Balwyn Polaroid photograph and visual sighting - Jim Kibel comments

Hi all,

I hope by now that you will have had an opportunity to read both the stage one,and the stage two reports, on the 2 April 1966 Balwyn, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia visual sighting with associated polaroid picture.

In today's post, the individual who reported seeing the object, and taking the photograph, Jim Kibel, comments on the contents of the second stage report. I wish to thank Jim for taking the time to provide his comments. I will quote a portion of the report, and then Jim's comment.

From the report:

'The purpose of our stage one report was to bring together as much of the primary and secondary source, material as we have been able to gather, on the visual sighting and photograph of 2 April 1966.

This stage two report aims to provide as much detail as the authors have been able to obtain, after the passage of 50 years, about the analyses which were conducted on the Polaroid photograph, and other related matters.

The reader will then be in a better position to decide whether or not, this visual and photographic report fits into the UFO phenomenon.'

Jim's comment is:

'Perhaps they will but most people are sceptical because they do not want to believe it's true anyway. I gave up arguing about it  some 40 years ago.'

From the report:

'1. Aerial Phenomena Research organization (APRO).

1.1  Recent references:

More recent references to this analysis are found in:

a.  'The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters' by Ronald Story (Robinson Publishing. 2002.) The relevant extract reads:

'However, when the photograph was examined by Aerial Phenomena Research Organization consultant Dr B. Roy Frieden, Professor of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona, he found that the chimney in the lower part of the photo was more blurred than the alleged UFO which prompted him to examine the photo more closely. He then found a jagged line of discontinuity running across the center of the photo, through a cloud field, which suggested that there are actually two separate photos joined together and re-photographed to make the one.'''

Jim's comment is:

'That is absolute nonsense as it was clearly shown to those that inspected it that it was  one photo and had not been pieced together. The line was due to it being an old film and the state of the emulsion caused that.

In the distant past they often have said anything to discredit it. The Colorado Project , NASA and the US Airforce tested it and found it was more likely to be genuine than anything else. I don't know of any private organizations that examined it. No doubt they did but I was not advised.'

From the report:

'b.  Bill Chalker's Ozfiles blog, dated 19 January 2009 states, in part:

'The US organization APRO had their photo consultant examine the photo. Dr B. R. Frieden, Professor of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona, reported finding a jagged line of discontinuity running across the center of the photo, through the cloud field, which suggests that there were actually 2 separate photos joined together and re-photographed to make the one. APRO therefore regarded the photo as a possible hoax.' '

Jim's comment is:

'It was not two separate photographs fitted together. See above.'

From the report:

'1.2  Earlier references in APRO material:

Looking further back in time, the authors consulted copies of the 'APRO Bulletin' and books written by the Lorenzens. Neither of the two issues of the 1966 'APRO Bulletin' which covered the case, mentioned an APRO analysis.

In addition, a search of books authored by the Lorenzens, APRO's leadership, found only one reference to the Balwyn photograph. This was in Lorenzen, C.E. 1966. 'Flying Saucers: The Startling Evidence of an Invasion from Outer Space.' Signet. New York. Plate 7 and pages 251- 252. A black and white image of the full Polaroid picture is reproduced as plate 7. The accompanying text reads:

'Photograph of a typical bell-shaped Unidentified Flying Object taken on April 2, 1966 in Melbourne, Australia by an Australian engineer who asked that his name not be used. The photo was turned over to Peter Norris, president of the Commonwealth Aerial Phenomena Investigation Organization. The object is seen hovering over a house whose pink roof its lower edge apparently reflects. (This was seen more clearly in the color version of the photograph.) The object is apparently made of highly polished metal and is similar (or identical) to objects seen all over the world.' '

Jim's comment is:

'Yes.'

From the report:

'Pages 251-252 read:

'On April 2, 1966 a well-known Melbourne businessman (who refuses to be identified but is known to APRO's representative there, Attorney Peter Norris), snapped a photo of a bell-shaped object which was suspended on edge over Balwyn, a Melbourne suburb (see plate 7). Using a Polaroid camera, he got a clear color photograph of the polished metallic object, which was reflecting the pink roof of a building below. All the Melbourne papers included the story because of the qualifications of the observers.' '

Jim's comment is:

'Yes. Close enough.'

From the report:

'1.3 APRO consultant:

A 2016 search of the Internet located the following 2012 "thread" about Balwyn, and a Doctor Roy B. Frieden. It was on the 'Above Top Secret' website.

"Elevenaugust 5/5/2012

Reports that APRO consultant Dr B Roy Frieden, Professor of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona 'Jagged line of discontinuity across the centre of the photo, through the cloud field, which suggests there are actually two separate photos joined together and re-photographed to make one.' '

Jim's comment is:

'Ah the faulty old emulsion again. Nothing was joined together. It was never rephotographed. Negatives of the original were made for the purposes of making copies.'

From the report:

'Gortex 5/5/2012

'VFSRS issued a report on the photo which indicated that the Polaroid photograph and the enlarged copy showed no evidence of a multiple exposure, montage or other form of tampering. The US organization, APRO, had their photo consultant examine the photo. Dr B R Frieden, Professor of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona, reported finding "a jagged line of discontinuity, through the cloud field, which suggests that there are actually 2 separate photos joined together and re-photographed to make the one." APRO therefore regards the photo as a possible hoax. The photo also apparently "failed" the GSW (Ground Saucer Watch) computer enhancement technique.' '

Jim's comment is:

'Blah. Blah. Blah.'

From the report:

'1.4 1971 APRO Symposium:

The authors wished to locate the earliest mention of Dr Frieden and his views on the Balwyn photograph. APRO held a UFO symposium at the University of Arizona on 22 and 23 November 1971. The November-December 1971 issue of the APRO Bulletin provides a report on the symposium. On page 4 is the following.

'Dr Frieden a professor at the University of Arizona's new Optical Sciences Center reviewed the better UFO photographs in APRO files and offered possible explanations for some of them. He divided UFO photo types into three basic categories: McMinville, Trindade and Balwyn, the latter being the rarest.

In his studies of possible explanations involving hoaxes he searched for double-exposures (accidental or deliberate), montages and models. The data studied involved: "Position and density of shadows;" "blur uniformity;" "contrast lost consistent with distance;" "double exposure clues;" and "geometrical distortion of UFOs."

.

As a result of Dr Frieden's analyzing, several UFO photo cases in APRO files have either been proven to be clever fakes or serious doubt has been cast on their authenticity…strong doubt was cast on the Balwyn photo when Dr Frieden pointed out that a blurring effect on the chimney was not apparent on the object. Furthermore, various straight and unnatural looking lines through the clouds were found, indicating a possible montage…' '

Jim's comment is:

'The same old nonsense. You would think they would come up with something new.'

From the report, about the VFSRS analysis report:

'4.3.1.  In a Facebook post, dated 3 April 2016, Victorian researcher George Simpson, in speaking of ex-Kodak employee named Bob Laidlaw, said that he had heard directly from Bob about the Kodak analysis. In part the post stated:

'The photo was a chemical original with no emulsion issues or aberrations. They were convinced, after inspecting the photo using a microscope that the picture was genuine.' '

Jim's comment is:

'Via a government representative Kodak told me the same thing.'

From the report about whether or not there was a written Kodak report?

'b.  Was there ever a "Kodak" report?

Did Jim Kibel have a copy of the Kodak report? Part of a 9 May 1966 letter from Kibel to Mrs June Larson of Washington State in the USA states:'

Jim's comment is:

'No I was told.'

From the same section of the report:

''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.'

