Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

Mendel

Senior Member.
The US military said triangular bokeh of stars on a video were drones, but we know them to be stars, so they get things wrong as well.
they are not experts on bokeh, on stars, or on drones, so they hold no authority there, and an appeal to authority would've been misplaced

but the British MoD are experts on where their Harriers are, I doubt anyone on Earth knows this better, so weighing their authority highly in this matter makes sense
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
they are not experts on bokeh, on stars, or on drones, so they hold no authority there, and an appeal to authority would've been misplaced

but the British MoD are experts on where their Harriers are, I doubt anyone on Earth knows this better, so weighing their authority highly in this matter makes sense
Yeah but it might not be a harrier, someone may have mistakenly thought it was one, but if it's not then any conclusions about it based on it being a harrier are possibly wrong.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Yeah but it might not be a harrier, someone may have mistakenly thought it was one, but if it's not then any conclusions about it based on it being a harrier are possibly wrong.
yes, but in that case, "it's not a Harrier" would still be true!

that identification presumably rests on 6 pictures, of which the one we know is the best, and may be shaky if the small object is not a fighter at all. It's not as good as stating that something is or isn't on record.
 

Robert Webb

New Member
What I've noticed is that it's incredibly difficult to find reflection photos taken on Scottish waters where you can't tell it's a reflection. Not impossible - but there's certainly been a conspicuous absence of examples posted in this thread.

Do you mean because the water is always rough? I don't see why the water could never be still. This could be in a lake rather than open ocean of course. I expect fog is obscuring the distance beyond the island.

But it's not hard to find islands with nice reflections in Scotland.
1661089255050.png
1661089340822.png
That sounds like you're 100% confident that it's a guy in a rowboat.

No, but it sure looks like that. Or could be a tree or something else that fell in the water. Or even a model plane flying above the water closer than the island. But looks like a rowboat.

1. It's not meaningless because we've heard from people who have seen them and the MoD conclusions were based on all six.
2. They didn't release any. And as far as we know they no longer have any of them.

It's meaningless in the sense that it's just hearsay with no evidence we can check. Maybe the other photos were much worse than this, and they were really just going off this one to identify it as a plane. The blob in the others seemed consistent with the plane hypothesis, but could still also be a boat. Maybe the boat looked like a plane in the others for the same reason as it does in this one. Maybe maybe anything, because we just have to trust their word on it.

Why would they no longer have the photos if they had identified something so interesting in them? Doesn't add up. UFO accounts always seem to start with a bad photo, and end with hearsay that we have to trust there's much better evidence that we can't see.

Then it should be easy to post a picture of one that looks like that. I've seen a few suggestions - people even declaring they've found the rock (at Loch Errochty, for example) - but nothing convincing has been presented.

This was in response to me saying "Lots of islands look like that". Are you saying this doesn't look like an island? In what way? How does it not look like a hill in the water? Goes up at one end, back down at the other, and has a reflection that seems to match with a different shade.
1661090017805.png

Which begs the question: how will it be proved? What would constitute satisfactory evidence? I guess finding an exact match for the rock/island would be the thing. Unless the witnesses come forward and spill the beans.
The other photos would help. Location, sure, but how clear is anyone on where the photo was taken? Was it definitely taken in Calvine? If not, within some distance? Was it even taken in Scotland? Sounds like the photo passed multiple anonymous hands before reaching us, so what do we really know?
 

Robert Webb

New Member
My second thought was that Ruan's experiment with an artificial 'puddle' (described at #300 above) showed that it was not so wild after all.

You wouldn't even need to turn the photo upside down. Fence could be original (not reflection), and plane could be reflected from out of shot.

The fence does have a bit of a reflected look to it though. But the top half of the photo is lighter than the bottom, and if you turn it upside down it doesn't really look right with that flipped.

I'm still guessing the plane is a guy in a rowboat. I don't think it started as a hoax, just came out looking that way.

my third thought is that it is very difficult, verging on impossible. The key problem is that the photo appears to show the water line (if the object is resting in water) running horizontally in a straight line through the object. If the object is a 3-dimensional rock in water, this is only possible with a very shallow angle of view.
It could also be that the front of the island is flatter than the sides. No reason to think the island looks like a circle from above.

