The Rex Heflin Case (1965), Fact or Fiction

[Marvin]

I did an analysis some time ago on OMF (which is no longer available on the Internet) and though I would re-post it here. I have included some additional analysis and detail which I had left out of the OMF post. This is a highly “charged” and controversial case (a “Holy Grail” of UFOlogy). I just want to supply the evidence so that you can make your own informed decision.



The Case:

On 3 August 1965, Rex Heflin (a highway investigator for the Orange County California Highway Department) took 3 photographs of a UFO in Santa Ana, California.

The photos have been regarded as being “one of the most highly regarded series of ‘classic’ UFO photos of all time”.

Rex used the Highway Department’s Model 101 Polaroid camera to take four photos, three of which appear to show a UFO and the forth shows a “smoke ring” (reportedly created by the object as it left the area).

Further details, information and opinions may be found on the following link:


http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_4_druffel.pdf



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzTgtnxm680




The three UFO photos:

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/Heflin.jpg
Photo #1 (a darken version)

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/Photo2and3.jpg

[Marvin]

The testimony and investigation:

Heflin approximated the size of the UFO by comparing it to the traffic lanes over which it flew. These lanes, he knew, were 20 feet wide, and the craft was about the same apparent width as both lanes combined (the width of the highway).

As the flying object crossed Myford Road, it seemed to hover and Heflin photographed it through his windshield as it crossed his line of vision (Photo # 1). As the craft moved toward the east, it tipped and revealed a dark underside. “This is when I saw a rotating beam of light emitting from the center of the UFO on the bottom side.”

Heflin described the beam as greenish white and rotating clockwise around the bottom from the center out to the rim; each rotation took about 2 seconds. He snapped a second photo (Photo #2) through his passenger window.

Throughout its passage, the craft seemed to “wobble” slightly. In Heflin’s words, its motion was “similar to a gyroscope when losing its stability.” As the object moved further east, it began a turning motion, and Heflin snapped a third photo (Photo #3). “The UFO continued moving away, slowly gaining altitude… seemed to gain stability, then it increased its velocity and altitude more rapidly leaving a deposit of smoke like vapor”.

He was not particularly excited about the pictures he had taken and didn’t mention the incident to anyone until he showed the photos that afternoon to a few coworkers in his Santa Ana office. They caused considerable interest, but some of his workmates seemed agitated by the fourth picture of the smoke ring; it wasn’t anything one would expect to see associated with experimental aircraft. Heflin decided that “three pictures were enough for one day” and stopped showing the fourth (McDonald, 1968). In fact, he thought little more about any of them until some of his relatives and friends became intrigued with them.

Heflin never sought publicity, but when he was sought out by objective researchers, he was always forthright and cooperative.

The results of the Air Force experiment evidently satisfied Project Blue Book personnel that the photos were hoaxed. Blue Book was, at the time, the only publicly known official Air Force group responsible for studying UFOs, and it officially listed the Heflin photos as a hoax (Project Blue Book Case Number 9654).

[Marvin]

Analysis of Photo #1:

Heflin stated the object was about as wide as the two lane highway, based on comparing the two as the object crossed over the highway. Just to get an idea as to Heflin’s description of the object’s size, let’s do a comparison.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/HeflinsdistanceA.jpg

The objects width is 73 pixels. Let’s find where on the highway it is 73 pixels wide.


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/HeflinsdistanceB.jpg
If Heflin’s testimony is reliable, this 73 pixel line on the highway is the approximate distance to the object from the camera (about 700 feet).


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/HeflinshadowsLevelDistance.jpg


We can now begin to look for the shadow of the object on the ground. The object in the sky shows a distinct shadow as do vegetation on the ground. We can see where the “telephone poles” appear to cast shadows on the ground. If we use the same angle from the edges of the object as from the “telephone poles” then the shadow of the object should be somewhere between the two lines drawn down from the edges of the object.

We cannot detect any shadow there (in the above photo), but that could be due to the “rough terrain” in that area of the photo, the shadow may be difficult to see (or, there really isn’t any shadow).

Let’s take a close look at “Photo #1” to if it is possible to get any visual clues about the distance of the object to the camera.


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/photo1insidevan.jpg


The above photo is an enhancement (and a composite, overlaying the original photo outside the truck on a lighten version of rest of the photo) of “Photo #1” to better show the details of the cab. Actually, I was amazed by the focus and clarity of objects within the cab (they are not well lit, but they are in focus).

I am not an expert on the Model 101 Polaroid camera, but the focus setting (when the images were captured) was able to “see” items close to the camera while the focus was set to infinity (the focus setting was relayed to investigators by Heflin). In fact, if you look closely, the closer an object is to the camera, the more clear the image.

Heflin stated the object was about 700 feet away. If true, why is the “craft” more clear (sharper and well defined as object which are close to the camera) than other objects which are 700 feet away?

[Marvin]

Analysis of Photo #2 and #3:

In a sense, we are fortunate to have these two photos which were taken in the same basic direction from two slightly different locations within the cab of Heflin’s truck. This allows us to create a Stereoscopic Pair (please click on this link). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy) The Stereoscopic Pair creates a three dimensional image which allows us to easily determine relative distances. You can also overlap the two images to more easily demonstrate the distances.


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/HeflinStereoscopicpair.jpg


The above image is a Stereoscopic Pair created from Photo #2 and #3. The two photos were centered on the UFO to create the pair.


Distance to objects in the Stereoscopic Pair:

Since the object was reported to be at least 700 feet away, let’s take a look at distant object on the ground… the background trees.


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/BackgroundTree.jpg


As you can see, when the trees are overlapped, the object does not overlay, so we know the object is not the same distance as the trees.


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/Bushes.jpg


When we overlay the vegetation next to the road (above), again the object still do not overlay but the object is getting closer together.


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/TheMirror.jpg


When we overlay the truck mirror (above), the object is perfectly overlapped. We now know the distance to the object from the camera… it is the distance to the truck mirror.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/Window.jpg


Just to prove the point of distance, if we overlap the truck window (above), the object in the two images pass each other… meaning we have gone too far, distance wise (too close to the truck).

