Balwyn, Melbourne UFO picture (1966)

[NorCal Dave]

Let's also talk about aspect ration. The image on the original polaroid print would have been square. The aspect ratio on these copies is consistent with 35mm prints.

From what I can find the Polaroid 800 that was claimed to be used, shot on Polaroid Type 40 instant film.

Unlike many Polaroid cameras that utilized pack film, the 800 model used instant roll film. Roll film came in two rolls with a positive and negative, and was exposed inside the camera. This was different from pack film that develops outside the camera.

Content from External Source

https://www.keh.com/shop/blog/polaroid-800-land-camera

As Type 40 was discontinued in the '90s, one can load 4x5 film into old 800s and get a nearly square photo of 3.25" x 4.25":

Just get yourself some 4x5 sheet film, and load up that old Polaroid rollfilm camera! A single 4x5 sheet fits perfectly in the film channel of Polaroid cameras designed for 40-series films, and is easy to load/unload in a darkroom or changing bag. Of course, you'll only get to use a 3.25" x 4.25" section of the 4x5 sheet...

Content from External Source

http://www.landlist.ch/landlist/how2-rollalt.htm

Given that the photos being shown are in what I would nowadays call "portrait" and this is a Polaroid 800 in what looks like portrait mode, I guess it's possible if a bit cumbersome:



But it also requires the use of 2 viewfinders to focus and compose a shot:

The Polaroid 800 has both a viewfinder window, and a rangefinder window on the back of the camera. The shooter must look through the rangefinder window to focus the camera, and then through the viewfinder window to compose the image.

Content from External Source

https://www.keh.com/shop/blog/polaroid-800-land-camera

I would imagine an accomplished Polaroid user could quickly look at a moving object in the sky through the range finder and then composite the shot in the viewfinder, but it does sound challenging.

Do I think it was some kind of composite? Not likely.

Most likely he tossed something in the air and was tracking it with the camera.

Agreed. I suppose he would have had to attempt to set the focus first with the range finder, then maybe practice following whatever is chucked in the air through the viewfinder. As you say, with instant film he could make several tries and evaluate his results, almost like modern digital photography, though a bit more expensive.

But, as shown in the project 1947 report, not only were double exposures possible with a Polaroid 800, but some companies also actually sold masks for the lens to achieve them (bold by me):

The authors are grateful to Canadian researcher Francois Beaulieu, who has considerable knowledge of, and experience using, early model Polaroid cameras, who came forward with the following information.

Francois advised that ‘Polaroid cameras of that period were well-known for their ability to record multiple exposures on the same print. This was due to the fact that, in those days, Polaroid prints were not automatically ejected from the camera the way that they were in later models introduced in the seventies. It was thus possible to re-cock the shutter and take another picture on the same print.’

Francois provided the authors with information on “cut-out lens caps” of that era, and an information sheet advising the photographer how to produce multiple exposure shots. Such as kit was specifically manufactured for early Polaroid cameras and was called the “Multisnap adapter.”

Content from External Source

https://www.project1947.com/kbcat/kbpdbalwyn2.htm



In the late '80s Ed Walters of Gulf Breeze FL was showing off his UFO photos all taken with a Polaroid camera:




People later found a very similar model in one of Walters's former homes:



There was evidence that Walters had been doing "ghost" photos with a Polaroid for his teen children as a sort of party trick prior to the UFO photos and showed that, even with a modern '80s era Polaroid, people figured out how to do double exposures.

So, I guess still a possibility.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

- All Polaroid cameras in 1966 used roll type film. Type 40 was bigger than other types, that's all. (Unless you were a Pro and owned a 4x5 sheet holder and used the 4x5 sheet film. I don't know if there was 4x5 color sheet film in 1966. Doesn't matter in this case, anyway.)
-The roll was cut inside the camera. There's a manually operated toggle button on the back of the camera. It takes some force to accomplish the cut. Then you pulled the print out of the side of the camera. That could take some force too.
-The edges of the cut print could be a bit ragged but not these decorative crenulations. (Don't want to be absolutely sure about this. I've used Polaroid cameras of this general type, but never used this particular model. Could it have cut edges in this pattern? Doubt it. I'll try to find out. Won't be easy.)
-The gate on the Polaroid 800 is 3.25" x 4.25". That's essentially the aspect ratio of the image. Prints from 35mm are 3:2. I'm just eyeballing. Someone might want to actually measure the ratios.

-I've found that Polaroid made something to copy Polaroid prints. Very obscure, so I haven't found anything yet about details.

-Having separate range finder and view finder would not be a problem. You'd set the focus before you threw the darned thing in the air. You could manually set the focus on this camera by adjusting to a scale marked in feet.

You wouldn't be desperately trying to focus on the thing in the air and switching to the viewfinder. It also has a pretty forgiving depth of field. If the focus wasn't right the first time, you'd just try again. Like I said, he probably burned through a lot of film.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Polaroid Model 240 Print Copier

Demonstrated in this YT video. This one is from the '50's.




It seems it was essentially what we used to call an "opaque projector." You load an existing Polaroid print in the copier and it shines focused light into the lens of your Polaroid camera. Making another Polaroid print.

