Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

[Scaramanga]

No, the *scene* needs to actually reflect - In 3D. What you observe is a 2D projection of the scene.

In a movie, or on telly, when you see someone preening themselves in a mirror, do you ever say to yourself "that can't be a reflection in that mirror because I can see the back of their head from behind, and their face in the mirror"? Because you really ought to - that is the level of misunderstanding you are demonstrating here.

That's just nonsensical red herring obfuscation that nowhere answers my actual point....as is inventing some supposed analogy that has no bearing whatever.

What does 'the scene needs to actually reflect' even mean ? In what conceivable sense can the 'scene' reflect if no part of it does ?

 

[JMartJr]

The Hon. Mo Udall had a saying, "We've reached the point where everything has been said, but not everybody has had a chance to say it." I suggest on this topic that we've reached the point where everything has been said and everyone has said it. Barring additional evidence, or a new point to raise, it may be time to let this one marinate for a bit?

 

[Scaramanga]

The Hon. Mo Udall had a saying, "We've reached the point where everything has been said, but not everybody has had a chance to say it." I suggest on this topic that we've reached the point where everything has been said and everyone has said it. Barring additional evidence, or a new point to raise, it may be time to let this one marinate for a bit?

I agree...but I think its largely because I simply can't be bothered any more. It's more hassle than it's worth.

 

[Ann K]

To then find that on closer inspection there is NO aspect of the image that reflects....not a single one...

Claims facts not in evidence. It appears that you "can't be bothered" to take a good look at the image.

There are reasons why, as previously mentioned, the group of photographers all saw it as a reflection:

 

[deirdre]

I explained it more than once, with diagrams.

and he said your angles are too steep.

anyway, seems to me he understands what you are saying. he just disagrees with it as it relates to THIS photograph.

 

[Ann K]

and he said your angles are too steep.

anyway, seems to me he understands what you are saying he just disagrees with it as it relates to THIS photograph.

Facts are facts, not a thing subject to opinion, and rational people don't "disagree" with facts once they've been explained to them. But thanks for that peacemaker attempt.

 

[FatPhil]

That's just nonsensical red herring obfuscation that nowhere answers my actual point....as is inventing some supposed analogy that has no bearing whatever.

You're playing the "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong and I'm right" card. *AGAIN*.

What does 'the scene needs to actually reflect' even mean ? In what conceivable sense can the 'scene' reflect if no part of it does ?

It means that for every point in the scene in front of the reflecting surface there is a point in the reflection as far behind the reflecting surface as the original point was in front of it, within the contraints of the extent of the reflecting surface.

 

[Scaramanga]

You're playing the "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong and I'm right" card. *AGAIN*.

No...you are just playing the attempted patronising again

It means that for every point in the scene in front of the reflecting surface there is a point in the reflection as far behind the reflecting surface as the original point was in front of it, within the contraints of the extent of the reflecting surface.

Utterly meaningless...which you don't seem to 'understand'....in the context of this photo. Perhaps if some of you spent less time being patronising you'd grasp the point.

It's like me seeing a perfect black square in the sky and claiming that really its a bird...but just seen from a funny angle. Never mind that NO aspect of the square looks even remotely like a bird and there is absolutely nothing 'bird-like' about it. I can just invent hidden symmetry that's hidden by reflective angles.

No...you can't actually SEE this alleged symmetry that is hidden. I mean..it is hidden. You cannot directly observe it. It is the Emperor's New Symmetry. We have to all pretend that it is there because...erm...remind me why again.

Clearly, those who could not see the Emperor's new clothes were just ignorant of the laws of reflection and need to be patronised.

 

[Scaramanga]

anyway, seems to me he understands what you are saying. he just disagrees with it as it relates to THIS photograph.

Most of the examples given earlier were at rather high angles of incidence...which would lead to skewed reflections. However I long ago argued that for a whole host of reasons one cannot argue that the Calvine 'reflection' is at a high angle of incidence.

