![]() Since pictures and photographic negatives can be touched up and doctored, all serious UFO photo analysis requires first-generation prints and /or original negatives. As we shall discover shortly, however, there are several unique features in the pictures themselves that lower the probability that the strange craft was one of “ours.” Heflin initially told investigators that he believed that he had probably photographed an experimental aircraft from a nearby Marine base. The pictures of the object are unambiguously clear and present an immediate problem for skeptics: Either the photos are clever fakes or they are actual pictures of a very unconventional flying craft there is simply no third alternative explanation. ![]() The pictures Heflin took with the Polaroid camera he carried for work clearly show a round, hat-like object with a dark band around its raised superstructure. (He also took a fourth picture more on that later). 3, 1965, near the intersection of what is today Walnut Avenue and Myford Road in Tustin, Rex Heflin, a 38-year-old highway maintenance engineer, snapped three close-up photos through the windows of his truck of a low-flying hat-like UFO. There is at least one exception, however, and it is a huge exception. There are hundreds of UFO photos and videos on the Internet, but a safe bet is that a high percentage are completely worthless. UFO photos are often featureless “lights in the sky,” misidentified birds or airplanes, natural phenomena such as Venus or some peculiar-looking cloud, crude hoaxes (doctored negatives, string-suspended models, thrown hubcaps) or pictures and videos that have been computer-manipulated (Photoshop). ![]() UFO skeptics often allege that there is no authentic photographic evidence that UFOs exist.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |