Balwyn, Melbourne UFO picture (1966)

[John J.]

No no, that's an excellent and genuine shot! James Fox told Joe Rogan that according to NASA!!!, not him mind you but NASA, the lack of sharp focus in UFO photos is evidence they're real. Something to do with propulsion something something.

How conVEENient!

It's fuzzy logic in action. The ETs discovered fuzzy logic, shaky reasoning and blurred lines long before us humans,
and developed them into an interstellar drive source.
And they want to sue Robin Thicke too.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Preliminary test with my new desk bell. Kibel's photo was 2:21PM in April (autumn). I took this around 3PM (hot sunny day, windy) and facing the wrong direction (compared to Kibel) because I wanted to get the roof in shot. This is only to find out what reflects in a 3" bell about 3 feet away from me, maybe 8 feet in the air (iPhone), not an attempt to recreate the photo.

I took about 50 shots, about 15 of them with the bell landing in frame, and about 4 with it being nicely vertical. Click to enlarge. That's me reflected in the rim on the right, and a 7-foot fence behind me, to give you the scale. Almost no sky is reflected. I think Kibel's bell must've been quite a bit higher than this, assuming the pale part of his bell is sky. His bell is also a different shape (less steep sides).



This white line down the left (arrow) is an artifact of the reflection, not a real white object.



Kibel said the day was windy - "strong northerly wind, gusting to 30mph". Same here (because a storm was coming in), and my bell got blown around despite the weight. Yes, it did hit me on the nose one time on the way down. Also, he was clearly further from the bell than I am making it even harder to get any kind of decent shot by chance. Maybe he suspended it on a horizontal line and remotely set the thing in motion (thinking he'd get motion blur by doing so?), and that's why he didn't know if the shot was good before seeing it.

Bonus video: To give you a taste of Melbourne's 4 seasons in one day, 10 minutes after I took those shots against puffy white clouds in 33C/91F heat, the storm arrived. That's the fence (bottom of frame at the start) behind me when I shot the bell, and which I presume is reflected in it.


Source: https://youtube.com/shorts/JJcIJZkCRQQ?si=wTfSHH4e6vcPj9SA

 

[jackfrostvc]

The Balwyn UFO pic is thought to have been taken in Deepdene which borders Balwyn on the city side.

That said, to give you an idea of how populated the area is, here is an aerial pic of Balwyn from 11 years earlier ie 1955
As you can see, even 11 years prior, Balwyn was pretty populated

https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/items/2032713

 

[Mendel]

that's not me saying this

Content from External Source

so it's an urban legend. Good to know.
(This does support Kirkpatrick's contention that the "government UFO" claims are all rumors with no substance.)

 

[Mendel]

Thank you for doing the experiment!

That's me reflected in the rim on the right, and a 7-foot fence behind me, to give you the scale. Almost no sky is reflected.

The reason for the lack of sky is the fence. In a more open environment, the horizon is much lower.

The amount of sky is also function of the angle: the steeper you look up to the bell, the more sky will be seen.

 

[FatPhil]

so it's an urban legend. Good to know.
(This does support Kirkpatrick's contention that the "government UFO" claims sre all rumprs with no substance.)

Worse - they way it's worded, it's as if he's partially distancing himself from the comment, such that, were it ever debunked for being the nonsense it is, he could at least attempt to deny all responsibility for it. Despite uncritically actively propagating it. So his attempted denial would fail - no pass given here, he's demonstrably responsible for bunk-spreading.

 

[JMartJr]

The amount of sky is also function of the angle: the steeper you look up to the bell, the more sky will be seen.

That didn't sound right, so I grabbed a shiny-ish metal bowl from the kitchen and went outside with my trusty camera:

NOTE: not intended to be a model of the UFO in question, purely intended to look at how sky vs. land reflects on a similarly shaped shiny object from different angles. Differences from object in UFO pic (if it is indeed a small bell or pram hubcap) include this bowl is too large, it is too close (my arms ain't but so long!) and it is likely less polished (it has had an active life as a mixing bowl/cat bowl for many years.) Sun is low and behind the camera (9:30 am, today, North Carolina) if that were to become important for reasons I cannot now imagine...

