Thursday, June 29, 2006
[Click title to read post in context]
Frequent UFO Updates List-er Kelly Freeman offers his two cents on the re-creation of the Heflin UFO photos. Herewith his recent post...
To answer your question Kelly, yes, there are at least three persons actively working on re-creations, albeit not at the actual location...Myself and "Viktor Golubik" (photographic re-creations utilizing same camera and film with a presumed "model"), and David Rudiak (a ray-traced 3D re-creation)Hello Robert, EBK and List,
I have only been following this thread
intermittently, but I am curious as to
whether or not anybody has taken the
time to try and simulate the Heflin event.
Has anybody actually gone to the location
of the sighting and tried to hoax the same UFO using theories
proposed in this thread? Would it, in fact, be possible at all?
A scientific approach would be to observe, theorize and test
that theory/theories under the same or similar conditions of the
event. I am not aware of it being done in this case.
If it has been done, what were the results? Any discussion as as
to whether the photos are genuine or not, IMHO, should be based
on those results.
Kelly makes an excellent point, although I'm not fully convinced of his final graf. While re-creations can be very helpful in illustrating the potential ease of hoaxing a sighting, it is only a part of the discussion, and not necessarily THE point on which the discussion should be based.
Also, I don't feel that the actual location plays a significant role. Duplicating the time of day, the equipment, the direction in which the camera is aimed, and a variety of "model" placements will yield hard data regardless of the specific location.
Think about accident re-creations for aviation, automobile liability cases, or presidential assassinations. None absolutely require the original location as long as all other conditions are accounted for. The exception would be when the specific location includes landmarks or conditions which cannot easily be reproduced. I don't think the "Myford Rd. at Walnut Ave. intersection in Tustin, California" necessarily qualifies. :)
Also and VERY significantly, the location bears little resemblance today to the location as it appears in Heflin's photos, as seen in the current "Google Earth" image above.
Again however, Kelly does make an excellent point.
[via UFO Updates]
One thing that has always bothered me about the Myford & Walnut location is that we should be able to see the I-5 freeway in the Heflin photo (the freeway would have been there in 1965). The photos appear to be north of I-5 which would put the location closer to Bryan or Irvine Rd.
Excellent info, and even better to get confirmation that the freeway should be in the photo. I couldn't be sure that the haze plus the overexposed exterior didn't just wash the highway out of the photo.
Intriguing that you feel that it was actually a different location altogether. If you check the re-created "lens cap" photo reprinted in the Condon report, there doesn't seem to be a highway visible in the distance on that one, either.
Thanks for stopping by! Your website/blog is one I'll be revisiting as well.
I agree with you that there seems to be traffic in the distance, and even a hint of an "intersection" at the far end of Myford. I've looked at several dfferent versions of the Heflin photos, and there definitely seems to be indications of an intersection. The light-colored rectangular objects on the horizon seem to be vehicles moving perpendicular to the line of sight from camera to object.
On the underpass comment, if Myford went under Walnut, Walnut would be elevated. Myford would be very unlikely to be excavated "under" Walnut. It's just easier to build a bridge over something than dig a tunnel under it.
Thanks for writing!