There is no doubt, the object is the same width and the same distance from the camera at the truck’s mirror.

[Marvin]

Double checking the object distance and mirror:


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/EastWest.jpg


In the diagram above, I show the two relative positions of the camera in the truck and show the directions to the object from those two positions which converge at the mirror (as shown by the Stereoscopic Pair).

Heflin’s own testimony stated the object continued to travel east from Photo #2 to Photo #3. Based on the camera’s position and the direction of the object (relative to the camera), Heflin had to be grossly mistaken. The lines to the object clearly show, the object had to be going in a westerly direction (not east), assuming this was a 20 foot wide craft which was over 700 feet away. The odds are not in favor of a large free flying object remaining the same distance (to the camera) and altitude in both Photo #2 and Photo #3. The evidence supports a small object suspended from the truck near the mirror.

At no time did Heflin make or file a UFO report.

Was Heflin not telling the truth about the eastern direction of travel… or was the whole affair just a practical joke that grew out of control?

[Doc]

This one was being exhaustively reviewed back before OM when I used to keep up by reading at UFO Updates. None of the debunking was at all convincing to me but, alas, that damn object just does look too clear to be that far away! I did go to the area way back when but that really didn't reveal much of anything. Just typical SoCal terrain and landscape.

BTW, we are seeing a load of pics at our Facebook group but so far I haven't been able to get anyone to submit them for analysis. I keep trying though. :cool:

http://www.facebook.com/groups/230703720352159/323240111098519/?ref=notif&notif_t=group_activity

[Flying Tiger Comics]

This one seems like a hoaxed genuine UFO- a bit like how Adamski's weird saucers show up in other people's snapshots through the decades- as though a real craft is being hoaxed for some reason. Likewise the Heflin UFO is also the basis for the ARV story- same shape- and the 1964 (1966?) Utah UFO- same shape again...

[CasperParks]

Marvin,

That was a lot of work...

Thanks...

[Doc]

The favored debunking theory in the mid-2000s was that it was a model railroad wheel suspended from a transparent fishing line. Unfortunately the flange of the wheel was not the correct angle or dimensions and nobody had shown any evidence of the actual presence of fishing line when I stopped reading. I stopped reading because, as so often is the case, honest investigators who may have had a bit of a bias where running headlong into colossal egos that already knew it all without investigating. :cool:

[Marvin]

The favored debunking theory in the mid-2000s was that it was a model railroad wheel suspended from a transparent fishing line. Unfortunately the flange of the wheel was not the correct angle or dimensions and nobody had shown any evidence of the actual presence of fishing line when I stopped reading. I stopped reading because, as so often is the case, honest investigators who may have had a bit of a bias where running headlong into colossal egos that already knew it all without investigating. :cool:


I knew the missing "fishing line" question would come up, so....


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/HeflinEnhansed2.jpg


If you run edge detection... you will notice the "power lines" are not always visible in Photo #1. Therefore, it is not a large “leap of faith” to think a small thread could be invisible in the same photo. To demonstrate this beyond a “shadow of a doubt…” one would have to do an experiment with a Model 101 Polaroid and an object on a thread. Unfortunately, I do not have the equiptment.


M

[Marvin]

Marvin,

That was a lot of work...

Thanks...



Thanks, luckily I had all of my original work (photo examples). I just had to redo the write-up.


M

[Marvin]

This one seems like a hoaxed genuine UFO- a bit like how Adamski's weird saucers show up in other people's snapshots through the decades- as though a real craft is being hoaxed for some reason. Likewise the Heflin UFO is also the basis for the ARV story- same shape- and the 1964 (1966?) Utah UFO- same shape again...


While that is very possible for this case to be gray propaganda… one has to keep in mind that Heflin never tried to seek out the “lime light.” The story went public through friends and family. If it was gray propaganda, it was totally ingenious!

Or, it just as easily have been a prank played on friends and family, where it seems he did not plan for this to “blowup” into nationwide headline news, not to mention a full Air Force investigation. By that point, the photos were the bull and he was on for the ride. At what point could Heflin admit that he used state property (the camera and film) for a prank, with the government knocking on his front door… then taking the risk that confessing the prank could cost him his job. He may have been trapped into “going with the flow.”

Who knows?


M

[Flying Tiger Comics]

Let's assume he just fooled around and faked it.

Someone has at a later date- a couple of years later- used basically the identical UFO in their own... call it myth building, which didn't really take off. Then 25 years later it is used in the Alien Reproduction Vehicle event - hoax or disinfo? The "callback" to the "classic" 1960s sightings in the 1990s was presumably to lend an air of historicity and with it, credibility.

Is there any way at all that the optical analysis could be wrong and the photograph could be of a large artificial vehicle in the sky?

[Marvin]

Is there any way at all that the optical analysis could be wrong and the photograph could be of a large artificial vehicle in the sky?



If we just focus on Photo#2 and Photo #3… compare the positions in the truck when the photos were taken. Pay attention to the image in the truck mirror, you will immediately see Photo #3 was taken further over on the passenger side (as if he moved over to his right… look at the images in the mirror below).

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/Photo2and3.jpg

It is unmistakable, see the “telephone poles” in Photo #2 (in the mirror)… but you only see the side of the truck (in the mirror) in Photo #3. You can try moving in your own vehicle and reproduce the results.


Let’s also assume this s a real object in the sky that is 700 feet (or more away).


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/EastWest.jpg

Since Heflin claimed the object was continuing to move to the East, one should also notice, if the object’s position moves from Photo #2 to Photo #3 then it must have been moving to the West (in the diagram above and below).


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/Photo2and3West.jpg

The same trees are circled in red. There is no mistake about it.

The size of the object (i.e. distance), the relationship with the truck's mirror both support the idea that the object is not moving... there is only a change in the camera position:


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/2and3.jpg

Overlay of Photo #2 and Photo #3 which only show camera movement.