 

[NorCal Dave]

Maybe he suspended it on a horizontal line and remotely set the thing in motion (thinking he'd get motion blur by doing so?), and that's why he didn't know if the shot was good before seeing it.

Wouldn't need to set it in motion, just let the wind do it:

Kibel said the day was windy - "strong northerly wind, gusting to 30mph".

Giving that it took you 50 tries to get 4 usable shots and even then you are reflected in it, I think your right that he is throwing it further up and away. Assuming he's throwing it at all. He may have practiced a bunch more and figured out a technique for really flipping it high in the air giving him time to bring up the camera and find the object as it started down.

we are only seeing the ones that got the "perfect shot," the multitude that did not fall away before they get this far.

The JMart axiom says this is just a lucky shot, which is certainly possible. But I do think the type of camera being used and the need to chuck whatever it is up that high and far enough out makes this a very difficult one. I'll try a bit later today.

 

[Mendel]

That didn't sound right, so I grabbed a shiny-ish metal bowl from the kitchen and went outside with my trusty camera:

I stand corrected, thank you. I hadn't considered that the observer would see less of the top of the bowl.

 

[Mendel]

But I do think the type of camera being used and the need to chuck whatever it is up that high and far enough out makes this a very difficult one.

Get a helper to throw it? Ideally someone who can juggle.

 

[JMartJr]

But I do think the type of camera being used and the need to chuck whatever it is up that high and far enough out makes this a very difficult one. I'll try a bit later today.

If this reaches you in time, maybe try something larger, as well, like a mixing bowl. While messing about with one earlier, I found it was a natural, easy toss, to grab it by the rim and fling it upward with a lot of spin -- it was stable, and tossed by my right hand would be facing in the same direction as the UFO. (This would leave me awkwardly shooting the pic with my left hand, though.) Compared to tossing a small object like a desk bell, this was an easier toss in that orientation, and could be tossed higher while being a good apparent size for the UFO, meaning you'd have a little more time to try and get the pic. If the wind here dies down later, I'll try it with camera in hand -- but if you are out tossing and shooting stuff anyway...

 

[Bonky]

I had to pull out my Polaroid 130 Land.

It has an everset shutter. It recocks with each shutter trip so double exposure isn't just easy, it's going to happen if you forget to pull the print out.

Here's how I'd do this and have a witness.

I'd shoot an exposure of the "bell" on a white cloth background (or against an overexposed sky) making sure to remember where the bell was in the frame and leave the Polaroid print in the camera with the latent image of the bell exposed. So when my witness was present, I could snap a photo (second exposure) of the properly exposed sky. The added second exposure would return some density, hue and edge detail to the bell.

Pull out the print, right in front of my witness, and watch it develop.

Also, the 40 series film did have a deckle edge (image-side-up) on the left side on horizontal shots.

 

[Aussiebloke]

G'day folks. The first pic I removed the post and clamp the middle pic is how it was done the third pic I've walked partly under it, the cusp is the ground and me and the trailer you can see the sky creeping around the edge further under you go the sky will be like "C" around the bowl. See how the sun is glinting if it was spinning which it is in the BP, the whole thing blurs the Diamond ring effect is also dulled down a bit. the first photos left and centre are taken as the sun is rising over my house and the side of the house I'm on is in shadow the same is happening in the BP.
Here is the Link I mentioned it was done a while back I've left it as is.
Some of it will read like a one way conversation because it was for those who I was involved with and folk who were following it.
I opologise for my tone in that thread I was frustrated.

Balwyn Photo

The links are dead on the thread this is one of them I hope it wasn't posted.

Polariod 800

The most important item in the BP is the Willow Tree you see the camera is up high nearly over the willow tree you can see the folage to the left on the tiles of the roof and you can see the ridge capping.

How did he do it?

Paul Dean acquired a 1966 Aerial photo of the Balwyn area he claims there's nothing to see, I gather he has shown it to the others I wasn't privy.

All you have to do is find the willow tree in that 66 aerial photo run a line from the chimney through the willow and you have the spot/direction in which the photo was taken.

Did I mention the witness shows you where the willow is in the sketches because it is in the photo, that was nice of him.

To make it clear it is at the east end.
Cheers Aussiebloke

 

[Scaramanga]

"Hang it by a string" would also work, of course

Problem with hanging it on a string is that I suspect the object would rotate....even if only due to the tension on the string causing the threads in it to straighten. Assuming the photographer wanted to capture the 'UFO' from a specific angle he'd have quite a fiddly job making it line up.

 

[Scaramanga]

An option I have considered is whether the 'UFO' is actually an optical illusion. On first glance it 'looks' like a bell hanging there in the sky, and it 'looks' metallic. But our minds see it as metallic only because it appears to have a bright reflection at the top. It is an effect hard to get one's mind past. BUT...what if the white is simply part of the natural colour of whatever the thing is ? That's when you can start to ask...is the object simply a brown and white bird, or a butterfly flying from left to right. Zoom in real close and the 'bell' does indeed have the shape of the outspread wings of a butterfly !

Just a thought. May be totally wrong....but I think worth considering.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'd shoot an exposure of the "bell" on a white cloth background (or against an overexposed sky) making sure to remember where the bell was in the frame and leave the Polaroid print in the camera with the latent image of the bell exposed. So when my witness was present, I could snap a photo (second exposure) of the properly exposed sky. The added second exposure would return some density, hue and edge detail to the bell.

I don't think that would work, but I've confused myself with negatives and positives before. IIRC rule of thumb is that any black area on a positive print means the negative was NOT exposed to light. Think of taking a photo with the lens cap on, no light hits the film and you get a black print.

Now it was easy to make double exposures with the camera Kible was using, so much so that companies made lens caps with cutouts just for doing double exposures (from post #41):




However, I think to get this UFO shot would have required 2 masks. If one did as you suggested and shot the lit-up bell on a white background, you would be exposing the film to all the white lit up background, thus you'd be trying to now expose the already exposed film to the 2nd exterior shot and you're not going to get much.

One would want to take the first shot of the bell on a BLACK background. This would expose the film to only the bell, leaving the rest of the film unexposed to light and thus ready for the 2nd exposure out in the yard. This is in effect what the cutout lens caps above do. But now one would have a second problem. The lower 1/2 of the bell is mostly black:



Meaning that part of the film did NOT get exposed to much or any light when the bell was photographed in the 1st exposure. So, when one heads out to make the 2nd exposeure of the blue and white sky, those white clouds are going to get exposed in the unexposed black section of the bell. The clouds would bleed through and at the very least the black area would not be very black.

One would need a 2nd mask roughly the shape of the bell to place somewhere in front of the camera to block the sky from being exposed on the black section of the bell. That's going to get complicated.

 

[JMartJr]

Zoom in real close and the 'bell' does indeed have the shape of the outspread wings of a butterfly !

Not seeing it... could you sketch the butterfly you are seeing onto the pic?

 

[Bonky]

I don't think that would work, but I've confused myself with negatives and positives before. IIRC rule of thumb is that any black area on a positive print means the negative was NOT exposed to light. Think of taking a photo with the lens cap on, no light hits the film and you get a black print.

Now it was easy to make double exposures with the camera Kible was using, so much so that companies made lens caps with cutouts just for doing double exposures (from post #41):




However, I think to get this UFO shot would have required 2 masks. If one did as you suggested and shot the lit-up bell on a white background, you would be exposing the film to all the white lit up background, thus you'd be trying to now expose the already exposed film to the 2nd exterior shot and you're not going to get much.

