Mendel
Senior Member.
quote them, please
or link to a metabunk post with a suitable quote
claims about who said what without sources don't meet metabunk standards of discourse
Calvine Photo Hoax Theories
- Thread starter NorCal Dave
- Start date
or link to a metabunk post with a suitable quote
claims about who said what without sources don't meet metabunk standards of discourse
deirdre
Senior Member.
the photographer hung something from a tree and faked a ufo picture.
'we' don't. we're just trying to be nice and come up with an explanation that wasn't "the photographer set out that day to purposefully fake a ufo photo".
Mendel
Senior Member.
the claim is about the 1990 situation, not about now = 33 years later
note also that we have a thread dedicated to the reflection hypothesis, and fences have been discussed there: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/
no need to redo it here
Scaramanga
Active Member
"During the sighting both also saw what they believed was a RAF Harrier jump jet make number of low-level passes. During this time a series of six colour photographs were taken by the informant and ‘1 unidentified other [person]’.
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/
deirdre
Senior Member.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Thank you, this helps. Clarke quotes the handwritten MoD note found in the National Archives, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-276585
The problem with this note is that the existing photograph doesn't fit it. There has been an analysis by a photography expert, Andrew Robinson of Sheffield Hallam University, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-276519 and https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/analysis-redacted-v2-pdf.53447/ , stating that "The photograph is a colour print from [...] Black and White C41 film", which means the picture was originally taken in B&W, and any colour hues seen on it are an artifact of the reproduction process.
The MoD person who penned the note was likely not a photography expert, and simply concluded it was a colour photograph based on these hues (and maybe the watermark on its back?), when it wasn't.
The idea that the photography expert wouldn't recognize a colour photograph seems highly improbable.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I tend to agree with you Mendel, but there is a discrepancy here. The original handwritten MoD report clearly states that a number of color photos were passed to the RAF and the Daily Mail. Then the negatives were passed to the Daily Mail. This is the earliest record of the photos, though it does contradict Linsday's recollection a bit:
IIRC correctly, color negatives were very similar to B&W negatives at least at a quick glance. But color photos vs B&W photos is a bit more obvious. The above report also makes sense, one would first send photos to gauge interest in them and then follow up with the negatives if needed. This suggests that there is a good chance that the original photos were in color.
As you pointed out, Robinson studied the photo we have and determined, due to the very fine grain and other factors, that it was shot on Illford XP-1, a fancy B&W film that could be developed in the very common C41 color processing system:
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/analysis-redacted-v2-pdf.53447/
But latter, Robinson updated his analysis and decided that the grain wasn't as fine as originally thought and felt that the picture was shot on some sort of basic B&W film, not XP-1:
the Disclosure Team Q&A video at 10.52 mins Andrew Robinson"Originally i thought [XP1] might be a likely choice because it was a color print. XP1 you're processing colour chemistry and then you would print it onto colour paper. It was introduced in the 1980s by Ilford and it became quite popular in the 90s because a lot of labs didn't process black and white film anymore, so this is a way of shooting black and white imagery and getting it processed in a high street lab. However, when I've done a closer analysis of the grain [it] looks much more like the grain structure of a traditional black and white film rather than the grain structure of XP1 or XP2, which is a much finer and different kind of grain. So it's looking more like a traditional film."
I'm not sure what to make of it. He produced a 4-5 page report where he says the very fine grain of the photo is consistent with XP-1, but then went back and looked at again and decided the grain wasn't all that fine, so regular B&W film was used.
Either way, he still contends that the photo is a print made on color paper from a B&W negative while the earliest source document about the photos contends it was one of 6 color photos.
I think a logical possibility is that the Daily Record may have made B&W copies of the color negatives. The paper published both B&W and color photos back then. I'm not sure what to make of Stu Littles comments as he seems to recall a lot of fine details about the supposed 15 minutes he spent with the 6 photos 30 years ago. However, he does provide what sounds like a good description of a '90s era newspaper photo department:
27:16 youtu.be/QFc9pe2-RdE?t=2207"[The Daily Record] will have had a copy stand in the picture desk or in the dark room area. Every newsroom had a copy stand for copying what they used to call 'collect pictures', so when someday died or a prominent figure was in an accident and they didn't have a picture of them they would get a picture from a member of the family, take it, copy it, and then give them the image back. So a copy stand was quite a normal useful everyday thing for a newsroom to have.
This is probably how they [copied it]. They'll have taken the Ilford XP1 and they will have made prints and made sure that they were numbered so they know the order of them. The six images [...] were then re-photographed onto [probably] Agfa Colour Pro [but] whoever made that print didn't focus the lens on the enlarger properly so the actual craft is ever so slightly out of focus compared to what saw on the negatives - even the duplicates - so you're not getting true detail.
Little is still saying the originals were on XP-1, but I think that could be a bit of confabulation as he was making these statements after the original Robinson report making this claim had been public. But the idea that the Daily Mail was making assorted copies of the originals sounds reasonable.
A B&W negative produced from the original color negatives or photos might reconcile the two stories. But it makes the analysis of the photo a bit more questionable as it's a B&W negative copy of the original color negative or a B&W negative made by taking a picture of the original color photo. So, a negative copy or a picture of a picture and in either case it becomes a B&W photo printed on color paper. Any resulting degradation in resolution was probably acceptable as it was a daily newspaper, not National Geographic.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Here's a possible itsy-bitsy narrowing of the space of possibilities - did Ilford film have DX auto-sense coding on their film cartridges back then (google image search implies no), and did any point-and-shoot cameras not rely on DX auto-sense back in 1990: it's tech from the early-to-mid 80s, and point-and-shoots were generally early adopters of convenience-based features (hazy memory implies it was universal on UK high-street brands). I'm not sure what excluding point-and-shoots would gain us, alas.