But also, isn't a shallow angle of view exactly what we're expecting? Appears to be taken from someone standing on the shore, looking more or less straight out. The vertical angle to the island is probably around 5 degrees or less.

That in itself is not wildly difficult, but it would be impossible to get a large area of sky in view above the object in the same reflected image with a shallow angle of view. The sky would have to be part of a separate image, either filmed directly or in a reflection viewed from a higher angle.
I don't follow this at all. With the island in roughly the centre of the photo, what would be filling the frame above it if not sky?
 

Robert Webb

New Member
The other point might be the fence and how to get that in the shot, when the subject (the island/rock/box) is so close to the camera. We have to perform some serious mind gymnastics to get the reflection theory imaginable.
I don't follow this. If I stand on the shore, looking out to an island, why couldn't there be a fence in the bottom of the frame?
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
but the British MoD are experts on where their Harriers are, I doubt anyone on Earth knows this better, so weighing their authority highly in this matter makes sense
Way back at the beginning of this discussion (on one of the threads on this subject but I'm not sure which) there was a mention of planes having made a number of passes, and another comment that pilots enjoyed low-level flights down the lochs. This makes sense because most of the lochs are long, narrow channels with little to obstruct them.

So I'm buying the notion of an airplane (whether or not it's a reflection or just a low-flyer, but the identification of the type by a couple of teenagers may well be incorrect. Certainly a poor resolution of an image in a photo isn't helping us to agree on the type, and there would be nothing unusual about the military simply choosing not to verify their actions to a tabloid.
 

john.phil

Member
Anyone noticed the change in the background beyond the fence in the bottom left corner? Water lapping at the shore maybe?
It's been discussed before, Professor Andrew Robinson mentioned it as a possible range of hills with sparse trees on top of the hill line, but he was biased towards a camera pointed upwards. In the reflection hypothesis, it still can be the reflection of a hill line, or the way he mentions it with trees, or reflection of the margin, or ripples from a breeze, or water lapping as you suggest.
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
I don't follow this at all. With the island in roughly the centre of the photo, what would be filling the frame above it if not sky?
You are right. I already made a correction on this point. The top half of the frame would be filled with sky, but it would be sky within a narrow angular 'band' above the horizon (which raises a separate difficulty about what kind of horizon would be visible, as the reflecting surface probably doesn't extend to the horizon). As I also noted (even before making the correction), I'm not sure whether the point about the angle of view is a big problem in practice:
But does it matter if the visible sky falls within a narrow angular band above the skyline? The field of view still has to be filled up somehow, and one bit of sky may look much like another, especially if it is overcast.
 

Robert Webb

New Member
The top half of the frame would be filled with sky, but it would be sky within a narrow angular 'band' above the horizon
Still not sure what you mean here. Looks like kind of a wide-angle shot to me, but couild be more telephoto. There's not really enough to go on, but the sizes and placement of everything make it feel like it's not zoomed in too much. But the angle above the horizon would just be whatever the angle of the lens is. Whether narrow or wide just depends on the lens. Why do you say it would be a narrow band?
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
But the angle above the horizon would just be whatever the angle of the lens is. Whether narrow or wide just depends on the lens.
I assume there is a narrow angle between the line of sight and the reflective surface. Suppose the viewpoint is A, the object on the surface (e.g. a rock) is B, and the point on the surface immediately below A is C, then the angle of interest is angle ABC. My point is that nothing in the sky beyond B which makes a larger angle with point B and the surface than angle ABC can appear in the reflection (as seen at the viewpoint A) above point B. It's difficult to explain without a diagram, and I doubt there is sufficient interest in the point to make it worth the effort of drawing one on Geogebra.
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Senior Member.
Triggered by this discussion about lenses/FoV.
IMO the only way a telephoto lens could have been used, is if the subject (rock in water) AND the fence/trees combination are rather far away from the cam. This, because as otherwise the tree and fence will not be able to fit in the same FoV. So if this is true (telephoto), than this might be visible in the persective of some subjects in frame (as long lenses "flatten" the fov). I am not sure if we can determine that. Othwise, a more wider angle objective could have been used, perhaps 80-50mm.. The tree and fence in view, might help to narrow down the "camera objective" assumption, but it is far from easy or solid..
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Way back at the beginning of this discussion (on one of the threads on this subject but I'm not sure which) there was a mention of planes having made a number of passes, and another comment that pilots enjoyed low-level flights down the lochs. This makes sense because most of the lochs are long, narrow channels with little to obstruct them.