One would want to take the first shot of the bell on a BLACK background. This would expose the film to only the bell, leaving the rest of the film unexposed to light and thus ready for the 2nd exposure out in the yard. This is in effect what the cutout lens caps above do. But now one would have a second problem. The lower 1/2 of the bell is mostly black:



Meaning that part of the film did NOT get exposed to much or any light when the bell was photographed in the 1st exposure. So, when one heads out to make the 2nd exposeure of the blue and white sky, those white clouds are going to get exposed in the unexposed black section of the bell. The clouds would bleed through and at the very least the black area would not be very black.

One would need a 2nd mask roughly the shape of the bell to place somewhere in front of the camera to block the sky from being exposed on the black section of the bell. That's going to get complicated.

You're right. Color reversal exposes same way as negative. I was thinking in direct positive. Back when I shot loads of 55 PN, I could've told you this. But it's been a while and I'm old and I didn't focus, no pun intended, on in-camera effects but mainly alt processes. What's worse, I have an MP4 in the darkroom that I converted to an 8x10 coldlight and I used to print Cibas. Amberlith and a Condit and I can do this but in-camera? With a hole in the lens cap? That's like a burning mask smashed against the enlarger lens - a registration nightmare. It makes my head hurt and changes my vote to hubcap tossed in the air.

I hang my head in shame.

 

[Mendel]

I opologise for my tone in that thread I was frustrated.

Balwyn Photo

These are two blog posts.
The first one explains somewhat circuitiously where the photographer (Kibel) was, and that if the object had been as high as claimed, the chimney of the house would have been visible in the reflection.
The second one explains that the sun was not reflected on the object, and then makes assumptions on when the picture was taken. There is also speculation to why the image looks "stitched together".
Is that about correct, @Aussiebloke ?

I'd lovr to hear @Charlie Wiser 's take on this.

 

[John J.]

You're right.

Recognising that a mistake has been made, or that someone has a better theory or more relevant information, is a strength (and particularly useful on this forum IMO).

I hang my head in shame.

No need for that!

 

[NorCal Dave]

I hang my head in shame.

Nonsense! If it's a sincere attempt to explain something, it's useful. If for no other reason it gets others thinking.

Feel free to have laugh at my expense from this post. Not only did I mix up the negative/positive thing, but I also concocted a ridiculously uber-complicated scheme to create a possibly hoaxed photograph:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/page-8 Post #305

Fortunately @Mendel pointed out my mistakes in post #324. As embarrassing as it is to look back, it did get me thinking and later with a suggestion form other members, managed to get some decent proof of concept shots with a MUCH simpler set up.

 

[Bonky]

Nonsense! If it's a sincere attempt to explain something, it's useful. If for no other reason it gets others thinking.

Feel free to have laugh at my expense from this post. Not only did I mix up the negative/positive thing, but I also concocted a ridiculously uber-complicated scheme to create a possibly hoaxed photograph:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/page-8 Post #305

Fortunately @Mendel pointed out my mistakes in post #324. As embarrassing as it is to look back, it did get me thinking and later with a suggestion form other members, managed to get some decent proof of concept shots with a MUCH simpler set up.

Yup, appreciate it. The easiest way to photographically fake the Calvine wedge is at the enlarger. Cut a burn mask in the shallow diamond shape then use a neutral density filter to cover the top triangle to shade the lower facet. Of course, you'd need to shoot a copy with a faster film to fake up the grain.

Speaking of facets and Calvine, and this is way off-topic, but did anyone check for RAF/BAE towed radar targets? Some are shaped like that and have vanes to reflect radar for target acquisition testing. I didn't read the whole thing.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I didn't read the whole thing.

Come on mate! That Calvine thread is only 29 pages . Then there's the thread on Calvine photo as a reflection:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/

Which is only 15 pages. And then there's the dedicated hoax theories thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/

That one is a paltry 6 pages. Though in that one there are some solid efforts to show it could have been faked all in camera, no darkroom needed. Models and/or something on glass will give a similar result.

 

[Bonky]

Come on mate! That Calvine thread is only 29 pages . Then there's the thread on Calvine photo as a reflection:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/

Which is only 15 pages. And then there's the dedicated hoax theories thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/

That one is a paltry 6 pages. Though in that one there are some solid efforts to show it could have been faked all in camera, no darkroom needed. Models and/or something on glass will give a similar result.

