Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

[Robert Webb]

Man in a boat is possible I suppose, but the comparison above doesn't look much like a plane. It seems highly coincidental that the photo was snapped at an exact moment where a fisherman was posed such that he and his boat looked indistinguishable from a plane.

It's allowed to be highly coincidental, because it's only these ones that end up as UFO photos, which is a very small number.

Is the dress blue or black? Seems highly coincidental that someone would take a photo under just the right conditions so that people would be totally divided about what colour it was. But that's why that particular photo got such attention.

You're highly unlikely to win the lottery, but it's highly likely that someone will win.

 

[purpleivan]

Man in a boat is possible I suppose, but the comparison above doesn't look much like a plane. It seems highly coincidental that the photo was snapped at an exact moment where a fisherman was posed such that he and his boat looked indistinguishable from a plane.

The intention of my example was solely to address the lack of ripples in the Cavine image, if the plane was actually a boat.

However here's my take more broadly.

Given the very small and blurry image of the "plane" it could be an number of things. A bird flying overhead, a man in a boat on the water, or a short twig floating on it. The only reason we saying that it looks like a plane and efforts are being made to identify the specific type of plane, is because the photographer's description of events included one.

If we're looking at objects cutting across the plane of the water and reflected in it, then that's a situation that results in a major feature of planes, symmetry about 1 axis.

With that in mind and the very small size and indistinct shape, of whatever it is, pareidolia could definitely be in play here.

 

[FatPhil]

The only reason we saying that it looks like a plane and efforts are being made to identify the specific type of plane, is because the photographer's description of events included one.

False. We're saying that it looks like a plane is because it looks vaguely like a plane. It also looks vaguely like a person in a rowing boat. It also certainly looks vaguely like a Henry Moore sculpture that I once saw from a distance in a public art park somewhere in the north of England. There's no error in saying something looks like something else we're familiar with, that doesn't mean we're being prompted or cajoled into anything. However, we shouldn't ascribe such an opinion much weight, if any. Dismiss what you think are false claims by showing that the weight of evidence is against them, not by saying they were made simply because of some exernally-imposed motive.

 

[deirdre]

Dismiss what you think are false claims by showing that the weight of evidence is against them, not by saying they were made simply because of some exernally-imposed motive.

That's like saying "don't dismiss the EVP is saying 'Get out', just because you were told the EVP is saying 'Get Out' and now that is all you hear when listening to the EVP. A common phenomenon".

I think pointing out that pareidolia enhanced by suggestion is a legit phenomenon, is good to point out.

 

[FatPhil]

That's like saying "don't dismiss the EVP is saying 'Get out', just because you were told the EVP is saying 'Get Out' and now that is all you hear when listening to the EVP. A common phenomenon".

I have no idea who EVP is, and ave no idea who is in what such that getting out is a relevant concept. Extraterrestrial Vice President? Waat? No clue, genuinely no clue.

I think pointing out that pareidolia enhanced by suggestion is a legit phenomenon, is good to point out.

To newbs, perhaps. We're beyond that stage, surely?

 

[deirdre]

To newbs, perhaps. We're beyond that stage, surely?

Henkka is a newb. and this site isnt solely for you and me, newbie outside readers read individual threads all the time.

I have no idea who EVP is, and ave no idea who is in what such that getting out is a relevant concept. Extraterrestrial Vice President? Waat? No clue, genuinely no clue.

We're beyond that stage, surely?

Electronic Voice Phenomenon, it's a ghost thing.

 

[FatPhil]

Henkka is a newb. and this site isnt solely for you and me, newbie outside readers read individual threads all the time.

However, you have completely overlooked the fact that the statement that was made to Henkka is still logically false, for the reasons I stated.

 

[Rory]

a Henry Moore sculpture that I once saw from a distance in a public art park somewhere in the north of England.

Yorkshire Sculpture Park?

 

[Scaramanga]

View attachment 53364

View attachment 53365

This looks like a small island or rock in a loch to me. The bottom of the diamond would be the reflection of the island in the water.

If it was a misty morning, where the water ends and sky begins would be unclear.


Edit: to illustrate what I mean, I found this image of a small island in a Loch here from a Google image search. The shape is similar to the object.