So I'm buying the notion of an airplane (whether or not it's a reflection or just a low-flyer, but the identification of the type by a couple of teenagers may well be incorrect. Certainly a poor resolution of an image in a photo isn't helping us to agree on the type, and there would be nothing unusual about the military simply choosing not to verify their actions to a tabloid.
We have the photographer's statement that there's an airplane in the picture. Not knowing the photographer, this carries as much authority as you wish to assign to an anonymous source.

Assuming it is a plane, the MoD had it identified as a Harrier, based on 6 pictures, 5 of which are unavailable. The quality of the picture isn't great, but the MoD sound confident, so I'd say their authority extends to 1990s military aircraft (since presumably they asked someone whose job it is to identify these by silhouette), and if it was one, I'd trust that it's s Harrier.

But that is given the assumption; if it's not a plane, the identification is moot. If we had the 6 photos, and the expert pointed out the features that made them think it is a Harrier, this authority could be higher.

So the MoD identification rests on some assumptions that are themselves shaky, making it not very authoritative.

But the statement that their records show no British Harriers operating in the area at the time does not rest on shaky assumption or low-quality evidence, it rests on a bureaucracy's record-keeping. It's quite authoritative.



For the MoD, these 3 statements together justify the conclusion that this photo is a fake.
(1) The picture shows a fighter, says the photographer.
(2) The fighter is a Harrier, says the MoD.
(3) There was no Harrier to be photographed, says the MoD.
This is a contradiction; if you're certain of (2) and (3), (1) must be false.
Therefore, the photographer is lying, presumably trying to perpetrate a hoax.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
We have the photographer's statement that there's an airplane in the picture. Not knowing the photographer, this carries as much authority as you wish to assign to an anonymous source.

Assuming it is a plane, the MoD had it identified as a Harrier, based on 6 pictures, 5 of which are unavailable. The quality of the picture isn't great, but the MoD sound confident, so I'd say their authority extends to 1990s military aircraft (since presumably they asked someone whose job it is to identify these by silhouette), and if it was one, I'd trust that it's s Harrier.

But that is given the assumption; if it's not a plane, the identification is moot. If we had the 6 photos, and the expert pointed out the features that made them think it is a Harrier, this authority could be higher.

So the MoD identification rests on some assumptions that are themselves shaky, making it not very authoritative.

But the statement that their records show no British Harriers operating in the area at the time does not rest on shaky assumption or low-quality evidence, it rests on a bureaucracy's record-keeping. It's quite authoritative.



For the MoD, these 3 statements together justify the conclusion that this photo is a fake.
(1) The picture shows a fighter, says the photographer.
(2) The fighter is a Harrier, says the MoD.
(3) There was no Harrier to be photographed, says the MoD.
This is a contradiction; if you're certain of (2) and (3), (1) must be false.
Therefore, the photographer is lying, presumably trying to perpetrate a hoax.

We have no detail about the MOD says its a harrier part, was that a detailed investigation? Or did someone just say does this look like a harrier and MOD agreed? How far did it go up the chain in the MOD etc etc.

The US Navy sounded very confident that some stars were drones as well.

It's one of those logic trap debunks that works great against someone who holds a view like "There is no way the military would make a mistake about a military subject and they say it's a harrier."

Its an easy path to accept this and then use it to show the photo is faked in someway or the history is dishonest. Ah but the military says it's a harrier and there were no harriers at that location and thus the photo is faked QED.

But if we took that direction at Metabunk we'd be claiming that the "infallible US Navy" says they are drones and not Corbell's giant alien flying pyramids, however but we know they are both (Navy and Corbell) wrong.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The US Navy sounded very confident that some stars were drones as well
This is a detraction: nobody claims the US Navy is authoritative with respect to stars or drones.
Confidence only matters when it is rooted in actual expertise.

Please do not repeat this detraction a third time.
 

