The Rex Heflin Case (1965), Fact or Fiction

[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).



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).




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).




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:




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

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]

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..._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