Don't know about the case, sorry.

However, it does look like a flying lamp. Back then, without CGI, and photomanipulation as easy as it is today, people use to throw things in the air, and take pics of it. Thus creating these fake ufo pics.

I do feel that this is another one of those cases.

vvv

Thanks Chad and Gortex, I knew that both of you will reply with lots of useful informations!

However, I wasn't able to find any report for the further close inspections of the polaroid, neither from APRO and Dr. B.R. Frieden's analysis nor from the "Ground Saucer Watch" test that was applied to it.
I really would like to see these as it's the technical aspects of these analysis that interests me.
Especially, this sentence puzzle me: "a jagged line of discontinuity running across the centre of the photo, through the cloud field, which suggests that there are actually 2 separate photos joined together and rephotographed to make the one."...
Out of the full analysis context, it means nothing!

Another thing that intrigues me is the difference between the original colorful photo and the crop B&W one:



....that leads me to some questions:

1- Where did this B&W cropped version came from?
2- Why the bottom of the B&W cropped photo doesn't appears on the 'original' colored photo:



3- I would be curious to know what process was used to enhance in such a sharpen way the original blurry polaroid to make the UFO as clear as we can see it on the B&W cropped version!?!

In conclusion, I would say that either the polaroid photo is not the original or that there's two photos, one blurry and another more sharp.

Something's not right there...

I agree with the above poster, I think the colour one is a photograph of the b&w one and then coloured in/modified. I think that explains the out of squareness of the picture that usually happens when taking a photo of something that is square/rectangular. I have the same problem taking photos of my artwork for my own records/website and so have to photoshop them back to having the correct true verticals/horizontals.
Not sure why this person did not do that if they had managed to add the colour in digitally.

Interesting none the less.

Another case for SyFy's Fact or Faked

I'm waiting now for the...

"Hey... it COULD be faked... so let's find the most ridiculous theory possible just to spend money on finding out..."

"Agreed. It COULD be a lampshade thrown into the air, but that's too obvious and would end the show too early, what my thoughts are are that somebody managed to find a way to bend the space and time around a sheet of steel, so how about we try that?"

My vote? Okay, CGI's way too yuong for that, but 100% fake

G' Day elevenaugust
When I first saw the Balwyn case many moons ago I was struck by the fact that what the witness stated about the event and what the photo conveyed were poles apart, I didn't look into it at the time but I was pretty sure it was a hoax.

The only reason I did look into to the Balwyn case, Ufologist/Researcher will insist on joining Balwyn and Westall at the hip, that is when the Westall case is mention the Balwyn case is brought into the conversation/Doco as if to give Westall added credibility, knowing what I know now I wanted Westall to stand alone, using a hoax to support another case doesn't do much for that case.

>"a jagged line of discontinuity running across the centre of the photo, through the cloud field, which suggests that there are actually 2 separate photos joined together and rephotographed to make the one." APRO therefore regarded the photo as a possible hoax.

For life of me I couldn't find the jagged line he is referring to so I contacted Dr. B.R. Frieden by email some years ago, he replied which was a nice surprised but what was a bigger surprise was he just did a copy and paste of the same material that is all ready out there on the net which is the very reason I was contacting him hoping he would elaborate on it further.

I was going to email him back and make that point clearer but I decided to get my facts straight first.
So taking him at his word I set out to cut and join two photos, why this would be necessary I don't know, I would have made more sense to me to photograph the object then carefully cutting around the object, stick it on another photo with a sky background then photograph that photo. (I'm not saying you would get away with this either but it would give you control over how/where you placed your object.)

From memory Polaroid photos were thick and plastic like (We had the Kodak version) sticking them back together would be worse than sticking a standard photo print together so I set about taking photos of the sky with a wispy cloud cover, had the film process and proceeded to cut and join them, ignoring the fact that matching up the clouds was going to be a bugger, however it was the actual cut that was the problem the white card backing showed through the join.

Using the method they used back then I photograph the photo and the line was quite visible like a white power line running across the picture I thought of putting the camera a little out of focus to hide the line but that required it to be so out of focus as to render the photo useless.

Needless to say I didn't contact Dr. B.R. Frieden again I had my answers.

The colour photo on this post is poor it looks to me like it was taken with a hand held camera and is out of focus because it was too close.

Yes there is a little more foliage in the picture as you have pointed out but I think it just came down to who was doing the copying concentrating the object not the periphery.

Better get back to it. Aussiebloke2

Sorry about the delay

Just to recap.

>APRO consultant Dr. B Roy Frieden, Professor of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona.<

The above says "Optical science" and yet no mention of the glaring fact that the photo of the object is screaming out with Optical evidence all over it.

Left wanting at the standard of evaluation I decided to look into it myself and this is what I found.

There is quite a few things going on in the photo

You can only glean so much information from a fuzzy photo using todays technology (which is very little) because there is so much to work with in this photo you can replicate it, I went into detail with people I thought would want to know on how you can prove it yourself but no one wanted to leave the comfort of their office chairs and/or didn't really want to know for sure for one reason or another.

Instead I'm going to use your minds and take you through the results of the experiments, I'm not going to bore you with the physical stuff but the experiments are repeatable.

Just a few things to mention

Polariod cameras were just another Box brownie with the added bonus of an instant photo.