Robert Webb

New Member
I assume there is a narrow angle between the line of sight and the reflective surface. Suppose the viewpoint is A, the object on the surface (e.g. a rock) is B, and the point on the surface immediately below A is C, then the angle of interest is angle ABC. My point is that nothing in the sky beyond B which makes a larger angle with point B and the surface than angle ABC can appear in the reflection (as seen at the viewpoint A) above point B. It's difficult to explain without a diagram, and I doubt there is sufficient interest in the point to make it worth the effort of drawing one on Geogebra.
OK I think I understand. Points farther than B in the picture, which are still in the water, would be reflecting sky at an even sharper angle, so a thin band of sky. True, but yeah I don't see the problem with that. Points in the water closer than B would be reflecting at a steeper angle.

My guess is that fog is part of the equation here. There's no obvious match between sky and reflection, and we can't see the horizon. Overexposure could certainly be part of the reason, but also I'm guessing fog is involved. It could obscure the horizon and mess with reflections.

If you zoom in on the island, there are white blobs that may be fog-clouds in front of the island too.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
This is a detraction: nobody claims the US Navy is authoritative with respect to stars or drones.
Confidence only matters when it is rooted in actual expertise.

Please do not repeat this detraction a third time.
The US military is one of the biggest users of drones in the world. They have programs and research to deal with drones used by adversaries, they commission, design and use drones.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
In support of the brown paper tape on a pane of glass idea... If the tape is stuck on the glass, why not the plane?

These are vintage stickers from ebay.

s-l1600 (1).jpg

At 1.5 - 2 inches the pane of glass would have to be sizable. Six feet? Not impossible.


These are micro stickers.

s-l1600.jpg
As these threads are getting long and confusing, maybe a separate new thread just on possible Calvine Photo Hoax Theories? I screwed up an idea on the other thread, but have been working on this idea above in my head. Be good to see some brainstorming on how this might have been created.
 

Darat

New Member
From the other thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/page-13#post-277588

An interesting proposal to go along with a model Harrier - star decoration on a fishing line:

1661183569999.png

Which when viewed from the side looks like this:

1661183598857.png

Source: https://caravaca.blogspot.com/?fbclid=IwAR1TXA_GBh1GjvFhx8Bol2ZFVNyaxzBIqQurs4gDpJojeTm417y1J_hC0B4

(Original source appears to be Belgian skeptical UFO investigator Wim Van Utrecht in a mailing list run by Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos.)
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
I remain a fan of "thing on a string" as the most likely explanation, and this is a surprisingly good match. There still seems to be something off, though, in the fence -- the angle from which is it being photographed and the supposed distant hill line behind it -- that seems to me to work better with shooting down through the fence at a reflective surface with shoreline shmutter mimicking hills. Still, that could just be a fence leaning at an odd angle, up on a bit of a rise with the photographer shooting from a lower point, I suppose.
 

Ashley Pomeroy

New Member
reflections

For what it's worth I did some bike-packing in Scotland last July - I cycled off to see Castle Stalker, and camped on the way - and in the right weather, especially early in the morning, I did see some clear reflections. Here's a photo I took:





Presumably the distant water is more unsettled.

I remember using XP2 a long time ago. As pointed out up the thread it was a black and white film that could be processed with colour chemistry in one-hour photolabs. Kodak had their own equivalent called BW400. My recollection is that the prints always came back slightly sepia-toned, I know not why. I have a vague recollection that the negatives were purple, and brown is on the opposite side of the colour wheel, so perhaps it was a mistake, or perhaps the photolabs back then could detect XP2 and tinted the photos to make them look old-worlde.
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
I made this "in defence" of the complaint that sky or a horizon should be visible, which seems to be a strawman argument I've seen elsewhere as the reason why this can't be a reflected rock. With the right framing, a small rock near the shore (which is what I think it is at the moment) will have no horizon in the image or the reflection - it's all sky.

This shot also approximately matches the angle of the Calvine photo if it's a reflected rock - imagine the reeds on the right are the fence, move them left, and they'll appear in the cropped version.

If it's a small close rock, it's not a rowboat of course (unless it's a very tiny model of one). So I can't explain the plane that should be upside-down (I'm not a fan of the entire image being upside-down) unless it's a model plane either on a string or more likely thrown.