The view of a little island on Loch Etive from Ardchattan Priory Gardens
https://blosslynspage.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/floating-island-loch-etive-scotland/
View attachment 53341


HD Calvine image: https://web.archive.org/web/2022081....wordpress.com/2022/08/watermarked-jpeg-2.jpg
General Calvine UFO discussion: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/

View attachment 53364

View attachment 53365

This looks like a small island or rock in a loch to me. The bottom of the diamond would be the reflection of the island in the water.

If it was a misty morning, where the water ends and sky begins would be unclear.


Edit: to illustrate what I mean, I found this image of a small island in a Loch here from a Google image search. The shape is similar to the object.

The view of a little island on Loch Etive from Ardchattan Priory Gardens
https://blosslynspage.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/floating-island-loch-etive-scotland/
View attachment 53341


HD Calvine image: https://web.archive.org/web/2022081....wordpress.com/2022/08/watermarked-jpeg-2.jpg
General Calvine UFO discussion: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/

The problem with the reflection hypothesis is that the supposed reflection is not symmetrical. The original 'UFO' has an odd lump on the top of the right hand side that is not there in what would be the reflected half. And the reflection is also horizontally skewed with respect to the supposed area being reflected. If it is an island then the 'top' of the island ought to reflect in the water to be immediately below that top in the water....but it doesn't. It is actually very slightly skewed to the right of any vertical line going through the top. That simply would not happen with a reflection. Also, the supposed reflected half is larger, when any angle above horizontal would make the reflection smaller ( as in the example island reflection shown ). Lastly, the dark and light markings on the supposed reflected half do not match those in the part being reflected.

 

[Ann K]

The problem with the reflection hypothesis is that the supposed reflection is not symmetrical. The original 'UFO' has an odd lump on the top of the right hand side that is not there in what would be the reflected half. And the reflection is also horizontally skewed with respect to the supposed area being reflected. If it is an island then the 'top' of the island ought to reflect in the water to be immediately below that top in the water....but it doesn't. It is actually very slightly skewed to the right of any vertical line going through the top. That simply would not happen with a reflection. Also, the supposed reflected half is larger, when any angle above horizontal would make the reflection smaller ( as in the example island reflection shown ). Lastly, the dark and light markings on the supposed reflected half do not match those in the part being reflected.

You don't understand the physics of the reflection of a three-dimensional object (but you are certainly not alone in that). I explained all that in a diagram back in post number 106. Here is is again for your reference. A reflection is what you would see if your eye were down at water level, while the top part is what you'd see from an entirely different viewpoint.

 

[Scaramanga]

I don't think the image is flipped (ripples added). I think it's the right way up (so the reflection is darker, as expected) and the plane is either upside down (rolling) or just too blurry to tell that it's the right way up. Neither the fence or foliage is a reflection here:

View attachment 53379

The problem with that...and I think a lot of people have missed this...is that you can see what is landscape and distant trees between the strands of the fence.

AND....I just discovered something that once and for all proves the image is not a reflection of any sort. The photo was taken literally just before sunset ( I checked so using Stellarium ). Adjust the image only slightly ( for example turn up the colour ) and you can actually see the sunset colours in the sky....bottom right of photo. Contrary to what many suppose, the sun is not at top left...it is actually at bottom right and setting. That means the original photo HAS to be the right way up. The fact that you can see distant trees and hills at bottom of photo ( which is what you'd expect if sun is setting at bottom right ) is pretty much proof that photo is not 'looking down' at a lake. The fact that the sun is setting at bottom right ( as one would expect ) also proves the image is not an upside down reflection !

 

[Scaramanga]

You don't understand the physics of the reflection of a three-dimensional object (but you are certainly not alone in that). I explained all that in a diagram back in post number 106. Here is is again for your reference. A reflection is what you would see if your eye were down at water level, while the top part is what you'd see from an entirely different viewpoint.
View attachment 54849

I do not know of any physics of reflection that make the reflection a totally different object to that being reflected. Skewed to one side. Missing sticking out bits. Not even reflecting the same dark and light bits. I'd expect a bit more of a reflection than just 'generally the same shape'.

 

[deirdre]

I do not know of any physics of reflection that make the reflection a totally different object to that being reflected.

i think "totally different" is a bit of an exaggeration, no?

rocks or islands are bumpy things. so what we see with our eye can be different from what is reflected in the lake. this is a mirror so you gotta ignore the middle part as that would be under the water.