Could you use this with a 35mm camera? Don't know.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

You wouldn't be desperately trying to focus on the thing in the air and switching to the viewfinder. It also has a pretty forgiving depth of field. If the focus wasn't right the first time, you'd just try again. Like I said, he probably burned through a lot of film.

But this particular photo was developed in front of a witness. So he may have had a lot of wasted shots while he figured out how to do it, but he couldn't have known the "final" image would be so "good". Hence the bird comment.

Assuming there is an original polaroid out there somewhere that the witness watched being developed, it could be a shot of a regular developed photo which itself was the best of many (prepared earlier). This seems unlikely to me because of the bird comment. If he knew beforehand that the shot was good, he would surely have said "This huge bell UFO thing was flying around! Did you see it?! I think I got a shot of it!" not "It may be a bird."

 

[Charlie Wiser]

The top and bottom prints don't match. Look at the paper. The crenulated edges.

Top print - crenulated edge on top and bottom.

Bottom print - crenulated edge on top only. No tear on lower right hand corner.

Thanks for that info. It seems Fox wasn't handling the original after all. Makes sense Kibel would take some shots of the polaroid (apparently in the 60s, if those crenulations are a 60s thing?).

I've found some YouTube videos of people with this camera model but so far nothing that clearly shows a finished photo. There's only out-of-date film available of course, so it seems many of these collectors don't even try to actually use their camera.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I'm confused here. In 2016 someone broke into his house and the only thing stolen was this one photo so that it was NOT AVAILABLE for reevaluation. But then it "showed up" again when 2 rather pro UFO guys, Foxx and Chalker, wanted to study it?

Yes, more or less. I can't find a reference for the polaroid showing up anonymously in the mailbox - it's just what I recall reading. Given nobody has since seen the original polaroid (see below) it's not an important part of the story. I'll add it in if I can find the source of the photo's mysterious return.

Basterfield and Dean (B&D 2016) write in their report:

A “best” colour copy of this photograph was supplied by James Kibel to Australian researcher Bill Chalker and appeared on Bill’s blog site on 19 January 2009.

Content from External Source

(my emphasis)

Note Kibel made the scan, and Chalker doesn't say he sighted the polaroid. The image on Chalker's blog is cropped, dirty, and very small. The image on B&D's report is better. (More recently Chalker obtained the alleged original in 2022 from Kibel's daughter. I've asked him if it had wavy edges.)

In 1966 Kibel photographed the polaroid and sent "enlargements and negatives" to NICAP in the USA - again, not the original. A letter from Rankow (NICAP) confirms he did receive the negatives:

Part of a 9 May 1966 letter from Kibel to a Mrs June Larson of Washington State in the USA states:
‘I have a report from Kodak Limited regarding the analysis of the UFO photograph…The colour material should be ready within the next day or so and I will forward you enlargements and negatives for submission to NICAP.’

Content from External Source

A letter dated 21 Sep 1966 from Ralph Rankow, a NICAP photographic consultant, (to whom is unknown) is amongst the NICAP material kindly sent to us by US researcher Barry Greenwood. Rankow’s letterhead includes the words “Photographic illustrations.” In part it states:
‘I am enclosing two prints of the bell (mushroom) UFO as you requested, also the negatives which were loaned to us. There were several duplicates of these negatives, so I am holding on to two of them in case we ever need more prints.’

Content from External Source

(quotes are from Basterfield & Dean's report)

Bill Chalker interviewed the Kodak analyst mentioned above in 1991 (when the man was 85) and told B&D: "he seemed impressed with the photo". This appears to be NICAP's own analyst, working from negatives/prints, not Kibel's Kodak specialist report which has never been located. B&D express some doubt it was ever done.

Fox interviewed Kibel around Sep 2017 for his 2020 film The Phenomenon. (I'm assuming that date based on when James Fox was in Australia talking to the Westall witnesses who were also in his film.)

Kibel: I've got the photograph here. (Takes it out of envelope)
Fox: This is the original polaroid?
Kibel: Just hold it by the edges.

Content from External Source

Screenshot of this moment: The photo's wavy edge is not clear due to the zoom and camera angle but presumably it has one because the next shot is a close up...



...of Fox's hand against Kibel's blue jacket (you can see his shirt at the far left) holding this so-called "original polaroid" and it has the wavy edge.



Source: The Phenomenon excerpted on Reddit.

The close-up then morphs into a scan of the photo as the camera pans up. In an April 2023 interview on Joe Rogan Experience [23:58 - this is a Spotify link with video included], Fox says he made a hi-res scan from the original but then produces an envelope from Australia sent to him by Kibel - i.e. Kibel scanned it. This is presumably what's used in the film for the pan shot. (Rogan is extremely unimpressed with the photo at 25:30 and makes fun of it.)

The conclusion from all this combined with the wavy-edged images indicating it's a photo of the original (pending Chalker's response about what he scanned in 2022) is that nobody seems to have actually sighted the original polaroid.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Could you clarify this part of the story for us?

But this particular photo was developed in front of a witness. So he may have had a lot of wasted shots while he figured out how to do it, but he couldn't have known the "final" image would be so "good". Hence the bird comment.