1661230918588.png
 

Ruan

New Member
I've created a new animation! I've added a bit more textures so things are a bit more clear. I've also used a triangular rock sticking out of the pond. Thoughts?
 

john.phil

Member
I've created a new animation! I've added a bit more textures so things are a bit more clear. I've also used a triangular rock sticking out of the pond. Thoughts?
Thanks for the update, is the distance between posts 1.70m? What is the size of the puddle?

Could you please generate another variation where the photographer hung a Christmas star on the tree?

1661257091910.png
 
Last edited:

DavidB66

Senior Member
This is probably now overtaken by events, but in case anyone is still interested in my post #354 above, I made a diagram to help explain my point about the angle of reflection.

20220823_121736.jpg

The line CD represents a plane surface of reflection, viewed from the side. A is the observer's or camera's viewpoint. The object of interest is at point B on the surface. Points H, E, F, J are points in the sky above the surface. By Heron's Principle, light from such points is reflected to the viewpoint from points on the reflective surface, in this case I, B, G, K, such that the angles of incidence are equal to the angles of reflection. Thus angle AIC = angle HID, ABC = EBD, AGC = FGD, and AKC = JKD. It should be easy to see that if a point in the sky falls within the angle CBE, the point of reflection must fall between C and B, while if it falls within angle EBD it must fall between B and D. I leave a geometrical proof of this as an exercise for the reader!

If the point is so far to the right that the point of reflection would fall beyond D, it will not be reflected to the viewpoint at all.

In the image seen at A, points reflected from points between B and C will appear below B, while points between B and D will appear above B. The order of points within these zones will also be inverted: for example, point F is higher in the sky than point J, but in the image it will appear lower.

The point I was trying to express in #354 is that if the view from the observer to the object of interest is at a shallow angle (i.e. if the angle ABC is small), then the equal angle EBD will also be small. All reflected points in the sky appearing above B in the image must fall within this relatively small angle. Whether this point is important is another matter.

In my earlier posts I didn't consider the field of view. It is evident that any point falling within the field of view should appear as a direct image as well as (possibly) a reflected image. For example, if F is within the field of view, an object (e.g. a bird or airplane) at F should be seen both directly and as a reflected and inverted image. The lack of any obvious 'mirror images' of this kind in the Calvine photo is a point against this being a reflection.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
The lack of any obvious 'mirror images' of this kind in the Calvine photo is a point against this being a reflection.
I've explained this before, that three dimensional objects wouldn't be expected to give a mirror image, but since that's mentioned again and again I see that many people don't have a clear understanding of the physics of reflection. So here's a repeat of my original sketch. You can see that if the top peak is not right at the water's edge, the reflection won't show it.94330AF4-F88F-4D7D-8B01-916E5A5CBCCC.jpeg
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
I've explained this before, that three dimensional objects wouldn't be expected to give a mirror image,
I agree that with 3-d objects we wouldn't usually see an exact mirror image, for the reasons you explain. But in the examples I gave - like a bird or an airplane - we would expect to see some kind of direct image, as well as a reflected image, if the object is within the direct field of view. If a faker/hoaxer using a reflecting surface noticed that an object was 'doubled' in this way, they would probably adjust their field of view, or crop the resulting image, to avoid giving the game away.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
It seems that Ruan and David have shown that it's theoretically possible, and some images suggest that it might be possible in reality too. But maybe what's required is a more full recreation of the shot in reality.

What are the big stumbling blocks to the reflection theory at the minute (putting issues of lying and testimony and the lack of an obvious reflection and no one noticing till now to one side)? Are they issues of how the various objects would be focused? The lighting of them? Something else?
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
What are the big stumbling blocks to the reflection theory at the minute (putting issues of lying and testimony and the lack of an obvious reflection and no one noticing till now to one side)? Are they issues of how the various objects would be focused? The lighting of them? Something else?
I am convinced it can be done this way (reflection), but still, the perfect mirror like surface is striking. I know we have seen example images here that show "mirror like" surfaces, but just not quite as good. The original Calvine photo has a very well reflected cloud formation (i.e. not much obvious low frequent distortion). Perhaps the theory has to be strengthened a bit more.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
A UK canal would be a great place to use reflections for a fake since they aren't generally subject to tides and are often sheltered by embankments, buildings, and trees.