They had a fixed focal length, a standard setting, the same as other point and shoot cameras of the time and still used today.

Back then with a Polariod photo if you wanted a copy or to enlarge it you photographed the photo with a special camera, as you would gather copies of copies lose picture quality.

As I said cutting photos and joining them doesn't make sense here, if you try what I have mention in the other post you'll see what I mean but more importantly if you were going to cut and stick photos together it would have been better to remove the chimney from the photo "Why," I hear you say in order to lose the depth of field and height, but there it is, in a clearer photo it is quite clear that the object is in front of the chimney because the chimney is more out of focus (past the focal length of the camera.)

There are other things going on in the picture there is a vertical blurring, only slight, but not to be confused with focus this comes about when some one throw the object up and you snap the object at it's apex, the camera is trained on the object and photo is taken, in this case just a little before or after it reached it's peak (apex) the photo was also taken with a slight verical motion from the camera as well.

A clearer photo (a copy of the original I believe using the commercial method used at the time) shows the reflection on the object to have an orange hue which is the house/roof line, around the top of the image is the reflection of the sky.

The camera/observer is between the object with the house right behind the observer.

The object is about 15 to 20 ft above the camera/observer and the camera/ observer is about 15 ft from the object ( measured from a vertical line through the object) the object is about 4 to 8 inches in diameter(and it looks to me like an exercise in metal spinning.)

I have been told the photo was taken from the second floor if this is true, allow say, another 10 ft in altitude. (my measurements are taken from whatever the observer is standing on.)

Incidently if this is the case then throwing the object off the balcony a trying to take a photo of it is quite a handful, not impossible but you would need to practice a fair bit but let's face it's not really practical is it?

Better still having some one pitch it up from ground level makes a whole lot more sense, with you on the balcony (or on the ground it doesn't matter either way) practicing lining the object up in the view finder to see if you can take the shot as it reaches its apex will still take a bit of practice.

Lets not forget a Polariod photo pack had ten photos and they weren't cheap.

Just throwing the object up in the air was going to add to the rejected photos, you needed to put a spin on it to give it stability, the object appears not to have much of a lip around the outer edge in order to throw it like a frisbee (horizontally) and it is also makes it harder to control the height and direction with each throw, trying to track it in the view finder and snap that good shoot was also going to add to the rejected photos, no the best way is to practise clasping it, throwing it vertically putting a spin on it as you let it go and then catching it on its return is the best way to go.(You only have to practice getting the height right with this method to make it easy to snap a good photo the person taking the photo knows where it is going to appear everytime and only has to worry about snapping the shot right on the apex.)

To explain further, smack in the MIDDLE OF THE IMAGE on the object (compressed of course) is the point at which the camera/observer has taken the photo, it is basic Optical/Physics folks, when dealing with a spherical shape be it a half spherical and not a perfect spherical shape at that. (I mean it's reeeal basic stuff, which is why I'm Gobsmacked Dumbfounded Perplexed as well, (I think that about covers it,) that folks in that field of science left it alone all I can say I'm glad I'm not a scientist)

Didn't follow?

To be continued

G' Day Folks

First of all it doesn't matter what the size of the object is in the photo, 4/6 inches, to a foot whatever it doesn't matter, the POSITION of the image on the side always remains the same (in this case the house/roof line) on the object. (with the camera/observer in the middle of the reflection, there is a little leeway here) but you can work out the angle at which the photo was taken.

Still having trouble? My brains hurting too, I'll try and convey an image.

Okay picture in your mind if you will the object in the photo remaining still in the air and you are able to walk under the object, you are now looking straight up at it, you will see an eliptical image on the bottom (side in this case) of you (but you can't see yourself course) the ground your standing on and from horizon to horizon compressed eliptically around the side of the object move away from the object and the image follows you part way up the side of the object BUT ONLY UP TO A POINT, moving any further away horizontally it will remain much the same. (till you can't see the image anymore.)

So you are about 15 ft/20ft from the object you will still see the image at this point, now if you were to rise vertically the image would follow you up the side of the object BUT ONLY UP TO A POINT if you rose any higher so there is only blue sky BEHIND YOU then there will only be an image of the blue sky on the object. (your image is too compressed to see it clearly)

Now stand about 15 ft from the object with the object about 15 to 20 ft up in the air with a house right behind you that is the only way you will get an image much like the photo.

Hope I conveyed that well I think I'll go take an asprin or two.

There is heaps more going on that doesn't tally with what the witness has claimed.

Cheers Aussiebloke

To be honest, I dont think Polaroid cameras were even available in Australia in 1966, especially not colour ones I would think.

I got my B&W Polariod camera in 1971/72 and it was a big deal then. Colour ones were expensive and rare, at that time....so 1966???

Regular colour film was expensive in Oz, particularly the developing, most people used B&W for point and shoot.

Like the Weber barbeque Kettle, the US had them in the late 50s early 60s, Australia really didnt get them until around the early 70s...we liked the traditional oven or hotplate bbq. We didnt get Colour TV until 1974/5.

This photo looks to me like a regular Instamatic turned on its side, for a long shot.
Who knows if its real? Only the photographer....is he/she still alive?

Around the Westall time and location is an interesting conundrum tho.