M

[newyorklily]

Unfortunately, I can't see the pictures on my phone. I am wondering though, has a computer program been used on these to determine the exact angles and distance of object/truck and object/ground?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[Marvin]

Unfortunately, I can't see the pictures on my phone. I am wondering though, has a computer program been used on these to determine the exact angles and distance of object/truck and object/ground?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2



http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/WalnutMyford-1.jpg


If we had an accurate map from 1965, it would be possible to determine directions, distances and angles (I do not have that type of software, so I have to do it manually). As you can see in the above Google Map… the area has changed completely, there are no reference points left. Besides, Heflin gave his approximate location (being near Walnut on Myford), so exact distances and directions are not available. The comparison of Photo #2 and Photo #3 (both directly and stereoscopically) show the object being near the mirror. They also show the opposite direction of the object if they were far from the camera.

One has to decide if Heflin was truthful about the direction of travel and why the object geometrically converges next to the mirror in Photo #2 and Photo #3.

[newyorklily]

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case253.htm
I don't know if this article on it was posted but it tells what the inveatigators in 1965 did and what they had to work with.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk

[newyorklily]

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/WalnutMyford-1.jpg


If we had an accurate map from 1965, it would be possible to determine directions, distances and angles (I do not have that type of software, so I have to do it manually). As you can see in the above Google Map… the area has changed completely, there are no reference points left. Besides, Heflin gave his approximate location (being near Walnut on Myford), so exact distances and directions are not available. The comparison of Photo #2 and Photo #3 (both directly and stereoscopically) show the object being near the mirror. They also show the opposite direction of the object if they were far from the camera.

One has to decide if Heflin was truthful about the direction of travel and why the object geometrically converges next to the mirror in Photo #2 and Photo #3.

A map from 1965 might be available on this site http://www.oac.cdlib.org/about/
I would search for it but I only have my phone to work with theses days.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[Marvin]

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case253.htm
I don't know if this article on it was posted but it tells what the inveatigators in 1965 did and what they had to work with.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk



I have seen it.

I used this (it is more complete):

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_4_druffel.pdf

[Marvin]

A map from 1965 might be available on this site http://www.oac.cdlib.org/about/
I would search for it but I only have my phone to work with theses days.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2


Unfortunately, maps from 1965 do not show the vegetation (like you can see on Google Maps), they are just topographic maps (with no satellite or highway views).


M

[Dragonfire]

Marvin, I have a question. If he took the first picture from the drivers side I would expect to see the telephone poles in the rear view mirror. If the object moved, he would of had to move closer to the passenger side to get another photo. If he did that, I would expect to see the side of the car in the mirror.

From the drivers side you want to see what is behind you to the right. If you are sitting in the passengers seat, you only see the side of the vehicle.

So my question is, what are you seeing that I don't?

[Marvin]

Marvin, I have a question. If he took the first picture from the drivers side I would expect to see the telephone poles in the rear view mirror. If the object moved, he would of had to move closer to the passenger side to get another photo. If he did that, I would expect to see the side of the car in the mirror.

From the drivers side you want to see what is behind you to the right. If you are sitting in the passengers seat, you only see the side of the vehicle.

So my question is, what are you seeing that I don't?




http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/EastWest-1.jpg

I will answer your question with a question. Is the object traveling to the East or the West from Photo #2 to Photo #3.

It is a bit of a trick question since the object would actually be traveling in an arc (which is equal distant to the camera) to the North West in order to remain the same sized object in the two photos and to intersect (or converge) at the truck’s mirror. His testimony said it continued to move East from Photo #2 to Photo #3, not the Northwest. For me, that is a big issue for a guy who works for the Highway Department (and doesn’t know his compass directions). Something to ponder.


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/Photo2and3West.jpg


Maybe the above photo will start to make more sense, since it directly shows the object moving in the opposite direction as reported by Heflin... assuming it is a large far away object and not a small object hanging at the mirror.


Keep in mind, there is an illusion of distance and movement when you focus on the background objects (like the trees). But, if you focus on the foreground objects (like the mirror), you will notice the “craft” does not move but it indeed maintains it spatial relationship with the mirror. Therefore the distance to the object is the same distance to the mirror. All of which I have demonstrated as being fact using at least 3 different methods.



M

[newyorklily]

NICAP sent out a local team to the site. Why didn't they make note of this discrepancy? Sometimes a road will not go in an entirely straight line. An east/west road will have curves that will go in a different direction if only for a few yards. Is it possible that this is what happened in this case? A regular map from 1965 might be able to answer that.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[Marvin]

NICAP sent out a local team to the site. Why didn't they make note of this discrepancy? Sometimes a road will not go in an entirely straight line. An east/west road will have curves that will go in a different direction if only for a few yards. Is it possible that this is what happened in this case? A regular map from 1965 might be able to answer that.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2


I cannot speak for NICAP, did they do this type of a study?

I posted a "current map" of the area:



http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/WalnutMyford-1.jpg



Myford Road basically runs North and South. If someone can post a 1965 map of this area, that would be great.


M

[Marvin]

I finally found the NICAP report… this is where it gets quite ironic. Here is the NICAP report (click on the below link):

http://www.nicap.org/heflinrep.htm



In this "panorama" you can see three of the four Heflin frames. According to Frank Edwards, these frames would be 1,3,2; however, under the assumption that the object moves left to right across the landscape, the panorama shows the correct order.


In order to get the geometry correct, NICAP investigators had to reverse the order of photos 2 and 3.



Assuming that the object remains still (i.e. it is hoaxed, and hanging from a wire outside the cab), then the only way this behavior can be duplicated is for the object to be at almost exactly the same distance as the mirror.


Hmmm, at the mirror they said (using my best Yoda voice).



In regard to the pendulum explanation, the object is almost exactly the same size at frame 2 and 3.


They say it is the same size in photo 2 and 3.


It is interesting how two different investigations can come to opposite conclusions with the same facts. The difference being... I do not have to change Heflin's testimony to match my conclusions.

