UFO photo, Melbourne Australia 1966 - Unexplained or a hoax?

While working on a UFO photo project, I came up with this UFO photo taken the April 2, 1966. Balwyn, suburb of Melbourne, Australia:



There is little information about this photo:

1966 - Australia. A Polaroid photograph of a UFO tipped vertically on its side taken by a businessman from his garden a few minutes after 2 PM on April 2 above the Melbourne, Australia, suburb of Balwyn.

The Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society (VFSRS) of Moorabbin, Australia, carefully studied the photograph and environment and concluded the photo showed "no sign of multiple exposure, montage or any other tampering."

The photo, copyrighted in 1979 by David C. Knight has been published on page 138 of the book "UFOS: A Pictorial History from Antiquity to the Present."

Source

I contacted VFSRS (now "VUFORS") to try to find more information about this photo and the study that they have done on it. I'm waiting for an answer.

In the meantime, I found something else that suggest that it could be a hoax:

Jagged line of discontinuity running across the center of the photo, through the cloud field, which suggest there are actually two separate photos joined together and rephotographed to make one. - APRO consultant Dr. B Roy Frieden, Professor of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona.

Source

....But neither the original source of this assessment nor any analysis that could support this claim could be found anywhere.

Anyone here knows about this case?

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

reply to post by elevenaugust


Here's some more information on the sighting and it's relation to the Westall UFO Incident...

theozfiles.blogspot.com.au...

And more discussion of it HERE

Still on the fence about it myself...

reply to post by elevenaugust


I think this is just a photo of something that has been thrown in the air.
You can tell by the fact it looks very close, which would mean it has to be a UFO something like 30cm in diameter.

reply to post by elevenaugust


I've found a colour version of the picture for you


In regard to the investigation by The Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society I wouldn't put to to much faith in that as according to This the guy that took the picture was a member of the society .
Of course this doesn't mean it is a hoax but it does call into question the veracity and impartiality of their investigation

VFSRS issued a report on the photo which indicated that the polaroid photograph and an enlarged copy showed no evidence of a multiple exposure, montage or any other form of tampering. The US organisation, APRO, had their photo consultant examine the photo. Dr. B.R. Frieden, Professor of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona, reported finding "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. The photo also apparently "failed" the GSW (Ground Saucer Watch) computer enhancement technique.

reply to post by elevenaugust

it matches modern ufo sightings of ufos on their sides. there is a reason for them being on their sides and that detail is not something you would expect someone to think up randomly if it was being hoaxed.

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...

reply to post by elevenaugust

not only that but two different pictures from the exact same perspective and time???? or else there is a third which these two came from.

reply to post by elevenaugust


There's two possibilities I can think of.

The first is the original colour image is a photo of a photo and the quality has been seriously compromised.

Or the black and white image is the original and the colour one has had colour (poorly) added, again compromising the quality.

Whatever it is, the image has been messed with a great deal.

reply to post by elevenaugust


Interesting point , there is a noticeable difference difference between the two , do you think its possible that the black & white version has been enhanced or embellished , looking at it now it does appear the craft has been defined .... it almost has a cell shaded quality about it .

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

There's two possibilities I can think of.

The first is the original colour image is a photo of a photo and the quality has been seriously compromised.

Or the black and white image is the original and the colour one has had colour (poorly) added, again compromising the quality.

Whatever it is, the image has been messed with a great deal.

edit on 5/5/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

Yes, maybe a way to find it is to search for the polaroid film resolution from available cameras back in 1966.

Looking at the list of polaroid instant cameras, it appears that the colorpack film used can only be the "100 series" which have a 2.875 x 3.75 inch, 72 x 95 mm size, therefore a 1.3 ratio.
Even the previous film formats are close to 1.3 ratio (2.5 x 3.25 inch, 64 x 83 mm for "20" and "30" series - 3.25 x 4.25 inch, 83 x 108 mm for "40" series), but in B&W.

Taking again our 'UFO' polaroid photo, we see that the apparent ratio is of 1.43 or 1.5 which is not the same as 1.3!:



So the color photo is not original and should have, in order to respect the 1.3 ratio, been cropped both in its width and length size, like this for example:



I tend to think that the original photo is most likely the B&W one, however I don't see the point for anyone to later modify it by:
- cropping it
- adding color
- adding blur
....for what purpose?