So, the question remains. Was there ever a report by Kodak, or personnel employed by Kodak, separate to the article in the December 1966 AFSRS (Vic edition) magazine? The authors have not been able to locate such a report, if indeed, one was prepared in 1966.'

Jim's comment is:

'I did not see one in writing.'

From the report:

'5.  Summary of the four analyses:

5.1  VFSRS - an Australian UFO group

'The polaroid photograph and its enlarged copies show no sign of multiple exposure, montage or any other tampering.'

5.2.  GSW - a US UFO research group

'The photograph is a montage - a photographic superimposition of the "saucer" on a background.' '

Jim's comment is:

'Crazy.'

From the report:

'5.3  APRO - a large US UFO research group

'…there were two superimposed photographs, one containing the object and another the rooftop.' '

Jim's comment is:

Even more crazy. There was only one photo.'

From the report:

'He was first asked if he was an APRO consultant in 1966? He said he was. He was then asked if he had examined the Kibel photograph? He responded that he didn't recall it by that name but offered his opinion on the photo forwarded to him. He was unable to say whether or not this photo was the one he had commented on about a jagged line of discontinuity. However, he did confirm that about 50 years ago he had commented on some photo about finding a jagged line of discontinuity. So, now to his thoughts as to the Kibel photograph we sent him.'

Jim's comment is:

'They sent it?'

From the report:

'1.  All the points on the rooftop are vertically blurred, but that the object in the picture’s points are less blurred and equal in all directions. This to him violates a basic property of optics, namely, the point spread function.
2.  This leads him to conclude that there were two superimposed photographs, one containing the object and another the rooftop.'

Jim's comment is:

'Good.'

From the report:

'He added that he recalled commenting on some photograph he saw about 50 years ago, where there was an apparent jagged line of discontinuity between upper and lower clouds.

Frieden advised that he had undertaking the task of examining this 50-year-old photograph at the request of his friend Richard Greenwell, who recently passed away.

Copies of the APRO Bulletin, were again reviewed and it was found that Dr Frieden was not listed in the 1967 or 1968 issues as an APRO consultant. However, he was listed as such, in the May 1969 issue and following issues, as a consultant in optics.

1.6.  In summary:

‘… strong doubt was cast on the Balwyn photo when Dr Frieden pointed out that a blurring effect on the chimney was not apparent on the object. Furthermore, various straight and unnatural looking lines through the clouds were found, indicating a possible montage…’ '

Jim's comment is:

'How unusual. The original is not a montage.'

From the report:

2. Ground Saucer Watch (USA).

'2.1. The 19 January 2009 post on Australian researcher Bill Chalker’s Ozfiles blog, in part reads:

‘The photo also apparently “failed” the GSW (Ground Saucer Watch) computer enhancement technique. Although aware of these results, Brown (pseudonym given to Kibel in 1966 - authors) still maintains the photo is a genuine one. Given what I have learnt with regard to the circumstances of the photo incident, how it was witnessed, that it was a polaroid photo, and that the GSW analysis technique had been criticized as sometimes being unreliable itself through questionable application and poor methodology, there is considerable evidence that the Balwyn photo may indeed be legitimate.’ '

Jim's comment is:

'The technique is always in doubt. But after 50 years who cares.'

From the report:

'2.2.  When one of the authors (KB) was discussing Bill Chalker’s text of his 2009 blog post with him, Bill mentioned that his source for his statement, about GSW, was former US researcher Allan Hendry.'

Jim's comment is:

'I guess Australia has to have its connections.'

From the report:

'A check of Hendry, A. 1979, ‘The UFO Handbook.’ Doubleday. New York, pages 206-209 found a reference GSW and their photographic analysis work.

‘In 1974 Fred Adrian and William Spaulding of a UFO organization called Ground Saucer Watch, Inc., tried applying a computer-linked TV monitoring system to significantly increase the sophistication of UFO photo analysis…GSW states that the system does its best job spotting fakes quickly, indeed after examining over 600 hundred UFO photos, only thirty or 5 per cent of them remained as bona fide…’

Page 208 features a number of photographs after the heading ‘these photos passed GSW’s test:’ On page 209 there are a number of photographs after the heading ‘But a great many more failed.’ One of these “failed” photographs is the Balwyn image, with the caption ‘Melbourne, Australia 1966.’'

Jim's comment is:

'I guess it had to as it is a good one.'

From the report:

'2.3.  Looking to go further back in time, via US researcher Barry Greenwood, the authors received a digital copy of the ‘GSW Summer News Bulletin’ dated August 1976. In this Bulletin, there is an article by William Spaulding titled ‘August Summer News Bulletin Results of Computer Photo Analysis.’ In part it reads:

‘Since last August, GSW has been actively evaluating hundreds of UFO photographs to determine the exact origin of the image on the film…For years the print media and UFO organizations have published numerous photographs, stating (or implying) that these pictures represent genuine unidentified flying objects. The following list of photographs represent both crude and grandiose hoaxes and photographic anomalies and should not be considered evidence of UFO existence.
1. Rex Heflin/Santa Ana, CA 1965
2. Melbourne, Australia 1966…’ '

Jim's comment is:

'Many years ago I met Rex Heflin in Los Angeles at a private meeting in a friends Beverley Hills house. This was most interesting as the Disney brothers were there (Walt and Roy) also the film star James Stuart who had been a US Air Force General. Roy was the money man in the business and Walt the PR man. They said the Heflin pictures were genuine. Rex was quite insistent they were and after talking with him I am sure he was telling the truth. Roy told me that his company had made many training films in their high security division for the US government on the subject of UFOs. As for claiming my photograph is a fraud. It matters very little to me what they think.'

From the report:

'In summary, the GSW analysis was conducted between August 1975 and August 1976, and if their “Melbourne, Australia 1966” photograph is the 2 April 1966 Balwyn photograph, then GSW believe it does not show a genuine UFO.'

Jim's comment is:

'Bully for him.'

From the report:

'2.4.  The authors asked members of their networks, if anyone had any more original material authored by GSW about the Balwyn photograph. Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos of Spain responded that he was in possession of GSW material and supplied the authors with a copy of a scanned article from 1977. The article is Hewes, H C & Spaulding, W. ‘How to Evaluate Flying Saucer Photography.’ ARGOSY Magazine Special Annual Edition 1977, pages 27-29.

Part of the text of this article reads:

‘Let us examine two typical UFO hoax photos.

Our first case is a photograph of a daylight disc, reportedly taken in Melbourne, Australia, on April 2, 1966. Details concerning the circumstances under which it was taken and the background of the photographer are sketchy; the photographer is identified only as a business executive, and the location is given as the Balwyn section of Melbourne.

This photograph seen here as illustration G, is a hoax. Look especially at the edge enhancement mode, our illustration H. Not only are the edges fuzzy, or even missing 11 o’clock position, but what is even more apparent, is that almost a third of the object has no density at all. One of the authors showed these enhancements to a colleague, another long-time UFO researcher, and he said the pictures reminded him of the new maps of Greenland, with about a third of the “traditional” island revealed not to be solid land at all.'

Jim's comment is:

'Rubbish.'

From the report:

'The photograph is a montage – a photographic superimposition of the “saucer” on a background. Illustration I, the color contouring output, shows the “reflected sunlight” portion of the “object”” to have essentially no density (that is, no density of the background), and it shows a wide and irregular difference in the density values of the right and left sides of the object. Contrast this with the very high degree of density consistency in illustration C, the Mayher object, and illustration F.’ '

Jim's comment is:

'What utter nonsense.'

From the report:

'2.5  Notes of caution:

a.  It should be noted that GSW’s computer techniques have been questioned by some researchers in the past. One test conducted on GSW was the submission of two photographs of the same object taken one after the other. GSW’s opinion was that one of these was a genuine UFO and the other was a hoax.'