It is also worth noting that the reflection camp is split into whether the object is 3D ( e.g a rock ) or is 2D ( e.g a piece of cardboard ). But a 2D object would likely not have such incidence issues to any degree in the first place.

And, of course, there is the major issue of why we can't see the far shore or edge of whatever body of water it is. ( HINT : NO need to look for a far shore if it is simply the sky ). Oh, and the upside down clouds.....and a whole host of other objections that just get patronisingly ignored.

 

[deirdre]

or is 2D ( e.g a piece of cardboard ). But a 2D object would likely not have such incidence issues to any degree in the first place.

i thought the cardboard was always triangles? theres like 3 calvine threads going at once, so maybe they just posted int he wrong thread?

 

[Giddierone]

It does raise the question of why there appears to be a distant hillside below the level of the fence.

That distant hills and trees appear below the level of the barbed wire fence doesn't rule out the scene being a reflection or prove that the image was taken looking out over a valley.
Here's a reflection of a steep hill taken from the bottom of a valley. When viewed directly it rises far above the fence.

 

[Giddierone]

Wim van Utrecht

I was today years old when I realised that Wim van Utrecht has been at this for quite a while. This article How to take your own Gulf Breeze photos is from 1989!

 

[Andreas]

I've in the past tried to recreate the photo using both a sheet of glass and small models suspended on fishing line, and found the latter relatively easy to do. (The former, not so much.) In a way, I'm quite happy with the conclusion that the scene could easily have been faked in this manner. However, if I find some spare time this summer, I'd also like to try recreating it based on a reflection hypothesis. That way, I'll have tested three of the most commonly proposed hoax methods.

I would need some help, though. It's sometimes claimed that the photo was flipped upside down, and sometimes that it wasn't. For those of you who favor the reflection hypothesis, which setup do you think is most likely? Flipped or not flipped?

When it comes to the "jet," I'll try a few different methods: debris floating on the water, a scale model, and a flying airplane. (Perhaps I could use an RC aircraft to simulate a "real" jet—we'll see.)

 

[owntheissue]

I've in the past tried to recreate the photo using both a sheet of glass and small models suspended on fishing line, and found the latter relatively easy to do. (The former, not so much.) In a way, I'm quite happy with the conclusion that the scene could easily have been faked in this manner. However, if I find some spare time this summer, I'd also like to try recreating it based on a reflection hypothesis. That way, I'll have tested three of the most commonly proposed hoax methods.

I would need some help, though. It's sometimes claimed that the photo was flipped upside down, and sometimes that it wasn't. For those of you who favor the reflection hypothesis, which setup do you think is most likely? Flipped or not flipped?
View attachment 91641
View attachment 91642

When it comes to the "jet," I'll try a few different methods: debris floating on the water, a scale model, and a flying airplane. (Perhaps I could use an RC aircraft to simulate a "real" jet—we'll see.)

Not bad actually.
Doesnt look as similar to Calvine as the "dangled Xmas tree star" recreation in the other thread but it is at least feasible.

Given the lack of support from the UK aviation spotter community on the reality of the alleged jet - seems like you're going to a lot of trouble to establish a potential solution for an even less likely object in the photo (the UFO).

 

[Ann K]

I vote for not flipped. The object in question is light above, darker below.

But Ockham and I remain in the "reflection, not faked" category. The fact that something CAN be faked simply isn't evidence that it WAS faked.

 

[Andreas]

I vote for not flipped. The object in question is light above, darker below.

But Ockham and I remain in the "reflection, not faked" category. The fact that something CAN be faked simply isn't evidence that it WAS faked.

Agreed. Not being flipped makes more sense to me, since in that case it could almost have been a coincidence. Just some photos snapped in the heat of the moment, when the conditions happened to be exactly right.

I also agree that just because the scene can be recreated using models suspended on fishing wire doesn't mean it was created that way. To me, the important point is to show that the photograph itself can easily be recreated without the use of any digital techniques. Therefore, it proves absolutely nothing—not least because we don't even know who took it, or where or when it was taken.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I don't really see any evidence that this could be a "secret" craft.
With that shape, it was either a lighter-than-air object, or some kind of blimp.
Not that I've seen blimps like this one before but who knows?

