Balwyn, Melbourne UFO picture (1966)

[Scaramanga]

Enlarging the object and messing with it in Photoshop suggests the reflection on the object is a tree.

Here's what I eventually extracted out of the object after a lot of messing. I'm quite pleased with the end result. It does look very like roof tiles and a side wall. The fact that the 'tiles' align with the angle of the edge of the roof suggests they are really there and not an artefact of pixel bleeding. This also highlights the white blob just 'in front' of the object.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The darker part along the top part of the rim is a specular reflection of the blue sky.
The even darker part along the bottom part of the rim is a specular reflection of something below the object. We won't ever know exactly what that is. Tree, roof, fence...

 

[Skalman]

What about this one......which has both a) Colour crossing the median line and b) White in the edge area of the wing. Indeed, the pattern is pretty close to that of the 'UFO'....

View attachment 66278

First of all, that is not the same species, that is a Papilio memnon, which does not occur naturally in Australia. Second, that is a photo of a gynandromorph explicitly stated to be bilateral and not mosaic (the right side is female, the left side is male). That it looks like it has colour crossing the median plane is because both females and males of the species have the same colour on the part of the hindwings closest to the body. You will also note that it is dark and very close to the colour of the actual body. In the Balwyn photo, the white patch, seemingly covering parts of the forewing where white patches aren't found on either sex of the P. aegeus subspecices and colour forms that occasionally migrates there, is also crossing the median plane right through the presumed thorax of the butterfly. There are, to my (admittedly very limited) knowledge, no known P. aegeus subspecies or colour forms that have a light-coloured thorax. The most light-coloured morphs have yellow abdomens and a brown thorax, but not nearly enough to support the purported explanation for the photo.

Outside of this being a freak occurrence of a partially leucistic or otherwise very rare and aberrant individual, I don't see how it could be a P. aegeus, or frankly any locally occurring butterfly species (if one insists on the photo being a butterfly seen from a completely dorsal view), and if we assume that the colouration could be completely aberrant, it is a functionally untestable hypothesis, since the butterfly in question has been dead for almost 60 years and no other photos of it are known to exist.

An entomologist with the relevant knowledge of Papilio (and other at least temporarily occurring) species could maybe falsify the suggestion somewhat if the cas is that there are no known cases of leucistic/aberrant individuals where the aberrant colouration encompasses both a wing and the thorax, which I personally suspect is the truth. But I don't know if that's the case, I am just extrapolating from the limited entomological knowledge I have, which isn't much since I'm more of a lichens and polypores kind a guy, and also tropical/subtropical butterflies are not a thing here at the 64th parallel north latitude.

Also, what is the part behind the clear demarcation of the wings supposed to be? An abdomen at least twice the width of what it is normally? The tails of the hindwings mushed up together? No butterfly I know of (admittedly, there are not very many detailed studies of butterfly flight mechanics) flies in such a way that it has the hindwings in the "closed" position while their forewings are fully extended, as would have to be the case here, the hindwings generally follow the forewings quite closely.

To sum up:
-It is not a conventional P. aegeus, the pattern of colouration doesn't match, leaving us with mosaic gynandromorphs and otherwise aberrant colourations, which are very rare.
-It has the wrong colour on parts of it forewing and thorax for it to be a non-aberrant mosaic gynandromorph.
-It was not a humid summer or autumn, so the species even being present as far southwest as Balwyn that year is unlikely.
-Given a dorsal view, either the shape of the hindwings doesn't add up with normal butterfly flight characteristics, or it has an abdomen of abnormal proportions.

If it was a P. aegeus in a dorsal view (I have not gone through the other two suggested angles in the same detail, but from memory the different species I looked at all also had similar problems with colour patterns not matching), it would thus have to be the probably strangest individual of that species ever spotted, only to be mistaken for being a flying saucer by the only person who ever saw it. I hold this to be extremely unlikely (though still more likely than the extraterrestrial craft hypothesis, since aberrant butterfly specimens are known to actually exist).

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Someone else has already done the research and has identified what this object is.

It's part of a baby buggy wheel. It's not just a hubcap. It's an assembly. It's a heavy rim that fits into the wheel hub, an integral bearing sleeve and a hubcap, all together. The hubcap is on our left and the bearing sleeve is on our right.