Hee. Yeah. I'm old. From all the years staring into grain magnifiers and ground glass loupes, it's a wonder I can read at all.

Oh yeah, I don't think the darkroom is necessarily THE easiest way, but it would be for me because mine has all that stuff and is a mere 20 ft. away. Dry to dry in a couple hours.

 

[Duke]

Speaking of facets and Calvine, and this is way off-topic, but did anyone check for RAF/BAE towed radar targets? Some are shaped like that and have vanes to reflect radar for target acquisition testing. I didn't read the whole thing.

Yes, different airborne radar deflectors were discussed, as well as towed "dart" targets.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-280242

 

[NorCal Dave]

but it would be for me because mine has all that stuff and is a mere 20 ft. away. Dry to dry in a couple hours.

Nice! Someone having access to the old film type stuff could be useful with older cases.

 

[Mendel]

Fortunately @Mendel pointed out my mistakes in post #324.

I don't even remember I did that.

I think it's natural, when developing ideas, that one will go down some paths that don't work, and let that help refine the ideas. That's how progress works.

 

[Aussiebloke]

These are two blog posts.
The first one explains somewhat circuitiously where the photographer (Kibel) was, and that if the object had been as high as claimed, the chimney of the house would have been visible in the reflection.
The second one explains that the sun was not reflected on the object, and then makes assumptions on when the picture was taken. There is also speculation to why the image looks "stitched together".
Is that about correct, @Aussiebloke ?

I'd lovr to hear @Charlie Wiser 's take on this.

G'day Mendel. Thanks for the reply. the post above is the second go, I lost the lot, I was filling you folk in on my blog to make it more understandable, then I just decided to post what I did.
I was answering multible questions to different folk back then covering as much as I could in one go you do realise the blog is old I don't think I mention that.
If the witness move along the double ended arrow line in the sketch "he is always on the left side of the chimney."
Where he shows where his UFO flipped up on end it also is on the left side of the chimney? He says he is an engineer.
Engineers needed to be able to draw (back then) it was part of the course they have to convey to others, designs and how things work etc. He has the photo in front of him can't he see that his sketch sucks (technical speak) wouldn't you have drawn the object on the other side to match the BP photo and come up with a better story there is a reason why he went down that road I have explained some of it.

To make it clear he did not stand where he said in the sketch when taking the photo, wrong end.

The photos on the post above shows the sun rising up over my house I'm on the other side, the side in the shadow do the same with a red brick house at sunrise zoom in on the bowl tell me what you see.

To make it clear (as I explained on the blog) I checked to see where the sun rises in the east behind the EH, the sun works its way along the horizon to where finally rises behind the EH. which is in summer December/Janurary as you see on the BP it was taken early morn, I mean early, it is NOT the sun above the witness on April the 2nd that is reflecting in the object. I'm saying the photo is taken close to the EH that's the image on the object if the object was anywhere near where he says it was in the sky (hundreds of feet) you would just see a shiny object if you zoomed up to the object no matter what size, on end as you approach the object underneath you will from see from horizon to horizon a montage of everything underneath the object but you will not see that from the ground. what you see in the BP is close and right behind him.

I found it a pain throwing my bowl up and bringing the camera to my eye to get my pretend chimney in the photo where it is in the photo then I realised fix the camera to the wooden ladder so my chimney is always in the same spot in every frame now all I have to do is worry about getting the bowl in the frame incidently that is one of the reasons it is taken in portrait.

Now where was I, are yes the jaggered line if the photo was taken earlier in the year as I've stated and left in the camera until some event comes along as it did in April. He most likely wanted to see if the bowl is in the frame, he doesn't have to worry about the chimney that's a given so he peels it back diagonal pleased its there in the frame lets it go and shuts up the camera and the rest is history. I'm thinking he would have come up with the same idea regarding fixing the camera.