That'll be the Leeds-Liverpool canal, by the way: one of the key players in the industrial revolution and runs right through where both Mick and I have lived (and where Mick grew up).
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
dont know what this semi stagnant canal is in Leeds UK, but a guy walked the whole length and took photos, gives some great pros and cons (and limitations) of the reflection hypothesis.
A guy took photos of reflections in water, but we already know water can be reflective. What "pros and cons (and limitations)" did he give?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
A guy took photos of reflections in water, but we already know water can be reflective. What "pros and cons (and limitations)" did he give?
you can see how even the slightest undetectable ripple will curve the fence wires.
you can see how things can also reflect and stay straight.
you can tell how different heights of objects fall on the water. and their related levels of "focus"/clarity.
whether a sky shows clear (which some are saying it wouldn't)
how clear or not clear trees are reflected vs manmade objects
whether grass on the sidewalk overhanging the reflection would cast its own reflection or not etc.

basically instead of us having to search google for examples of "can a reflection do this or that? "WOULD a reflection of multiple objects do this or that", outside readers can go check out the canal reflections on their own.

add: for ex i was debating the fence being real or reflection because, unless in a smaller puddle, would the wires show that well?
they show nicely in the canal (my link above)
1661288400015.png
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
i was debating the fence being real or reflection because, unless in a smaller puddle, would the wires show that well?
they show nicely in the canal

Yep, may be comparable. Those cables are overhead electric cables for the railway - most likely further away but also around 3 times thicker (at a minimum).
 

Bizben

New Member
I agree that with 3-d objects we wouldn't usually see an exact mirror image, for the reasons you explain. But in the examples I gave - like a bird or an airplane - we would expect to see some kind of direct image, as well as a reflected image, if the object is within the direct field of view. If a faker/hoaxer using a reflecting surface noticed that an object was 'doubled' in this way, they would probably adjust their field of view, or crop the resulting image, to avoid giving the game away.
I think what's been hurting this theory is again the matter of scale.
If we return to an idea we are dealing w pond size water, objects in it (elevated "leaf litter" = the hippy organic UFO plate construction, reflection of jet & fence border, etc), and tonal and focus registrations start to play much better together.
Our holiday kitchen workers coming upon this, the RAF flying the valley, them popping off a total of SIX photos over the 5-10 mins (an eternity). All start to make better sense the conditions of happenstance and their creative utility of the moment.
 
Last edited:

Ann K

Senior Member.
you can see how even the slightest undetectable ripple will curve the fence wires.
you can see how things can also reflect and stay straight.
you can tell how different heights of objects fall on the water. and their related levels of "focus"/clarity.
whether a sky shows clear (which some are saying it wouldn't)
how clear or not clear trees are reflected vs manmade objects
whether grass on the sidewalk overhanging the reflection would cast its own reflection or not etc.

basically instead of us having to search google for examples of "can a reflection do this or that? "WOULD a reflection of multiple objects do this or that", outside readers can go check out the canal reflections on their own.

add: for ex i was debating the fence being real or reflection because, unless in a smaller puddle, would the wires show that well?
they show nicely in the canal (my link above)
1661288400015.png
Oh, you're still on the "upside down" hypothesis? Sorry, I've never thought that to be plausible. For one thing, wouldn't the negative itself have different markings on top and bottom? Maybe a photo specialist can tell us that, because my experience is limited in that respect.
For another thing, the area nearest the fence shows itself to be darker than that on the other side, and (as illustrated nicely in this photo) the physics of reflection also concerns how much of the light is transmitted through the water and how much is reflected. The farther away you look on a water surface (shallow angle) the more is reflected, and the closer you look (steeper angle) the more light passes through. That's why you can only see through to the bottom of the pond if you're looking sharply downward. You can see the gradient in your photo, and although it's not as clear in the poor photo that we have been discussing, it's definitely there.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
For one thing, wouldn't the negative itself have different markings on top and bottom?
all we know for certain is this photo.

yes, actual negatives have different markings.
20220823_195444.jpg

but if anyone had the actual negatives, then why all the guessing about which film was used?
and..you can just hold your camera upside down.
 
Top