UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Feb > Feb 17

Re: Model Train Wheels & Heflin - Shough

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:47:31 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:19:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Model Train Wheels & Heflin - Shough

>From: Nick Balaskas <Nikolaos.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:10:11 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
>Subject: Re: Model Train Wheels & Heflin

>>From: John Scheldroup <jschel.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:18:01 -0600
>>Subject: Re: Model Train Wheels & Heflin

>>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:00:59 -0000
>>>Subject: Re: Model Train Wheels & Heflin


>>>The ratio of depth to diameter of the Heflin object is about
>>>3.8, that of your trainwheel about 4.3.

>>>The ratio of the "dome" diameter to the total diameter of the
>>>Heflin object is about 1.45, your trainwheel about 1.2.

>>>The thickness and angle of the flange in relation to the
>>>are plainly different.

>>>Your trainwheel traction surfaces are exactly vertical to the
>>>rims, Heflin's object appears to have a slight taper.

>>>Your trainwheel has a very prominent boss on top which is not
>>>present on the Heflin object.

>>>Since your own photos indicate that all your statements are
>>>untrue, would you like to explain why you made them?

>>Here's an image blowup from that earlier post which got


>Thank you John for supplying us with this useful jpeg file that
>allows for an easy comparison between one of the Heflin flying
>saucer images with a typical model train wheel.

It allows comparison between Heflin #1 and a drawing of a wheel
(actually quite atypical) which does not have the same

>Interestingly, although my "G Scale" model train wheels and the
>line drawing of the Heflin object

You mean the drawing of the train wheel - try not to let your
presumptions run away with you.

>both have bosses at the top of
>the dome part (not all model train wheels do), apparently so
>does the Heflin flying saucer!

Does it really? Does it even apparently? I've looked pretty
carefully at all three images, transformed in all kinds of
extreme ways, and can find no clear evidence of such a thing.
Please can you post the image that demonstrates this further

>Although the flying saucer images are small on all three Heflin
>polaroid pictures and thus appear very blurry and not very well
>defined when blown up, the saucer still looks like a typical
>model train wheel. Compare this with the small image of the
>"Face on Mars" that was first noticed in a picture taken by
>Viking 1 in 1976 when it was later compared to a much higher
>resolution picture taken with the Mars Global Surveyor decades
>afterwards. There are still people today that cannot accept
>that these two pictures are depictions of the same "Face".

To say, as you do here, that there is a general resemblance
between the shapes of this flying saucer and of a "typical model
train wheel" is defensible and much more reasonable than your
previous erroneous claims about specific train wheels.
Nevertheless this is not now much of an argument. It is too
vague to have force.

It is also true that the resolution of the Heflin object is
imperfect, and there may come a point when you have found a toy
wheel whose proportions are close enough that this imperfection
becomes significant. But that point hasn't arrived yet. And if
it does you will not have proved a hoax. This method is
incapable of proving a hoax. You may be able to say, without
fear of contradiciton, "Look, it _could_ be a hoax!" What you
are apparently unable to grasp is that we already know it
_could_ be a hoax.

>Last night I made a quick search on eBay for large scale model
>train wheels, preferably "1:32 scale" and from old steam
>engines, especially those manufactured in England (possibly by
>Roundhouse or Astor). I did not find any but I did make a bid on
>some assorted old wheels from England after I noticed that the
>two smaller wheels on an axis on the upper right part of this
>picture had the same relative thicknesses and ratios that
>Martin obtained for the Heflin object!

What interesting antiques! This pair of toy wheels on a fat axle
appears to be lathe turned - very possibly in one piece - from
wood, but I look forward to your description of them when they
arrive. Meantime, I point out that if so this illustrates my
previous caution: People are ingenious and prolific, and there
will be an indefinite number of wheel-shaped objects out there.
The chance of eventually finding a saucer among them is not
zero, whatever Heflin photographed.

>Go to the URL below and check for yourself.


I have to admit that I'm impressed by your extraordinary
unconcern with such prideful matters as a reputation for
truthfulness and good judgment. I did go straight to this URL,
ruler in hand, and after importing the picture into an image
program took about 25 seconds to verify that your statement,
once again, is complete bull. These wheels do _not_have "the
same relative thicknesses and ratios".

Ratio of depth to diameter -
Helfin object: 3.8
train wheel :  3.0 (mean of two measures - 2.93 and 3.15 -
bracketing the slightly rolled "top" edge)

Ratio of "dome" diameter to total diameter -
Heflin object: 1.45
train wheel:   1.32

Certainly these are approaximate, but I don't feel the need to
hedge this about with qualifiers and error bars. As you say,
anyone can go to URL and if they know how to use a ruler they
can see for themselves.

>Even though my search for the right model train wheel continues,
>like the "Face on Mars", there will be those that will never be
>convinced that they were mistaken.

Yes, I think that's a fitting last word.

Martin Shough

[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com