The Rex Heflin Case (1965), Fact or Fiction

[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.../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.../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..._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..._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