Old topic, I know, but I thought that you will find interesting what the two UFO researchers Keith Basterfield and Paul Dean have done for the 50
years anniversary of this UFO photo.
50 Years On... The 2nd April 1966 Balwyn, Australia Photograph -
They meticulously retrieved, archived and compiled all the relative stuff written over the years here and here, and even put a word about this very
topic. This is really a great work that likely took months to gather and I do recommend to take the time to read this article.
Like I just said to Vicente Ballester-Olmos asking my opinion about this, I don't think that I can personally bring anything new on the matter, at the
light at what was already greatly done over the years by many researchers. Then, not to intend to do a full analysis on this, especially due to the
fact that the original is not anymore available; but here are some comments I might do anyway:
- I'll not put too much faith in the "jagged line theory" solely for "proving" a possible hoax. Indeed, I tend to agree with Bill Chalker when he said
that such things can occur when old Polaroid film are used. However, I haven't found yet such a clear and neat (really like if it was cut and pasted!)
jagged line in Polaroid samples on Internet. There exist some samples where there are similar separation lines (mainly in a vertical orientation) in
the photo, but not that jagged. (source: Flickr group "Polaroid Fail!
- IMO, the real "nail in the coffin" is rather what Dr Frieden said during the APRO UFO symposium in 1971: "strong doubt was cast on the Balwyn
photo when Dr Frieden pointed out that a blurring effect on the chimney was not apparent on the object
", and later "[...]all the points on the
rooftop are vertically blurred, but that the object in the picture's points are less blurred and equal in all directions. This to him violates a basic
property of optics, namely, the point spread function
I totally agree with this as there's only one way to have such a difference in the blur direction and amount: that the object was moving exactly the
same way (in the same direction and at the same relative speed) than the photographer movement during the exposure time, which is highly unlikely!
It's visually clearly visible that this blur difference is present and I'm somewhat surprised that nobody else than Dr Frieden haven't noticed that as
- Another thing to consider is the very important information given by Francois Beaulieu about the fact that Polaroid of that era were well-known for
their ability to record multiple exposures on the same print; he even provided evidence that a special device was even produced in Austin TX for
Polaroid cameras to give the possibility for the photographer to produce multiple exposure shots.
So, as a conclusion, I would say that this photo is suspicious, even if not 100% proven as a hoax.