M

[Marvin]

http://www.nicap.org/heflinrep.htm


On the other hand, if the object moved between frames 2 and 3, then Heflin remained in about the same position, and swiveled to follow the object, probably by shifting at the waist to the left, and also twisting, which kept the mirror in about the same position in each frame, and the object in the same relative position in each frame.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/heflinpanorama2and3.jpg

There is a major issue with the logic of the camera position (or Heflin’s position), in the above “panorama” composite (of Photo #2 and Photo #3), since it is based on the background. It now becomes impossible for the object in the two photos to converge at the mirror (which it clearly does based on the original photos). This “panorama” concept adds bias (a distortion) to the relationship and reality between these two photos. It artificially creates an Easterly movement to all objects in the photo (on the right hand side of the panorama… to both the trees and from the mirror). This is not what the original photos show and it is a huge flaw in the NICAP report.


M

[Dragonfire]

Thanks Marvin, I see what you mean.

[epo333]

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/EastWest-1.jpg

I will answer your question with a question. Is the object traveling to the East or the West from Photo #2 to Photo #3.

It is a bit of a trick question since the object would actually be traveling in an arc (which is equal distant to the camera) to the North West in order to remain the same sized object in the two photos and to intersect (or converge) at the truck’s mirror. His testimony said it continued to move East from Photo #2 to Photo #3, not the Northwest. For me, that is a big issue for a guy who works for the Highway Department (and doesn’t know his compass directions). Something to ponder.


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/Photo2and3West.jpg


Maybe the above photo will start to make more sense, since it directly shows the object moving in the opposite direction as reported by Heflin... assuming it is a large far away object and not a small object hanging at the mirror.


Keep in mind, there is an illusion of distance and movement when you focus on the background objects (like the trees). But, if you focus on the foreground objects (like the mirror), you will notice the “craft” does not move but it indeed maintains it spatial relationship with the mirror. Therefore the distance to the object is the same distance to the mirror. All of which I have demonstrated as being fact using at least 3 different methods.



M

Awe what the heck, I'll throw in my $.02 worth...

In photos 2 and 3 we see this truck has a "wing", its the little window that pivots for more ventilation.

Anyhow, we can also see that the very top edge of the frame for this window moves slightly due to the movement of the camera. So someone may determine the amount the camera moved based on the angular velocity between the top corner of the frame between photos 2 and 3.

Using a transparent ruler on my monitor, I note that the UFO appears to travel to the right (is that east) by about 3/16ths of an inch, with respect to the top edge of the frame. In photo 2, I get one and five eighths from the top corner of the wing-frame to the center of the UFO. In photo 3 the UFO is one and thirteen sixteenths inches from the top edge of the wing frame to the center of the UFO.

So even tho the camera moved to the right it appears when measured in this way the UFO appears to have moved slightly east....I mean to the right!

I don't have any photo tools to impose arrows or grids but that's what I see . . . Ha just about $.02

Marvin is still one of the best...:cool:

[Flying Tiger Comics]

Here are some links to previous analysis of the Rex Heflin pictures. The examination of the photographs generally seems to explain them as a hoax.

http://ufoprovo.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/rex-heflins-inspiration-for-his-ufo.html

http://badufos.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/rex-heflin-1965-classic-ufo-photo-now.html

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_4_druffel.pdf

[newyorklily]

Here are some links to previous analysis of the Rex Heflin pictures. The examination of the photographs generally seems to explain them as a hoax.

http://ufoprovo.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/rex-heflins-inspiration-for-his-ufo.html

http://badufos.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/rex-heflin-1965-classic-ufo-photo-now.html

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_4_druffel.pdf

The first two links you posted do not analyze the photos. The first one compares the Heflin photos to pictures of a spaceship supplied by a contactee at that time. The author asks if Heflin got the idea from the pictures bur provides no evidence. The second link is Robert Schaeffer's blog. He just posts what others have said but does not provide any analysis of the pictures.
I cannot open the third link. I am using my phone and it does not have any app to open a pdf file. It would be great if someone could post a synopsis of it. I see "druffel" in the link. Is it written by Ann Druffel or written about her?
Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[Flying Tiger Comics]

From the third link: (a PDF):


As noted earlier, another interesting feature of the Heflin account is the description of a rotating beam of light from the underside of the object about the
time of the second photograph. To best reveal such a feature, the enlarged view of the object from the Heflin Photo 2 was subjected to nonlinear scalestretch
enhancement (Table 5). To test for this possible feature, nonlinear scale-stretch–enhancement techniques were applied to the short-exposure reproductions
of the second Heflin image, as outlined in Table 5. The result is shown in Figure 18. This image does exhibit a line or wedgelike feature in the
left to upper-left portion of the object’s dark underside. This supports Heflin’s account.

The analysis comes down on the side of - the craft is genuine.

[Marvin]

Awe what the heck, I'll throw in my $.02 worth...

In photos 2 and 3 we see this truck has a "wing", its the little window that pivots for more ventilation.

Anyhow, we can also see that the very top edge of the frame for this window moves slightly due to the movement of the camera. So someone may determine the amount the camera moved based on the angular velocity between the top corner of the frame between photos 2 and 3.

Using a transparent ruler on my monitor, I note that the UFO appears to travel to the right (is that east) by about 3/16ths of an inch, with respect to the top edge of the frame. In photo 2, I get one and five eighths from the top corner of the wing-frame to the center of the UFO. In photo 3 the UFO is one and thirteen sixteenths inches from the top edge of the wing frame to the center of the UFO.

So even tho the camera moved to the right it appears when measured in this way the UFO appears to have moved slightly east....I mean to the right!