 

[Andreas]

I don't really see any evidence that this could be a "secret" craft.
With that shape, it was either a lighter-than-air object, or some kind of blimp.
Not that I've seen blimps like this one before but who knows?

This is the "reflection in water" thread, and here, any kind of craft doesn't really fit; rather, a small island, a rock, or even something like a partially submerged cardboard box would.

 

[Scaramanga]

But Ockham and I remain in the "reflection, not faked" category. The fact that something CAN be faked simply isn't evidence that it WAS faked.

But at the end of the day there really are only two possibilities....which I think even Occam would agree with...

1) Its a real object in the sky.

2) It's not a real object in the sky.

The object has to be in (1) to be a 'genuine UFO'. However being in (1) does not exclude it being fake, or it being mis-identified. So we can subdivide into...

1a) Its a genuine alien craft
1b) Its unknown Earth tech
1c) Its a known object in the sky ( such as a kite ) deliberately mis-represented. This would also cover 'accidental' observation.
1d) Its a deliberate and pre-planed hoax

But I do not think (2) provides room for anything other than fake.

2a) Unknown object not in the sky. But HOW do you photograph ( even accidentally ) something not in the sky and then present it as being in the sky ? That is just as much a hoax as any other hoax, even if the sighting was 'accidental'.
2b) Known object not in the sky....can only be a pre-planned hoax.


So I'd argue that anything other than it being a genuine object in the sky means it is automatically a fake and a hoax.

 

[John J.]

1e) A known object (or at least a non-exotic terrestrial object) that the claimants honestly misperceived as behaving in an unusual way.
I think this is very, very unlikely in this case, but we know people have attributed Venus with intelligent manoeuvring, landing, and being about the size of an aircraft as seen from the witness' viewpoint and at the distance they have estimated.

There are some UFO reports where the likely cause has been identified but the witness' description of the responsible object(s) ascribe unlikely details or behaviors.

If the Calvine photo shows a rock reflecting in a pond or lake surface, I don't think it's credible that it could be misidentified as a flying object.
Even if the claimants were mistaken about the speed (or even direction) at which the "UFO" left, that doesn't seem consistent with a rock in water.

Perhaps a small islet in a large body of water might be misperceived as being in the sky if it was misty and the horizon/ lake surface was obscure, but if there was such an islet in the Calvine/ Pitlochry area I feel it would have been identified by now.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

If not a rock in the water, then something in the sky.
If something in the sky, surely not an airplane or aircraft of that kind.
Doesn't look like a helicopter either.
Could it be some kind of blimp? I'm avoiding any speculation on its "perceived movements" by the witnesses (who are also anonymous, so go figure), if it's a blimp, I don't understand the shape.
If it's not a blimp, I don't know how such an object would stay afloat, honestly.
Whatever it is, I highly doubt that it's a "craft" of some sort.
Maybe a spy balloon? Maybe a stealth balloon with a weird shape for anti radar reasons? (Not that radar are super effective with balloons AFAIK).

 

[JMartJr]

If not a rock in the water, then something in the sky.

You need at least one more category, unless you count "small thing hanging on a string" as being in the sky.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

You need at least one more category, unless you count "small thing hanging on a string" as being in the sky.

Wouldn't that be the hoax hypothesis?
Just like the rock I mean.

 

[Ann K]

1) Its a real object in the sky.

2) It's not a real object in the sky.

The object has to be in (1) to be a 'genuine UFO'. However being in (1) does not exclude it being fake, or it being mis-identified. So we can subdivide into...

1a) Its a genuine alien craft
1b) Its unknown Earth tech
1c) Its a known object in the sky ( such as a kite ) deliberately mis-represented. This would also cover 'accidental' observation.
1d) Its a deliberate and pre-planed hoax

But I do not think (2) provides room for anything other than fake.