Jim's comment is:

'The computer method used by GSW is probably designed to discredit photos.'

From the report:

'b.  It should also be noted that this analysis did not include examining the original Polaroid photograph.'

Jim's comment is:

'They don't have to. They just say it's a fake.'

From the report:

'c.  While the above article has been very helpful, GSW’s actual report on the Balwyn photograph, however, is yet to surface.'

Jim's comment is:

'One day maybe.'

From the report:

'3.  NICAP.

3.1  How did NICAP become involved?

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.’

It is reasonable therefore to presume that Kibel himself sent his material to June Larsen who then sent it to NICAP headquarters.'

Jim's comment is:

'No I didn't would think that Peter Norris may have.'

From the report:

'3.2  NICAP photographic analyst:

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.’

In a letter from Rankow to Richard Hall of NICAP dated 28 September 1966, Rankow refers to two earlier letters to Hall dated 25 May and 6 July (not on Greenwood’s file). Part reads:

‘In any event, there is nothing definite that I can establish from the picture, except that “something” in the air was photographed…. I can’t prove that it was a real UFO, and I can’t prove it was a hoax…A NICAP member who said he knew June Larson, phoned me to ask if it was a hoax…and told him that I could make no definite conclusion upon the facts which I had…he said that June Larson wrote to him and said that this is what Coral Lorenzen had told her.’'

Jim's comment is:

'I know Peter Norris was in contact with Coral Lorenzen so that's probably  where it came from.'

From the report:

'Rankow eventually tracked the source of the hoax story down to a well-known journalist and UFO author, John Keel.'

Jim's comment is:

'I certainly did not know him or contact him although I did like his book about Moth man!'

From the report:

'3.3  One of the authors (KB) of this paper, looked through issues of the NICAP ‘UFO Investigator’ and failed to find any article about the Balwyn photograph.

3.4  In summary:

NICAP’s photographic analyst stated:

‘I can’t prove that it was a real UFO, and I can’t prove it was a hoax…’ '

Jim's comment is:

'There you go.'

From the report on the section about a 1954 sighting:

'1954 August (?) 1700hrs 1 Palm Grove, Balwyn, Melbourne

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. It appeared to be flipping over from side to side. It had a bright white/silver side, and a dull grey/black side. These two sides alternated. It disappeared behind tall trees in the garden. The point of observation was the eastern side of the house. It was late afternoon about 5pm, late in winter, possibly August. His mother contacted a newspaper but they asked her what she had been drinking and didn't take the report seriously at all. Its angular size was estimated as half that of a 10 cent coin at arm's length. It was thin, as it turned from side to side, it disappeared from view. Jim Kible only saw it briefly. They didn't ask the neighbours if they had seen it.'

Jim's comment is:

'That's correct and my mother was very angry about the very negative attitude of the Argus Newspaper. They asked her if she was drunk!'

From the report about Brian Kibel's sighting in the Blue Mountains:

Jim's comment is:

'Yes I remember the sighting involving my brother Brian who is now 83. He lived in Sydney for a while and has lived in Melbourne for the past 40 years.'

From the report about the 1958 sighting.

Jim's comment is:

'I went inside to get my 8MM movie camera. The really interesting thing was that when I came out into the garden with the camera I could not see the object. Jill who is now my wife (of 55 years) and my mother were both looking up with odd expressions on their faces. As I could not see it I asked them to take the film. They both said "No." I was surprised and put the camera down. As soon as I did I could see the object which must have been very large as it started to descend in a falling leaf motion and I thought it would crash. But no it disappeared behind the distant mountains. That convinced me it was very large. Jill and my mother  (deceased 1969) both claimed they did not tell me 'no' nor did they remember me asking. To this day my wife has no recollection of making such a comment.'

From the report and a discussion about the address from which the photograph was taken:

'Was it 22 Austin Street, Balwyn?'

Jim' comment is:

'No 1 to 3 Palm Grove Deepdene 3103. Then E8. Deepdene is a section of Balwyn which is also 3103 and was E8. The garden I referred to was Deepdene. '

Additional comment from Jim re 22 Austin Street, Balwyn:

'That was our house at that time. I later sold the Austin House and bought number 5 Palm Grove Deepdene.'

'The Austin street address was a very nice brick house and had nothing to do with the family business or any other business as it was my family residence only. The actual business was situated in Brunswick. I sold the house and moved to 5 Palm grove as that was beside the old family residence situated at 1 to 3 Palm Grove.'

From the report concerning the location of Mr English:

Jim's comment is:

'He was outside when the object appeared.'

From the report:

'c.   A check of the 1966 electoral rolls indicates that there is only one other male Kibel listed in the electoral district of Kooyong, and that is a Mark Alex Kibel of 1 Palm Grove, Deepdene.'

Jim's comment is:

'My late father who died 1988.'

From the report:

'd.   A check of the electoral rolls indicates that in 1966 there were two registered voters at 1 Palm Grove, Deepdene and they were Mark Alex Kibel and Mary Turnbull J Kibel.'

Jim's comment is:

'Ma and Pa.'

Further information from Jim:

'My parents were visiting England and I was taking pictures of her flower garden so I could send them to her.'

Balwyn Polaroid photograph and visual sighting - 2 April 1966 - stage two report available

Introduction

Blog readers may recall that, along with Melbourne researcher Paul Dean, I published a post earlier this year about the classic, 2 April 1966, Balwyn, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia visual sighting and Polaroid photograph. In that post, we provided details of all the known primary and secondary source materials.

One of two known APRO Bulletin articles

Since then

In the period since that post was published, Paul and I have been busy preparing a second stage report on the incident. We located:

- rare magazine articles on the event

- papers dealing with a number of analyses conducted on the photograph.

Investigation

In conducting this 'cold case' analysis, Paul and I, with the assistance of others, among other things:

- Visited the site of the observation

- Obtained an aerial survey photograph of the house taken in April 1966

- gathered weather data for that day

- listened to, and summarised, a number of original audio interviews conducted by the late Professor James E McDonald, with members of the Kibel family

- communicated with Jim Kibel using emails, and a personal discussion in Melbourne

- communicated by email with one of the original US photographic analysts.

Project 1947 website

Both the stage one, and stage two reports, are now available on the Project 1947 website, thanks to Melbourne webmaster John Stepkowski. PDF versions of the reports may be downloaded from the site.

A copy of this stage two report was supplied to Jim Kibel, and the next blog post will contain comments by him about the contents of the report.

Wonders in the skies

Hi all,

In recent times I have been re-discovering the TROVE digital newspaper collection of the National Library of Australia. Here you will find hundreds of Australian newspapers digitised, and ready for you to view. In the most part, newspapers are available only up until 1954.

The TROVE opening webpage

However, there are some papers, which reach into the 1980's such as the South Australian "Victor Harbor Times" or indeed to as recently as 1995 , with the ACT's "Canberra Times."

A sample article

Historically, the modern UAP phenomenon is said to have started on 24 June 1947 with the dramatic sighting of Kenneth Arnold. However, as even a cursory glance at TROVE newspapers before that date will show, there are some tantalising observations reported in older newspapers, which cause you to wonder if some of them were samples of today's UAP. Two examples are the mysterious "airship" over Minderoo Station, near Onslow in Western Australia in 1910

Mysterious airship in 1910

and a number of mystery "aircraft" over Darwin, Northern Territory in 1938.

Darwin 1938

 A close examination of these older observations, will reveal that undoubtedly many are sightings of aurora; planets; stars; meteors and other such natural phenomena. Still, there are quite a few which give pause to wonder.