I don't have any photo tools to impose arrows or grids but that's what I see . . . Ha just about $.02



Epo333, to properly use the two images as a stereoscopic pair, one must understand what the pair are showing. It might be easier if we again compare the above three images together. Watch what happens to the location of the object in each pair:

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/Bushes.jpg http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/TheMirror.jpg http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/Window.jpg


1. [At the bushes] Notice the distance between the object’s location.
2. [At the mirror] The object overlays itself. This is critical and a complete give that away we are not seeing a free flying object.
3. [At the window (vent)] Notice the object has passed itself and it is a reversed image of the object location in the first image pair (at the bushes).

Due to the movement of the camera location from Photo #2 to Photo #3, we have to find the “center” or rotation point (where the object or craft will lay on top of each other to determine where it is located in “three dimensional space” compared to other features in the photo). To compare the object’s location or movement by using the foreground (the window vent) or the background (the trees) will lead to erroneous conclusions... since (in the case of Photo #2 and Photo #3) the foreground will suggest a Easterly movement (its actually is a Southeasterly movement) and the background will suggest a Westerly movement (its actually is a Northwesterly movement). The fact is, the object is not moving (other than a pendulum like swing at the mirror). In the above three photo examples, I am only looking for relative locations rather than actual measured distances.


For your reference, how to find distance to objects using a stereoscopic pair:

http://photon07.pd.infn.it:5210/users/dazzi/Thesis_doctorate/Info/Chapter_6/Stereoscopy_(Mrovlje).pdf


M

[Fore]

Double checking the object distance and mirror:


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/EastWest.jpg


In the diagram above, I show the two relative positions of the camera in the truck and show the directions to the object from those two positions which converge at the mirror (as shown by the Stereoscopic Pair).

Heflin’s own testimony stated the object continued to travel east from Photo #2 to Photo #3. Based on the camera’s position and the direction of the object (relative to the camera), Heflin had to be grossly mistaken. The lines to the object clearly show, the object had to be going in a westerly direction (not east), assuming this was a 20 foot wide craft which was over 700 feet away.

I have been visualizing it in my mind and I don't see the discrepancy. It looks like an object that was traveling in an easterly direction from photo 1 to 2 to 3.

Is the trajectory assumed to be a straight line towards the east? Or just "generally" to the east? (As in to the right hand side of the passenger window?)

The encounter is described as being 2 minutes long. Does the wobbly object have to have a straight flight path in such a short distance? 2 minutes is a long time to cover such a short distance between frames.

If it were a real object the thing wouldn't be covering much distance in its general trajectory. You could probably ride a bike faster than it allegedly moved (before frame 4).

In terms of "flying" (as in a convention wing lift) it seems to be moving too slow to create lift off through conventional aerodynamics. If imagined from that perspective it appears to be gliding very slowly from frames 1 through 3 then increasing speed at around frame 4.

If it traveled an arc in front and to the side of the vehicle it would probably cover less than 1500 ~ 3000 feet (~1 kilometer~) in two minutes. (Maybe less?)

At top speed that is about (roughly 25 feet per second). At half that distance it is about 12 feet per second.

http://www.calculatorpro.com/feet-per-second-to-miles-per-hour-calculator

8Mph at the low end, top end is probably 16Mph. (About as fast as a moving bicycle...err only in the sky?)

Note: Objects appear to move slowly when seen from a distance.

----------------------------------

I wish I was knowledgeable enough to estimate distances covered if an object follows a steady (and straight) path across the sky. But I think this seems to describe a slow moving object that crosses a road and moved off in the distance. Too bad we don't know what the time differences are between frames 1,2,3,4. Perhaps the discrepancy between frames 2 and 3 is simply a change in trajectory? It allegedly took off in frame 4 so it does not seem to contradict the testimony.

P.S. I used to own one of those old Polaroids as shown in the video. They were big bulky and very cool looking as a child.

[Marvin]

As noted earlier, another interesting feature of the Heflin account is the description of a rotating beam of light from the underside of the object about the
time of the second photograph. To best reveal such a feature, the enlarged view of the object from the Heflin Photo 2 was subjected to nonlinear scalestretch
enhancement (Table 5). To test for this possible feature, nonlinear scale-stretch–enhancement techniques were applied to the short-exposure reproductions
of the second Heflin image, as outlined in Table 5. The result is shown in Figure 18. This image does exhibit a line or wedgelike feature in the
left to upper-left portion of the object’s dark underside. This supports Heflin’s account.



I have some real issues with Heflin’s report of lighting under the “craft.”

If the lights were clearly seen by Heflin, then they should be clearly visible in the photos (especially in contrast to being in a shadow or black background). There is zero evidence of any light being emitted from the shadow of the “craft.”

You will have to keep in mind, the researchers were using copies of the Polaroid photos (not originals) and then added their own enhancements. If you have ever worked with copies (especially enhanced copies), then you would be aware that you can be introducing changes to the images. It is my opinion they are basing their findings on image changes they may have created or defects in the image.


M

[Marvin]

I have been visualizing it in my mind and I don't see the discrepancy. It looks like an object that was traveling in an easterly direction from photo 1 to 2 to 3.

Is the trajectory assumed to be a straight line towards the east? Or just "generally" to the east? (As in to the right hand side of the passenger window?)

The encounter is described as being 2 minutes long. Does the wobbly object have to have a straight flight path in such a short distance? 2 minutes is a long time to cover such a short distance between frames.

If it were a real object the thing wouldn't be covering much distance in its general trajectory. You could probably ride a bike faster than it allegedly moved (before frame 4).

In terms of "flying" (as in a convention wing lift) it seems to be moving too slow to create lift off through conventional aerodynamics. If imagined from that perspective it appears to be gliding very slowly from frames 1 through 3 then increasing speed at around frame 4.

If it traveled an arc in front and to the side of the vehicle it would probably cover less than 1500 ~ 3000 feet (~1 kilometer~) in two minutes. (Maybe less?)

At top speed that is about (roughly 25 feet per second). At half that distance it is about 12 feet per second.

http://www.calculatorpro.com/feet-per-second-to-miles-per-hour-calculator

8Mph at the low end, top end is probably 16Mph. (About as fast as a moving bicycle...err only in the sky?)