"stitched together"

I'll have to go back and read that, when Dr Frieden states that it's two photos join together I expect to see a sample, you know, how it was done step by step so I printed out copies of the BP on a gloss A4 and set about cutting and joining and yes I knew the results before I started I used a stanley knife, apart the obvious not being able to match it was the white card backing in the "V" showing through I believe the Polariod film has a thicker backing more white to show through before I threw the project in the bin cut through the photo a bit over an inch in a bluest part mixed some water based paint trying to match the blue as best as I possible could, ignored shades of white, I filled in the "V" cut wiped off the excess came back later and there was a deep blue line, the white card backing had soaked up the paint and darken down the paint was worse than the white line.

So I email Dr Frieden explaining that I read what he had stated could he enlighten me more and he just copy/pasted the very piece most of you and I have read and his name on the bottom thats it.
Paul Dean found my post stating that and that's where I said yes I'm Aussiebloke.

The part about hitting his is face with the camera is true about the only thing that is true, my extended view finder got me right in the eye, look up at your ceiling keep yout head up then bring your hand up as if you had a camera in it and lining it up with your object up on the ceiling and you will see you are bringing the camera down to your face, with the weight of the camera and the speed/momentum of your arm because you are in a rush you don't quite get to put the brakes on in time.
In his case he had a monster of a camera and has to find the shutter release quickly as well.

However that is early days it evolves as you go along.

The photo with the bird is just a random photo I picked with a clean even blue sky I bought some knives claiming they were scapel sharp and I thought, Hmmm.
There's a vertical and horizonal line after cutting I pinched the two sides together of both cuts and taped them on the back that is the thinest cut I could make and you can still can see a white card backing I think worse on a polariod photo how do you hide the lines in 66?

Zoom in on the bird photo to see white lines.

Assumptions, are when you "think you know" did you know the above regarding the cutting the photo?

Regarding chimney look at the photo of my model roof where the camera is looking down where the bowl is suppose to be "according to Francios," he just threw everything the witness said out the window and stuck the bowl beside the chimney I was directing my comments at him.
I thought of another way to explain it look at the model roof/chimney and stand beside the chimney it's roughly two feet wide by the way look up where Francios wants it and "that is the only time" you will have and image of yourself the chimney/roof/ground/trees etc compressed flat in a half circle cusp as it was getting called, it's because it's what your standing on and behind you that is reflected in the image on the bowl now stand down on the ground as it is in the BP and image is what you are standing on the ground and whatever is behind you.

If he was standing where he said he was in model photo that's what you would see taking the photo at the wrong end you don't do you can you see the ridge capping that would be running along the roof as in the BP? Off To Bed. Cheers Aussiebloke

 

[Charlie Wiser]

This idea got dropped fast but I do wonder at the coincidence of this scratch or hair appearing to extend exactly out of the bottom of the bell.

These are two blog posts.
The first one explains somewhat circuitiously where the photographer (Kibel) was, and that if the object had been as high as claimed, the chimney of the house would have been visible in the reflection.
The second one explains that the sun was not reflected on the object, and then makes assumptions on when the picture was taken. There is also speculation to why the image looks "stitched together".
Is that about correct, @Aussiebloke ?

I'd lovr to hear @Charlie Wiser 's take on this.

I appreciate the work @Aussiebloke has done, and I remember reading a post of his on the Westall Facebook page about this. Unfortunately I can't quite understand all the points he's making.

Paul said he stood in the same position as Kibel stood to take the photo and I don't see much of an issue with this as the angle looks correct - however, Kibel did mark on his map a position that's too far northeast since, as Aussiebloke said, this would have made the left side of the chimney visible but we see it front-on. Kibel's map is not at all to scale or at the correct orientation which complicates things. I realigned the google maps house and superimposed the property boundary, and placed Kibel's position where it seems he placed himself on the map (K1). I think K2 is closer to where he stood. Paul was perhaps further south - I believe the new garage was in the way so he couldn't replicate it exactly.


