Farmer may hold UFO clue to 36-year Valentich plane mystery

[Christopher O'Brien]

[Looking at the photo, I don't see a UFO, or a plane, huh? —chris]

Article HERE:

INVESTIGATORS [may] have shed new light on one of Australia’s greatest aviation mysteries. Almost 36 years to the month that Victorian pilot Fred Valentich vanished without a trace, an independent researcher says there is evidence suggesting the 20-year-old’s Cessna was spotted in the sky over South Australia — attached to a UFO.

The Victorian UFO Action group wants help to identify a farmer near Adelaide who reportedly witnessed the 30m craft hovering over his property the morning after Mr Valentich went missing.
It is claimed the Cessna was stuck to the side of the craft, leaking oil. The farmer even scratched the plane’s registration number on to his tractor but never came forward with the information because he was ridiculed by the few friends he told.

The theory has sparked furious debate as the nation’s leading UFO investigators prepare for a national conference in Melbourne next month. Lead investigator George Simpson, one of the last people to see the plane in the sky, says the farmer, if still alive, might have information to solve the mystery.

He conceded there was no proof, but said it was the best new lead for a case that had intrigued Australians for decades. “It’s easy for some to dismiss, but there are corroborating stories confirming that there was a UFO near Adelaide at the time,” Mr Simpson said. Mr Valentich had been on a routine cargo flight to King Island in October 1978 when he disappeared. In his last conversation with air traffic control, he reported an object hovering in front of him and said it was “not an aircraft’’. It was the last thing Mr Valentich said before a strange metallic clicking sound was heard and the transmission stopped.

Extensive searches failed to find any trace of the plane or the pilot. “This was an experienced pilot who should have been able to identify another aircraft but was clearly unable to,” Mr Simpson said.

Adding to the mystery, an amateur photo taken in the area that evening shows a dark unidentifiable shape in the sky. Investigators are also trying to find a copy of Valentich’s final transmission that was originally aired on Melbourne radio station 3XY.

REST OF ARTICLE HERE:

 

[manxman]

the dark shape looks more like a blemish/fault with the photo itself.

 

[Bananas]

Ummm, that looks like an insect really close to the camera?

E: I mean, look at the photo, if there was something that obvious in the sky, why the *fuck* would you take a shot directly from the sun, and not the massive black blob on the sky? Makes zero sense. In addition, if there was something that obvious, wouldn't you take more photos?

No, someone took a picture of the sun and realzied after the fact that thing on the photo, which was most likely a bug that was caught in the shot by accident.

 

[Burnt State]

Where was this farmer following national discussion regarding Valentich's disappearance? Why three decades later does this crumb of evidence show up. It sounds a lot like forgotten slides of Roswell aliens found in the attic. It's a stretch.

But it's an interesting blob in the photo - kind of like a boxy beetle with wings. You can almost make out two landing gear, I mean insect legs, protruding from that object.

On a similar note I hear that the infamous Westall incident is also getting a re-look from a more skeptical HIBAL balloon angle: UFOs - scientific research: Project HIBAL - the answer to Westall? - files destroyed

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Ummm, that looks like an insect really close to the camera?

E: I mean, look at the photo, if there was something that obvious in the sky, why the *fuck* would you take a shot directly from the sun, and not the massive black blob on the sky? Makes zero sense. In addition, if there was something that obvious, wouldn't you take more photos?

No, someone took a picture of the sun and realzied after the fact that thing on the photo, which was most likely a bug that was caught in the shot by accident.

Hi Bananas. I agree with you as far as the very dark blob but to me it looks like the sepia-coloured part, behind the dark part (different objects completely?) is consistent with a larger, further away object. The reason I think this is that the object seems to display a fair amount of 'atmospheric haze' that you get when the light travelling from the object to the observer, travels through enough air to have a percentage of that light scattered from interactions with the molecules in the air. The end result of the scattering is that any colour is diluted and hazy instead of the bright and pure visual effect of an object that is close to the observer.

