UFO Conjectures

Monday, October 03, 2011

Rex Heflin's inspiration for his UFO photos?


Paul Villa was an alleged flying saucer contactee, living in Albuquerque, New Mexico, who provided a slew of crisp (faked) UFO photos in the 1960s:




These two photos were taken in 1963/64 by Mr. Villa, a mechanic.



Did Rex Heflin see these photos and tried to duplicate them in 1965?





  • I've been interested in UFOs since 1958 and I've never seen the last two Villa fakes. The probability that Heflin (who never displayed any interest in UFOs and didn't even claim that he had photographed one) had seen them or that they inspired his polaroids, is extremely remote.

    Heflin's photos come in for much attention on this blog...not all together a bad thing since I happen to think that they are genuine. It's interesting that the skeptics always focus on the first 3 photos, as you have done here. Skeptics answer me this: Provide a reasonable scenario for HOW Heflin faked the smoke ring photo. Also provide a reasonable scenario for WHY in the world anyone bent on faking a UFO would fake a smoke ring. Good luck.


    By Blogger Dominick, at Monday, October 03, 2011  

  • Dominick...

    As you know, I find Heflin's photos intriguing, obviously.

    That a toy train wheel was found that duplicates his UFO, and Heflin was a toy train buff, one has to consider the possibility that he may have faked his photos; may have.

    Anthony Bragalia did a critique or evaluation here about Heflin's photos a few months back.

    You can find that evaluation in our archive or via Google.

    As for whether or not Rex saw the Villa photos, who really knows?

    You make an interesting point about the black-ring photo. Why insert or create such a photo?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 03, 2011  

  • That's exactly the right question (and the one I asked, also): Why fake a picture of a black smoke ring (polaroid #4)? In 1965, at least, it adds absolutely nothing to the credability of the 3 UFO photos and, indeed, was a serious "problem" for Dr. James McDonald who otherwise found Heflin's story (and photos) credible.

    Yet, as I have noted here before, later photo analysis is able to connect a strange feature in the smoke ring (#4)photo with nearly identical features in UFO photo 3. No one, including Heflin, knew any of this in 1965.

    Notice, then, what we have. First, no good explanation for why a smoke ring (photo 4) is faked. Second, an explicit connection between a photo that is very likely NOT faked (photo 4) and UFO photo 3. If that doesn't establish the reality of BOTH photos, I don't know what does.

    I have no idea what Heflin photographed. But the evidence and logic of the photos would seem to rule out any crude (train wheel) hoax.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Monday, October 03, 2011  

  • I would hope, Dominick, that Tony Bragalia or someone else who thinks that Heflin's photos are fakes would counter your views.

    I can't do that as I'm on the fence about Heflin's "objects."

    What are they? ET caft? Models? Something else?

    I've always like the photos, whether fake or real.

    There's something interesting about them, despite the caveats by Klass and others.

    And why that smoke ring, indeed?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 03, 2011  

  • Dominick:
    A 13-year old boy (Stephen Darbyshire) could not possibly fake a UFO photo in Feb 1954 and fool people like the Duke of Edinburgh and all the newspaper scientific 'experts' could he? Moreover he had never seen Adamski's book. Yet his pic is virtually identical to Adamski's.
    Ergo, it is probably genuine, so the story went.

    Except that he HAD seen the story and the main Adamski photo in a magazine. And yes, the Duke, a big UFO fan, WAS fooled by a 13-year old.

    Maybe Heflin's smoke ring was genuine. But a good reason for faking such a smoke ring (if he did so) would be to give the impression that the UFO gave off smoke as it departed. Why not? Also, what better way to give credibility to fake photos than to add one or two genuine ones?

    Heflin was a skilled modelmaker and photographer long before his UFO experience. And his 'secret agents' story is an obvious case of padding.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, October 04, 2011  

  • Point well taken, CDA, a hoax is always a default position. But unlike Heflin, Darbyshire never had radio interference (confirmed by a second party) or 3 clear photos, or a smoke ring, or strange particulate matter in at least 2 photos, or photo analysis by JPL scientists and Dr. James McDonald, or a multiple witness sighting the same week in the same area of a similar looking what-ever-it-was. And Darbyshire eventually admitted the hoax; Heflin never did.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Tuesday, October 04, 2011  

  • I may be misremembering what I've read in the past with the following comment...

    Weren't the third and fourth photos down from the top and just above the one line sentence about Paul Villa claimed to have been taken by Paul Bennewitz? (also from Abq, before his passing)

    By Blogger Craig Norkus, at Wednesday, October 28, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home