Let's sort some things out.

This is a hubcap on an "artillery wheel" type auto wheel.

It's properly a hub grease cap. It fits directly over the outside end of the bearing to keep the grease clean.

This is a wheel cover.

The actual hubcap is under the wheel cover.

The hubcap on a car is threaded and screws into or onto the wheel hub - or (I think) is secured with some kind of pin. No matter. It doesn't just snap on and off. The hub grease cap has a true function. To seal the bearing and protect it from contamination.

Auto wheel covers (so-called hubcaps) snap on. They're mostly decorative.



Baby buggy - (pram, perambulator, baby carriage, baby coach)

Old fashioned baby buggy wheels seem to usually (or exclusively) use sleeve bearings.

Sleeve bearing

Baby buggy wheel. The "back" side.

Green arrow - bearing journal
Red arrow - bearing sleeve



Same wheel flipped 180 degrees. The hubcap is visible.

Blue arrow - wheel hub
Purple arrow - hubcap - More properly, the hub grease cap.

The spokes are attached to the wheel hub - a hollow tube. The sleeve bearing is inside the wheel hub.



There are simple snap on baby buggy hubcaps.

This baby buggy "hubcap" is for sale on eBay.
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/191489296486

This seems to be a particular type of "push on" hubcap with a heavy piece of metal that pushes into the wheel hub. That heavy rim has an integral bearing sleeve. The whole thing is one assembly.

Purple arrow - hubcap
Blue arrow - rim that fits into the wheel hub
Red arrow - integral bearing sleeve

My guess is that - in this particular type of wheel - this whole assembly pushes into the wheel hub. The wheel hub has another bearing sleeve. So there are two separate bearing sleeves on the bearing journal.

I'll try to find what this type of wheel looks like, but that won't be easy.

Our Flying Saucer is this type of baby buggy assembly - heavy rim, integral bearing sleeve and cap. It has a lot more heft then a separate "hubcap." Which would make it easier to throw higher and with more stability. You'd put some spin on it, not to get some kind of other-worldly photo effect, but to give it spin stabilization.

Considering that this is the natural way this part would fit on the baby buggy this isn't sideways. In any case you'd put in your hand in this position because you'd be able get spin on it, and it would get less air drag.

It's all together a more natural way to throw the thing. If you throw it underhanded, you could put the proper spin (spinning on its minor axis) by letting it roll out of your hand. If it were sitting flat in your palm, the way it would naturally sit on a table... how do you get it to spin on its minor axis? Hold it by the rim with your fingertips and spin it and throw it at the same time somehow? It doesn't work.

No reason to speculate that Kibel wanted it "sideways" for any other reason. It's just what works best.

Yellow arrow - An integral, decorative, part of the hubcap.
Red arrow - bearing sleeve

You can see a specular reflection of blue sky/white cloud on the top one fifth part of bearing sleeve, and a darker specular reflection of something below the object on the lower four fifths of the bearing sleeve.


People have been assuming that the yellow arrow is pointing to the nut on a service bell. Service bells don't have an integral nut. The nut is always a separate piece. The bell sits on an internal clapper assembly. The nut is a separate piece and screws onto the internal assembly.

A note about the surface of the hubcap. This is not polished or "brushed" metal. This is plated. Probably chrome plated. If it's really old it might be nickel plated. It has a mirror-like surface.

And about the spin giving it an other-worldly photo effect. It wouldn't. This is a mirror-like surface. A spinning mirror would not appear blurred. What we see are the specular reflections of the environment around the object. The specular reflections on the surface don't "spin."

Any other-worldly hazy appearance comes from poor resolution and lateral motion blur. Not from a flying saucer's inter-dimensional drive, or from a worldly spin.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Why this Flying Saucer is not a service bell.

When the nut on top of a service bell is pushed down, this is what the internal clapper mechanism does. Go to 0:26.

-There could be no sleeve or barrel of the type seen here - red arrow. The clapper mechanism wouldn't work. The clapper would be impeded.
-How about the clapper (somehow) hitting the inside surface of the sleeve? I don't think that would work. I think you'd get a dull clank.
-There is no functional reason to have a sleeve as an integral part of the bell. The bell sits loosely on top of the clapper mechanism. It has to fit loosely. Why add something that would only degrade the function?
-There are no examples, that I can find, of a service bell with this type of sleeve.