Wonders in the skies

 

With wonders in my mind, I thought back to a review of a book by my former co-blogger, Pauline Wilson, who wrote a delightful review of a book with the catchy title "Wonders in the skies." It is so relevant to the topic of today's blog, and the fact is, many readers of this blog today have probably never heard of the book. So, I reproduce here in full Pauline's five year old blog post.


Dear readers,

Well, Adelaide, South Australia is in for two very hot days. Today's forecast maximum is 39 degrees Celsius, and tomorrow is going up to 43 degrees. Time to retreat to an air-conditioned room with a good book.

Today's post is about such a book; in fact a new book by Jacques Vallee. Any new book by Vallee is worth waiting for. His new book is co-authored by Chris Aubeck, and is titled "Wonders in the sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times." Published in 2010 by Jeremy F Tarcher (Penguin.) New York. ISBN 978-1-58542-820-5.

Foreword:

The foreword to the book is written by David J Hufford, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Psychiatry, Penn State College of Medicine.

Hufford's PhD was in the field of Folklore, and Hufford reminds us that he "...was taught that such beliefs were both non-empirical and non-rational...However, I was pursuing the heretical idea that folk belief traditions might actually incorporate accurate observations, and that if they did they might point to important new knowledge."

Hufford comments that Vallee's book "Passport to Magonia" "...recognised the difference between the core phenomenonology of reports and the local language and interpretations that clothed that core in traditional accounts." (p.2.)

Hufford praises Vallee and Aubeck. "Their rigorously scientific insistence allows Vallee and Aubeck to retain the most challenging and interesting aspects of these events without the distraction of premature commitment to any particular interpretation."

The book:

Speaking about reports of UFOs, the authors believe that "Influenced by books and movies, most people have jumped to hasty conclusions: they believe that unidentified flying objects are spaceships from another planetary civilization..." (p.7.)

They state that "The phenomenon did not begin in the 1940's, or even in the nineteenth century. It is much older that that." (p.7.)

The book presents a catalogue of 500 reported sightings "...from antiquity to the year 1879..." The cut-off year was deliberately chosen so as to be able to exclude any possibility of observations being due to "...airplanes, dirigibles, rockets and the often-mentioned opportunities for misrepresentation represented by military prototypes." (p.8.)

The authors "...have emerged with four major observations:

1. Throughout history, unknown phenomena variously described as prodigies or celestial wonders, have made a major impact on the senses and the imagination of the individuals who witnessed them.

2. Every epoch has interpreted the phenomena in its own terms, often in a specific religious or political context. People have projected their world view, fears, fantasies, and hopes into what they saw in the sky. They still do so today.

3. Although many details of the events have been forgotten or pushed under the colorful rug of history, their impact has shaped human civilization in important ways.

4. The lessons drawn from these ancient cases can be usefully applied to the full range of aerial phenomena that are still reported and remain unexplained by contemporary science." (p12.)"

The authors argue that "...if the phenomenon has existed in fairly constant form for a very long time, it becomes harder to hold to a simplistic "ET visitation" scenarios to explain it." (p.13.)

The collation of material about older cases has been undertaken by "...several teams of historians, anthropologists, folklore specialists and philologists..." (p.19) aided by the availability of the Internet.

Citing historical references, the authors argue that claimed sightings have always changed the course of history.

Image courtesy of Amazon books

Content:

The book is divided into three parts:

Part I: A chronology of wonders, pages 27-352.

Part II: Myths, legends and chariots of the Gods. Pages 353-449.

Part III: Sources and methods.

Part I:

The 500 "Wonders" start with an observation in about 1460BC in Lebanon, where a "star" defeats the Nubians (p.29.) Each entry provides a date, a location, the text and a source. Many entries have comments added by the authors.

Among the "Wonders" we find 'moving stars'; 'abductions'; 'hovering objects'; 'heat generating globe'; 'self-propelled cloud'; and many other descriptions.

Part II:

This section of the book looks at "...the stories we have rejected from the main chronology, under four major categories..." (p.354.)These are:

"1. Deceptive story, hoax, fictional account or tall tale.
2. Religious vision.
3. Natural astronomical phenomenon.
4. Optical illusion or atmospheric effect."

This section provides an examination of some of the weird and wonderful tales which have emerged in the past, and which keep circulating despite evidence that the account is incorrect.

Part III:

The authors relate how they screened and selected the material for inclusion in the book. Their rules for inclusions included credibility; specific rather than general date/time and elimination of known hoaxes.

Conclusion:

Finally, the authors describe some of the things which they have learnt from undertaking this work. "...from all this work, how significant are the findings, do they teach us anything new about the modern phenomena generally called "UFOs" and is there more yet to be discovered?" (p.477.)

Comments:

This book was a delight, both to browse through as soon as I received it, and to read through thoroughly which I now have made time to do. I have always looked favourably on the concept that the UFO phenomenon has deep roots and that the July 1947 "start" was only of the modern interpretation of what was being seen. I have always found compelling the arguments for a long history for the phenomenon, and to find it including other elements of the paranormal.

Two Australian cases feature in the 500 "Wonders."

Mount Wingen - case 408

"March 1828, Mount Wingen, Australia
Cigar shaped object lands
A mysterious flying object was said to have descended upon Mount Wingen at the Burning Mountain Nature Reserve. It was "cigar-shaped and had a funny silver colour" and made a loud banging noise. According to the report, "when it landed it set fire to all the vegetation and killed the cattle."

Allegedly, tall strangers appeared in the town at the same time. "They never said anything but always pointed to the things they wanted."

The event must have caused quite a stir as the folk of Wingen began linking it with strange disappearances among them: "Quite often people just disappeared and dogs and domesticated animals disappeared too," wrote the informant, referring to the tale his grandfather used to tell.

Source: Australian Post, June 17, 1989, and W Chalker, Project 1947, Australian Aboriginal Culture & Possible UFO connections (1990.)"

I was disappointed that the source for this entry was not some newspaper in 1828, but had only been set down in 1989. I turned to the reference by Bill Chalker at http://www.theozfiles.com/history_australian-ufo-history.html retrieved 27 December 2010.

"About six kilometres north of Wingen an underground coal seam has been burning for possibly 5,000 years...Kisha, who wrote a psychic column for the Australasian Post, recorded a bizarre story of a strange flying object landing at Burning Mountain (or Mount Wingen). She attributed the following text to a man named Ted:

"Grandad used to say that it was cigar-shaped and had a funny silver colour. When it landed it set fire to ll the vegetation and killed the cattle. The noise was dreadful and there was a series of loud bangs. Grandad also spoke of tall strangers appearing in town. They never said anything but always pointed to the things they wanted." Quite often people just disappeared and dogs and domesticated animals disappeared too.

"We always thought that Grandad's stories were good but he knew they were true and never made light of them."

"Kisha did not indicate a date for the events in Ted's grandfather's tale, but presumably its vintage would have to be at least contemporary with the first settler awareness of the burning mountain back in 1828."

Unfortunately, this account is ultimately sourced to a man called Ted who related it to a psychic named Kisha who published it in the Australasian Post magazine dated 17 June 1989.

25 July 1868, Parrammata, New South Wales - case 474.

"Mr Frederick William Birmingham, an engineer and local council alderman...saw what he described as an "Ark" ...a distinct voice, said, slowly, 'That's a machine to go through the air'...the machine then...descended...to the grass..." Birmingham was then "...lifted off the grass and gently carried through the air and into the upper part of the machine..." He was shown various things and given a set of papers "...the witness later experienced paranormal phenomena."