2a) Unknown object not in the sky. But HOW do you photograph ( even accidentally ) something not in the sky and then present it as being in the sky ? That is just as much a hoax as any other hoax, even if the sighting was 'accidental'.
2b) Known object not in the sky....can only be a pre-planned hoax.

Consider the fact that there are different probabilities for each of your categories.

Concerning your 2a: was it specifically "presented as being in the sky"? Or is that just the assumption that went along with the "mysterious craft" story?

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Consider the fact that there are different probabilities for each of your categories.

Concerning your 2a: was it specifically "presented as being in the sky"? Or is that just the assumption that went along with the "mysterious craft" story?

Regarding the "mysterious story" about the photograph, do we actually know if it's real that the other images are classified? If there are any to begin with?
Also, the MOD could release other photos, if they suspected nothing more than a hoax, maybe redacting all the names. They didn't do that as far as I know, but the claim of other photos existence comes from Nick Pope alone, correct?

 

[John J.]

Regarding the "mysterious story" about the photograph, do we actually know if it's real that the other images are classified? If there are any to begin with?
Also, the MOD could release other photos, if they suspected nothing more than a hoax, maybe redacting all the names. They didn't do that as far as I know, but the claim of other photos existence comes from Nick Pope alone, correct?

It seems likely that there were 6 photos. MoD documents released by the UK National Archives indicate this; they date from before Nick Pope's time at "the UFO desk".
The loose minute dated 14 September 1990 from D/Sec (AS)12/2 to the office of the undersecretary of state (a junior government minister) for the air force says negatives of six photos were provided (post #135, Calvine Photo Hoax Theories thread).

Same post, a handwritten cover note from the "UFO desk" files says

A number of colour photographs taken by eye witness and passed to RAF Pitreavie and Scottish Daily Record. Original negatives then passed to the Daily Record.

I don't think there is any evidence that the photos/ negatives themselves were ever classified, or even regarded as Ministry of Defence property.
It's likely the originals were returned to the Daily Record newspaper, but this isn't certain. (IIRC one senior Daily Record editor who knew of the photos doesn't remember them being returned, another, the contact for the claimants, died some time before the story got much publicity so we don't have his recollections).
[Edited to add; picture editor And Allan died in 2012, there was some interest in Calvine since Pope's 1996 Open Skies, Closed Minds, but the Channel 5 documentary (with its mock-up of the claimed photo) which generated much publicity was in 2015, Craig Lindsay' photo was "discovered" in 2021.]

Someone within the MoD requested line drawings and estimates of dimensions for the UFO from vu-foils (overhead projector transparencies) on 29 November 1991 (post #1127, Original Calvine UFO Photo thread). The requesting person wrote

Original negatives are not available

which might be evidence that the RAF/MoD did return the originals (or at least they no longer had the originals).

Many of the documents directly relevant to the Calvine case are from the MoD's "UFO Desk" files, which have been declassified and can be downloaded free from the (UK) National Archives. As far as I know all those relating to Calvine have been posted in Calvine threads here, including

Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo,
Calvine Photo Hoax Theories.

The "UFO desk" (in Secretariat (Air Staff) 2A in 1990, and a subsection of Directorate Air Space from 2000) was shut down in 2009, its files archived and later made publicly available

The files also show that in 2009, Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth was told that in more than 50 years "no UFO sighting reported to [MoD] has ever revealed anything to suggest an extra-terrestrial presence or military threat to the UK" (DEFE 24/2458/1). This led to their decision to close the UFO Desk and with it the UFO hotline and dedicated email address.

National Archives Press press release, "UFO Desk: Closed - Last Tranche of UFO Files Released" https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/final-tranche-of-UFO-files-released.pdf
It might be unlikely that the UK MoD retains any information about the Calvine UFO claim that hasn't already been published.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

It seems likely that there were 6 photos. MoD documents released by the UK National Archives indicate this; they date from before Nick Pope's time at "the UFO desk".
The loose minute dated 14 September 1990 from D/Sec (AS)12/2 to the office of the undersecretary of state (a junior government minister) for the air force says negatives of six photos were provided (post #135, Calvine Photo Hoax Theories thread).