When you take the bell off the base, the nut does not stay on the bell. It's a separate piece. I suspect that a bell with an integral nut wouldn't ring. It has to have some kind of "looseness." Even with the separate nut, you couldn't torque the nut down too tight. It would stop ringing if you did.



See? No nut.

The flying saucer doesn't look like a bell, really. Wrong shape.

It's not any kind of auto "hubcap" either. Wheel covers snap on using the rim of the wheel cover for tension. Sometimes there are tabs on the rim, sometimes not. But no auto wheel cover has that central tube or barrel we see on this flying saucer model. The end piece assembly of baby buggy wheel hub is a much better fit. The tube is the bearing sleeve. One of the two bearing sleeves.

Can we find the exact baby buggy it came off? That would be quite a challenge. No matter. I've shown that the mechanical way a baby buggy hub of this type works and is constructed matches what we see in this hoax photo.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Why this flying saucer is not a butterfly.

1. It doesn't look like a butterfly. Not even slightly.
2. It doesn't fit the circumstances. A butterfly belongs to the type of - "I didn't see it at the time, but I saw it later when I looked at the photo!" - UFO case. This case is not that. All evidence points to a deliberate, premeditated hoax.
3. Stop it.

 

[JMartJr]

A butterfly belongs to the type of - "I didn't see it at the time, but I saw it later when I looked at the photo!"

I do not think it is a butterfly, based primarily on your point #1. And I yield to no person in my enjoyment of a good UFO that turns out to have been a butterfly!

That said, I don't think your second point is persuasive -- there seems room for a deliberate premeditated hoax based on taking a picture of something first, seeing it looked like a Real UFO (tm), and then setting up the hoax from there, including setting up the witting or unwitting witness, finding a way to fake pulling a fresh pic out of the camera, etc. Long way of saying "the incident can be a hoax without the picture itself having been deliberately faked."

Point 3 seems to me to be premature, but your mileage may vary.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

That said, I don't think your second point is persuasive -- there seems room for a deliberate premeditated hoax based on taking a picture of something first, seeing it looked like a Real UFO (tm), and then setting up the hoax from there, including setting up the witting or unwitting witness, finding a way to fake pulling a fresh pic out of the camera, etc. Long way of saying "the incident can be a hoax without the picture itself having been deliberately faked."

Strongly disagree. This is a premeditated model hoax photo, with quite a lot of work put into it.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Good grief. It was staring right at me.

Same thing in my two different examples.

I was wondering what that bracket on the cap is for. It has one spoke attached to it; probably for stability. Anyway... it's the same damned cap. One from eBay and one from a YT video. Not at all related. What are the chances?

I'll sort through all the gazillion videos on this channel and see if I can find more about this wheel style.

... later

 

[Mendel]

I was wondering what that bracket on the cap is for.

It slots into the groove at the end of the journal, to keep the wheel from falling off. (This is the primary function of the cap.)

 

[FatPhil]

Someone else has already done the research and has identified what this object is.

It's part of a baby buggy wheel.

That's all very interesting and everything, but I'm curious why the rest of your post contained zero images of baby buggy wheels that look like the object in question, and lots of photos of things that it isn't. The latter space is literally infinite, adding more photos of things that it isn't reduces the search space by a ratio of (infinity minus one)/infinity, really not a game that worth playing.

 

[Ann K]

That's all very interesting and everything, but I'm curious why the rest of your post contained zero images of baby buggy wheels that look like the object in question, and lots of photos of things that it isn't. The latter space is literally infinite, adding more photos of things that it isn't reduces the search space by a ratio of (infinity minus one)/infinity, really not a game that worth playing.

He is explaining the terms used, that's all.

I think identifying this as "an ordinary object used to make a hoax UFO picture" is of primary importance in the debunk, and "thrown in the air then photographed" is a pretty good guess which has been shown to be feasible. The actual identity of the object is not so significant.