Source: Memorandum Book of Fred Wm. Birmingham, the Engineer to the Council of Parramatta. The authors of the Wonders add "The following account based upon a transcript of a manuscript that has never been located, must be taken with great caution."

Overall comments:

The book is an excellent example of the dedicated work undertaken by a number of people, in locating, screening and compiling material, from often hard to locate sources. I will be returning from time to time to browse sections of the material.

If you are at all interested in pre-1879 aerial phenomena, or simply wish to check if that ancient days story of yours has been determined to have been a hoax, then I would strongly recommend this book to you.

Garbage in - garbage out

Hi all,

This post concerns the recently flurry of reported sightings of orange lights in a number of Australian states.

I recall when the first spike in reported sightings of orange lights, often in spectacular formations, hit Australian UAP researchers. There were heated discussions as to whether or not, these were true "UFOs" or simply hoax hot air garbage bag balloons?

Today, dip into any current Australian UFO community on Facebook; or take a look at media sources; or check the "Lights in the sky" blog of Sydney Observatory, and you will see literally dozens upon dozens of individuals reporting observations of  "orange lights."

These sightings usually describe observations on nights where the wind is light; where these lights travel in the direction in which the wind is blowing to; and no associated noise is heard. If there more than one light, witnesses might speak of the lights "dancing" and changing position in the formation. When seen at close range observers will describe the orange light as flickering or pulsing. Sometime little lights drop off the main ones. If the light goes out, often it pulses just before it does so.

Actual research

Research by Australian groups and individual researchers as far back as the "big orange light flap of 96" (centred around Narre Warren in Melbourne in 1996) determined that these orange lights were nothing more than hoax hot air garbage bags, sent aloft by bored teenagers. Garbage bags fell onto roofs; police officers found teenagers launching such balloons and cautioned them; and so on.

What has changed?

Skip forward to September 2015. I decided to sample three groups of reported sightings from three Australian states to see if anything has changed. Please take a look at my detailed investigation reports on the Cairns, Queensland; Armidale, New South Wales; and Adelaide South Australia sightings.

I found that nothing had changed, witnesses were still describing orange lights which have all the descriptions of the classic, old time hoax hot air balloon, with perhaps the added modern Chinese lantern thrown in  for good measure.

Orange lights, garbage in - garbage out!

Preliminary investigation report - Adelaide, South Australia - 27 September 2015

Preliminary investigation report – Adelaide, South Australia – 27 September 2015

Time:            Between 1830-1900hrs CST (UTC plus 9.5hrs)

Location:      Southern suburbs of Adelaide, South Australia

Witnesses:  1. "J" and daughter, Oaklands Park, Adelaide.
                      2. “L.” A Facebook friend of J. Suburb adjacent to J.



Photo one

1. Introduction:

J reported her sighting to the Facebook community titled “Adelaide UFO sightings.” Brad Morris of Melbourne, asked J a number of questions about her sighting. I also asked questions. Between us, Brad and I checked such things as WebTrak; the Bureau of Meteorology; and details of sunset. I then engaged J via email.

Courtesy of Google maps

2. J’s account:
Object in the sky south of Brighton, going north. “Started off bright orange like a star, not flashing, went out then it was just a dark object in the sky. Light may have been the Sun shining off it as it set.” It started off in the south-west and went to the north-west of J’s position in Oaklands Park. “Where it appeared to go down over Glenelg way.” Duration was under two minutes. “Was bright about 40 seconds, maybe and then it was a dark object against the sky like in the picture.” There was no noise at all. The light “It pulses just before it went out and went dark.” J’s daughter captured two pictures on an ipad.




3. L:
There was no noise. “The light appeared to be on one side of it.” First seen to the south, finally seen to the west.

4. Weather:

Surface: I checked the Bureau of Meteorology’s latest half hour apart database. On the 27 September, at the Adelaide Airport, it was:

Courtesy Bureau of Meteorology

1830hrs Temperature 17.7 deg C; relative humidity 35%; wind was from the south-west at 2km/hr; pressure 1020.6hPa.
1900hrs 16.2C; 42%; from south-west at 7km/hr; 1020.6hPa.

Upper air:

Courtesy Bureau of Meteorology

I located a website which provides upper air readings, but only twice a day. The nearest data was for 1200 UTC which equals 2130hrs on 27 September 2015; 3 hours after the sightings. Taken at Adelaide Airport. The following table presents height above the ground and what direction the wind was blowing from (in degrees, north is 0; south 180 etc.)

Height above ground     Wind direction (degrees North =0; East = 90 etc.)          

4 metres                              165                                 
28 metres                            164
142 metres                         161
175 metres                         160
839 metres                         295
902 metres                         270

5. Sunset:

Was at 1815hrs that night.

Photo two

6. WebTrak

Both Brad Morris and I checked the Air Service Australia’s WebTrak secondary radar website. No aircraft travelled south to north over the area around J's position during the time frame 1830-1900hrs.

Courtesy of Air Services Australia WebTrak

7. Analysis:

1. A visual observation by three people in two different locations.

2. 40 second bright orange, point source, then 1m 20 sec dark object in the sky. Two photographs were taken of the dark phase.

3. Triangulation from the two locations indicates that the object was not a distant one.

4. No other observations have come to light. An exploration of the Internet failed to locate any media accounts, supporting the thought that it was a close object and not a distant object potentially seen by hundreds of people, e.g. high altitude research balloon; satellite re-entry.

5. The object appeared to be tracking at roughly ninety degrees to the prevailing surface wind as measured at Adelaide Airport. However, as can be seen from the 135 degree shift in wind direction between 175 and 839 metres above the ground, at 2130hrs, wind directions in the upper air can be substantially different from those at the surface.

6. Given all the above data, it could be hypothesised that one explanation could be a hoax hot air garbage bag balloon. The first 40 seconds was a typical bag bright orange light; then the heat source went out and the dark object was the bag floating along.

Acknowledgement:

I wish to thank both J and Brad Morris for their assistance in being able to look into this report, and for Brad’s initial investigation questions. I must add that the above working hypothesis is mine, not Brad’s.

  For other recent investigation reports of orange lights, on 17 September 2015 at  Cairns,  and 21 September 2015  Armidale, click on their names.




  

Recent Australian sightings - investigation summary

Hi all,

In my September 2015 talk "UFOs-An Anfractuous Phenomenon," prepared for a recent conference, which is available as a three part blog post series, here, here, and here, I mentioned the value of actually investigating local UFO reports. This is as opposed to simply sitting endlessly on Facebook and re-posting unverified videos, and dubious claims of alien bodies. Now, investigating local sightings may not be as exciting as this but it does have some real value.

In order to "walk the talk," since March 2014, Melbourne researcher Paul Dean and I have been doing just this. Apart from undertaking these investigations, which today can be done for a modest input of time and finance, via email, Skype and the occasional phone call, we have made the time to widely publish our findings.

One of the reasons we have done this is to encourage Australian UFO groups, Facebook communities, and interested individuals to conduct and publish investigations of their own, instead of simply writing up the raw data they get from electronic input forms on their websites; and incoming unverified telephone calls on their hotlines. These are of little value, in an un-investigated form.


What reports have we investigated and what have we found?

The following cases have been investigated by Paul and I with the assistance of a few associates. You can read the full investigation report by clicking on the location of the event.

19 March 2014 Perth international airport, WA
The pilot of a commercial aircraft had to make a sudden manoeuvre to avoid a cylindrical object which passed close by his aircraft. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau listed the object as an "unknown."

29 May 2014 South Coast, NSW
A fascinating, complex close encounter with unusual lights, a "scanning device" and other mysterious lights.

