Original Link - http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1997/dec/m29-008.shtml

UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena


'Its All Here In Black & White'Spaulding & Heflin Pictures [was: Brasilia's

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 23:50:56 -0500
Fwd Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 04:08:52 -0500
Subject: Spaulding & Heflin Pictures [was: Brasilia's

>Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 21:26:24 -0500
>From: Peregrine Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith]
>Subject: Brasilia's Letter [Hopkins' POV]
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>


>Bumbling is bumbling and bullshit
>is bullshit. You don't have to be a Budd-basher to observe, or to
>say, that.

>I am reminded of Bruce Maccabee pleading with Bill Spaulding not
>to release his finding that the Heflin pix were hokum, because the
>skeptics might make much of it. The insecurity may or may not be
>pathological, but it is of a piece. And it floats.

>best wishes
>Poultice D. Mentholation
>Soothing Balm

Dear Poultice and Soothing Balm... or is that Bomb?

You have apparently misinterpreted 20 years old events here,
regarding Bill Spaulding and the Heflin pix.  My "pleading" with
Spaulding was not, as one might gather from your paragraph, made
from a condition of worrying about the skeptics or worrying about
what could happen to Spaulding or me or ufology if Spaulding
called Heflin a hoaxer.  If I addressed the skeptics at all (I
don't recall now) it was from the point of view that if Spaulding
were wrong, then this would be giving the skeptics ammunition
they didn't deserve.

Anyway, I strongly advised him that if here were going to publish
a paper demonstrating a Heflin hoax then he had better provide
photographic evidence of the fakery that would good enough to
convince the "true believers.".   You see, Spaulding had publicly
claimed the photos were hoaxes, so he was committed to that point
of view (Heflin = hoax).  He had claimed that he could prove it
but virtually no one believed him because he hadn't provided any
proof.  Then he wrote a paper which contained what he called the
proof.  I reviewed the paper and  could see what he was talking
about, but could also see that the layman wouldn't understand.
So I told him he'd better do an enhancement that would make the
"evidence" obvious to everyone.  Spaulding took my advice and
produced excellent color contoured versions ("enhancements") of
the Heflin photos in which there were clearly straight lines
above the UFO in photos 2 and 3 of Heflin (taken through the
right hand window).   These straight lies went from the top of
the UFO image to the edge of the window, consistent with some
small model hanging from a suspension outside the truck.  "True
believers" in the Heflin case really had nothing they could say
because Spaulding's enhancements said it all.

I tested Spaulding by sending him a print which he then used in
his enhancement process.  (Previously he had used prints which he
had gotten from Stanton Friedman.  Spaulding had not returned the
Friedman prints.

The Friedman prints had been made from copy negatives in
possession of Robert Nathan.  These copy negatives had, in turn,
been made at the El Toro marine base in 1965 soon after the
sighting.   When Robert Nathan saw Spauldings lines above the UFO
he said.."Where did he get those?"  or words to that effect... I
know, because I was in his office when he said it.

Nathan averred that he had never found any evidence of hoaxing in
Heflin's photos...and certainly not lines above the UFOs.  I
might point out that Nathan worked with much better equipment
than Spaulding had.)    The enhancement made from my print (which
was made in 1966 by NICAP photo expert Ralph Rankow) did not show
this supposed suspension as clearly, although my print was of
excellent quality.  However, there did seem to be something
there.  Spaulding returned my print and I examined it for
evidence of tampering by Spaulding.   Why would I do that?
Because I thought it possible that Spaulding had hoaxed his
analysis and had created the lines in the enhance ments to
support his already published hoax claim.

I could not see any evidence of tampering with the print.   I
therefore had to conclude that the "line" above the UFO really
was there (in spite of Nathan's protestations).

Now we are 20 years after the Spaulding analysis.   Spaulding
himself dropped out of sight years ago.   But, what to our
wondering eyes should appear. but  (no, not 8 tiny reindeer) the
ORIGINAL HEFLIN PHOTOS which were "borrowed" by the Air Force
(according to Heflin) way back in 1965 and have been missing for
32 years (about).  Yes, folks, the original photos returned about
a year ago.....

So now SOMEONE can, presumably find out who is the hoaxer....
Spaulding or Heflin (or both????)

So put that in your poultice and smoke it....
And, yes, let's use as much bullshit repellant as is

 Case Directory