It's also quite possible that the 'real' B&W original photo was degraded and that some restoration process was applied to it like here:


Before


After

So, the most reasonable explanation is that:
1- The original photo is the colored one
2- It has been cropped in length and width (Q1= for what purpose?)
3- A restoration process was applied to it (Q2= by who?)
4- The colors were removed (Q3= by who and why?)
5- The result has been cropped again to give the final B&W photo (Q4= by who and why?)

Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 need to be answered, IMO, to help us to exactly know what happened to the photo.
This also brings a recurrent question as to the lack and/or accessibility of important informations regarding UFO cases to researchers.

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.

reply to post by elevenaugust


Just my two cents about the apparent "original", it looks like it is in a paper frame that is used to protect pictures. This could explain the cropping in the "original" that you don't see in the color version.

EDIT - Also, it looks like the "original" film was photographed by a digital camera which was not quite in focus. Hard to tell without having the "original" in my hand or a high res scan of the thing.

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.

reply to post by gort51


gort51

>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.<

I was having the same problem as you, researching it at the time didn't help much either, however our memories of an era are influenced by our financial perspective at the time, the witness was a businessman (engineering from memory) was he able to travel overseas or buy from overseas?

The Polacolor pack film came out in 1963 not quite as easy to use as the filmpack for your camera and how soon was it here in Australia I don't know.

For you and I it depended on how much you really wanted something, how much you were willing to go after it, work extra for to sacrifice even, but if money wasn't a problem you bought the latest of whatever because you could.

The carpenter states he stood shoulder to shoulder watching the photo develope straight after it was taken, (because so much of what the witness and carpenter states doesn't tally.) I looked else where.

However Bill Chalker confirmed it was a Polariod, Vufors checked the colour polariod and an enlarged copy for tampering.

That's where I've left it.

>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.<

That's right when I went overseas in the early 70s I was surprised at far behind we were in technology we were so isolated back then.


>This photo looks to me like a regular Instamatic turned on its side, for a long shot.<



The photo is a copy, I made a stand mounted a camera with macro you zoom right down "into the photo" focus on the detail you wanted, making sure you don't have any boarders in the frame, if you wanted to you could take the photo at right angle to the original and having it developed you could achieve an image like that. (just stating there are other ways of achieving the same outcome)


>Who knows if its real?<
I know it's not, I have spent a couple of posts explaining just that, what I can't understand apart from the fact that you can't have an image of the house/roof line or any image on the side of an object unless the object is down at ground level and only feet from the house and camera/observer it seems folk just don't grasp what I'm saying or don't really want to know .

Okay, forget the image on the object for a moment just looking at the photo it's proportionally wrong you can easily find out the dimensions of the chimney and use that to gauge how far away the object is, GOING ON WHAT THE WITNESS HAS STATED that it was about 30 to 35 ft in diameter.(which its not) if that was the case I can tell you folks it would be no where near his property somebody else way down the road would be reporting it.

>Only the photographer....is he/she still alive?<

I've never met the man there's some one with the same name in a suburb next to Balwyn.

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

Only that some witnesses blended the two together in their memory of the Westall event and Ufologist/Researchers love using it to give Westall some sort of credibility even though they think its bit sus.

Westall IMO should stand or fall by itself.

Just a few incidentals.

It is not exactly a clear sky as claimed, the object is not emitting any light of it's own and the daylight is diffused due to a high altitude overcast sky as to not be able to cause the object to even glint in the sunlight, as to lighting up the yard I think not.

The carpenter and the witness claim they heard a sound like a sonic boom, folks you can't have a personal "Sonic Boom," as the witness claims a 30 to 35 ft object punching it way through the atmosphere at a high velocity would rattle windows from suburb to suburb those folk in its wake would have been ringing the authorities and the media, no mention of it anywhere.

Vufors/Ufologist don't mention any other witness reporting seeing the same object on the day over Balwyn (and that height the witness claims you've got to be kidding me) and believe me they would have dearly love to be able too.

This is my only assumption, I think April fools day inspired a practical joke be it a belated joke it got out of hand there was no going back.

