Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

Robert Webb

New Member
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

Member
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Scaramanga

Member
CalvineWatermarked+jpeg+2.jpg

CalvineWatermarked+jpeg+2 flipped.jpeg

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/

dsc_0156.jpg


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/

CalvineWatermarked+jpeg+2.jpg

CalvineWatermarked+jpeg+2 flipped.jpeg

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/

dsc_0156.jpg


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

Senior Member.
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.
E1330A38-EFFA-499F-BD2D-5C8BBAD2A9CD.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Scaramanga

Member
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:

rock in a pond.jpg

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

Member
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.
E1330A38-EFFA-499F-BD2D-5C8BBAD2A9CD.jpeg

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

Senior Member.
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.
Screenshot 2022-08-16 175107.png
 

Scaramanga

Member
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.
Screenshot 2022-08-16 175107.png

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

Senior Member.
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

Member
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

Senior Member.
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.
 
Last edited:

Scaramanga

Member
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.

calvine-photograph (1).jpg
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
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.
 

Scaramanga

Member
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

Member
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.......

watermarked-jpeg-2.jpg
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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?
 
Last edited:
Top