Note: Objects appear to move slowly when seen from a distance.

----------------------------------

I wish I was knowledgeable enough to estimate distances covered if an object follows a steady (and straight) path across the sky. But I think this seems to describe a slow moving object that crosses a road and moved off in the distance. Too bad we don't know what the time differences are between frames 1,2,3,4. Perhaps the discrepancy between frames 2 and 3 is simply a change in trajectory? It allegedly took off in frame 4 so it does not seem to contradict the testimony.



Hi Fore,

Since I have covered this same ground a number of times already, I can only suggest to re-read my posts. As I stated at the beginning of this thread, I present this so folks can make their own informed decision. That is where I would like to leave it.


M

[newyorklily]

@Marvin - Can an accurate stereoscopic pair be made from copies of photos obtained on the internet when none of the pictures on the internet are even the original Poloroid pictures themselves? Could one of the pictures have been changed during a publication and that is what is causing the difference?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[Marvin]

@Marvin - Can an accurate stereoscopic pair be made from copies of photos obtained on the internet when none of the pictures on the internet are even the original Poloroid pictures themselves? Could one of the pictures have been changed during a publication and that is what is causing the difference?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2



I think the digital copies from reputational sources are fine. I am not aware of anyone intentionally “contaminating” and passing out fraudulent versions of the 4 photos.

The issues start with copies (which some of the examples are second generation copies) that have been “enhanced” to show detail, which may not be present on the original photos. All of the photos I have worked with have the same three dimensional object relationships (such as locations of objects to each other in the photos).

There could be valid debate about exact distances shown in the photos, there isn’t much to debate about relative three dimensional spatial relationships (for example, the distance from the camera to the mirror is the same as the distance of the camera to the object). These same relationships haves been commented on by the NICAP report and the Reanalysis PDF.


M

[epo333]

OK Marvin, after boning up with that PFD you provided, your point about putting the object at the same distance as the mirror is valid.
So going in the other direction (of a hoax), what would a highway worker use to make such a craft?

The UFO resembles a Flange Nut, or the cutter from a pipe cutter.
If one looks at the washer on the mirror mount, it's about the right size...:das

646

[newyorklily]

OK Marvin, after boning up with that PFD you provided, your point about putting the object at the same distance as the mirror is valid.
So going in the other direction (of a hoax), what would a highway worker use to make such a craft?

The UFO resembles a Flange Nut, or the cutter from a pipe cutter.
If one looks at the washer on the mirror mount, it's about the right size...:das

646

I would like to also know how it was attached to the mirror.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[epo333]

Chances are it was "boomed out" through a latter rack. Highway trucks are likely to have such. But it bothers me that NONE of the photos give up a tether or fishing line, using today's detection capabilities...!

[Fore]

Hi Fore,

Since I have covered this same ground a number of times already, I can only suggest to re-read my posts. As I stated at the beginning of this thread, I present this so folks can make their own informed decision. That is where I would like to leave it.


MHi Marvin,
I did read through the thread before posting. I have been trying to get into your perspective. From what I can see the man ducks when taking the third (#3) picture. Strange, as if the object is coming closer rather than going off into the distance.

Any idea as to where he says he was standing was when the fourth photo was taken?

647

[Marvin]

OK Marvin, after boning up with that PFD you provided, your point about putting the object at the same distance as the mirror is valid.
So going in the other direction (of a hoax), what would a highway worker use to make such a craft?

The UFO resembles a Flange Nut, or the cutter from a pipe cutter.
If one looks at the washer on the mirror mount, it's about the right size...:das

646


Hi Epo333,

Since you are aware of how much I get paid for my work (and you know I completely volunteer my time and assets), I try to get the biggest bang for my dollar as I can.

I have a philosophy… one does not continue to search for their car keys after they find them. Translated, I set a goal (which generally is to determine if the case meets my criteria for being fact or fiction), once I have met my goal I do not continue to chase after other details. One has to ask them self… once I know it is not real, what is left to prove? To chasing down what was used as a model for a hoax, well I may do that on my own… but to share that information just gives new hoaxers more ammo for their work. I truly believe we have given way too much information to the hoaxer of the Big Basin Drone Case, which it can be used to improve their next project. That’s my two centavos worth.


M

[Marvin]

I would like to also know how it was attached to the mirror.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2




Chances are it was "boomed out" through a latter rack. Highway trucks are likely to have such. But it bothers me that NONE of the photos give up a tether or fishing line, using today's detection capabilities...!


I have to agree with Epo333 on the object being suspended from the roof of the truck.

NYLily, did it ever raise a red flag for you that all of the “craft” photos were taken from within the truck (through a windshield)? The facts all start to “lock together” like a jigsaw puzzle when they are scrutinized.

[Marvin]

But it bothers me that NONE of the photos give up a tether or fishing line, using today's detection capabilities...!


I will draw your attention to this:




I knew the missing "fishing line" question would come up, so....


http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/HeflinEnhansed2.jpg


If you run edge detection... you will notice the "power lines" are not always visible in Photo #1. Therefore, it is not a large “leap of faith” to think a small thread could be invisible in the same photo. To demonstrate this beyond a “shadow of a doubt…” one would have to do an experiment with a Model 101 Polaroid and an object on a thread. Unfortunately, I do not have the equipment.


M



Let me add, the quality of the original Polaroid was not so hot. Then, keep in mind we are using first and second generation copies to do the analysis. I am not surprised at all that the “fishing line” or thread cannot be detected. If sewing thread (possibly white in color) was used, it would be very difficult to detect it against a light background.

[Marvin]

Hi Marvin,
I did read through the thread before posting. I have been trying to get into your perspective. From what I can see the man ducks when taking the third (#3) picture. Strange, as if the object is coming closer rather than going off into the distance.

Any idea as to where he says he was standing was when the fourth photo was taken?