Cheers gort51 got to get lunch.

Hi

A while ago, Australian researcher, Keith Basterfield posted the following information on the Balwyn case to his blog at ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com...

"Many Internet accounts seem to assume an automatic link between the 2 Apr 1966 Balwyn, Melbourne, Victoria UAP photograph and the 6 Apr 1966 Westall incident. However, almost none of the Internet sources provides the text of original documentation on Balwyn. This post provides such text.

May-Jun 1966 issue. APRO Bulletin:


“Best Photo Yet – In Australia


Peter Norris has forwarded a print of the clear colored photograph taken by a prominent Melbourne businessman on the 2nd of April. Although the photographer asks anonymity, he is a member of the VFSRS and is known and vouched for by Mr Norris.


2.20pm on the 2nd, the man was in his garden using up the remainder of the film in his Polaroid color camera. Suddenly, a bright reflection caught his eye, and he looked up and saw a bell-shaped object hovering, on its side, over the house. The man snapped the photo, whereupon the object accelerated at great speed and took off in a northerly direction. He estimated the object was about 20 to 25 feet in diameter, and at about 150 feet altitude.


If at all possible, the photo will be included with this article [KB – it was.] In the black and white print the bottom appears black but in actuality, in the color photo, it is pink, reflecting the color of the roof over which the object hovered.”


Australian Flying Saucer Review (Vic edition) July 1966:


“VFSRS member snaps a UFO


A Polaroid colour photograph of a UFO is now under investigation by the VFSRS.


The photograph was obtained in Balwyn, Victoria at 2.02pm on Saturday, April 2nd by a society member who has requested that his name be withheld for business reasons.


The member’s description of the incident is as follows;


“It was a warm, clear day, and suddenly the whole garden became lit up. It was like a reflection from huge mirror being shone on the garden.


I looked up and saw an object bright and shiny coming towards me. It would have been 20 feet to 25 feet in diameter and was about 120 feet up in the air.


It seemed to float towards me. It resembled a big mushroom with a stalk pointing towards the earth.


Then it spun through an 180 degree angle on its vertical axis to take up the position in which I photographed it.


Then it turned slowly through another 180 degrees on its horizontal axis, to bring the stalk facing me.


From an almost stationary position it shot off northwards at terrific speed, accelerating to what seemed to be hundreds of miles an hour in seconds.


I ran and got a carpenter who was working on the house. Seconds after took off we heard a boom, similar to the sound jets make when going through the sound barrier.”


One interesting aspect of the photograph is a shading of pink directly on the bottom part of the UFO. This appears to be a reflection of the pink tiles of the roof over which the UFO was apparently passing at the time the photograph was taken.


When details of the photographic experts’ analyses are to hand they will be published in an issue forthcoming.”


Sep-Oct 1966 issue. APRO Bulletin:


“The Balwyn Photo


A complete photo analysis of the photograph of a bell-shaped object hovering over a residential section of Balwyn (Melbourne suburb), Australia, has arrived at headquarters.


Along with the analysis which proves the photo authentic (see page 1, May-Jun issue) was the identity of the photographer, and the office was surprised to find that he is one of our many Australian members.


Mr X has an extremely important position in Melbourne, and it is easy to see why he would hesitate to be identified with a UFO picture, or incident considering the controversial nature of the subject. The full story:


Mr X was in his garden of his home when his attention was attracted by a brilliant flash, as if some huge mirror was reflecting light to the garden. He looked up and saw the object coming in his general direction. It appeared to be between 20 and 25 feet in diameter and about 150 feet altitude. It resembled a big mushroom with its short stalk pointed earthward.


Mr X ran to get a carpenter who was working in the house so that he could watch the object also.


The object spun through a 180 degree angle on its vertical axis ending up with its rim pointing down. Mr X who had been using up film in his Polaroid color camera snapped the photo and waited from the timing process before pulling it out. The object then turned slowly through another 180 degrees on its horizontal axis, whereupon the “stalk” part was facing Mr X.


From this almost stationary position, the object shot off to the north at great speed. Seconds after it took off the two men heard a boom, “similar to the sound jets make when going through the sound barrier.”


Read the full post at
ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com.au...