereographic process and this long classic UFO case. I too at this point think that the photo's were hoaxed.

In my ignorance, I imagined them analyzing the photos from some triangulation stand point. I have really got to slow down and start thinking more critically. I figured they used some form of legitimate reverse isometric projection based on some aspect of stereographic positioning of stationary objects. Maybe to determine size and distance of the object in the photo by comparison to the singular dimensional view of the object. I wonder if that would be possible in terms of photo analysis? Never thought about it until now. I had four years of these drafting classes in high school. One of the many aspects learned was how to take dimensionally specific singular views, and then project that information from a singular reference point to create a 3/D rendering of the object in accurate perspective. just a thought.

I marvel at fluently speaking multiple languages. Linguistics, a truly fascinating subject, is something that I myself would love to have a far greater, WORKING, understanding of.

My wife, now she can fluently speak Polish & English, but due being born in one of the little group of European countries where going to and fro is quite common, almost like state to state in the USA, she can understand Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Czechoslovakian, Hungarian, etc. quite well, although certainly not speak them all fluently.

It would be so cool doing that, and living that way. Everybody digging their own thing, and at the same time, respectfully appreciating others culture without the utter contamination of their own. It must be nice and I very well may retire there one day. The farming country is incredibly beautiful there in Poland. Very peaceful. Thanks Again!

 

[chikane]

Hi, I'm glad I 'd been able to provide some understandable explanations, although I don't have any advanced knowledge in stereography.

Thanks for your appreciation, although I never use english on a day to day basis, I listen to some radio shows like the paracast & DMR so it keeps helping me not losing too much of my english practice. Although I studied russian during high school, I forgot almost everything, too bad, but this is what happens (at least for me) when you don't practice...The only other language I know a little bit of is vietnamese as part of my family is from Vietnam, but I still have to work a lot more to be able to understand and speak in an acceptable way. It's quite different as it relies mostly on the tones with which you pronounce the words, so you really need to exercise your listening and pronouncing hability, not so easy when you're not familiar with it...

Going back to Heflin photos, here is another interesting study, by Ann Druffel and others but whose conclusions tend to support Heflin testimony. Personally I don't have a complete definite opinion on the Heflin photos although I'd tend to think it's a hoax (the link you provided gives some very interesting hints/ideas but IMO you cannot be 100% sure as the object has moved)

 

[Creepy Green Light]

I just learned today the Heflin photos were faked. I always suspected this. Turns out it was a model train wheel.
Classic Photos Exposed As Fakes | UFO Research Network

 

[Trajanus]

Every UFO photo has been "proven" to be a hoax. The McMinnville photos at various times were considered to be a lampshade, truck mirror or something from a phonograph. None of those stood up because for one thing the wires above weren't bent by the weight of such objects. There was also a claim that a tiny "bundle" on the wire right above the object was a tie for supporting string. Not even the skeptics on KDR's blog bought that.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Every UFO photo has been "proven" to be a hoax. The McMinnville photos at various times were considered to be a lampshade, truck mirror or something from a phonograph. None of those stood up because for one thing the wires above weren't bent by the weight of such objects. There was also a claim that a tiny "bundle" on the wire right above the object was a tie for supporting string. Not even the skeptics on KDR's blog bought that.

Trajanus,
lol!!! You could not be anymore wrong. There are many, MANY, MANY, UFO photos that are considered above reproach with respect to photographic analysis. The problem is that photos with respect to UFOs don't mean much. That's kinda why they are called Unidentified Flying Objects. There are even many of the photos that those claiming to have hoaxed them have not been "proved" to be hoaxes. Kind of like the Patterson Gimlin film with regards to Bigfoot. The pseudo skeptics love to feign credit for imaginary hoaxes in the precise same ill psychological light that the Billy Meier UFO true believer crowd tout their favorite prophet's declarations with.

 

[Trajanus]

There are many, MANY, MANY, UFO photos that are considered above reproach with respect to photographic analysis.

Skeptics consider them all hoaxes if they're detailed enough not to be natural phenomena. Not long ago, on KDR's blog, cda implied one should assume the February 1965 "scout craft" is a hoax because it's associated with Adamski. Irrespective of analysis, I presume.

 

[Jeff Davis]

A great example of photos that are claimed by the rumor mill to be hoaxes, without any proof whatsoever that they are in fact hoaxes, are the Ed Walters, Gulf Breeze photos. A very strange case indeed. A model supposedly used in the photos was found in a home that Walters had moved out of months prior, that was shown to have been constructed after the photos were taken and didn't even match the photos taken. A witness came forward that claimed to have helped Walters to hoax the photos whose father was running against Walters in a city council election when Walters had taken some of the pohtos with a sealed, tamper proof camera provided to him by MUFON. One physicist claimed that the the reflection in one of the photos was too incorrect to be accurate, and another claimed after a scrutinous examination that they were all flawless. Nonetheless, the photos have never been proved to be a hoax albeit they did in fact originate among one of the most opinionated affairs in all of UFO subculture. To this very day no one really knows whether or not the Gulf Breeze Sightings were a hoax or not. It is somewhat telling in my opinion that over a hundred different witnesses came forward in the same time period claiming to have seen UFOs in the immediate Gulf Breeze vicinity. Some with photos of their own, however, none with photos even beginning to compare to Walters' photos in terms of detail and clarity.