Assuming there is an original polaroid out there somewhere that the witness watched being developed, it could be a shot of a regular developed photo which itself was the best of many (prepared earlier). This seems unlikely to me because of the bird comment. If he knew beforehand that the shot was good, he would surely have said "This huge bell UFO thing was flying around! Did you see it?! I think I got a shot of it!" not "It may be a bird."

 

[Mendel]

Could you clarify this part of the story for us?

Like this?

The smoking gun of this hoax is IMO in the statement from the carpenter working at the house who watched the polaroid develop over Kibel's shoulder.

Compare (thanks to @NorCal Dave for finding the site):

Article:

Make The Exposure:
Okay, now it's time to focus the camera, and take the picture!

[specifics elided]

Develop The Picture:

First, you need to (a) press the film relese switch/button and (b) pull the tab. This works exactly like the steps you followed to pull the film leader when you loaded the film. Remember to lower the cutter bar before you tear the film!

NOTE: The tab you pull out of the camera does not contain your finished print! Whenever I've used a Polaroid rollfilm camera in public, people always expect that 'tab' to be the actual picture that was taken, and, of course, want to see it. Moreover, starting with the second picture on the roll, there may well be a visible image on that 'tab'-- the ghostly image you might see here is what's left of the negative from the previous picture taken on the roll. Understandably, this may serve to confuse your audience even further, since this previous image may well be from an entirely different time and place! Ooooh, spooky. [Depending on the subject matter, and the way in which you explain this, you might even be able to convince your friends that you're psychic!]

Next, you simply wait the appropriate development time. Since we're talking about long-outdated film, I would suggest you try a much longer development time than what's suggested on the film box. For Type 42/47/32/37 B&W film, you'll probably want to try, say, two or three minutes rather than the 15 seconds indicated on the box.

Once you've reached the end of the development time, you need to remove the print from the camera. Here's how:

Open the print door in the back of the camera.You can now see the back of the print. Notice the die-cut perforations outlining the area of the print. Look for the triangular die-cut section located on the right-hand side-- there should be a small punched-out notch near the point of the triangle.Place your fingernail in that small notch, and start to lift out the triangular section.Pull carefully on that triangular 'tab', and the attached print will lift away from the negative as well. Try to pull up in a single motion, and do not let the print fall back down on the negative.The end of the print is a bit more securely attached; continue holding the tab as you pull sideways slightly to detach the print.

Notes:
The print will be slightly damp when removed from the camera. Handle the print only by the triangular tab (which will still be attached to the print) or by the edges; avoid touching the picture area of the print.

Source: http://www.landlist.ch/landlist/how2-rolluse.htm

The instructions go on to explain how the picture should be coated.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Could you clarify this part of the story for us?

In addition to the carpenter's statement, Kibel was interviewed in-person by James E. McDonald one year later (transcribed in Basterfield & Dean's report), my emphasis:

It disappeared out of view. I then took off around the house because I knew one of the workmen [D. English] had been working on the other end of the house, sawing wood. And I was convinced that if he had been looking up he would have seen it, because I thought it must be over about where he was. So, on the way I was running around the house. I pulled the film out of the camera which started the processing working. By the time I got to him and asked if he had seen anything, and he said no he hadn’t. Because, obviously he couldn’t have seen anything, he was bending over his work and the thing didn’t make any sound. So I then withdrew the picture from the camera. He watched me take the picture from the camera, and he was very startled. Evidently he said that while I was in the garden at the other end, he had, while he was looking up he had seen me in the garden during the period of the exposure, but he hadn’t taken much notice. He just noticed I was in the garden at the time but unfortunately he didn’t look up...
How long he actually had me in view, I’m not quite sure. But you can check that from the statement. I didn’t sort of follow it up.

Q: So he saw you pull the film out?

Yes.

Q: You have a witness to the appearance of the photo. (…) Next best to witness the object.

Content from External Source

Kibel contradicts himself here - he pulled out the film while running around the house vs English watching him pull it out. English says the latter.

Also, Kibel says "of course" English saw nothing because he was bending over his work, and later says the mostly elderly people in his neighborhood tend not to see these things and one who was outside didn't look up... yet Kibel himself was not looking "up". He noticed the thing because it lit up the garden. Somehow English didn't notice this terrific flash of light. And the huge UFO was (he guessed) 300-400 feet away from him, not overhead, so looking "up" was not really required and many neighbors would surely have seen it.

I noticed a terrific flash on the garden as if, similar to the flash produced by a mirror in a heliograph type flash on the ground. It was, sort of, enveloped half the garden, and gave me a fright... I jumped. I turned my head to the left, which would be facing east then, and saw this object descending.

Content from External Source

I asked, asked the people next door, but they hadn’t seen anything. One of them had been outside, sweeping, sweeping the garden, but they hadn’t looked up, they hadn’t seen it... it’s quite an exclusive residential area that’s mainly populated by older people. It’s not really unusual for people not to see these things

Content from External Source

 

[Charlie Wiser]

There's a reason (well, multiple) I call this the stupidest UFO in Australia and a huge embarrassment to my hometown (or would be, if anyone here cared about UFOs).