647


Hi Fore,

The analysis shows that in Photo #2, Heflin was “ducking” down a bit in order to keep the object in view from the “driver’s” side of the cab. As he leaned or “moved” toward the passenger side in Photo #3, he elevates a bit, and moved towards the rear of the cab (further away from the front windshield) and raises the camera to look upward. The following two Gifs may help you to see this (watch the movement of the bushes at the mirror in the Stereoscopic pair):

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/Heflin2and3Pair.gif http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/instantmartians/HeflinStereoPair.gif

The original Photo #2 and Photo #3 .................................................. ....................The Stereoscoptic Pair


M

[epo333]

Outstanding work Marvin, in fact, I'll see that you get a raise as soon as I take over...lol

I agree about the hoaxers always trying to get better. I'll keep that in mind in future discusions.

[Marvin]

Outstanding work Marvin, in fact, I'll see that you get a raise as soon as I take over...lol

I agree about the hoaxers always trying to get better. I'll keep that in mind in future discusions.



I’ve been told I get paid too much as it is. :bleh:

[Dragonfire]

No one is ever paid too much.........Well except for Politcian's, banker's, lawyer's, CEO's, Coo's, etc, etc, ect.................hahahahaha :biggrin2:

[Marvin]

Hi Marvin,

Any idea as to where he says he was standing was when the fourth photo was taken?

647


According to the investigation:



“The UFO continued moving away, slowly gaining altitude…
seemed to gain stability, then it increased its velocity and altitude
more rapidly leaving a deposit of smokelike vapor”. It then disappeared
into the distance traveling north northeast over the Santa Ana Freeway
that cut across the landscape about seven eighths of a mile away. A ring of
bluish-black smoke hung in the sky at the same altitude and azimuth as the
craft’s position before it began its rapid departure.

Heflin drove north on Myford Road 100 or 200 yards toward the smoke
ring, which was slowly rising in altitude and traveling northeast with the wind
at an angle of about 50-degrees elevation. When he got close to the smoke
ring, he got out of his van and photographed it.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_4_druffel.pdf

I hope this is helpful.


M

[majicbar]

I think that despite Marvin's admirable efforts here, that there is much more that could be learned if one were to take a model of the "UFO" and try to replicate the photographs. My doubts are that one can simply overlay the images to prove that the UFO was a model suspended by a fine wire from a support on top of the cab of the truck. Hefflin moved 3 dimensionally in the cab so there is no simple overlay that can account for that. The "UFO" reminds me of the shape of a bottle stopper that one would use on an open glass bottle of pop. Its dimensions were about 1.5 inches and about 1/2 to 5/8 ths of an inch high. It is what I would propose to use in a replica of the "UFO" in the images here. If I find a good example of a truck like the one Hefflin was driving. we'll see what we get. I feel the evidence says that the case is still open.

[majicbar]

Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 583–622, 2000 0892-3310/00 © 2000 Society for Scientific Exploration

Reanalysis of the 1965 Heflin UFO Photos

Abstract—Photography is one of the few sources available that can demonstrate the scientific validity of UFO phenomena. The Heflin photos, taken in Santa Ana, California, in 1965 were regarded as most probably genuine until 1968. Then questions arose from scientists and other UFO researchers that remained unanswered until the 1990s, mainly because the four original photos had been taken by unidentified persons posing as government personnel. In 1993, Heflin’s Polaroid originals surfaced unexpectedly under mysterious circumstances, and reanalysis was resumed by a three-member team, including two scientists and a veteran UFO investigator. State-of-the-art computer enhancement has revealed new data that answer all prior doubts and questions and discloses additional information that could not have been available at the time they were taken. In this article, we address the validity of the objections as originaly put forth and the results of the computer-enhancement analysis. A second article, to follow, details more technical aspects of the computer-enhancement analysis performed.


Keywords: UFO photographs—vortex rings—Rex E. Heflin—photo com- puter enhancement—Fort Belvoir, VA—James E. McDonald, Ph.D.


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.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/articles.html

The organization says that it posts past contents of the journal going back from two years to the beginning of it's publishing.

[Marvin]

Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 583–622, 2000 0892-3310/00 © 2000 Society for Scientific Exploration

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.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/articles.html

The organization says that it posts past contents of the journal going back from two years to the beginning of it's publishing.


Hello Majicbar,

You may want to revisit the beginning of this thread, I reference the Society for Scientific Exploration (2000) Ann Druffel report in the opening of the thread. I had provided the link to the PDF if you are interesting in reading it.


M

[majicbar]

Thanks Marvin. For others here is that link again:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_4_druffel.pdf

The effort by Druffel, et al., concluded that the UFO to them was not a hoax. The Condon Committee investigator concluded a rather null position in that he said he could duplicate the UFO in the photographs but did nothing to prove they were a hoax, nor prove any reason for Heflin to have made such a hoax.



http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/contents.htm

In the Condon Committee report the investigator notes that the Heflin case (#52)....

"In the course of my study I was able to simulate effectively the first three photographs by suspending a model by a thread attached to a rod resting on the roof of a truck and photographing it (Plate 8 ). Without assuming the truth or untruth of the witness' story, this has led me to conclude that the case is of little probative value."

...Which says nothing as to the verity of the actual photographs.

The original photographs were digitized for the reanalysis of these photographs. While they were supposed to be available research, I can not find a valid link to them. Any analysis of actual photogrammetry should be done with these digitized copies. Such photogrammetry was supposedly to be done on them but again I can find no valid link to that effort. Photogrammetry should help qualify the UFO as a model, or, a real UFO. Marvin has pointed out a problem which more study should help sort out.

[Marvin]

Thanks Marvin. For others here is that link again:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_4_druffel.pdf


The original photographs were digitized for the reanalysis of these photographs. While they were supposed to be available research, I can not find a valid link to them. Any analysis of actual photogrammetry should be done with these digitized copies. Such photogrammetry was supposedly to be done on them but again I can find no valid link to that effort. Photogrammetry should help qualify the UFO as a model, or, a real UFO. Marvin has pointed out a problem which more study should help sort out.