Kibel's house:
G=old garage
dotted square = new garage (build around 1980s)
C=chimney
E=where Kibel says English (carpenter) was although English says he was inside
K1=where Kibel placed himself on his sketched map
K2=where Kibel actually stood
PD=where Paul Dean stood (see his report)

Aussiebloke appears to be saying the photo was taken from the other side of the house entirely. I don't follow his reasoning for that. There is a lake on that side (Kibel marks it much bigger on his map - I drew it approximately from what's seen on Google maps but it's largely obscured by trees, so hard to tell.) I have thought perhaps the roof and trees in the photo are a reflection, while the bell is not, but I don't know the logistics of how he might do that.

Yes, the reflection in the bell is what's behind the photographer (as with the photos I took above) - but I don't think we can say for certain that the reflection shows a roof. I think it looks like trees and sky. Meanwhile the (non-reflected) trees at the bottom of the photo look like they're behind the roof, not in front as Aussiebloke says. (And they don't appear to be willows.)

Aussiebloke names some rooms (eg. kitchen) but I don't know how he knows what the rooms are (I can't find realtor photos). We also don't know that the carpenter was in the kitchen (although he was there to renovate the kitchen) or what his line of sight to Kibel was - if he was where Kibel claims, he had no line of sight at all to Kibel. Nor would he have had a line of sight if he was inside the house. However, note English didn't say he saw Kibel take a photo, only that he saw him preparing to take it. This could just mean he watched Kibel move off in that direction with his camera.

Regarding the location of the UFO itself (according to Kibel), he did tell McDonald it may have been further away than drawn on the map - 300-400 feet, placing it well outside the property and not over his roof like he drew.

 

[Mendel]

Aussiebloke appears to be saying the photo was taken from the other side of the house entirely. I don't follow his reasoning for that.

Thank you, your diagram and background information are very helpful.

I expect that not much of the chimney is visible from the other (lake) side of the house, as the roof would obscure most or all of it.

 

[Mick West]

Not seeing it... could you sketch the butterfly you are seeing onto the pic?

Not super convincing. But is it impossible?

 

[Ann K]

Not super convincing. But is it impossible?

Well ...it's impossible that a butterfly emitted the bright light that he later claimed!
Edit to add: his words were "a terrific flash" that "enveloped half the garden". A remarkable butterfly indeed!

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/balwyn-melbourne-ufo-picture-1966.12606/post-310772

 

[JMartJr]

Well ...it's impossible that a butterfly emitted the bright light that he later claimed!

Can't see a sales-counter bell, a pram hubcap or mixing bowl doing that either. IF it is a hoax, the statement about the super bright flash of light that nobody else noticed can be disregarded!

 

[John J.]

Not super convincing. But is it impossible?

I guess it would be premature to rule anything out, but a butterfly doesn't seem a very likely explanation to me.

The object appears to be broadly symmetrical in the vertical plane except maybe at the apex of the "dome".
The projection at the right of the object gives the impression of a structure whose centre is in line with the axis of the dome (if it is a dome) more than it might be the trailing edge of a butterfly wing.
To me it suggests a short, broad cylinder attached by one end surface or rim to the underside of a bell-shaped object, or projecting into the body of that object, but of course the image doesn't give us that information; it might be a trick of perspective which makes some of us see an object with rotational symmetry around the L-R axis.



I wondered if it was a butterfly with this "configuration",
, with the light green indicating the trailing edge of the furthermost wing.
This would allow both wings to be dark with a lighter patch on the upper tip (if the upper and lower surfaces of each wing are similar) but I'm not convinced that perspective/ distance would allow for the trailing edge of the right (furthest) wing to be so much smaller than that of the nearer wing.

An alternative is that the bright spots toward the top of the "wings" are in fact reflections of a bright lightsource (probably the sun) on an object that does resemble a bell with a cylinder underneath!
I think the experiments by @Charlie Wiser and @Aussiebloke support that interpretation:

 

[Mendel]

The object appears to be broadly symmetrical in the vertical plane except maybe at the apex of the "dome".

If it's a manufactured object, shouldn't it be perfectly symmetrical? At least the outline of the dome? I've used the hi-res version from post #15 and rotated it as best I could:




I can't quite decide if it's symmetrical or not, but leaning towards "not".
The right side seems to have a kink that I don't see on the left.