 

[Scaramanga]

i think "totally different" is a bit of an exaggeration, no?

rocks or islands are bumpy things. so what we see with our eye can be different from what is reflected in the lake. this is a mirror so you gotta ignore the middle part as that would be under the water.
View attachment 54850

Actually it occurs to me we can prove the 'reflection in pond' hypothesis simply by knowing in what direction the photo was taken. As the sun sets in the west, the photo has to have been taken looking south. But an upside down image would also be back to front...meaning that effect could only be created if the camera is pointing north. So if the photo was taken looking north, it has to be an upside down reflection.

 

[deirdre]

Actually it occurs to me we can prove the 'reflection in pond' hypothesis simply by knowing in what direction the photo was taken. As the sun sets in the west, the photo has to have been taken looking south. But an upside down image would also be back to front...meaning that effect could only be created if the camera is pointing north. So if the photo was taken looking north, it has to be an upside down reflection.

i realize this is a crazy long thread, but instead of making members repeat every discussion (and post examples etc) we ever had in this thread, it would be much easier if you go back and read the thread. sorry. there are lots of pics though so wont take you as long as some other threads!

 

[Scaramanga]

i realize this is a crazy long thread, but instead of making members repeat every discussion (and post examples etc) we ever had in this thread, it would be much easier if you go back and read the thread. sorry. there are lots of pics though so wont take you as long as some other threads!

Well I actually looked through all 495 posts and cannot find a single one where anyone pointed out that an upside down reflection would also be back to front when turned up the 'right' way. It's an extremely relevant point, as it means any cues in the photo...such as the direction of the sunset or the shape of distant hills...could actually firmly establish if indeed it is just such a reflection.

 

[Rory]

While I agree that the reflection theory isn't massively convincing a few points you made weren't quite right.

you can see what is landscape and distant trees between the strands of the fence.

Not really. It could be that but it could also be something else such as a bit of string. And I think something else is more likely than distant trees and landscape.

The photo was taken literally just before sunset

We dont know what time the photo was taken, we only know what time someone said someone else told them it was taken.

Adjust the image only slightly (for example turn up the colour) and you can actually see the sunset colours in the sky

It's a black and white photo.

The fact that the sun is setting at bottom right (as one would expect) also proves the image is not an upside down reflection

There's no way to know where the sun is being as there aren't any distinct/verifiable shadows.

 

[Scaramanga]

While I agree that the reflection theory isn't massively convincing a few points you made weren't quite right.



Not really. It could be that but it could also be something else such as a bit of string. And I think something else is more likely than distant trees and landscape.



We dont know what time the photo was taken, we only know what time someone said someone else told them it was taken.



It's a black and white photo.



There's no way to know where the sun is being as there aren't any distinct/verifiable shadows.

I've seen the photo referred to on a number of occasions, and by different sources, as being a colour photo. In fact it's actually not that hard to bring out the colour in it and show a hint of green in the leaves of the tree and even a bit of blue in the sky. So I'm taking the appearance of sunset colours in the bottom right as being genuine. Elsewhere in the posts here there's even a close up of the plane that shows a hint of pink in the reflection off the left wing.

I agree that the appearance of landscape and distant trees at the bottom of the photo might be illusory...however a little enhancing does show what appears to be two distant hills.....one behind each of the main fence posts....and there is quite clearly a hillside darkly and noticeably visible at lower left.

If those apparent hills, trees, etc could be matched up with known topography, we could even establish if the photo was an upside down reflection, as an upside down reflection when turned the 'right way up' will be back to front.

 

[Ann K]

In fact it's actually not that hard to bring out the colour in it and show a hint of green in the leaves of the tree and even a bit of blue in the sky

Yes, these photos have been colorized before. It adds things that were not in the original photo so it's distracting, not helpful.

however a little enhancing does show what appears to be two distant hills.....one behind each of the main fence posts....and there is quite clearly a hillside darkly and noticeably visible at lower left.

But the leftmost "hill" seems to be breaking up into smaller bits at the top, almost as if they were ...ripples at the edge of the water.

 

[Rory]

there is quite clearly a hillside darkly and noticeably visible at lower left.

You don't think it's possible that it's not a hillside?

 

[Scaramanga]

Yes, these photos have been colorized before. It adds things that were not in the original photo so it's distracting, not helpful.


But the leftmost "hill" seems to be breaking up into smaller bits at the top, almost as if they were ...ripples at the edge of the water.