In the chapter “Reanalysis of the Heflin Photos in the 1990s” starting on page 606, the documentation of the custody and digitizing of the photos are discussed (the digitized photos are also supplied). Happy hunting.


M

[majicbar]

In the chapter “Reanalysis of the Heflin Photos in the 1990s” starting on page 606, the documentation of the custody and digitizing of the photos are discussed (the digitized photos are also supplied). Happy hunting.


M

Although there are PDF copies of the originals in the document, these photos are not the digitized originals for download or analysis. As near as I can figure Druffel is limiting access to the originals to documented UFO researchers and those who have Scientific positions at recognized educational institutions. Is this a reasonable restriction on access to the originals? I'd say no.

[Nymblys]

Hopefully this isn't a Necro, apologize if it is.

I've read most of the information available here on the topic, as these pictures have always fascinated me. But one question has always bothered me about the whole set of pictures. Why are all 3 pictures of the UFO from inside the car and the last one from outside of the car / vehicle. I mean, you witness something like this and you want to take a picture, wouldn't you want a better shot than from your driver seat trying to get a shot from passenger side window?

I figured for the longest time that maybe he hastened the picture taking because he had no idea how long he would have to capture the moment and wanted to get as much as he could or perhaps he was a bit scared and preferred to be ready to step on the gas and leave if need be. After looking up the camera specs, a couple of videos of how they work and approximately how much time it takes between two pictures, there would've been enough time to snap a first shot from in the car and then get up / out of the vehicle for shot 2 and 3. Once the craft leaves sight and the officer sees the ring of smoke, then he gets out and gets a shot of that. Why are all 3 shots from the same angle, in the same spot, considering the delay there is between two pictures on that type of camera?

Here is a video of a kid using the camera. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxJ6dhg5RA8

You can skip to about 7 min to see him take a selfie with it and pull out the picture / negative. This whole process could've been done while exiting the vehicle and get ready for shot 2 and 3. Again, I am no expert nor do I claim understanding how he felt on the spot and how his judgement / thinking could've been affected in the process. Kind of like when you're pumped with adrenaline and it's only after the aftermath that you realize you went about a whole situation wrong.

So why all 3 shots from the same angle, in the same spot, considering the operation time of the camera? I apologize if this is addressed elsewhere or mentioned somewhere and my eyes ignored that piece of info.

[majicbar]

Hopefully this isn't a Necro, apologize if it is.

I've read most of the information available here on the topic, as these pictures have always fascinated me. But one question has always bothered me about the whole set of pictures. Why are all 3 pictures of the UFO from inside the car and the last one from outside of the car / vehicle. I mean, you witness something like this and you want to take a picture, wouldn't you want a better shot than from your driver seat trying to get a shot from passenger side window?

I figured for the longest time that maybe he hastened the picture taking because he had no idea how long he would have to capture the moment and wanted to get as much as he could or perhaps he was a bit scared and preferred to be ready to step on the gas and leave if need be. After looking up the camera specs, a couple of videos of how they work and approximately how much time it takes between two pictures, there would've been enough time to snap a first shot from in the car and then get up / out of the vehicle for shot 2 and 3. Once the craft leaves sight and the officer sees the ring of smoke, then he gets out and gets a shot of that. Why are all 3 shots from the same angle, in the same spot, considering the delay there is between two pictures on that type of camera?

Here is a video of a kid using the camera. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxJ6dhg5RA8

You can skip to about 7 min to see him take a selfie with it and pull out the picture / negative. This whole process could've been done while exiting the vehicle and get ready for shot 2 and 3. Again, I am no expert nor do I claim understanding how he felt on the spot and how his judgement / thinking could've been affected in the process. Kind of like when you're pumped with adrenaline and it's only after the aftermath that you realize you went about a whole situation wrong.

So why all 3 shots from the same angle, in the same spot, considering the operation time of the camera? I apologize if this is addressed elsewhere or mentioned somewhere and my eyes ignored that piece of info.

"So why all 3 shots from the same angle, in the same spot,". Go to your car. Take a camera with you. Now take a picture through the windscreen in front of you. Now turn to your right and take two shots out the side window. Were you close enough on the first shot? Move just a bit closer to be sure you good a good view out that window. Can you now say that the camera shot the views from the same angle? The camera was moved so the angles are not truly from the same angle. That camera moved in 3-D, it makes a difference. With more work a true photogrammetric workup could be made and more information gained, perhaps there was a small model hanging on monofilament, or maybe it was not a model. Marvin made a good case to require such an improved analysis. Read through his work carefully and you can see a good case for suspecting a fake. Personally I have yet to be convinced, but I do not accept it as real without that improved analysis.

[Nymblys]

"So why all 3 shots from the same angle, in the same spot,". Go to your car. Take a camera with you. Now take a picture through the windscreen in front of you. Now turn to your right and take two shots out the side window. Were you close enough on the first shot? Move just a bit closer to be sure you good a good view out that window. Can you now say that the camera shot the views from the same angle? The camera was moved so the angles are not truly from the same angle. That camera moved in 3-D, it makes a difference. With more work a true photogrammetric workup could be made and more information gained, perhaps there was a small model hanging on monofilament, or maybe it was not a model. Marvin made a good case to require such an improved analysis. Read through his work carefully and you can see a good case for suspecting a fake. Personally I have yet to be convinced, but I do not accept it as real without that improved analysis.

Yeah after re-reading it, realized I didn't word it properly. It's pretty obvious the angles change, as if he had bent down to get a better positioning. I have done the test in my car as you suggest (have done them before as my question about the positioning / timing of the shots always bothered me) but there are too many things I cannot reproduce to get the right feel. How the agent was feeling, his level of adrenaline, how he felt it was probably a test craft from the military and didn't give that much importance. I see something like this in the sky and I get excited and would want many different position for the shots.

Thanks for the reply, apologize for not wording it properly. I can see the case for a fake just like I can see the case for this being the real deal. I have too often in the past believed blindly and ended up utterly disapointed. I question everything and like you, want rock solid evidence before I let the joy take over lol