Heflin photos

From TinWiki.org

On 3 August 1965 in Santa Ana, California, highway investigator Rex Heflin of the Orange County Highway Department claims to have taken three photographs of a UFO and one photo of a residual smoke ring left by the object.

Contents 1 The Rex Heflin photographs (3 August 1965) 1.1 Photographs lost and regained 1.2 Photograph 1 1.3 Photograph 2 1.4 Photograph 3 1.5 Photograph 4 2 Claims to fame 3 The Skeptics 3.1 United States Air Force 3.2 Condon Report 3.3 Menzel 3.4 Sheaffer 4 Reanalysis of the 1965 Heflin UFO photos 4.1 Additional confirmation of Heflin’s story 4.2 Notes 5 References to discussions in books 6 External links 7 Relevant Discussion Threads on ATS

The Rex Heflin photographs (3 August 1965)

At about noon on 3 August 1965, Rex Heflin was driving South West on Myford Road, Santa Ana, California, inspecting overhanging growth along the roadside. At approximately 12:30 p.m. PDT, his radio “went completely dead”.

In a NICAP report form (dated 22 September 1965), Heflin wrote:

• “At this time, I became aware of the UFO, however I thought it was a conventional aircraft...The UFO moved from my left to in front of me and momentarily hovered there. At this time I grabbed the camera (semi-automatic-Model 101 Polaroid), from the seat of the truck and took the first photograph through the windshield of the truck.”

• “The object then moved slowly off to the northeast. I then snapped the second picture through the right door window (window closed). This is when I saw the rotating beam of light emitting from the center of the UFO on the bottom side.”

• “The UFO positioned itself to another angle of view and I snapped the third picture through the same side window as in picture two...”

• “As the UFO traveled, it maintained a relatively level altitude (150 ft.) in relation to the flat terrain, however the UFO acted similar to a gyro- scope when losing its stability. The UFO continued moving away slowly gaining altitude, tipped its top toward me slightly. It seemed to gain stability, then it increased its velocity (speed) and altitude more rapidly leaving a deposit of smoke-like vapor.”

• “The smoke-like vapor was blue-black in color and circular in shape as though it had emitted from the outer ring of the UFO. This doughnut shaped vapor ring remained in the area in excess of thirty seconds. The UFO disappeared in a northern direction toward Saddleback Mountain (this is known on the maps as Santiago Peak and Modjeska).”

The report to NICAP states that the interval during which the disc-shaped UFO was visible was “20 seconds max”.

Photographs lost and regained

According to Heflin, on 22 September 1965, two men, claiming to be from NORAD, arrived at the witness's home and asked to borrow the original Polaroid prints. They showed identification cards that Heflin said were like those of El Toro Marines. The witness turned the first, second and third photos over to them.

Many discussions of the photographs state that they were never returned or located. However, the originals of these three photographs were returned anonymously to Heflin in 1993.

Photograph 1

First Heflin Photo

Photograph 2

Second Heflin Photo

Photograph 3

Third Heflin Photo

Photograph 4

Fourth Heflin Photo

Claims to fame

Robert Sheaffer has referred to Heflin’s photographs as “one of the most highly regarded series of ‘classic’ UFO photos of all time”.

The Condon Report states that the case regarding these photos “must remain inconclusive” and comments that the case is “of exceptional interest because it is so well documented”.

During 2003-2007, Isaac Koi reviewed a sample of 963 UFO and SETI books and noted the frequency with which various UFO cases were discussed. The Great Falls film featured in a list of the top 10 photographic cases (in terms of frequency of discussion). This incident was the sixth most frequently discussed UFO photographic case in the study, with 46 discussions being noted.

The Skeptics

United States Air Force

The United States Air Force included these photographs in Project Blue Book as Case Number 9654. Its evaluation of them was: “Other (HOAX)”.

On 27 October 1965, Maj. Hector Quintanilla, Jr., of Project Blue Book, told the Santa Ana Register that the Air Force had “classified it as a photographic hoax on the basis of extensive photo analysis”.

Condon Report

There are 10 pages of discussion of these photographs in the Condon Report (“Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects”, Edward U Condon (Director) and Daniel S Gillmor (Editor) (1969)).

It is designated as Condon Case Number 52. The main discussion was written by astronomer William K Hartmann.

After setting out the facts and allegations regarding the photographs in considerable detail in the Condon Report, Hartmann gave a relatively brief analysis and conclusion. He stated:

• “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. Without assuming the truth or untruth of the witness's story this has led me to conclude that the case is of little probative value.”

• “The evidence for the reality of the UFO is not sufficiently strong to have probative value in establishing the existence of extraordinary flying objects. The strongest arguments against the case are the clouds in photo four and the inconsistent early records regarding the 'NORAD' visitors. The photos themselves contain no geometric or physical data that permit a determination of distance or size independent of the testimony. Thus the witness's claims are the essential ingredients in the case. The case must remain inconclusive.”

• “Although the authenticity of the UFO in this case is still open to question owing to internal inconsistencies in the early testimony, and inconsistency of the photographs and weather data, this case is still held to be of exceptional interest because it is so well documented. This is a result of early attention from the U. S. Marine Corps, the U. S. Air Force, NICAP and the press. Regardless of the existence or non-existence of extraordinary flying objects, this case supplies good documentation of the dealings between our society and a man who claims to have seen one.”

Menzel

In their book “The UFO Enigma” (1977), Donald Menzel and Ernest Taves stated that they considered this incident “as most likely a hoax”. They listed several reasons for this conclusion, including:

• “One of the Colorado investigators easily simulated three of the four photographs. To represent the UFO he used a Leica lens cap”.

• “The clouds in one of the photographs were inconsistent with the known weather at the time of the alleged sighting”.