 

[Ann K]

I can't quite decide if it's symmetrical or not, but leaning towards "not".
The right side seems to have a kink that I don't see on the left.

Might it be something like a symmetrical object that has been bashed around ...perhaps by being thrown in the air and getting a hard landing a few times in the attempt to "photograph a UFO"?

@Charlie Wiser's "manufactured object" appears to be asymmetrical in this photo, maybe for the same reason. Observe what looks like a bulge or squarer shape (at the "bottom left" in this orientation. The sun glare at the edge makes it harder to see the shape at that point, but it's clearer on the dark portions.)

 

[Mendel]

@Charlie Wiser's "manufactured object" appears to be asymmetrical in this photo, maybe for the same reason. Observe what looks like a bulge or squarer shape (at the "bottom left" in this orientation. The sun glare at the edge makes it harder to see the shape at that point, but it's clearer on the dark portions.)

Yes, but this is a digital picture that distorts vertical motion via its rolling shutter.

 

[NorCal Dave]

@Charlie Wiser an idea for you. I was going to try this myself, but f*&^$ pile of *&&% printer is not working as usual. It just sits there taking up space until I need it then it doesn't work. .

But if you have working printer, it occurred to me that as Kibel was shooting Polaroids which for the time, is similar to a digital camera and a printer. Take a photo of your bell lite up however you think it should look with it on a plane table or the ground. Use some sort of background so that you can print out the photo and then cut out the bell. Something Kibel could have also done with his Polaroid photos.

Now you can go 2 ways. As @Z.W. Wolf had suggested in the Calvine photo thread, and I found pretty easy to do, is a glass shot. If you have a piece of glass, like from a picture frame, use a bit of tape or glue or whatever to attach your cut out of the bell. Now go outside with your camera, line up your shot with the chimney then hold up the glass and place the cut out of the bell in the shot as needed. Take a picture.

The other option it to go outside and take the shot you need with the chimney and sky. Then print that out, lay your cutout of the bell on that print and take a picture of that. The 'ol picture of a picture trick.

The challenge will be the focus. Modern phone cameras are hard to manually focus like the old Polaroid Kibel was using. IF he did something like I described, he could have taken the shots just a bit out of focus to mimic movement and to hide what he was doing. If you get decent shot, it can be blurred or de-focused in most simple photo programs on Mac or PC.

Either of these techniques would have been quick simple and easy to pull off, once Kibel had what he needed. He could have taken a photo of a photo with the bell cutout on it inside the house then gone outside and gone through the motions before showing English the reveal. The glass trick is similarly easy. He could just set it outside, quickly hold it up and take the shot then stash it before showing the developing photo to English.

These are simple in-camera tricks. Giving that it seems few people have ever seen the original, just copies of copies before the original was stolen, the repeated copying and accompanying degraded of the photo helps to hide the trick.

Again, just a thought.

 

[John J.]

If it's a manufactured object, shouldn't it be perfectly symmetrical?

Depends on what it was!
Even if it was meant to be symmetrical but isn't, maybe it was a sloppily manufactured cheap item of some sort.

Or a product of the 1960s British automotive industry .
If it's not perfectly symmetrical, my feeling at the mo. is that it is still more likely to be a manufactured object, or assembly of manufactured objects, than a natural object.

The distribution of dark and light areas on the Balwyn object seems to be broadly similar to that of Aussiebloke's example

Whether the Balwyn "UFO" was a similar object to @Charlie Wiser's / @Aussiebloke's items or not, I think those two Metabunkers have demonstrated that it's possible to produce a Balwyn-type image using their methods and items.

 

[Duke]

Depends on what it was!
Even if it was meant to be symmetrical but isn't, maybe it was a sloppily manufactured cheap item of some sort.

Or a product of the 1960s British automotive industry .

Back in the 70's, Lucas decided to diversify its product line and began manufacturing vacuum cleaners. It was the only product they offered which did not suck.