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

We suspect Mr. A may be lying. But Mr. A had a witness - Mr. X. - who corroborates the story. So the story is true without a doubt.

We suspect Mr. X may be lying. But Mr. X had a witness - Mr. A - who corroborates the story. So the story is true without a doubt.

Wut?

Individually they're both unreliable, but together, they must be telling the truth.

Huh?

What if the carpenter was the guy throwing the object in the air over and over for Kibel to photo, and they're both lying? Seems a pretty simple scenario.

Why speculate about some elaborate way Kibel could fool this witness? Did the witness have a witness?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Kibel came running over.

Kibel: Hey, did you see that leprachaun?

Carpenter: Why, no. No I didn't see the lepracahun.

Kibel: He gave me this bowl of Lucky Charms. Here try it.

Carpenter: Why, they're magically delicious! And still crunchy in the milk.

Kibel: You're a witness! How else could I have gotten this bowl of Lucky Charms... still crunchy!?!

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Like this?



Compare (thanks to @NorCal Dave for finding the site):

Article:

Make The Exposure:
Okay, now it's time to focus the camera, and take the picture!

[specifics elided]

Develop The Picture:

First, you need to (a) press the film relese switch/button and (b) pull the tab. This works exactly like the steps you followed to pull the film leader when you loaded the film. Remember to lower the cutter bar before you tear the film!

NOTE: The tab you pull out of the camera does not contain your finished print! Whenever I've used a Polaroid rollfilm camera in public, people always expect that 'tab' to be the actual picture that was taken, and, of course, want to see it. Moreover, starting with the second picture on the roll, there may well be a visible image on that 'tab'-- the ghostly image you might see here is what's left of the negative from the previous picture taken on the roll. Understandably, this may serve to confuse your audience even further, since this previous image may well be from an entirely different time and place! Ooooh, spooky. [Depending on the subject matter, and the way in which you explain this, you might even be able to convince your friends that you're psychic!]

Next, you simply wait the appropriate development time. Since we're talking about long-outdated film, I would suggest you try a much longer development time than what's suggested on the film box. For Type 42/47/32/37 B&W film, you'll probably want to try, say, two or three minutes rather than the 15 seconds indicated on the box.

Once you've reached the end of the development time, you need to remove the print from the camera. Here's how:

Open the print door in the back of the camera.You can now see the back of the print. Notice the die-cut perforations outlining the area of the print. Look for the triangular die-cut section located on the right-hand side-- there should be a small punched-out notch near the point of the triangle.Place your fingernail in that small notch, and start to lift out the triangular section.Pull carefully on that triangular 'tab', and the attached print will lift away from the negative as well. Try to pull up in a single motion, and do not let the print fall back down on the negative.The end of the print is a bit more securely attached; continue holding the tab as you pull sideways slightly to detach the print.

Notes:
The print will be slightly damp when removed from the camera. Handle the print only by the triangular tab (which will still be attached to the print) or by the edges; avoid touching the picture area of the print.

Source: http://www.landlist.ch/landlist/how2-rolluse.htm

The instructions go on to explain how the picture should be coated.

That reminds me. I said, pull the print out the side. I should have said pull the tab out the side. And I don't remember the coating process at all.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

We suspect Mr. A may be lying. But Mr. A had a witness - Mr. X. - who corroborates the story. So the story is true without a doubt.

We suspect Mr. X may be lying. But Mr. X had a witness - Mr. A - who corroborates the story. So the story is true without a doubt.

Wut?

Individually they're both unreliable, but together, they must be telling the truth.

Huh?

What if the carpenter was the guy throwing the object in the air over and over for Kibel to photo, and they're both lying? Seems a pretty simple scenario.

Why speculate about some elaborate way Kibel could fool this witness? Did the witness have a witness?

Yes, it's possible the carpenter is also lying but we've no evidence of that and the hoax scenario works without assuming he's lying. Note that in his statement English says Kibel told him he was going into the garden to finish off a film. Why would a hired carpenter need to be told that? I think it's because Kibel was setting him up to be a witness - overselling the lie, so to speak, just as he oversold the lie about it being a bird when clearly what he saw could not be mistaken for a bird.

In the McDonald interview (a year later), Kibel says it was his friend (and head of VFSRS) Peter Norris who went to get English's statement and Kibel appears to not even know whether he did:

I think Peter took a statement from him. I gave him his name and address and I think Peter went round and took a statement... I hope Peter got a statement.

Content from External Source

There is OTOH evidence Kibel is lying - there are other small details in his account that make no sense, plus of course his reluctance to make the polaroid available for analysis. He took photo(s) of it in 1966 (and sent the negatives and enlargements to NICAP) and had a print to show Fox, yet did not make prints available to Basterfield & Dean in 2016 who had to work off existing low-res scans.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

If we assume that kind of hoax, the answer could be easy. What if he had a Polaroid Model 240 Print Copier?