 

[deirdre]

I was wondering what that bracket on the cap is for. It has one spoke attached to it; probably for stability

the spoke isnt attactched to it. i'm going to call it a lock mechanism, the inside is heavy like steel and the pretty outer case, moms see, is lighter like aluminum (not saying its aluminum, just painting a picture) the manufacturer needs to attach the heavy inside bit with the pretty outside bit. i ran into that kind of thing with a door knob or door lock once.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

It seems that there was a trend in the '30s, '40s and early '50s for smaller wheels and larger hubcaps.

And baby buggies that look like cars.

This one is close. Very close.

You can see that the surface on our left is actually flat with its own small rim. The major difference is the "knob" on that surface. But... that surface has a paper sticker. What if that sticker were damaged? And there's a ragged flap? And what if the flap was enlarged due to motion blur due to the thing spinning?

I'm also aware that the inside rim is not entirely symmetrical. But I don't think that's a fatal flaw. If the asymmetrical part of the rim were facing away from the camera, this might not be a problem.

I'm not ready to declare a winner here. But it's close.

 

[JMartJr]

This is a premeditated model hoax photo, with quite a lot of work put into it.

Quite likely. But, in my opinion of course, there is still room for "Dang (or "Crikey" or something!) this picture I just took in the garden looks like a flying saucer! I am surprised! Hmm, I wonder if I can pass it off as one? Would require me to take certain hoaxy steps, like maybe arranging a witness or recruiting an accomplice. The first might be easier if I could figure out how to make this pic look like I just took it at some later date. Let me get busy with that!" A butterfly as the object photographed seems increasingly unlikely, to me, but I don't see any harm in those interested continuing to try and make their case.

The "tossed pram hub" used in an intended hoax that included the taking of the picture also works, and the physical resemblance of the baby-buggy bit to the UFO is very strong. I'd be very comfortable explaining the sighting in those terms, my only minor quibble there is that it would have been easier to use a larger model. He might have to make one, to get it to look like what we see, which means finding the object used will never happen as it would not otherwise exist (other than the actual model used for the pic).

I am not a proponent of the butterfly hypothesis, I do not think that is what is shown in the picture.

I am not a proponent of the normal picture that happened to have a UFO-looking thing in it leading to a hoax being perpetrated hypothesis, but I think it remains tenable.

I am a proponent of the small nearby object tossed or suspended on a string and photographed with the intent of faking a UFO picture, quite possibly the pram hub identified by Charlie Wiser but possibly something larger fabricated for the purpose. And any of those remain more likely than "It was aliens," unless and until aliens can be shown to exist, to have flown around in our atmosphere and to enjoy flying pram-hub-shaped UFOs sideways over Australia!

(Edited to clarify a confusing set of verbiage...)

 

[Giddierone]

Isn't discussion of this photo a "UFO & Aliens" topic rather than Skydentify? It's a famous UFO picture that's been claimed to be a possible alien device for decades.
From the Usborne book of UFOs Circa 1970:

 

[John J.]

From the Usborne book of UFOs Circa 1970

-With a bit of artistic license! (And some minor editing by me).

Loved that book, along with its 2 companions, Ghosts and Monsters. (And Jets. And the spaceflight one. And The Future.)
The World of the Unknown: UFOs, Ted Wilding-White, Usborne,1977.

Interesting that they chose to use an artist's impression rather than the photo (photos were used in the book).
There's a page showing how to fake a UFO photo, including by chucking something into the air (but using two people- the thrower and the photographer).

Full page viewable at this sort-of retro pop culture blog, "We Are the Mutants", link here.

In the text for the Balwyn UFO illustration in the Usborne UFOs book posted by Giddierone, it says

The man who photographed it wished to remain anonymous in case he was ridiculed.

I wonder how much of that is true, and how much is a bit of a UFO enthusiast's trope, a bit like
(1) He/ she's a pilot/ police officer/ in military service, therefore reliable and a trained observer
(2)They're a quiet, respectful/ respected member of this community with a job and/ or family.
(3) They didn't want any publicity, but reluctantly they've agreed to be with us today/ they're writing a book etc.

UFO enthusiasts often state that experiencers/ claimants often shun publicity, but I'm not sure if that's generally the case;
going off-topic a bit but here's Barney Hill, of Barnet and Betty Hill alien abduction fame (New Hampshire, 19 Sept. 1961) on panel show "To Tell The Truth", 12 December 1966. The panel have to guess which of 3 men were really abducted by aliens
(YouTube, approx. 9 mins 13 secs, posted by user Need To Know, 2018):


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhZ24yUpXSM


Incidentally, for whatever reason I've never really doubted that Barney was telling the (subjective) truth.

