Hi all,
The last of the series from James E McDonald’s 1967 Australian audio collection.
Identification Code/CD Number: 3T22S205/CD59
Date Recorded: June/July 1967
File Size: 9.4 MB
Interview Duration (m:s): 9:47
Interview Details: James E McDonald interviews Les Benedek
Sighting Date: 24 January 1966
Sighting Time: 2230hrs
Location of Sighting: Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Duration of Sighting: Ca. 15 seconds
Witness(es): Mr Les Benedek
Background:
On 24 January 1966 at about 2230 hours, a Mr Benedek was in
Perth, Western Australia. He said he was
taking colour photographs when he saw a bluish-green light, he described the
object as, ‘It was oval shaped with an ‘antenna’ on the front and dropped
towards the river at terrific speed’.
Perth, Western Australia. He said he was
taking colour photographs when he saw a bluish-green light, he described the
object as, ‘It was oval shaped with an ‘antenna’ on the front and dropped
towards the river at terrific speed’.
It is claimed that the Royal Australian Airforce (RAAF)
examined the photographs but nothing to this effect has been found on RAAF
files in the National Archives of Australia.
examined the photographs but nothing to this effect has been found on RAAF
files in the National Archives of Australia.
Various details on this sighting have been published:
1. Australian Flying Saucer Review (Victorian edition). July 1966. Number 5. p.20.
2. AFSR (UFOIC edition). Number 9. Front cover.
3. ‘Sun Herald’ newspaper. Sydney. 5 July 1966.
4. ‘Perth Sunday Times.’ 5 June 1966.
5. ‘Life International’ magazine. 18 April 1966.
Audi recording
Benedek says that he moved back with the camera, and placed
the camera on a rock. McDonald states
that it is clear that the second and third photographs were taken from a
slightly different place, as indicated by the position of the brush in
front. McDonald mentions someone called
Martin, who was bothered about the first of the three photographs, in that the
alignment of the distant lights suggests quite a substantial displacement from
the other two photographs. The
photograph in questions was the one showing a small dot. Benedek responds by saying that the first
photograph referred to by McDonald may not in fact be the first one that he had
taken. Benedek claims he used a complete
roll of film.
the camera on a rock. McDonald states
that it is clear that the second and third photographs were taken from a
slightly different place, as indicated by the position of the brush in
front. McDonald mentions someone called
Martin, who was bothered about the first of the three photographs, in that the
alignment of the distant lights suggests quite a substantial displacement from
the other two photographs. The
photograph in questions was the one showing a small dot. Benedek responds by saying that the first
photograph referred to by McDonald may not in fact be the first one that he had
taken. Benedek claims he used a complete
roll of film.
Benedek was at Kings Park, Perth, taking photographs. Then he went towards the bay where there is a
park. There he said he sighted the
‘flying saucer’, and he was able to take three photographs of the object while
standing at the same location. McDonald
suggested that the first photograph was taken 400 to 800 metres from the other
two photographs. Benedek wondered if he
had mixed up the photographs.
park. There he said he sighted the
‘flying saucer’, and he was able to take three photographs of the object while
standing at the same location. McDonald
suggested that the first photograph was taken 400 to 800 metres from the other
two photographs. Benedek wondered if he
had mixed up the photographs.
McDonald said the pictures appeared in an UFOIC magazine
cover with an arrow pointing to a dot.
McDonald then discussed Martin’s second point of concern. This was that photograph two, the one with
the flare-like object at a higher angular elevation than photograph three,
shows the streaks on a distance highway broken into three parts. A correspondent of Martin’s had surveyed the
site, this indicated that the small breaks in the photograph were caused by
trees. This finding appeared to confirm
that there were only three cars.
McDonald then states that based on this finding his estimate of the
photograph’s negative exposure time was 15 seconds. Ripples on the streaks had been measured and
corresponded with a breathing rate. He
was puzzled about the tripod mounting and how the sinusoidal ripples occurred?
cover with an arrow pointing to a dot.
McDonald then discussed Martin’s second point of concern. This was that photograph two, the one with
the flare-like object at a higher angular elevation than photograph three,
shows the streaks on a distance highway broken into three parts. A correspondent of Martin’s had surveyed the
site, this indicated that the small breaks in the photograph were caused by
trees. This finding appeared to confirm
that there were only three cars.
McDonald then states that based on this finding his estimate of the
photograph’s negative exposure time was 15 seconds. Ripples on the streaks had been measured and
corresponded with a breathing rate. He
was puzzled about the tripod mounting and how the sinusoidal ripples occurred?
Benedek claims that he had the camera on a tripod. He kept his finger on the button to keep the
camera shutter open, allowing him to take a time exposure. The ripples in the photograph could have been
due to his hand shaking. McDonald claims
that Martin thought it was on a cable release.
Benedek claimed that he had set the camera to ‘B’ setting and therefore
not used a cable shutter release.
camera shutter open, allowing him to take a time exposure. The ripples in the photograph could have been
due to his hand shaking. McDonald claims
that Martin thought it was on a cable release.
Benedek claimed that he had set the camera to ‘B’ setting and therefore
not used a cable shutter release.
McDonald then asks, ‘what about the estimate of 15
seconds?’ Benedek is uncertain, stating,
‘I thought it was less than 15 seconds, perhaps 10 seconds’. Benedek claims the object was hovering at
first then moved downwards. Martin’s
correspondent had duplicated the scene using a 15 second exposure.
seconds?’ Benedek is uncertain, stating,
‘I thought it was less than 15 seconds, perhaps 10 seconds’. Benedek claims the object was hovering at
first then moved downwards. Martin’s
correspondent had duplicated the scene using a 15 second exposure.
McDonald asked, ‘How long it had been between when the photographs
were taken and developed?’, Benedek answered, ‘it was a week’. McDonald then asks, ‘what did you do then?’,
Benedek replies, “I took them to the Sydney Morning Herald, they said, ‘we will
reproduce them as black and white, why not take them to Life
International?’” Benedek claims a Mr
Shirley of Life International told him to submit the photographs to the
RAAF. He did this, and an officer from
the RAAF told him, ‘certainly not reflections’.
were taken and developed?’, Benedek answered, ‘it was a week’. McDonald then asks, ‘what did you do then?’,
Benedek replies, “I took them to the Sydney Morning Herald, they said, ‘we will
reproduce them as black and white, why not take them to Life
International?’” Benedek claims a Mr
Shirley of Life International told him to submit the photographs to the
RAAF. He did this, and an officer from
the RAAF told him, ‘certainly not reflections’.
Life International published the photographs in the 18 April
1966 edition. Source Unidentified Aerial Phenomena – scientific research
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий