New information on the Valentich plane disappearance.

Just stumbled across this story in the Herald Sun, a Melbourne based newspaper regarding the disappearance of Fred Valentich.


www.heraldsun.com.au...

Farmer may hold UFO clue to 36-year Valentich plane mystery

INVESTIGATORS have shed new light on one of ­Australia’s greatest aviation mysteries.

Almost 36 years to the month that Victorian pilot Fred Valentich vanished without a trace, an independent researcher says there is evidence suggesting the 20-year-old’s Cessna was spotted in the sky over South Australia — attached to a UFO.

Interesting news, I'm interested in the veracity of the report.

After 36 years the "evidence" is the witness scratched the A/C registration # into the paint of his tractor.

You can't call such claims "shedding new light".

originally posted by: Psynic
After 36 years the "evidence" is the witness scratched the A/C registration # into the paint of his tractor.

You can't call such claims "shedding new light".

That wasn't the evidence, the evidence was an additional eye witness, which is known because he had scratched the registration number of the plane on his tractor.

It's an interesting story given the amount of multiple sightings and accounts.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

the evidence was an additional eye witness, which is known because he had scratched the registration number of the plane on his tractor.

Either that or it's a piece of free advertising for the upcoming Victorian UFO Action group conference on September 6.
The story adds nothing new to the case unless the farmer can produce one of the friends that he allegedly told to back his story up , perhaps they will fill in the blanks on Sept 6.

a reply to: gortex

Technically, there is no additional witness from what I read anyway. Lol. Just a story about a farmer who scratched in a number, who apparently has yet to be identified. I suppose all things considered, he can be harder to find than the Yeti.

I'm not discounting the farmer, but why wait so long to come forward with this information?

a reply to: cuckooold

It's legit enough and was on a TV show from years back. I recall discussing it with either mirageman or gortex circa 2011/12.

Iirc there were doubts about the scenario that detracted from the plausibility.

On fone at work and not got time to be searching for the thread or posts. Will pop back in later and link it...will also see how bad my memory is lol

Just this week a plane that disappeared with mystery was, by chance, fished out of the sea by a trawler. Just shows that odd disappearances can be explained . Here is the link

So I now wonder if this incident may have sparked the timing of the Harald Sun article.

a reply to: cuckooold

I always found this case to be quite interesting considering the photographic evidence and the pilot's radio transmission that what he was seeing was not an aircraft. Digital photography wasn't developed back then, and manipulating a film negative would be difficult. Nice development in the case, but there will always be skeptics and naysayers that will attack eyewitnesses and develop reasons for related evidence.

a reply to: WeRpeons

I agree with you. This is a fascinating ufo encounter/experience. I will always remember that chilling last minute or so of the last sounds heard from inside the plane, the so called "metallic" sound which was heard and cannot be explained. It has been suggested the sound was possibly the ufo the pilot encountered making contact with the plane...still cannot be explained, but I still am in the camp who believe the pilot was abducted, until proven otherwise.

Does anyone know where i can listen to the recording of this metallic sound?
Gortex?
Kandinsky?
Anyone?

Thanks in advance

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

I was just searching online for this too, it seems his father has a copy, I don't know if anyone leaked it online for the masses to listen too?

Definitely abducted. Author Martin Caidan told Art Bell something along these lines years ago: Just because we don't understand the technology behind a phenomena, does not mean we have the right to proclaim it a fake.

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

I can tell you that Science Channel does/did a series called "The Unexplained Files", and in a segment of the hour long program the subject was this pilots disappearance. Towards the end of the segment there was an older guy, whose name escapes me, who as I recall specifically deals with missing pilots. He is the one who played the sound heard from pilots cockpit. I hope this helps.

a reply to: data5091

Hopefully someone can source the original radio messages, I'd like to hear the metal scraping noise at the end

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

As far as I'm aware the original tape no longer exists , At least not publicly.
The metallic sound was investigated by Dr. Richard Haines who was allowed access to the tape , he believed the noise could have been made by rapid keying of the microphone although that doesn't mean it was , it may have been.

He was given access to the tape of the incident and undertook studies of it. He was not able to definitively identify the unusual sounds that appeared in the final 17 seconds of open microphone communications with Valentich. A metallic-like sound is noticeable. Dr. Haines found they were similar to the sound produced by the rapid keying of the microphone, but control testing did not confirm this absolutely.
www.ufoevidence.org...

Here's a reenactment of the conversation between the tower and Valentich for anyone unfamiliar with the case.


The Valentich case is just about still in the grey area for me but I suspect a down to Earth explanation is the most likely outcome.

I found the links I was promising and they aren't related to the actual claim in the OP's news link. I saw the image of that smoke cloud and was reminded of talking with Mirageman in a Valentich thread from right here. rereading the thread gave me good buzz of nostalgia as the full Scooby Doo UFO team were all out in force

Having read the article, not so sure how far it'll go. Hard to picture a 30m UFO with an 8m airplane attached to it. Even if the farmer's tractor is held in evidence, there's no apparent way to prove the plane's ID was scratched into the paintwork before it was national news.

Like Gortex points out, the tape recording is practically MIA and not available for us peasants. Dick Haines has an original copy and it's anyone's guess how useful it'd be insofar as 'solving' the case. I think IsaacKoi was halfway to gaining access to the tape although that seems like quite a while ago. Curiosity value would be much higher than the odds of concluding the disappearance imo.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Did someone mention my name?

I think the farmer and his tractor is more than likely a wild goose chase of a tale, although I would love to be proved wrong.

This is one of my favourite cases of all time. Even if we consider the UFO to simply be unidentified, but something perfectly explainable, it is still a mystery . Although as we get ever further from the original date these odd stories get attached and then stick in the mind until they become absorbed into the folklore.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: cuckooold

I always found this case to be quite interesting considering the photographic evidence and the pilot's radio transmission that what he was seeing was not an aircraft. Digital photography wasn't developed back then, and manipulating a film negative would be difficult. Nice development in the case, but there will always be skeptics and naysayers that will attack eyewitnesses and develop reasons for related evidence.

Isn't the photo from the beach just an insect close to the lens? Sure looks like translucent wings above/to the right of the body, and you can even see the legs out front.



Imagine this bug, flying the opposite direction and a little closer to the camera:



Pretty similar.

The photo is just a red herring and nothing to do with the disappearance IMHO.

Which still leaves an intriguing mystery, of course.

a reply to: Rob48

I was just about to say that was either a bug or a blurd in the photo. But why does thi pic in your post look much cleaner than the origina photo?