See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/balwyn-melbourne-ufo-picture-1966.12606/page-2#post-310720

The original photo you put in the copier doesn't even have to be a Polaroid. But the Polaroid camera attached to the copier will produce a brand new Polaroid print.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Kibel and family were serial UFO sighters, see Section B of Basterfield & Dean's report part 2 where they paraphrase from the McDonald interview with Kibel and his brother Brian:

1954 August... [at the Kibel home, i.e. same address]
Jim Kibel was about 15 at the time, and living at home with his parents. One day his mother called out to him and told him she had seen a disk shaped object in the eastern sky... His mother contacted a newspaper but they asked her what she had been drinking and didn't take the report seriously at all... Jim Kibel only saw it briefly. They didn't ask the neighbours if they had seen it.

About 1956 (although it could have been 1953) Blue Mountains, New South Wales.
Brian Kibel was in a remote area... As he turned around to face the cliff edge again he saw an object rising up above the edge of the cliff from the valley. It seemed only 20 feet out from the edge... There were four other persons present who also saw it, a clergymen and three ladies from Sydney... Brian did not get the names etc of the other witnesses. All sketched it...

About 19 November 1958 [at the Kibel home]
Jim Kibel, his mother and Jim’s then fiancée were sitting in the garden... He noticed a light about 15-20 degrees away from the Sun... Jim went inside and fetched some 7 x 50 field glasses... Then it moved away from the Sun towards the east. Then it was directly above them. It was a stationary pink dome. It stayed there for 25 minutes... Then it started to move. It came down with a “falling leaf” side to side motion in the wind, and fell to the horizon where it was lost to view. He reported it to Peter Norris. The sighting was never publicized.

Content from External Source

 

[Charlie Wiser]

If we assume that kind of hoax, the answer could be easy. What if he had a Polaroid Model 240 Print Copier?

See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/balwyn-melbourne-ufo-picture-1966.12606/page-2#post-310720

The original photo you put in the copier doesn't even have to be a Polaroid. But the Polaroid camera attached to the copier will produce a brand new Polaroid print.

So he could've taken some regular shots with a regular camera, developed them, chosen the best print, then made a polaroid copy with this machine, and that's what he showed the carpenter as it developed?

Simpler would be to just photograph the print with his polaroid camera, making sure not to have any frame from the print showing.

But I don't think this could be the case - I think he expected the photo to be blurry when it developed in front of the witness, hence his "may have been a bird" comment.

 

[Ann K]

Kibel and family were serial UFO sighters, see Section B of Basterfield & Dean's report part 2 where they paraphrase from the McDonald interview with Kibel and his brother Brian:

That would immediately make me VERY suspicious about the veracity of his claims.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

That would immediately make me VERY suspicious about the veracity of his claims.

Three clear UFOs in broad daylight right over their house in 12 years (plus another seen by the brother in a different state that chased him!).

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This is the cut border of a print from a Model 800, using Type 40 roll film. (No image due to expired film.)

This is what I remember. Ragged, but not crenulated.



But to confuse matters. This is a print from a Polaroid Model 110 A, using Type 47 roll film.

I'll be dipped. Crenulations.

But he was supposed to be using a Model 800?

BTW, Type 40 is a generic term for size. Type 47 is a type 40 film with a 3000 ASA.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

On his sighting report he says it was Polacolour film type 48. If 47 had the wavy edges, maybe 48 did too?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Done a deeper dive. Seems I misunderstood at the time - circa 1968 - what that toggle button does. I thought it was cutting the film. It wasn't. It actually was releasing the film roll so you could pull the tab. Then when you close the back of the camera, the film roll gets locked in place again automatically.

The print separates from the negative along precut perforations. Those perforations could be straight or crenulated. The crenulations serve no functional purpose. They are decorative. But it looks as if some Polaroid Type 40 film had straight edge perforations and some had the fancy crenulations.

So the camera is not what cut these edges. It was the machine that made the film that cut the edges. There had to have been different machines.

Re: Polacolor. That's the process. A three-color dye coupler process. So Type 48 is a type 40 film using the Polacolor process.

Polacolor was really a miracle of engineering.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

The 110A (Pathfinder) and 800 are superficially similar in appearance - maybe Kibel named the wrong model. He wasn't entirely sure of the model:

I can show you the camera I think it’s called an 800 it’s an old, old camera.

Content from External Source

Source


The 110 is older (early 1950s until 1964) - Wikipedia
The 800 is from 1957-1962 - Wikipedia

Given he said it was an "old, old" camera in 1966, the older 110A seems more likely? A 9-year-old (maximum) camera in the 60s doesn't seem old to me? They were expensive (not that Kibel was hard up) and presumably were expected to last years.

ETA: I'm pointing this out in case the 800 didn't take crenulated film but the 110A did?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Doesn't matter. I just corrected an ancient misunderstanding.

As I explained above, it's the machine that made the film that produced the perforations. Not the camera. My 11 year old self made a mistake about what the toggle button was doing. I thought it was cutting the edges of the positive strip.

Funny thing is that I only used color film... with straight edge perforations. I'm guessing that different machines had two different ways of perforating the edges of the positive strip.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Doesn't matter. I just corrected an ancient misunderstanding.

As I explained above, it's the machine that made the film that produced the perforations. Not the camera. My 11 year old self made a mistake about what the toggle button was doing.

Funny thing is that I only used color film... with straight edge perforations. I'm guessing that different machines had two different ways of perforating the edges of the positive strip.