 

[Mendel]

Interesting that they chose to use an artist's impression rather than the photo (photos were used in the book).

They probably didn't have a good copy of the photo, and/or no license to print it.

UFO enthusiasts often state that experiencers/ claimants often shun publicity, but I'm not sure if that's generally the case;

The statement is not made because it's true, but to pre-empt the accusation that the observer invented their report to get in the newspaper.

 

[Giddierone]

a page showing how to fake a UFO photo

Another great book of that era is Visitors From Outer Space by Roy Stemman (1975) - memorably illustrated by Chris Foss.
It has a page on throwing stuff in the air to create that perfect UFO snap.
Interestingly it's now in the National Archives as part of the Roswell Report Source Files.
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/40989266?objectPage=23

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

It slots into the groove at the end of the journal, to keep the wheel from falling off. (This is the primary function of the cap.)

That makes sense. There's a groove on the journal. I was thinking that maybe there's a spring clip that fits over that, but that doesn't make sense. How would you get to it?

Your suggestion works better. The spoke pulls on the bracket and the tension keeps the other end of the bracket in the slot.

To take the wheel off, you take the spoke off, and push the bracket in. And reverse the process to put the wheel back on. Rather delicate arrangement but it's a light duty mechanism.

I think this assembly was put on the wheel hub at the factory, and wasn't meant to ever come out of the wheel hub.

The "hub cap" assemblies for sale on eBay came out of trashed wheel hubs. I'm betting that the same could be said for Kibel's Flying Saucer.

 

[deirdre]

The spoke pulls on the bracket and the tension keeps the other end of the bracket in the slot.

thats a good idea actually, but the spoke isnt attached to it. you just grabbed that screenshot (9:24) a second too early at an unfortunate angle. look at 9:25:

Here's the video i was looking at:

Source: https://youtu.be/zgbqUt5vseg?t=48

 

[Mendel]

That makes sense. There's a groove on the journal. I was thinking that maybe there's a spring clip that fits over that, but that doesn't make sense. How would you get to it?

The wheels I've used had indeed spring-loaded brackets. This is so people can easily take off the caps, take off the wheels, and make the pram fit the boot of their car.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I think identifying this as "an ordinary object used to make a hoax UFO picture" is of primary importance in the debunk, and "thrown in the air then photographed" is a pretty good guess which has been shown to be feasible. The actual identity of the object is not so significant.

Unfortunately for those resistant to "debunking" in general, producing the precise object is the only thing that's likely to sway them. To that end, I do periodically check my local Gumtree (like Craigslist) for vintage prams to try and find an exact match. What was leading me more toward a bell is that pram hubcaps generally are flatter rather than bell-shaped. However, today I found this - note it's a doll's pram, not a baby's pram, titled "Vintage toy pram 1960's":

Close-up of front wheel from another pic in the series, where the knob on "top" is clearer:

Source (not sure if non-Aus viewers can view this)

Comparison with the UFO:

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Two more

"Dolls Pram Vintage circa 1930s-40s":

1950's cyclops wicker dolls pram:

 

[Charlie Wiser]

That last one is from Cyclops, an Australian toy manufacturing company (on Wikipedia) which has a brief write-up here.

A piece of genuine Australian heritage, Cyclops were the makers of tricycles, pedal cars, dolls prams, and other wheeled and tin toys since 1913, although their heyday was undoubtably in the 1950s and 60s.

They also made toy pedal cars and tricycles, which could be other hubcap options for the UFO (perhaps Kibel's parents still had his old toys at the house).

 

[deirdre]

However, today I found this - note it's a doll's pram, not a baby's pram, titled "Vintage toy pram 1960's":

i was looking at doll carriages yesterday. unfortunately that wheel style doesnt jive with the

i think that is @Ann K 's point, chances one can find an exact match (from small blurry photos) to another small blurry photo, are pretty slim. Most viewers can recognize the possibility without finding exact matches.

ps most carriages with that wheel style i saw say 1950 or even 1940..so that carriage is ikely under priced

 

[Charlie Wiser]

i was looking at doll carriages yesterday. unfortunately that wheel style doesnt jive with the
View attachment 66361

I guess I don't understand why?

