The Rex Heflin Case (1965), Fact or Fiction

[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?

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.





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:

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.

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]

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.





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...

[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...r-his-ufo.html

http://badufos.blogspot.com.au/2012/...photo-now.html

http://www.scientificexploration.org..._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...r-his-ufo.html

http://badufos.blogspot.com.au/2012/...photo-now.html

http://www.scientificexploration.org..._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