So both cameras can take any kind of 4_ film?

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Hang on... 47 was B&W?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

35mm film is a size. There's lots of types of 35mm film. Type 40... same thing. It's a size. There were different types of film in that size.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Hang on... 47 was B&W?

Type 47 was a fast B&W film. Type 48 was a color film. Same size.

Just like you could put Tri-X 400 (B&W negative) or Kodachrome (color slide) in your 35mm camera. Same size, but different kind.

Difference is that Type 40 film was proprietary.

There were lots of Polaroid camera models that could take any kind of Type 40 film. There were smaller Polaroid cameras that used a smaller roll film.

Spoiler: Arcane nonsense

The original type 40 was an orthochromatic sepia tone film that only lasted 2 years. Every other kind in the same size took another number... 41, 42, 43.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Yes, it's possible the carpenter is also lying but we've no evidence of that and the hoax scenario works without assuming he's lying. Note that in his statement English says Kibel told him he was going into the garden to finish off a film. Why would a hired carpenter need to be told that? I think it's because Kibel was setting him up to be a witness - overselling the lie, so to speak, just as he oversold the lie about it being a bird when clearly what he saw could not be mistaken for a bird.

On further reflection the story doesn't work either way I would argue. Kibel's basic original story is that while the caprpenter was working outside somewhere, he went out to the garden to finish off the film in his camera. While the carpenter was looking down, a large amount of the garden was lit up by something:

I noticed a terrific flash on the garden as if, similar to the flash produced by a mirror in a heliograph type flash on the ground. It was, sort of, enveloped half the garden, and gave me a fright... I jumped. I turned my head to the left, which would be facing east then, and saw this object descending.

Content from External Source

Then he sees the UFO and manages a photo, because you know, he just happened to be out using up the last of the film when this happened. Nobody in the neighborhood or the carpenter working in the yard notices this "terrific flash". But then the carpenter comes over and watches the photo being pulled out and/or developed in front of him. But he didn't notice the flash?

Now if the carpenter and Kibel are both out in the yard and Kibel is chucking shit in the air and maybe trying to take pictures, one would think the carpenter might notice. Even if he's around the house somewhere, it's a bit risky and if Kibel pulled off the perfect chuck and photo, whatever he chucked is going to be laying on the ground.

If the carpenter is in on it, as in he's doing the chucking, one would think he'd be in on it when the story hit, not someone that was tracked down a year later.

If were going to speculate a bit, what if Kibel created the photo before hand? He either used a double exposure or practiced with shit chucked in the air multiple times until he got it right. I was thinking the film was like what I knew in the '70s, after taking the photo, the camera spits out the undeveloped photo and we watched it develop in front of us. That doesn't seem to be the case with these older cameras.

From the video @Z.W. Wolf used above, it appears after the photo is taken, one waits for a period of time and then opens the camera and THEN pulls back the tab to reveal the FULLY developed photo:


Link below

The carpenter could not have "watched" the photo develop. He just would have seen the reveal of the developed photo in the camera. A photo that could have been in there for some time.



Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtZ6amLe8gw

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Type 47 was a fast B&W film. Type 48 was a color film. Same size.

Just like you could put Tri-X 400 (B&W negative) or Kodachrome (color slide) in your 35mm camera. Same size, but different kind.

Difference is that Type 40 film was proprietary.

There were lots of Polaroid camera models that could take any kind of Type 40 film. There were smaller Polaroid cameras that used a smaller roll film.

So we need to find out (or can assume) that Type 48 has a crenulated edge and was the type used for this UFO photo.

Now, this still confuses me:

The thing takes 60 seconds to come out and I had to draw the film out of the camera before it would start to develop.

Content from External Source

-Kibel to McDonald

compared to:

We then stood shoulder to shoulder until Kibel removed from the camera the photograph which was later published in “The Herald.”

Content from External Source

-D. English (witness)

In this video the guy is using an 800 and it develops inside the camera. When he opens up the camera ("later"), the picture seems to be fully developed already:


Source: https://youtu.be/06G2JD_aKrw?si=AGyiJOKunXhWw2Xr&t=427

Edit: In rewatching that video, the "film" is indeed pulled out and ripped off to start the processing, but the photo itself develops inside the camera. So now this from Kibel makes sense to me:

I pulled the film out of the camera which started the processing working.

Content from External Source

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

To clarify. The "watching the photo develop" was a '70's thing. Whole new process that came out in 1972. Called integral film. People really went ga-ga for it. That's when "Polaroids" really became a thing. It's the kind of print you see popping out of Lydia's camera in Beetlejuice. (Dramatic license... they didn't develop that fast.)

Spoiler: Arcane nonsense

And they didn't pop out like that in '72. That was an '80's thing. The battery for the electric drive was in the film!

You have to be really old like me to remember Polaroid roll film. Integral film is what most middle aged people think of when they think Polaroid. It pops out as a clean, separate print. Then you watch it develop.

When did Kibel come up with that detail about watching the photo develop? Did he get confused himself later on?

