A Re-evaluation of the Balwyn UFO Photograph

UfoScan

UFO scanner
I feel no need to believe that any one picture of a UFO is authentic or not. Yes, I have read countless articles supporting the Trent photos. I have also read Bruce Maccabee's very long analysis supporting the Gulf Breeze photos and I have even read an extremely long technical document supporting the Eduard Meier photos...

If you wish to believe any of these cases then you have people that will support them with endless technical analysis. But I know of few objective photographers that have not already a belief in UFOs that do.

If you ask for my opinion based on decades of looking at hundreds - if not thousands - of UFO pictures, I can give it. But if you have your mind made up already, that is fine too.

But as far as the Trent pictures, discussion would be better suited on the Trent thread. I only came here to address the Kibel picture and the fact that my article was quoted here.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
I feel no need to believe that any one picture of a UFO is authentic or not. Yes, I have read countless articles supporting the Trent photos. I have also read Bruce Maccabee's very long analysis supporting the Gulf Breeze photos and I have even read an extremely long technical document supporting the Eduard Meier photos...

If you wish to believe any of these cases then you have people that will support them with endless technical analysis. But I know of few objective photographers that have not already a belief in UFOs that do.

If you ask for my opinion based on decades of looking at hundreds - if not thousands - of UFO pictures, I can give it. But if you have your mind made up already, that is fine too.

But as far as the Trent pictures, discussion would be better suited on the Trent thread. I only came here to address the Kibel picture and the fact that my article was quoted here.

index.php


Since you have some experience with analysing spherical objects here is the image ( one on the left, with blue sky ) that was recently posted in the forum in this post

UFO Images

I tried comparing it with other known high quality photo of spherical UFO. Here is my post:

UFO Images

My opinion is that spherical UFO on the left might be a fake, because it was too far away to reflect image of person. Do you have an opinion?
 

Todd Feinman

Show us the satellite pics...
Can you explain it a bit more ... are you saying McMinnvile UFOs fly over the same path every year?



Exactly, that's the same thing the editor of local news paper said about Trent family. Editor believed them because they were just a common straightforward folk. Photos were found behind the pillow on the sofa, that was covered by children toys. Trents just had had bought the new camera recently and made a photo without thinking about whole hullabaloo that will follow.
Here is the link to my UFO sighting. Honestly, it was one of the more amazing and revealing ones because of the circumstances, and thus important:
On 60th anniversary of McMinnville UFO sighting: 2010
I'd be happy to take lie detector tests --several 0f them if needed. I would pass each and every one.

They don't come through on a regular schedule that I am aware of -but they do seem to travel through there sometimes.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Early 1950's was a real saucer wave in the USA also.

It isn't coincidence that UFO photos were often of objects that looked a lot like what was popular in the movies at the time. That's one of the things that intrigues me about this pic, it's a one off. Like the creatures described in Pascagoula, it needs it's own folder in the file drawer.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
For the life of me I can't remember the name of the color UFO shot in front of a mountain in the US, maybe around 1980 or so. It showed a silver disc with a dome of some sort on top. Another good one, definitely weird, hard to argue.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
For the life of me I can't remember the name of the color UFO shot in front of a mountain in the US, maybe around 1980 or so. It showed a silver disc with a dome of some sort on top. Another good one, definitely weird, hard to argue.

You mean Vancuver Island, where shot was done by a lady on a picnic with her family?
 

UfoScan

UFO scanner
"Since you have some experience with analysing spherical objects here is the image ( one on the left, with blue sky ) that was recently posted in the forum in this post"

Yes. I have seen these. At a quick glance, they look like hoaxes to me. I am not saying they are but what I mean is they would be easy to reproduce. This is the case with nearly all UFO pictures. That does not mean they are fake, it means there is no way to really tell for sure.

The thing that got me stumped with the Kibel picture is that reflection of the house. Had it not been there, then it would have been easy to fake such a picture. That is the power of forced perspective. It is very hard to estimate the distance of an airborne object. It could be a small object that is close to the camera or a large one that is far away.

If you would like to have an idea of how easy it is to make a faraway object look close or a close object look far, go to google images and input "forced perspective".

I should add that the only reason why the Kibel object reflected anything at all is that it has a polished mirror-like surface. Most objects appearing in UFO pictures do not reflect their surroundings because they have a dull finish.

So all I am saying is that, with the Kibel picture, I can't figure out how the surface of the object could have reflected the roof of the house unless it was on the other side of that house and therefore large and airborne. But if someone has a simple explanation for that, I'd love to hear it.
 

Rick Hunter

Celestial
index.php


Since you have some experience with analysing spherical objects here is the image ( one on the left, with blue sky ) that was recently posted in the forum in this post

UFO Images

I tried comparing it with other known high quality photo of spherical UFO. Here is my post:

UFO Images

My opinion is that spherical UFO on the left might be a fake, because it was too far away to reflect image of person. Do you have an opinion?

The "Sputnik" on the right is really neat, where did it come from? Not many photos of UFOs with antennae.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
The "Sputnik" on the right is really neat, where did it come from? Not many photos of UFOs with antennae.

"Sputnik" is from San Diego, CA. A guy who worked for military, but that happened over his backyard. I'm 99.9999% sure that's real UFO, both by physics that I explained and huge similarity with other UFO cases. We are almost lucky that case is attracting no notoriety, so we can study it quietly.

 

UfoScan

UFO scanner
Thanks for posting the YT clip. Very well done. From looking at the single picture, it could just as easily be a model as a real airborne flying object. But seeing that he also shot video footage, it becomes much more interesting.

My only regret is that when he took out his camera to get higher resolution stills, he mounted it on a tripod. What I would encourage anyone to do if he or she comes across a UFO is to take several pictures while moving laterally. This will record parallax differences and will allow constructing a three-dimensional view of the scene and place the object at its real distance (assuming the object isn't moving between shots). Same applies to video where moving laterally while shooting will record the scene in 3D. Also, modern cameras have burst modes that will do the same with stills.

Anyway, I agree that the witness sounds quite sincere and mystified by what he saw. At first glance it could look like a mylar balloon. Let's face it, there are tons of clips on YouTube that are passed off as UFOs which show nothing more than stray mylar balloons. But this thing - thanks to the witness having the foresight to also shoot some high resolution stills - is clearly a rigid metallic object.

Very interesting. I wish I could have access to these pictures for further analysis.
 

UfoScan

UFO scanner
"But this thing - thanks to the witness having the foresight to also shoot some high resolution stills - is clearly a rigid metallic object"

I should have said "It looks more like it could be a metallic object"...

Looking further at that picture and others I have found, it looks - whatever it is - more like a man-made object. It could be a balloon that was spray painted and to which designs and appendages were added to. The reason I think this is that the "construction" appears rather shoddy. There are what looks like paint spots on the surface and those antennae look like sticks wrapped in aluminum paper !

It also looks like the object has a seam around its middle that does not match the symmetry of the row of black rectangles.

It also looks suspiciously like an old satellite as if one would have tried to replicate such a design on a balloon.

I definitely believe the witness is sincere and that his clip and pictures are genuine, but I tend to think the object he filmed is of terrestrial origin.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0001 rim.jpg
    DSC_0001 rim.jpg
    22.8 KB · Views: 3
Top