It's not unreasonable to suppose that a photo where the angle of elevation is ostensibly no more than a few degrees would contain some distant landscape. All the more so as the plane is clearly visible at least a mile or so away, indicating that cloud base cannot have been so low as to obscure any landscape of similar distance. Quite honestly, under the circumstances I would expect there to be distant landscape visible at the bottom of the photo....and that that was the most reasonable explanation of what is being seen. I would find it rather odd if there wasn't any landscape visible.

 

[Scaramanga]

You dont think it's possible that it's not a hillside?

Of course it is possible. But surely skepticism is about looking for the most likely and reasonable explanation of what's in the photo before going off on a wild goose chase after reflections in ponds etc.

Having been over the photo with a fine toothpick I'm also curious......what is this.......

 

[Ann K]

Having been over the photo with a fine toothpick I'm also curious......what is this.......

It looks like a chunk of the photo (highly colorized and contrast enhanced) with a few leaves floating in the water ...or maybe an artifact on either the negative or the print. On that grainy print it's a real challenge to use restraint and not read into it things that are not there, but if it's real, it is a point in favor of the reflection theory.

 

[Rory]

Of course it is possible.

I figured you would think that and I agree. Which means that

there is quite clearly a hillside

isn't quite right. Also:

the plane is clearly visible at least a mile or so away

Likewise can't be true because it's very possible it's a model or an image on glass, both much closer than a mile away (also not impossible that it's a bird or a boat as some people have speculated, but I don't think so myself).

I'm also curious...what is this?

The bit at the bottom that looks like a hill? Or the three specks of colour?

 

[Bill Ferguson]

I have some questions I cant seem to find the answer to

1) Where are the other photos'. 5/6 were taken of it apparently. Were they released?
2) Has anyone identified where the pic was taken near Calvine?
3) Who took the pics? Any names given?

The photographers were two chefs hiking in the woods. Since the file is classified by the British MOD until 2057 (I think) their names are not known.

 

[Rory]

The photographers were two chefs hiking in the woods. Since the file is classified by the British MOD until 2057 (I think) their names are not known.

Not quite right. Whether chefs or dishwashers we're not 100% sure, and they are said to have been walking on a hill with just a few trees rather than in the woods. Also, the file isn't classified, it was released in 2013 - though the names and addresses of the people in it (not just for Calvine but also for many other reports that are in the same file) are redacted until 2076.

The name of the photographer is known though to the people who located the photograph - at least, there's a name on the back of it and it seems most likely it's the guy who took the picture.

 

[jackfrostvc]

The photographers were two chefs hiking in the woods. Since the file is classified by the British MOD until 2057 (I think) their names are not known.

Actualy since that post, I saw that the guys that found the photo, claim they have the name of the photographer, it was apparently on the back of the photo

 

[captancourgette]

IIRC wasn't a better quality/higher resolution version of this photo going to be released soon, this was over a month ago. Or did I just imagine this detail?

 

[Rory]

IIRC wasn't a better quality/higher resolution version of this photo going to be released soon, this was over a month ago. Or did I just imagine this detail?

I'm not aware of anything bigger than the 22MB tiff:


Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FCOQiQKciRJsZ4pm26hdrFuVv1uzMk-k/view

Not that it makes much difference from the smaller one, so going bigger than that probably won't help either.

Cold case unless one or both of the witnesses come out.

 

[Domzh]

A strong argument for the reflection hypothesis seems to be the POV and the awkward placement of the fence.

Assuming the witnesses were not lying and the provided information about the location was indeed: "Hikers, in Calvine, near the A9" then we would need an explanation for the seemingly weird POV.

I could find a popular hiking trail in Calvine that basically follows the A9. It follows the River Garry.

As you can see, theres a steep drop off that is guarded with a fence. The fence obviously isnt the same as on the photograph but its fair to assume that some sort of fencing was there before it was modernized.

Heres how the perspective and the "crouching while leaning back" could actually make sense and even supports that the given location information is correct:

One would actually need to crouch because the way back is blocked and the noticeable tree on the upper part of the photograph could have (partially) blocked the view.

 

[Vara La Fey]

View attachment 53366
This is an attempt to make it easier to understand (I was confused at first). Look at the bottom blueish half but as a pond, with a bank and a fence on the other side, and the overhanging trees are (I think) also on the other side. So in the reflection theory, we see the reflected scene at the bottom, plus the rock, and the reflection of the rock. That's then flipped

That's a good theory, and it eliminates the multitude of problems with the reflection axis being at the waterline of the diamond-shaped object itself, and of the absurd idea that the jet was a rowboat.