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Then he sees the UFO and manages a photo, because you know, he just happened to be out using up the last of the film when this happened. Nobody in the neighborhood or the carpenter working in the yard notices this "terrific flash". But then the carpenter comes over and watches the photo being pulled out and/or developed in front of him. But he didn't notice the flash?

Kibel ran to the carpenter, not the other way around.

Now if the carpenter and Kibel are both out in the yard

The carpenter's statement says he was in the house and Kibel went outside, i.e. the carpenter was definitely not outside. (The kitchen was being renovated.) However, Kibel's illustration locates the carpenter outside the house and essentially describes him to McDonald as being outside:

I then took off around the house because I knew one of the workmen had been working on the other end of the house, sawing wood. And I was convinced that if he had been looking up he would have seen it, because I thought it must be over about where he was.

Content from External Source

Kibel's sketch for McDonald. I've circled his and English's locations. English is outside and almost directly underneath the UFO(!!!!). However, Kibel did tell McDonald that the UFO was probably further away than drawn - he said 300 feet which puts it 2 or 3 houses away. The distance shown here is only about 100 feet.

If the carpenter is in on it, as in he's doing the chucking, one would think he'd be in on it when the story hit, not someone that was tracked down a year later.

He as tracked down a month later when he wrote the statement. He had no further involvement that I've seen.

If were going to speculate a bit, what if Kibel created the photo before hand? He either used a double exposure or practiced with shit chucked in the air

I think the easiest way to do this would be to take multiple shots with a regular (i.e. cheaper film) camera on some previous date, then just photograph the print with the polaroid camera while there was a real-time witness available.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

just photograph the print with the polaroid camera while there was a real-time witness available.

Possible. But tricky thing for a naïve amateur to do. Lighting has to be right. Holding the camera straight so the plane of the film is parallel to the plane of the print. Holding the print flat.

How would I do it? A large print tacked all along the edges to a board. Or glued. The board is mounted vertically to a wall to make it easier to hold the Polaroid camera dead on. Just get the center part of the large print in frame. Take the picture indoors in a room with southern exposure and no artificial lights to avoid highlights/glare. Long exposure time on a tripod...

A copier might make more sense. After all he does say he made copies... with what? The copier may or may not explain the negatives.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

When did Kibel come up with that detail about watching the photo develop? Did he get confused himself later on?

All of these quotes are from 1966-67. I think the confusion comes more from me misinterpreting what "pulling the film out" means. The film is pulled out but the photo remains inside the camera to process.

What English saw was the photograph being taken out of the camera. McDonald also confuses the issue because he uses "pull the film out" to mean "take the photograph out":

He watched me take the picture from the camera, and he was very startled.

Content from External Source

Kibel

So he saw you pull the film out? [Yes.] You have a witness to the appearance of the photo.

Content from External Source

McDonald

Kibel's answer there should have been "No [not yes], he saw me take out the photograph."

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Regarding whether the carpenter was inside or outside:

Kibel in 1967 had apparently not read English's 1966 statement and wasn't even sure one was taken. So he may not have known English said he was inside.

But for Kibel's story to work better, he needed English to be outside because he made a big deal of the fact that English saw him at least prepare to take the photo, if not actually take the photo:

How long he actually had me in view, I’m not quite sure. But you can check that from the statement.

Content from External Source

Kibel to McDonald 1967

He went into the garden with the camera and I saw him apparently preparing to take a photograph.

Content from External Source

English's statement 1966

The Herald reporting on the incident via Peter Norris quotes Kibel saying this (before English's statement was written):

I ran and got a carpenter who was working on the house.

Content from External Source

So the carpenter is neither inside or outside the house, and the implication is Kibel fetched him and took him somewhere (presumably to the location of the sighting). But English says he "came hurrying back" and "we stood shoulder to shoulder" as the photo was taken out of the camera. No indication English was taken somewhere.

(In reality - i.e. assuming this was a hoax - it's highly likely Kibel did see English's statement at some point in the previous 12 months as it was taken by his friend Peter Norris, and of course Kibel would be motivated to read it to make sure their stories aligned as closely as possible. He may be underplaying his interest in English's viewpoint for McDonald.)

 

[Mendel]

Edit: In rewatching that video, the "film" is indeed pulled out and ripped off to start the processing, but the photo itself develops inside the camera.

Also described in the instructions I quoted above.
If Kibel is lying, that is not the part he's lying about.
And English's description fits, too.

The carpenter could not have "watched" the photo develop. He just would have seen the reveal of the developed photo in the camera. A photo that could have been in there for some time.

My understanding is that leaving the photo in the camera for too long would make it overdeveloped.

 

[Aussiebloke]

G' day Folks I love the work a lot of you go in a case, this case however has evolved over time with reseacrher/ufologist ignoring what he originally said a sticking the object beside the chimney. there that'll do.
When the Balwyn Photo/story was first released back in 66 even though the picture was just newspaper quality what hit me was he is suppose to be in his garden taking the photo and yet the BP shows you are nearly level with the apex of the roof, you can see the roof capping which is on the right side of the chimney the sketch is also incorrect the chimney is not in the middle of the capping if you go by where he claims to have taken the shot you would be able to see the left side of the chimney an the object would also be on the left side of the chimney wouldn't it.
So what's going on, the BP was taken at the "other end of the house" the chimney was going to be part of the hoax no matter what but no other detail of the house was to be seen however that is how I found the chimney it is unique with the brown glaze brickwork around it.