This restoration video of a 1930s Cyclops doll pram show the wheels with holes for the axel - the hole presumably goes all the way through to the front of the wheel, so a hubcap with a "stalk" (as on the UFO) would snap on [00:55]:

(The knob on the hubcaps in the video are hexagonal which I don't think can be ruled out for the UFO) [00:38]

 

[deirdre]

I guess I don't understand why?

nice music!
youre thinking maybe the bolt head is just a decoration? and they hammered the "knob" bit in? i guess that's possible.

still, if it's not me youre trying to convince, you probably have to show that is the case.*

*only IF

producing the precise object is the only thing that's likely to sway them.

 

[John J.]

As others have said, it's perhaps unlikely we'll find an example of the exact object that (many of us suspect) Kibel used.
-It would be great if we did, though!

I think it's more significant that posters (especially @Charlie Wiser) have shown that, with not too much practice, it's possible to take a snap similar to Kibel's, by yourself and in a very short timeframe.

On the evidence, it must be more likely that Kibel was involved in a relatively simple hoax than he photographed an alien spacecraft.

 

[DFPawlowski]

Question on this long ago thread posted regarding the Polaroid color photo from Balwyn (Melbourne) Australia of an alleged Daylight Disc UFO taken on 2nd April 1966 by a "young engineer" and UFO Society member James Kibel Polaroid Balwyn Australia UFO while in his Mother's flower garden... Why has no one in the MetaBunk community commented on the obvious "thread" that appears in the bottom of the picture angled toward the "flying disc" that then appears to turn into a connected black "thread" resembling fishing line that is issuing from the fat rim almost like it is a Yo-Yo? Has anyone noticed the white streaks as well on the image that appear to resemble registration marks to promote alignment?

 

[Mendel]

This is a scan of the complete photo, taken from my files (I think Keith Basterfield sent it to me - he along with Paul Dean did a comprehensive analysis of the case a few years ago, although I think they missed a few things).

View attachment 65714

The attachment went missing. Could you re-upload it?

 

[Mendel]

Why has no one in the MetaBunk community commented on the obvious "thread" that appears in the bottom of the picture angled toward the "flying disc" that then appears to turn into a connected black "thread" resembling fishing line that is issuing from the fat rim almost like it is a Yo-Yo?

@Charlie Wiser did comment on it:

This scan of the photo shown in close-up on James Fox's Phenomenon (2020, interview filmed ~2018) has what might be a wire coming down from the object, so going up from it if it's a reflection. It might also be a scratch or hair introduced when the photo was most recently scanned, as there's no sign of in the lower res scans that researchers were using over the past several years (Fox said that the photographer Kibel mailed him the scan - timestamped podcast from Aug 29, 2022).

It's not clear that it's really part of the photograph.
If it is, it's not clear how it would have contributed to a possible hoax.
A newer, better scan could resolve this question.

Has anyone noticed the white streaks as well on the image that appear to resemble registration marks to promote alignment?

I'm not really sure which ones you mean, but I suppose they're damage? The photograph is old.

 

[JMartJr]

It's not clear that it's really part of the photograph.

Agreed, it looks like a scratch on the photo or possibly the negative to me. My sense is that it is slightly curved, if that is helpful at all.

If it is, it's not clear how it would have contributed to a possible hoax.

IF it were on several strings running to out-of-frame attachment points, it could be part of a rig to hold the model steady and in the desired orientation. On a single string from above it might sway or spin. That seems a lot of trouble to go to but perhaps the photographer was a perfectionist and wanted everything just so.

A newer, better scan could resolve this question.

Indeed --something that might be mentioned in all of these old photograph cases.

 

[Scaramanga]

Why has no one in the MetaBunk community commented on the obvious "thread" that appears in the bottom of the picture angled toward the "flying disc" that then appears to turn into a connected black "thread" resembling fishing line that is issuing from the fat rim almost like it is a Yo-Yo?