View attachment 91792
Same post, a handwritten cover note from the "UFO desk" files says

A number of colour photographs taken by eye witness and passed to RAF Pitreavie and Scottish Daily Record. Original negatives then passed to the Daily Record.

I don't think there is any evidence that the photos/ negatives themselves were ever classified, or even regarded as Ministry of Defence property.
It's likely the originals were returned to the Daily Record newspaper, but this isn't certain. (IIRC one senior Daily Record editor who knew of the photos doesn't remember them being returned, another, the contact for the claimants, died some time before the story got much publicity so we don't have his recollections).

Someone within the MoD requested line drawings and estimates of dimensions for the UFO from vu-foils (overhead projector transparencies) on 29 November 1991 (post #1127, Original Calvine UFO Photo thread). The requesting person wrote

Original negatives are not available

which might be evidence that the RAF/MoD did return the originals (or at least they no longer had the originals).

Many of the documents directly relevant to the Calvine case are from the MoD's "UFO Desk" files, which have been declassified and can be downloaded free from the (UK) National Archives. IIRC all those relating to Calvine have been posted in Calvine threads here, including

Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo,
Calvine Photo Hoax Theories.

The "UFO desk" (in Secretariat (Air Staff) 2A in 1990, and a subsection of Directorate Air Space from 2000) was shut down in 2009, its files archived and later made publicly available

The files also show that in 2009, Defence Minister Bob Ainsworth was told that in more than 50 years "no UFO sighting reported to [MoD] has ever revealed anything to suggest an extra-terrestrial presence or military threat to the UK" (DEFE 24/2458/1). This led to their decision to close the UFO Desk and with it the UFO hotline and dedicated email address.

National Archives Press press release, "UFO Desk: Closed - Last Tranche of UFO Files Released" https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/final-tranche-of-UFO-files-released.pdf
It might be unlikely that the UK MoD retains any information about the Calvine UFO claim that hasn't already been published.

There's only two problems I have with this case.
If the negatives were returned or lost, what exactly is in the Calvine files that remains classified until 2076? If the MoD found nothing of real interest, a simple redaction of the witnesses' names would have easily debunked any conspiracy theories from the start. Why lock the whole original file for nearly a century?

Having 6 pictures could (or could not) show us a bit more what we're looking at, or maybe they were almost identical so no one took them seriously.

Furthermore, if the images were returned to the Daily Record, how come we don't even have the positives?

 

[John J.]

If the negatives were returned or lost, what exactly is in the Calvine files that remains classified until 2076?

Probably the documents we already have but without redactions (e.g. the handwritten note, which names a claimant).
There isn't anything unusual about this. There are limits to confidentiality, but generally if someone shares information in confidence their privacy is respected and in many instances is protected by law. If it wasn't, people might be reticent to share stuff in confidence.
The UK government might not be/ have been too worried about any impact on UFO reports, but being seen to break confidentiality might have consequences in other areas. Large cohort health studies, "Crimestoppers"-type telephone lines etc.
The fact that a very small section of the public is interested in something doesn't mean it is in the public interest to change the law for one specific instance. It sets a precedent, and subverts trust.

Having 6 pictures could (or could not) show us a bit more what we're looking at

Agreed. But we know that the six images were available for examination, and what conclusions were drawn. It seems the MoD no longer had those images (as photos or negatives) in November 1991, even though duplicating them would have been trivially easy. So the photos probably weren't seen as being of any great interest.

Furthermore, if the images were returned to the Daily Record, how come we don't even have the positives?

The Daily Record didn't run the story. They wouldn't have any reason to archive the photos or copies. Maybe picture editor Andy Allan, who the claimant contacted, returned them to the claimant. Or (supposition) he put the MoD's findings to the claimant and suggested it was a hoax, the claimant responded unconvincingly or there was a falling-out, and Allan binned the photos. Or Allan was unable to contact the claimant again, and after a time the photos/ negatives were binned. Sadly we don't have Allan's version of events.

(Some of these things have been discussed in the other Calvine threads, I think).