So what you all have to get your heads around as I had too the sun's reflection on the object is the sun rising up behind the house to the east that is why the reflection on the object is in shadow it also a red brick house.
This is what I tried to get across to them if you stand in front of a full length mirror in your bedroom and take a selfie of yourself when you look at the photo you will see the floor you are standing on the bed behind you and whatever else.

The same goes for a sphere shaped object in this case a half sphere on end and not an evenly curve sphere at that, you agree the witness is standing in front of the object therefore the ground he is standing on and the house he has his back too but is quite close to is compressed towards the rim of the object including the witness and camera, it compresses in a sort of half circle on the object.

Just something else to think about the object/bowl is not really out of focus it is the fact that it is spinning, most likely slightly out of shape and balance and not quite at its apex when snapped. The chimney is quite a distance away I'm going on memory here I think I worked it out to 75 feet the object is close to the camera.

Getting back to the sun the date and time the witness claimed the photo was taken is incorrect it was taken a lot earlier (some time in summer) and left in the camera waiting the right opportunity the only problem was the work being carried out was at the "other end of the house."
Where he said he was standing in the sketch he made out he took the photo there because the carpenter was working in the kitchen and would be able to see him going through his pantomime that is the square on the side of the main building in his sketch the windows of the kitchen look out in that direction.
There is to much to explain I made a blog years ago that I would like to link to if that is alright?
Off to Bed. Cheers Aussiebloke.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

-What you are pulling out the side of the camera - the tab - is the previous negative. This advances the film roll.

Found out some things:

-The reason I don't remember doing the coating process: That was only for B&W prints. The Polacolor process didn't require it. So there would be no coating on the Kibel Polaroid print.

-Not all Polaroid cameras used roll film in 1966. Pack film with a peel apart print that developed outside the camera first came out in 1963. I didn't realize that. Maybe that's why Kibel considered his camera "really old." Roll film was quickly becoming old fashioned. (I was still using it as a kid in 1968 with a camera some relative had abandoned.)

This was not the integral film of 1972.



Additional thoughts on why Kibel didn't show anyone the original:

An expert can look at copy and tell it's a copy. One of the telltales is grain. If Kibel gave an expert something he called the original Polaroid print, an expert could tell it was a copy and would call foul.

But if he gave them prints he identified as copies, that might make an expert suspicious, but there would be at least some ambiguity.

The logical thing is that his in-camera print he showed English (if this really happened) was a copy of an original. He had just produced that in-camera print and ran over to English (if that really happened).

Kibel didn't copy that print to distribute. Those would have been copies of a copy. He continued to make fresh copies of the original.

Now then, was that original a Polaroid? If not, that would explain why he never showed the original to anyone, and why it was later "stolen" by MIB.

I'm still thinking about the artifacts in the prints we see. They seem to be consistent with the artifacts you'd see on a Polaroid print. But let me look into this more.

Somewhere along the line negatives were also produced. The negative of a Polaroid print is not usable. It's waste paper. So negatives must have been produced on a traditional type of film. Probably by a professional lab. Or possibly by using a Polaroid copier. You'd have to be clever to adapt it for that use, though.

 

[NorCal Dave]

My understanding is that leaving the photo in the camera for too long would make it overdeveloped.

That's what I read too, though I assume Z.W. Wolf might know better.

My thought, if one is keeping it simple, is Kibel took multiple photos of something chucked in the air at a previous time until he had a good one. Then he just put it back into the camera and went through the motions of going out to the garden to use up the film and then calling the carpenter over for the reveal. Which is what he describes:



As noted above, the camera is opened up and the paper is peeled back to reveal the developed photo. The carpenter makes no mention of Kibel pulling out the "tab" as some call it, which according to Mr. Wolf is the previous negative, though this could easily be staged as well. If the carpenter is not overly knowledgeable in the workings of Polaroid cameras, the deception becomes even easier.

One could argue Kibel had been sitting on this photo for some time trying to figure out how to use it. With the carpenter there doing work, he simply stuck it back in the camera with its cover sheet and negative, then acted out taking the photo and the excited reveal. No photos of photos or duplicators or any other needed equipment. Just time and practice to get a good shot in private, then a staged shoot and reveal.

 

[Mendel]

The carpenter makes no mention of Kibel pulling out the "tab" as some call it, which according to Mr. Wolf is the previous negative, though this could easily be staged as well.

Compare:

So, on the way I was running around the house. I pulled the film [the tab] out of the camera which started the processing working. By the time I got to him and asked if he had seen anything, and he said no he hadn’t. Because, obviously he couldn’t have seen anything, he was bending over his work and the thing didn’t make any sound. So I then withdrew the picture from the camera. He watched me take the picture from the camera, and he was very startled.

Content from External Source

English was not present when Kibel pulled the tab, though he saw Kibel remove the finished picture.

From the descriptions, the picture needs to be forcefully torn out, which would be unmistakable if you were familiar with the camera; though I expect Mr. English was not.