UFO Research Australia Newsletter

Magazine Overview

This document, a newsletter from UFO Research Australia dated December 1987, focuses on an analysis of photographs taken in Kempsey, Australia, on July 21, 1975. The cover of the associated Flying Saucer Review (Volume 21, Number 6) is also presented, featuring the headline 'UFO PHOTOGRAPHS FROM KEMPSEY'. The newsletter's primary aim is to investigate whether the photographed object was a UFO or the planet Venus.

The Kempsey Sighting (July 21, 1975)

The report details an account from two people, identified in a Flying Saucer Review article as Mr. and Mrs. Glen Waters, who were travelling by car in Kempsey, New South Wales. They reported observing and photographing an unusual object on the evening of July 21, 1975. The initial observation was of a bright object moving rapidly westward, estimated to be at an altitude of 150-300 metres and travelling noiselessly at 'fantastic speed'.

Upon attempting to chase the object in their vehicle, they arrived at the town's edge where the object was then seen hovering motionless in the clear evening sky. When they alighted from their vehicle, the Waters noticed nearby cows were disturbed and dogs were barking loudly. While hovering, the object reportedly changed color (white/yellow/red), pulsated, and moved in a triangular fashion. Mr. Waters, described as an 'expert amateur photographer', took several pictures using a Praktica LTL camera with GAF 500 ASA colour slide film. The time was noted as 8:08 p.m.

As Mr. Waters was attaching a telephoto lens, the object descended and disappeared behind hills. At this point, the dogs and cows reportedly became quiet. The report also mentions that other people in Kempsey observed a 'cigar shaped object' that night, which was seen passing overhead and changing color (red/green/yellow/orange).

Analysis and Identification

The newsletter, authored by Keith Basterfield, critically examines the evidence. It notes that Source 1 (Flying Saucer Review) provides three photographs and a sketch indicating the object's position relative to the Sun at sunset, showing it was stationary just north of due west. By using astronomical information and a Commodore 64 'Skytravel' program, it was determined that the object in the photographs was in the same position as the planet Venus. At 8 p.m. on that date, Venus was approximately 2 degrees above the horizon, about 10 degrees north of west.

The report argues that if the object were not Venus, there should have been two bright light sources visible. It suggests that scintillation at low elevation and autokinesis could explain the observed phenomena of pulsation, color change, and apparent movement, all of which fit the identification as Venus.

The fast-moving object that initiated the sighting is addressed separately. The author suggests that two objects may have been involved: an initial meteor or satellite re-entry that caught the couple's eye, followed by the sighting and photography of Venus. The report posits that the transference of attention from one object to another is a common occurrence in UFO reports. The commotion among the dogs and cows is also discussed, with the possibility that they were disturbed by the bright light of a meteor/re-entry or that the disturbance was coincidental. Allan Hendry's 'The UFO Handbook' is cited, listing animal reaction cases where stimuli included the Moon, aircraft, and Venus.

Conclusion

In summary, the document concludes that no data presented precludes the identification of the object in the 1975 Kempsey photographs as the planet Venus. The report implies that the initial sighting of a fast-moving object and the subsequent observation of a hovering object were distinct events, with the latter being a misidentification of Venus.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critical examination of UFO reports, particularly those involving photographic evidence. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards conventional UFO explanations, favoring prosaic identifications such as astronomical objects when evidence supports it. The newsletter emphasizes the importance of rigorous analysis and cross-referencing of sources to debunk or explain UFO phenomena. The case highlights the potential for misidentification of celestial bodies and the psychological aspects of witness perception.