21September 2014 Armidale, New South Wales
Multiple witnesses report a close distance, nocturnal light.

2014/2015 Kairi, Queensland
Multiple observations of a strange "sting ray" object at night.

11 May 2015 Blue Haven, NSW
A daylight observation of a black/grey object hovering near power lines.

29 May 2015 Townsville, Queensland
A visual observation, with photographs, of lights circling in clouds.

12 June 2015 Oakey, Queensland
Two observers each took photographs of a strange cloud-like object.

10 July 2015 Chinderah, NSW
Multiple witnesses to two bright lights, with a structured object reported at close range.

23 August 2015 Point Cook, Victoria
A woman reported a strange object in  daylight.

17 September 2015 Cairns, Queensland
Multiple lights seen by a number of observers.

21 September 2015 Armidale, New South Wales
Two sightings of two sets of two nocturnal lights.

What can YOU do?

I urge Australian blog readers to consider undertaking their own investigations. Reports are constantly being made via Facebook Australian UFO communities; via the media and to Australian UFO groups.

If you see a report in the media, why not contact the reporter of the story, ask  them to put you in touch with the witness; talk to  that person, take note of what they say; and forward the details to myself at keithbasterfield@yahoo.com.au I will be happy to assist you either investigate, document or publish your findings. Your work will be fully credited, and will contribute to Australian research.

If you belong to an Australian UFO group, but do not feel  confident to undertake an investigation, I am happy to work with you to enhance your investigation skills. Please take a look at my post on investigation tools.

Paul and I welcome comments on our investigation reports.

Full report - near collision - "unknown object" - Perth - 19 March 2014

Near collision between an Australian aircraft and an "unknown object" near Perth, Western Australia on 19 March 2014.

A report by Keith Basterfield and Paul Dean.

Background:

In Australia, according to the website (click here)  of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the ATSB "...is Australia's national transport safety investigator...The ATSB is Australia's prime agency for the independent investigation of civil aviation, rail and maritime accidents, incidents and safety deficiencies."

On the ATSB website is a listing of "Aviation Safety Investigations & Reports." (Click here.) The listing provides details of incidents such as near collisions between aircraft. One of the authors (PD) noted that one of the March 2014 near collision reports involved an "unknown object."

ATSB report number AO-2014-052 read as follows:

"The ATSB has commenced an investigation into a near collision with  an unknown object involving a De Havilland DHC-8, VH-XFX near Perth Airport, Western Australia on 19 March 2014. Whilst passing 4,000ft on descent the crew observed an unknown object tracking directly towards the aircraft. The crew manoeuvred the aircraft to maintain separation. As part of the investigation the ATSB will interview the aircrew. A report will be released within several months."

This ATSB preliminary report goes on to provide general details as follows:

Date: 19 Mar 2014
Time: 0913 WST
Location: Perth Airport, NNE 23km
Investigation type: Occurrence investigation
Occurrence class: Operational
Occurrence category: Serious incident
Report status: Pending
Expected completion: June 2014
Aircraft details: de Havilland Canada
Model: DHC-8-314
Registration: VH-XFX
Serial number: 313
Type of operation: Charter
Sector: Turbo prop
Damage to aircraft: Nil
Departure point: Kambalda, WA
Destination: Perth, WA.

On 26 May 2014 the ATSB released their four page report on the incident (click here.) The first page was simply  a cover sheet; page two was ATSB information; page three was headed "Near collision between an unknown object and a De Havilland DHC-8." It read:

"What happened

On 19 March 2014, at about 0913 Western Standard Time (WST) a de Havilland DHC-8, registered VH-XFX was on approach to Perth Airport from Kambalda, Western Australia. When about 23km north-north-east of Perth, at about 3,800ft above mean sea level (AMSL), the crew sighted a bright strobe light in front of the aircraft. The light appeared to track toward the aircraft and the crew realised that the light was on an unknown object, possibly an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV.) The pilot took evasive action turning towards the west to avoid a collision with the object. The object passed about 20m horizontally and 100ft vertically from the aircraft.

The pilot reported that the object was cylindrical in shape and grey in colour. It was at about 3,700ft AMSL and in controlled airspace. The crew did not receive a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) alert. The airspace below 3,500ft AMSL was military restricted airspace and the Australian Defence Force was not operating UAVs and was not aware of any UAV operations in the area at the time of the incident. The ATSB was not able to confirm the details of the object or identify any UAV operator in the area at that time."

General details:

Occurrence details
Date and time: 19 March 2014 - 0913WST
Occurrence category: Serious incident
Primary occurrence type: Interference from the ground
Location: 23km NNE Perth Airport, Western Australia
Latitude 31 deg 44.62min S

Aircraft details:
Manufacturer and model: De Havilland Canada DHC-8-314
Registration: VH-XFX
Serial number: 313
Type of operation: Charter-passenger
Persons on board: Crew-4 passengers-unknown
Injuries: Crew - nil.  Passengers - nil
Damage: Nil.

About the ATSB:

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is an independent Commonwealth Government Statutory Agency. The ATSB is governed by a Commission and is entirely separate from transport regulatory, policy makers and service providers. The ATSB's function is to improve safety and public confidence in the aviation, maritime and rail modes of transport through excellence in independent investigations of transport accidents and other safety occurrences; safety data recording, analysis and research, and fostering safety awareness, knowledge and action."

The ATSB is responsible for investigating accidents and other transport safety matters involving civil aviation, marine and rail operations in Australia that fall within Commonwealth jurisdiction, as well as participating in overseas investigations involving Australia registered aircraft and ships. A primary concern is the safety of commercial transport, with particular regard to fare-paying passenger operations.

The ATSB performs its functions in accordance with the provision of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and regulations and, where appropriate, relevant international agreements.

The object of a safety investigation is to identify and reduce safety-related risk. ATSB investigations determine and communicate the safety factors related to the transport safety matter being investigated.

It is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame or determine liability. At the same time, an investigation report must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings. At all times the ATSB endeavours to balance the use of material that could imply adverse comment with the need to properly explain what happened, and why, in a fair and unbiased manner.

About this report:

Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, a limited-scope, fact- gathering investigation was conducted in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions."

The following photograph shows a Skippers DHC-8 aircraft, similar to the one involved in the event (photo courtesy of FlightAware.)

The investigation:

The authors:

1. Secured secondary radar data on the event.
2. Secured primary radar data on the event.
3. Obtained weather details.
4. Interviewed the command pilot.
5. Located similar events of this type in this area.
6. Obtained additional information from the ATSB.
7. Checked previous ATSB reports involving UAV.


1. Secondary radar data:

The "Webtrak" website (click here) is run by Air Services Australia and allows a view of secondary radar data superimposed over a ground map. It shows the location of aircraft near major Australian airports. You can view an area up to 50 kilometres from selected airports. Only aircraft carrying transponders show on the screen. For each aircraft you can find details such as its flight number; originating and destination airports; an aircraft's moment to moment height (AMSL), plus the type of plane. Time wise, you can check from 40 minutes to three months into the past.

One of the authors (KB) went to the "Webtrak" website and set the system for 19 March 2014 beginning at 0904WST. At 0909WST a DHC-8 aircraft , shown as flying from YKBL appears on the radar replay, near the locality of Chidlow. This was the aircraft described in the ATSB report.

The following screen capture is from Webtrak at about 0913WST on 19 March 2014. The DHC-8 aircraft is the smaller red aircraft middle top of the screen.

The DHC-8 aircraft is shown following flight VOZ1432, registration VH-YIU, a B738 flying Darwin to Perth. Some 20 kilometres behind the DHC-8 plane was flight QFA485 Melbourne to Perth, an A332 at 6243 feet. The crew of this aircraft would have had the DHC-8 to the front of them. Close to QFA485 was a general aviation aircraft, a C82R at 8186 feet. However, the direction of flight of this aircraft was facing away from the DHC-8 plane.

The radar replay shows VOZ1432 landing at 0916 WST, the DHC-8 landed at 0919WST and the QFA485 at 0920WST.

Zooming in on the secondary radar image reveals that at about 0913WST, the DHC-8 aircraft was shown at a height of 4124ft. Looking at the track of this aircraft as displayed, there does indeed seem to be a slight direction change at the reported time of the near collision with the "unknown" object.

There are absolutely no other aircraft shown, near the DHC-8 on the radar replay. However, it should be remembered that secondary radar only shows returns on the display when an aircraft is carrying a transponder which provides identification to air traffic controllers. If the object was an aircraft not using a transponder, then it would not show up on this type of radar.


2. Primary radar data:

Primary radar shows returns of any kind. In theory it should show only objects reflecting the generated radar waves. Perth international airport shares a primary radar system with the RAAF (Pearce base.) The authors therefore sought copies of primary radar data from both the Department of Defence (KB) (DOD) and Air Services Australia (PD) (ASA), using the Freedom of Information Act.

The length of the DOD FOI process exceeded the length of time that the RAAF holds its radar data for (apparently 30 days) and thus this was unsuccessful. However, ASA did provide us with a DVD with a replay of radar data for that location, date and time. An air traffic controller who looked at this DVD for us, confirmed that it showed both primary and secondary radar data. What did it show? It showed all the aircraft which Webtrak had shown, but absolutely nothing near the DHC-8. Whatever, was seen visually by the pilot, did not appear on radar.


3. Weather:

Weather details:

The Bureau of Meteorology's website provided the following weather information for Perth international airport. Daily minimum temperature 18deg C; daily maximum 32.4degC. Nil rain. Evaporation 6.6mm. Sun 11.0hrs. Maximum wind gust south-west 37km/hr at 1445hrs. At 9am temperature was 24.5degC; relative humidity 51; nil cloud; wind from the north-east at 13km/hr. MSLP 1021.0.


4. Interview with pilot in command:

Both authors independently communicated with Skippers Aviation, the company who owned VH-XFX and sought their permission to interview the main pilot. One of the authors (PD) also spoke by telephone to a number of Skippers' employees to achieve the same aim. After several months, one of the authors (PD) was advised that he had permission to speak to the pilot, and did so on 2 and 3 July 2014. The following dot points were recorded, from the conversation:

* The pilot, male, age 26 utterly ruled out the possibility of the object being a weather balloon
* The object was travelling in the opposite direction to him, not merely hovering or floating
* He and the co-pilot registered "complete shock"
* Air Services Australia confirmed that no other flight crew reported seeing the object (via ground radio when he landed)
* When he thought the object might collide with his plane, he sought a heading change from ATC, but this was denied. He therefore changed course himself
* The object was still going "up," as well as travelling horizontally when it passed his aircraft
* He estimated it was only 100m from his aircraft at most, he said it could have been as close as 30m
* It had the ratio dimension wise of a cigarette, i.e. long and thin
* He said it was green in colour, military green actually, even though the ATSB report cites the colour as grey
* The strobe light on front had a flash frequency of a second interval at most. It was whitish in colour, and not red, or blue, or any other colour
* The total duration of the event did not exceed 15 seconds
* A very rough estimate of the speed of the aircraft at the time was perhaps 450km/hr, despite being on a landing approach
* No other aircraft crew reported seeing anything. There was no radar image of the object. ASA staff saw nothing on radar
* It definitely went past the aircraft on the left hand side
* The pilot undertook a voluntary drug, urine test upon landing
* He has no idea what it was, and didn't want it to happen again
*There were 53 passengers on board at the time
* No one told him, not to discuss the incident.

Perhaps the single most important difference between the pilot's account and the ATSB report is that the ATSB said the object was grey in colour, whereas the pilot said it was green, military green, in colour.


5. Similar events in the area:

A check was made for similar events from this area. Two were found:

a. In 1998, as part of a response to an FOI request to the ATSB, one of the authors (KB) received the details of a 1998 incident. At 1515hrs on 8 November 1998, an aircraft was 28kms NW of Perth airport. The pilot reported that an unidentified flying object, bright red/orange in colour, passed 30 meters below his aircraft. It was travelling very fast, as the aircraft passed 9,000 feet. The object was estimated to be approximately 2 metres across. The pilot said he believed that the object might have been a model aircraft.

b. The "West Australian" newspaper of Saturday, 18 April 2009, on page 7, ran the headline "Toy plane crashes into jet." The story was that a radio controlled model aircraft had collided with a jet, either a Virgin Blue or Qantas aircraft. Two young men had been observed operating the model, some 500 metres from the runway thresh hold. A more detailed account appeared on page 9 of the Tuesday 21 April 2009 issue of the same paper. At 0800hrs on 17 April 2009 a model aircraft "...came within seconds of colliding with the 160 seat 737 aircraft..." The model plane was said to be 88cm long with a one metre wingspan and weighed 850g. A video taken by the operator is available for viewing on You Tube (click here.)


6. Additional information from the ATSB:

One of the authors (PD) communicated with the ATSB seeking additional information. Part of the ATSB's email response read:

"In this incident, the primary source of factual information was the flight crew of the aircraft involved. The aircraft had tracked from IFR waypoint ROLOB to WOORA, a heading of about 285 degrees, or WNW. After the aircraft passed WOORA, the next intended waypoint was HAIGH, a track of about 234 degrees (south-west). As the pilot in command commenced the turn, the crew sighted a strobe light tracking directly towards the aircraft. The pilot elected to turn onto a heading of 270 (or west), rather than continue the turn to the SW, to avoid the object which was on a reciprocal track. The object then passed down the left side of the aircraft.

The ATSB attempted to identify the object and its operator. However, as stated in the report, was unable to verify what the object was, where it had been launched from, or the identity of the operator. The incident was reported to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Australian Defence Force."


7. ATSB UAV reports:

A check of the ATSB's database located two previous reports involving UAV.

a. AO-2014-056. Near collision between an unmanned aerial vehicle and a Bell 412 helicopter, VH-WSB, near Newcastle Westpac base (HLS) NSW on 22 March 2014. 2200hrs and climbing to 1200 feet, observed a steady white light. Helicopter then descended. Pilot noted the light made an abrupt right turn and tracked towards the helicopter. The object's rate and radius of turn indicated it was not an aircraft. "...more likely to be a small unmanned aerial vehicle..." The UAV was seen as close as 100m away and level with the helicopter.

b. AO-2013-167. Aircraft separation issue involving an Ayres S2B VH-WBK and an unmanned aerial vehicle 37km SSW of Horsham aerodrome, Victoria on 12 September 2013. At about 0930hrs EST aerial agricultural operation was occurring on a property. An operator of a UAV sensefly eBee 178 was conducting aerial photography. The operator radioed his intention to launch a UAV. Flight of UAV was at 390 feet AGL. The UAV came near to the aircraft.


Discussion and analysis:

1. The "unknown" object was not picked up on primary or secondary radar from the ground. It also did not activate the aircraft's TCAS. This all suggests that the object was not an aircraft. The pilot's visual observation confirms this.

2. Was it an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as suggested in the ATSB report? Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Australia Advisory circular AC101-1 (click here) provides that UAVs are permitted only up to a height not exceeding 400 feet AGL, and there are tight controls if flown in controlled airspace. Recall that the aircraft at the time was near 4,000 feet. Recall also that the Department of Defence is cited as saying that it was not operating UAVs at the time itself, and was not aware of any UAV operations at that time. In addition, the ATSB was not able to identify any UAV operator in the area. Thus if it was a UAV, it was an illegal operation.