Mendel
Senior Member.
How do you use colour paper to achieve this? It seems to me that this is impossible without an intermediate generation.
(If it was B&W paper, nobody would be talking about hues.)
deirdre
Senior Member.
you never watched Buzzfeed unsolved have you? People are consistently losing or throwing away evidence in crime cases.
They even might have thrown away bones they thought were AMelia Earhardt's because the dr determined they were male. i say might because now people found other bones and are speculating they might be the missing bones (why they think that i have no idea)
Article: The bones in question were originally dismissed by a researcher as male remains. Then, for decades, the bones were missing. Last year, a set of bones matching the characteristics of those lost in 1940 were found in a museum on the island of Tarawa, leading researchers to question whether they were the missing remains – and perhaps those of the missing aviator.
anyway AMelia Earhardt is way more important than a hoaxed ufo photo.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I think we went down the rabbit hole on this in the Costa Rica UFO photo thread and determined that "diapositive" or "interpositive" was the term for the intermediate generation. A film negative generates a film diapositive that generates a film negative copy. Here is how it is described for movie films that are being readied for distribution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_stock#Intermediate_and_print_stocksWhen the work print or edit master has been approved, the Original Camera Negative (OCN) is assembled by a negative cutter using the edited work print or EDL (edit decision list) as a guide...
... Interpositive (IP) prints are struck from the OCN, checked to make sure they look the same as the custom timed Answer Print, and then each IP is used to make one or more Dupe Negative (DN) copies. The release prints are then generated from the DN(s).
I assume one could do something similar with regular photo film. If the Daily Record was a decent sized Scottish newspaper that published in both B&W and color, they would have had decent sized photo lab. Copying and changing from color and B&W as needed would be a common thing. It could be something as simple as using a copy stand to take a picture of a picture. Photograph a color photo with B&W film and you have B&W negative that can now be used to make a B&W print. On color paper for some unknown reason.
Mendel
Senior Member.
So, the putative chain of events would then be
a) photographer gives colour prints to newspaper
b) newspaper makes prints via an intermediate B&W negative and passes them to MoD
c) photographer gives original negatives to newspaper
This would fit the handwritten note.
However, the "original photo" we're discussing (aka the one that has surfaced, been scanned, etc.) would remain a B&W image, and the hues would remain meaningless.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
So, the putative chain of events would then be
a) photographer gives colour prints to newspaper
b) newspaper makes prints via an intermediate B&W negative and passes them to MoD
c) photographer gives original negatives to newspaper
This would fit the handwritten note.
However, the "original photo" we're discussing (aka the one that has surfaced, been scanned, etc.) would remain a B&W image, and the hues would remain meaningless.
Something like that. The note specifically says: "A number of colour photographs...pictures passed to RAF Pitreave(SP?) and Scotish Daily Mail." Followed by "Original negatives then passed to the Daily Mail." Yet, Linsday ended up with what Robinson says is a B&W print made on Kodak color paper.
This is also a bit different from how Linsday described the events. He said the Daily Mail got the negatives and then they contacted Linsday at the RAF. Then the Daily Mail made the print and sent it to him. The handwritten note makes it sound like prints were sent to the Daily Mail and the RAF at the same time, with the negatives following later.
The handwritten note seems to be from very close to the time that the photos ended up at the RAF, so notes made close to or at the time of the event would be more reliable than a 30-year-old memory. But it could also be sloppy note taking. It's never clear who is making the notes, though Linsday would be the obvious choice.
I don't put a lot of faith in Nick Pope, but the artists recreation based on Pope's memory was pretty close and it was in color. Pope claims he had seen the photo where he worked in London, so it's likely a different photo than the one Linsday ended up keeping. So, maybe Pope had/saw a color version of it.
I think there's a good chance the original(s) was in color. Linsday ended up with some sort of B&W version for whatever reason, but the idea that the photo lab at the Daily Mail may have made a variety of copies, including B&W negatives is reasonable.
If true, it sort of puts into question Robinson's report and subsequent re-take on the photo. He could be right that it what he's seeing was generated with plane B&W film, but it's not from the original negatives. It's a picture of a picture.
Mendel
Senior Member.
if Pope thought what he saw at the bottom was landscape, he'd describe it as such, and the artist would render it green etc. I don't assign any evidentiary value to the artist's use of color.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Good point, I can't disagree. I guess my thought was if he told the artist he saw a B&W photo maybe the recreation would have been in B&W, IF the artist was trying to recreate the actual photo based on Pope's memory. But that's unlikely. Even if Pope did make a point of the photo being B&W, the artist would likely attempt to recreate the "scene" that was photographed.
I'm still leaning towards the originals being in color.
Scaramanga
Active Member
So, the putative chain of events would then be
a) photographer gives colour prints to newspaper
b) newspaper makes prints via an intermediate B&W negative and passes them to MoD
c) photographer gives original negatives to newspaper
This would fit the handwritten note.
However, the "original photo" we're discussing (aka the one that has surfaced, been scanned, etc.) would remain a B&W image, and the hues would remain meaningless.
More to the point....the 'handwritten note' mentions there being a number of photos. Where are the rest of them ? And isn't it a bit slack of the MOD not to refer to the specific number of photos rather than just ' a number of colour photographs'. And another puzzle...why does the weather report say cloud base was 15,000 feet, which is way above the height of the mountains around Calvine ( around 2000 feet )...yet the photo gives the impression the local hills are obscured by mountains as any photo taken within a few degrees of horizontal ( as the pic purports to be ) ought to contain those hills. I have hundreds of my own photos taken in similar conditions ( many around the same date ) in which the local hills are visible even in rain.
