Thanks for sharing these. I've always been intrigued by these photos and the witness's story when I first saw them in '93. Myself being an avid
photographer, I examined these with great interest.
My findings aligned with those made by other examiners that I've read about, which is aside from a few odd observations worthy of scrutiny, I'm very
much still on the fence.
Things to consider when comparing the images with the witness statement;
Type of camera
Credibility of the witness
physical evidence (photos in this case)
To keep this short I'll just touch on observations that would raise an eyebrow.
There's nothing that has been discovered to discredit the 69 year old witness, no history, no models, no alternative motivations, no death bed
confessions, (he has since passed), at least nothing that I've heard. Wife said he left with his coat and camera and returned with his coat and
camera. Walked there and back by himself.
I concur with others finding it strange that the witness set his alarm for 5:45 am with intention to take sunrise photos of the local mine to enter
into a photo contest in a magazine. The first photo was said to be snapped off at 6am. 15 minutes to get up, dressed, walk to the location (5 min.),
determine that there was too much cloud cover to get a sunrise photo, so divert to the ocean side where the encounter took place.
Finally, in my opinion, the time of day looks a bit later than 6am March 10. But then, I don't live in Australia, and seasons are a little upside down
was a fixed focus (infinity), point-and-shoot that uses 35mm film. It was loaded with 100 asa Fuji film. This means the film loaded was
the popular (fine grain) film for shooting daytime good quality photos, with a huge field of focus. 400 asa, for example, has coarse grains, making
the film more sensitive to light more suitable for low light scenes, but less quality (grainy).
In the first photo the object is in focus, the horizon and much of the background is blurred, shouldn't be. The object and background should be in
However, looking at the first photo, it should be noted that in the distance just to the right, it was later discovered the smaller flying object
can be seen approaching from the west. Interesting.
Other than that the other images agree with his story. When the object came over him, he slithered down the slope about 5 meters to better conceal
himself. Now he is shooting toward the east, where the sun is beginning to peek over the slope from his position. He angles himself more to the north
a bit because the sun was directly into his viewfinder. This caused major lens flare, (looks like mono-filament), and silhouette issue with the object
being photographed, but probably the best that anyone could have done at that angle to the sun and with that camera.
In the last photo there was mention of a fine beam of light 'attached' to the smaller object to direct it in.
Although there were photo editing software available then, (I used something called Magix if I recall), I could find no evidence of any photo
tampering. Close examination does show that the photos had not been digitized but were printed straight from negative. The photos do exhibit damage
due to poor handling.
When examining photography I use many things to marry the claimed scale of the object that has been reported to what is visually captured
This is a tough one because the field of focus for this camera would be about 4 feet to infinity.
The photographer estimates the object was about 2 kilometers away when it rose from the ocean, at first he thought it to be the conning tower of a
nuclear sub! As it approached him he estimated the object size to be 40 meters!
Looking at the photos, before you mind knows it's size, gives you a pretty good idea of how big this thing 'might' actually be with comparison of
surrounding objects, reflections, geometry of the object, where it lies within the focal plane and so on.
When I discovered his estimated size, my instincts took a stumble and I had to completely reevaluate each photo based on that. I just don't believe
it's that big. Without object to ground shadow data it's hard to determine exactly. Big, yes...but 40 meters...mmm.
I will say I'm thoroughly convinced the object is a three dimensional object physically occupying the airspace in front of the witness, and not a
He claims that after the last photo, the object sped away straight up, and he could feel water dropping down on him from above. Interesting thing for
him say, something that a typical hoaxer might not consider.
So, I'm on the fence but really leaning to one side. I'm focusing more the witness, and on up-close study of the object itself presently. It's lighted
internally, externally, very large, it could very well be an earthly creation...more acceptable to most when considered that way. Flimsy fishing line?
The lens flares are identical, the curved one is the lens itself reflecting back on itself imho.
edit on 17-12-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)