It's much more visible with blue filter and a little contrast adjusting. It stretches all the way from below the chimney to the edge of the UFO. I'm not sure it's a 'thread', though. It may just be a long scratch on the photo...and the photo does have a lot of extraneous marks on it. It is a bit suspect though that the odd thread or scratch ends right at the UFO....

 

[Ann K]

It may just be a long scratch on the photo

If it were all white, it might be. But the quarter of it closest to the object is black. Furthermore, in a close-up view of your enhanced image, it looks as if the curved side of the object is attached by a yoke.

 

[ManInBlack]

It's interesting that Dr B. Roy Frieden (referenced in document above) thought that his copy of the original Polaroid could have been a montage of two photos. I see his point but maybe his copy wasn't very good. Also he says the vertical blurring on the chimney is not matched on the UFO. But maybe the chimney was just out of focus in the foreground like the leaves on the tree?

View attachment 54156

The apparent UFO has always reminded me of a double ringer...

 

[JMartJr]

object is attached by a yoke.

I see what you are referring to, but I suspect our brains are seeing "patterns" in the grain to create a detail that is not there... largely because a split bridle (or yoke) seems so pointless.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

The attachment went missing. Could you re-upload it?

I'm not sure now which photo went missing but maybe this one. It's low res but shows the scalloped edges that helped us figure out the camera and film type upthread.

 

[Mendel]

I see what you are referring to, but I suspect our brains are seeing "patterns" in the grain to create a detail that is not there... largely because a split bridle (or yoke) seems so pointless.

As an aside, would you be able to fly a strong lifting kite at the top of the line, and then fly a bell on it a bit further down? and then take some pictures that don't show the top kite (and some that do)? Ideally with an aircraft in the same shot?

 

[Charlie Wiser]

It's not clear that it's really part of the photograph.
If it is, it's not clear how it would have contributed to a possible hoax.
A newer, better scan could resolve this question.

I have no update on Bill Chalker's hi-res scan that he had made from the original polaroid (which went missing but fortuitously reappeared in Kibel's mailbox right before James Fox visited him for an interview). The last time I wrote to Bill about it was Feb 2024 and I got no reply.

A refresher: In April 2023 Bill told me he'd obtained the polaroid from Kibel's family. (This is from Messenger DMs. I did not ask Bill for permission to publish but I am co-owner of our correspondence.)

I had the original photo on loan for few weeks and I facilitated hi-res scans. This was done to make them available to an experienced polaroid analyst. Unfortunately this person was in ill health by the time I got the scans to him. He was trying to make arrangements for another analyst to be brought in to continue the work. Sadly he passed away earlier this year. I am currently trying to progress further analysis with that recommended party. Until that avenue has been fully evaluated to see if it yields a valid analysis of the scans I do not plan to make the scans more broadly available. I want a serious analysis hopefully free from all the extremes of belief and debunking. I am also well aware of your attitude to the photo...
I received the original direct from the family and followed recommended procedures for acquiring good scans directly off the original print.

At that time there was hope Bill would get a professional analysis... however, there's been no further news and as you see, Bill is not going to release the scans for the debunkers to salivate over. Maybe someone can follow up and get a progress report from him. It would be odd if there are only two (now one) qualified Polaroid analysts available to him and his network of UFO enthusiasts.

I asked him if the original photo has that line coming from the bottom of the bell. He replied: "No they are not on the original." But then said it was the scans he examined for the line, so I don't know if he studied the original for it: "it was the first thing I looked for on the careful scanning job... It seemed clear on the print you had, but it not evident on the scans I had done in my presence." (Possibly the polaroid is too small to see that detail and Bill didn't have a magnifying glass handy.)

I'd noticed the line when I took a screenshot of the scan that appeared in close-up in Fox's doco The Phenomenon. Note that that scan was sent to Fox by Kibel - Fox proudly displayed the envelope from Australia on Joe Rogan (Apr 2023, Spotify link at 24:45) who incidentally made fun of it. It was not scanned by Fox, nor did Fox say he received a digital file of the scan. There are smudges on that scan not present on previous scans AFAIK so I don't think it was done particularly carefully.

I had previously asked @Mick West about it - he thought the resolution of the line was finer than the resolution of the photo, therefore not part of the scene.

[ETA If you go to that Spotify link you can click the miniplayer button to see the video of the podcast.]