• “There were numerous inconsistencies in the various accounts of the sighting and subsequent events related by the witness”.

Sheaffer

In his book “UFO Sightings: The Evidence” (1998), Robert Sheaffer:

• notes that Heflin did not produce the fourth photograph until “several weeks” after he began showing the other three photographs.

• states that “among other reasons for suspecting a hoax is that while details of distant objects are softened by haze (it was a smoggy Los Angeles day), or even hidden completely, the UFO is sharp and distinct, as if there were no haze whatsoever between it and the camera”.

• refers to an analysis by Ground Saucer Watch (“GSW”) of copies of the photographs, which concluded that the photographs were a hoax due to the object not being in focus in the first photo (whilst distant objects are in focus in all of the photos) and because GSW’s enhancements show what appears to be a thread supporting the UFO.

Reanalysis of the 1965 Heflin UFO photos

The 2000 reanalysis[1] utilizing the returned original photographs provided a welcome opportunity to address the concerns of previous researchers regarding the photos’ authenticity. The research team consisted of author and UFO researcher Ann Druffel, physicist Dr. Robert Wood, and science professor and computer enhancement expert Dr. Eric Kelson.

There were three main questions raised by prior analyses: 1. The string 2. The flat sky 3. The smoke ring

1. The question of whether a string was used was debunked easily. Previous researcher William Spaulding claimed one existed, but there is no indication of such an artifact in the original photographs. The string photo, associated with 3rd or 4th generation photos, could have been scratched or intentionally manipulated, but the originals easily proved "beyond doubt" that there was no string or other support in any of Heflin’s photos. 2. The smoke ring photo shows an overcast sky, while the sky in the previous three photos is flat, causing suspicion by a previous researcher, James McDonald, that the smoke ring photo was not part of the original set. Contrast studies of the background sky in all four photos showed similar cloudy conditions not visibly apparent when comparing the first three photos taken inside Heflin’s truck to the fourth smoke ring photo taken outside. 3. In photo three, a particulate trail emanating from the UFO, never before detected, became visible when the computer software reassigned the output intensity range of the scans. Enhancements show this material is similar to the band surrounding the UFO as well as the smoke ring, suggesting that the ring was beginning to form in photo three just before departure of the UFO, just as Heflin reported.

Additional confirmation of Heflin’s story

Heflin never changed the details of his encounter, and the new analysis provided vindication:

• Computer enhancement confirmed Heflin’s estimate of the object’s size: approximately 20 feet in diameter and more than 100 feet from the camera.
• Heflin claimed a rotating light was apparent underneath the UFO. Analysis clearly shows the "wedge of light" as well as the ground disturbance directly under the craft.
• The photos are completely consistent with all of Heflin’s descriptions of what he saw and the sequence of events.
• Heflin never profited from his photos, and when the originals were returned to him in 1993, he donated them to further scientific research.

Dr. Kelson is doing follow-up work specific to his technical expertise, which includes analysis of a slight blurring effect in photo one, attributed possibly to ionization of the surrounding air or electro-polymerization. After he completes and publishes his final report, the photos will be made available to other researchers awaiting their turn to analyze possibly the best evidence of the existence of UFOs ever presented.

Rex Heflin passed away on October 7, 2005.

Notes

1. Reanalysis of the 1965 Heflin UFO Photos by Druffel/Wood/Kelson This report displays the recovered original photos as well as enlargements and nonlinear stretch-scale enhancements.

References to discussions in books

• Ann Druffel in her “Firestorm : Dr James E McDonald’s Fight for UFO Science” (2003) at page 271 (in Chapter 11), 287-309, 322-324 (in Chapter 12) of the Wild Flower Press softcover edition. [27 page discussion]

• Roy Craig in his “UFOs – An Insider’s View” (1995) at pages 158-159, 162-163 (in Chapter 10) of the UNT softback edition. [4 page discussion]

• Menzel, Donald and Taves, Ernest in their “The UFO Enigma” (1977) at pages 111-112 (in Chapter 8, “The [Condon Report’s] ‘Unexplained Cases”) of the Doubleday hardback edition. [2 page discussion]

• Kevin D Randle in his “Scientific Ufology” (1999) at pages 114-125, 126-127 (in Chapter 4) of the Avon softcover edition. [14 page discussion]

• Jenny Randles in her “Investigating the Truth Behind MIB” (1997) at pages 89-94 (in Chapter 8) of the Piatkus softcover edition. [6 page discussion]

• Robert Sheaffer in his “UFO Sightings: The Evidence” (1998) at pages 91-93 (in Chapter 6) of the Prometheus hardback edition. [3 page discussion]

• Mort Young in his “UFO Top Secret” (1967) at pages 30-40 (in Chapter 3), 107 (in Chapter 7), 130 (in Chapter 9), 138-146 (in Appendix 2) of the Essandess softcover edition. [22 page discussion]

For further references, see the entry dated 1965.0803 in Isaac Koi’s Core Chronology (“KCC”).

External links

• First Heflin photograph in various sizes
  

• Second Heflin photograph in various sizes
  

• Third Heflin photograph in various sizes
  

• Fourth Heflin photograph in various sizes
  

• Relevant pages of the Condon Report

• Heflin photos included as Plates 42-46 in the Condon Report

• Relevant page of Project Blue Book’s index of files
  

• Links to various relevant documents and articles on the NICAP website
  

• Links to various relevant documents and articles on the Ufologie website of Patrick Gross
  

Relevant Discussion Threads on ATS

• “New 3-D Analysis of 1965 Heflin UFO Photos Shows Small Model”
  

• “Heflin UFO a Model Train Wheel? - You Decide - Animated GIF”
  

• “Heflin Photos a Known Hoax?”
  

• “1965 Heflin UFO Composite”