Early on in the history of the Paracast, David Biedny often used to mention this 'atmospheric hazing' and how faked photos often do not compensate for the natural effect. Not for one second do I pretend to have any skills in image analysis but this particular effect is something I look out for ever since those early episodes mentioned it.

Anyone agree or am I talking out of my arse?

 

[Bananas]

Well, if you look at the rest of the photo, it's not exactly sharp or anything.

 

[Burnt State]

Here's a better version of the photo:

It's hard to talk about atmospheric haze when you have such a low resolution image, and truth be told, when you look at it, the blob of a beetle/ufo appears to be in a focal plane much closer to us than further away.

 

[Bananas]

Yup, still looks like a bug to me.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Well, if you look at the rest of the photo, it's not exactly sharp or anything.

That is certainly true but I would ask you to consider the area I mentioned and compare it to, say, the rocks etc. Just taking into account this 'hazing' I refer to and if in this photo, there is any consistency with distance from camera vs haziness, to my admittedly untrained eye, it sure looks like the object is at least as 'degraded' the furthest out rocks and therefore possibly at least that far out in the scene?

But as I said I am far from an expert, well actually I am not even a beginner but perhaps any member with experience is this kind of thing can chime in?

Regarding the incident itself, the think that really strikes me about this case is that as we know something drastic happened in a quite short period of time and in the lead up to that, we can probably be sure that anything Valentich said over the radio was the truth as he saw it, and deadly serious. He reported and object buzzing him that was large and 'not a plane' so there really aren't many known things that could fit that bill?

I'd like to mention that this case gave an excellent example of a debunker just making stuff up to muddy the waters on a strong case (strong in that something unusual and deadly did happen). The arch-debunker Phil Klass accused Valentich of running drugs - on the basis that he had more lifejackets than he needed. There are so many things wrong with such an accusation and the fact that Klass was a well-known figure round the world, you can bet the Valentich family got to hear of his disgusting baseless accusation and really, a grieving family who have suffered an inexplicable mystery should not be subjected to the whims of a debunker throwing any dirt he can to try and distract people away from a truly puzzling case. Our very own Don Ecker debated Klass superbly and a recording of it is available on Dark Matters Radio.

 

[Burnt State]

While not the same bug or angle you get the idea here of a segmented body, legs protrudings and wings in the back. This seems much more probable than a UFO carrying away a small plane.

 

[Bananas]

That is certainly true but I would ask you to consider the area I mentioned and compare it to, say, the rocks etc. Just taking into account this 'hazing' I refer to and if in this photo, there is any consistency with distance from camera vs haziness, to my admittedly untrained eye, it sure looks like the object is at least as 'degraded' the furthest out rocks and therefore possibly at least that far out in the scene?

But as I said I am far from an expert, well actually I am not even a beginner but perhaps any member with experience is this kind of thing can chime in?

Regarding the incident itself, the think that really strikes me about this case is that as we know something drastic happened in a quite short period of time and in the lead up to that, we can probably be sure that anything Valentich said over the radio was the truth as he saw it, and deadly serious. He reported and object buzzing him that was large and 'not a plane' so there really aren't many known things that could fit that bill?

I'd like to mention that this case gave an excellent example of a debunker just making stuff up to muddy the waters on a strong case (strong in that something unusual and deadly did happen). The arch-debunker Phil Klass accused Valentich of running drugs - on the basis that he had more lifejackets than he needed. There are so many things wrong with such an accusation and the fact that Klass was a well-known figure round the world, you can bet the Valentich family got to hear of his disgusting baseless accusation and really, a grieving family who have suffered an inexplicable mystery should not be subjected to the whims of a debunker throwing any dirt he can to try and distract people away from a truly puzzling case. Our very own Don Ecker debated Klass superbly and a recording of it is available on Dark Matters Radio.

I vaguely remember that argument. (calling it a debate is an insult to debating) I never checked if what was said was factual, but I got the impression that there was something peculiar about the guys action prior to the incident. Not saying he was smuggling drugs or anything, as I have no real basis to make that assertion, but something was off IMO. Whether that's revelant or not however, I couldn't say. I rarely pay attention to debates, as they always devolve into ego-driven pissing contests and accomplish literally nothing.