One of the authors(PD) contacted two Perth based UAV operators, namely "Coptercam" and "Altitude Imaging." Neither company was aware of any current UAVs shaped like "cigarettes" i.e. pencil shaped.

In addition, one should also note the pilot's description of the object. It was not of a multi rotor, circular UAV, nor of a fixed wing model aircraft, but of a military green coloured, cylindrical object of dimensions ratio similar to a cigarette, i.e. long and thin. Note also, that the pilot did not report seeing any wings, tail, or propulsion system on the object, even though he had a close visual observation. In the opinion of the authors, the probability of the unknown object being a conventional UAV, is extremely low.

3. So, what was it? By any definition it was an "unknown object," an unidentified flying object if you will, or an example of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP.)

Could there still be a conventional explanation, if it was not an aircraft or a UAV? Perhaps the colour and ratio of its dimensions provide a clue? Could it have been a rocket or a missile, of some kind? If so, why would such a thing have a strobe light on it? Apparent lack of wings, tail or a propulsion system would all fit this conjecture. If it was a rocket or missile, where did it come from and who launched it?


Conclusion:

At this point, with no definite explanation, the authors consider the report should be regarded as an example of UAP.

We welcome comments from blog readers.

Preliminary investigation report - Armidale, NSW - 21 September 2015

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION REPORT - ARMIDALE, NEW SOUTH WALES - 21 SEPTEMBER 2015

Date:         Monday 21 September 2015
Location:  Armidale, New South Wales
Time:         Sighting one - 2120-2135hrs
                   Sighting two - 2130-2150hrs
                   Australian Eastern Standard Time (UTC plus 10 hours.)

Introduction



Two sightings were initially reported to the "Lights in the sky" blog site of the Sydney Observatory. Details as recorded there were:

Sighting one:

"Two orange circles were observed over block. The lights came together and then drifted apart. They were very close but no other outline of an object could be seen. It is hard to determine how high they were as they were clearly seen and bright but the movement made this confusing.

The lights went up and then down again, together and then apart. The lights then went straight up and started to travel away from our block in an Eastward direction towards Coffs Harbour. We watched the lights until they faded away. We took a picture with the iPhone but it is not clear due to the darkness. These lights were seen by three adults and 5 children. We all thought it was very odd. The sky was clear and stars were visible."  (Kim.)



Courtesy of Google maps

Sighting two:

"At around 2130 I went down my back steps and glanced to the West and noticed what I thought were 2x helicopter lights in the sky above the University of New England. They were amber in colour and slowly moving towards the east along the northern edge of town. Each object remained a constant distance about 50m from each other north to south. What drew my attention to them was their color brightness and zero flashing. As they got closer and were passing overhead about 100m they did not make a sound. I called my partner and son to check it out and they were amazed at what they saw. The irony is that my video camera was not charged and mobile phone was dead.

To the west again a plane was flying very high as we saw the beacon flashing and heard the engine of that aircraft. It was flying south to north. We watched the two lights for about 15 minutes as they made their way to the east and disappeared over the horizon. They remained constantly at a distance from each other, did not make a sound and were bright. It was a clear night with the Moon setting in the west and as the lights passed stars in the background no silhouette or shape between the 2 lights was evident." (Greg.)

Courtesy of Google maps

Investigation

 



Sighting one:

In addition to posting on the Sydney Observatory site, Kim also emailed directly to Melbourne researcher, Paul Dean. Paul asked me to contact Kim and I sent him an email asking a number of questions. I have received no response as at the date of this report.

Sighting two:

I contacted Greg by email and posed a series of questions:

Q1 What was their apparent size compared to the full Moon on the horizon? Were they star sized?
A1 "They were a little larger than a star, like headlights of a car. What got my attention was their brightness."

Q2 What was the total duration of the sighting?
A2 "Approximately 20 minutes."

Q3 Did you watch them continuously?
A3 "Yes, for the first couple of minutes. I raced inside to grab a video camera to film it. Unfortunately it had a flat battery. When I returned after about 30 seconds, I watched them continuously until they were out of view on the horizon to the east travelling towards Ebor from Armidale."

Q4 Did each, or any of them vary in brightness at all? If so, how?
A4 "No, they remained the same intensity the whole time. The only time their luminosity got less as they moved further away."

Q5 When you say they disappeared, did they simply got out or disappear behind something?
A5 "They just simply went beyond the horizon where I could not  observe them any more."

Q6 What were the weather conditions like at the time?
A7 "The weather conditions at the time were prefect. There was no wind and zero clouds in the sky. It was a very clear night about 10 degrees Celsius."

Q7 Is the video you took able to be electronically forwarded to me to view?
A7 "Yes."

I then  later spoke to Greg by telephone and clarified a number of points, including whether or not he had ever seen a hot air garbage bag or a Chinese Lantern. He had not, and in fact asked me what these were? I ascertained that Greg lived in Erskine Street (see map above.)

Weather details

 

I obtained the relevant weather details from the Bureau of Meteorology's website, see the screen capture below:

 

 

 



At 2100hrs the temperature was 9.1 degrees Celsius; relative humidity 74%;wind speed was 9km/hr from the north-west.

At 2130hrs temp was 9.3C; 75%rh; wind speed 7km/hr from the west-north-west.

Radar

I checked Air Services Australia's WebTrak secondary radar coverage. It does not extend to Armidale.

Astronomical

The night sky is as shown in the screen capture below. The Moon was in the western sky.

Courtesy Heavens Above website

Analysis

1. Given that the times of the two sightings are different, and that the behaviour of the two sets of two lights are different (constant distance apart - Greg; and varying distances - Kim) it appears to me that we have two separate sightings of two sets of two lights, not two observations of the same set of two lights.

2. Greg in Erskine Street viewed his objects initially in the west-north-west, then overhead, then going eastwards. We do not have Kim's exact location, but he described his lights as heading eastwards.

3. At 2130hrs, the wind speed was 7km/hr from the west-north-west. Therefore, Greg's objects were travelling exactly from the direction the wind was blowing from, and heading in the same direction as the wind was blowing to, i.e. to the east. It could therefore be argued that Greg's objects were wind borne ones. All that can be said for Kim's objects is that they were heading in the same direction as the wind, i.e. east, and therefore it can be postulated that they were also wind borne.

4. The colour, brightness, size, shape, lack of sound are all consistent with either hoax hot air garbage bag balloons or Chinese lanterns. For those who have not seen a video of these devices, here are four Youtube videos which are very educational.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0qvP4mo1cds

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MmWz_F_dPoc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9eQ3ls64Al8

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j0QtdpgT41k

5. The durations of 20 minutes for both sightings is also consistent with the light wind speed of between 7 and 9 km/hr.

6. Hoax hot air garbage bags may appear to "flicker" or "pulse" when seen at close range, but when viewed from a distance, the amber/orange light appears steady.

7. For a report from Cairns, Queensland of multiple orange lights which appear to have been either hot air garbage bag balloons or Chinese Lanterns, dated four days earlier, click here.

8. For a report of orange lights from Armidale, NSW date exactly one year earlier click here

Conclusion

My view, based on the details provided above, is that there was nothing inconsistent with either hoax hot air garbage bags  or Chinese lanterns.

They have been reported from Tasmania to Texas.

These are quite often launched by bored teenagers; particularly on warm, calm evenings. These individuals then track sightings via local media and community Facebook pages, for fun.

I welcome comments from blog readers.