But is there any evidence at all that your reflection theory is what actually took place?

 

[Mendel]

But is there any evidence at all that your reflection theory is what actually took place?

The problem with the Calvine photograph is a general lack of evidence for any of the explanations, including the UFO theory.

If it's a hoax, we can't trust the photographer's testimony, and the sparse set of verifiable facts in that testimony have so far been impossible to verify (the Harrier, the location) or are implausible. If it's a secret aircraft, that doesn't fit the testimony, and it's also still secret decades later.

So the best we can do right now is to sort the plausible hypotheses from the implausible ones, and keep looking/waiting for evidence.

 

[Domzh]

But is there any evidence at all that your reflection theory is what actually took place?

the biggest counter arguments for the reflexion hypothesis imo are:

1. the photographer had to expect that the newspaper would visit the site and see the lake / stone.

2. nick pope had a poster of the original photograph and did a recreation. the recreation shows a full landscape. this, besides the perfect centering of the ufo, suggest that what we see here is a crop of a bigger picture. this bigger picture would have revealed the laker and most likely the reflexion.

3. there were some analysis that suggest that the viewing angle doesnt work for a reflexion photograph

 

[Vara La Fey]

the biggest counter arguments for the reflexion hypothesis imo are:

1. the photographer had to expect that the newspaper would visit the site and see the lake / stone.

2. nick pope had a poster of the original photograph and did a recreation. the recreation shows a full landscape. this, besides the perfect centering of the ufo, suggest that what we see here is a crop of a bigger picture. this bigger picture would have revealed the laker and most likely the reflexion.

3. there were some analysis that suggest that the viewing angle doesnt work for a reflexion photograph

Interesting points. I don't think the newspaper would make the connection by seeing a rock in a pond (assuming that it would have to be a rock, and further assuming that such a rock is too big to move). But a hoaxer still might fear that happening, assuming they even expected the newspaper to visit. Also assuming that the possible reflection pic was taken anywhere near the proclaimed event site where the newspaper visited (I didn't even know they did - Calvine isn't one I've looked into.) Lotta assumptions.

Do you have a link for Pope's recreation? And has anyone identified where it was taken? There isn't much to go on in that 1 pic.

How does the angle not work for a reflection? You take the pic and rotate it 180 degrees so the jet is rightside up.

I think Mick's theory of how to create a Calvine-style photo is interesting, but the fact that it could happen that way has no relationship to whether it actually did. A potential is not an actual. Or: correlation (between a hoax method and a picture) does not equal causation.

 

[deirdre]

I didn't even know they did

there's no indication they did. i think Domzh is just saying if you hoax something, it would be best for you to assume the recipient might check out your story.

 

[Mendel]

I think Mick's theory of how to create a Calvine-style photo is interesting, but the fact that it could happen that way has no relationship to whether it actually did.

The negation does: something that could not happen did not happen.
Therefore, it's important to demonstrate that it could, even if it's not decisive.

 

[Vara La Fey]

The negation does: something that could not happen did not happen.
Therefore, it's important to demonstrate that it could, even if it's not decisive.

They're not entirely equivalent statements, but I agree that it's important to show when something could happen, and to remember that it is not decisive.

And we should be glad it's not decisive. Otherwise there would literally be no end to the crimes we could all be accused of.

 

[Rory]

Do you have a link for Pope's recreation? And has anyone identified where it was taken? There isn't much to go on in that 1 pic.

Check the OP in the main Calvine thread, I think there should be links to both in the summary. If not, I can find them.

 

[olvr80]

I am quite certain there is enough information in this photo to be able to locate it. Places have been geolocated with far less from a single photo. I thought they already had stated the spot actually, and I don't know if that was accurate, but if so, it would be easy to verify thanks to the geographical details you can faintly make out in the background of the image.

On the reflection debate, I've not seen anyone come close to demonstrating it would be possible to take a photo like this without manipulation. Every reflection image posted in this thread (and any other I've seen) clearly aren't the same, and don't take in to account ALL aspects of the image, such as reflection physics, position, angle, field of view, weather, time of day, and the fence (that could be easily replicated in part). If it were a reflection, someone could replicate it. There's some amazing photographers out there, and it would be quite easy were it actually do-able.

 

[deirdre]

I am quite certain there is enough information in this photo to be able to locate it.

well when you go to Scotland and find it, let us know.