The Heflin photographs in panorama
The photos were examined by UPI (United Press International) photographic specialists, who also took test photos with the same equipment. They pronounced the photos genuine.
Heflin was reportedly approached by a man who claimed to be from NORAD, to whom he gave the original Polaroids. Both NORAD and the Air Force denied having the photos.
NICAP investigators, including scientific advisors, also believed the photos were genuine. They claimed that frame 1 shows a swirl of material below the object, rising about a foot in the air.
Hynek Classification: CE-1
For more details, see the Photoanalysis, below.
The "wrinkles" in the image are on the paper which was scanned to make this panorama.
Marked PanoramaIn this copy of the panorama, the position of the objects in an aligned horizontal plane has been marked. The line between frame 1 and 2 is at the horizon and serves to show the horizon alignment. The object center is estimated, and a horizontal line is drawn from each horizontal center, showing that the object seems to be losing angular altitude between frames. In addition, the angular altitude lost between frames 1 and 2 is nearly twice as great as that between frames 2 and 3.
CompositeIn this image, frames 2 and 3 have been merged at a 50% level for each. Frame 2 has been made a negative, while frame 3 has been left positive. Frame 3 features are indicated by letter alone. Frame 2 features are indicated by a letter followed by ', except for d.
The image also indicates that the mirror is translated almost not at all, while features as close as the side of the road brambles are translated almost as much as the most distant features such as the treeline.
Assuming that the object remains still (i.e. it is hoaxed, and hanging from a wire outside the cab), then the only way this behavior can be duplicated is for the object to be at almost exactly the same distance as the mirror. If the object is even a small distance (feet) beyond the mirror, it is impossible to not translate one or the other, even with small angles of movement. However, if the object is at the same distance as the mirror, then how is its vertical translation only about half that of the mirror? If the object is swinging in a pendulum motion, the obvious explanation for its different attitudes, in the one situation, one frame is at the near apex of the swing, and the other frame is at the nadir of the swing (not likely, since the object would be close to horizontal), then the vertical translation is from f' to f is less than half of that from e' to e (it is (f' to f) minus (apex-nadir)). In the opposite situation, f' and f are the apex of the near and far ends of the swing, and the object is at the same actual height in both frames, and the vertical translation is half that of e' to e.
In regard to the pendulum explanation, the object is almost exactly the same size at frame 2 and 3. Also, the support for the object would have to rise at an angle of 30-40 degrees to remain out of the field of view.
On the other hand, if the object moved between frames 2 and 3, then Heflin remained in about the same position, and swiveled to follow the object, probably by shifting at the waist to the left, and also twisting, which kept the mirror in about the same position in each frame, and the object in the same relative position in each frame.
Footnotes1. Flying Saucers: Serious Business, Edwards, 1966