Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Dave Rudiak chimes in...

David Rudiak, a frequent (and very competent) contributor to UFO Updates, offers some experimental evidence to support his contentions on the Heflin photos. Unfortunately, his experiment leaves at least one very important detail out of the equation.

Dave creates a color field on his computer and then overlays several threads over it to simulate different suspension means, assuming that the object in the Heflin photos is a model. He then shoots a photograph of the field and the thread, to see whether the thread can be resolved. Trying different thread types, he reaches the conclusion that yes, the thread would be resolvable.

However, in the Heflin photos, he is sitting inside a truck...in dark shade...when taking the initial 3 photos, and in each of these photos, the entire camera frame is dominated by the darkness of the truck interior. In the simplistic auto exposure system of the Polaroid 101, the scene is light-averaged. This means that the exposure is set based on the average lighting in the scene. So, when the photos were taken, the camera would attempt to make both the interior of the truck and the scene outside as visible as possible. Well, this makes the scene outside highly over-exposed, as the camera attempts to balance a good photo of the interior with a good photo of what is outside. So, if the object was a model suspended outside, any suspension thread could easily be hidden in the highly over-exposed exterior light. Since the maximum level of "white" is finite for a camera, once the exterior reached this level, the thread could easily be "engulfed" in this glaring white.

Similarly, the object itself would appear highly over-exposed, meaning that to a person standing outside the truck, the object would have been significantly darker, and the apparent "glare" spots on the object would have been far less prominent. I don't know if that fact has any bearing on what the object might have been, but it is notable that the object does not look in the photos as it would have appeared to anyone outside the truck.

Again, the lack of a discernible thread does not rule out hoax, especially if the over-exposure of the exterior is what caused a suspension means to be rendered invisible. But the framing of the photos, coupled with the position of the object in the photos, leads me to suspect hoax.

I will add however, that in this case the exterior scene isn't over-exposed to the extent of maximum white, so if the scene is darkened and contrast-enhanced, a thread or some impression of a thread might become visible. As I presented in my previous post, there does seem to be an "impression" of a thread visible, but this is based on a very cursory examination. I found similar "impressions" in the other images of the object as well, but this one seemed the most clear with unaided eye.

The mystery deepens. Perhaps we are on the verge of some real findings in this case. Another example of how applying more advanced technology on older cases can actually illuminate and in some cases, provide solutions.

Comments:
Dear Mr. Rudiak:

I am currently writing a book about UFOs and I am interested in using the contents of your transcript regarding your telephone/radio conversation you had with the Vice President Cheney.

Please write back to authorize me to refer to that incident and the details of that conversation.

Thank you,

Robert Martinez
New Mexico
 
Dear Mr. Rudiak:

I am currently writing a book about UFOs and I am interested in using the contents of your transcript regarding your telephone/radio conversation you had with the Vice President Cheney.

Please write back to authorize me to refer to that incident.

Thank you,

Robert Martinez
New Mexico
(you can reach me at Bmart27@cs.com)
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?