Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

[Steve Collyer]

Well, I do think this is most probably a genuine sighting.

For me, the most persuasive evidence is not the image itself, nor the extensive analysis done on it over the years, but the fact that the two gents who took the photos seem to have lived a remarkably quiet life since. No book deals, involvement in documentaries, films - nothing you could really hang a hat on at all when you review the backstory of how this all came to light.

For what it's worth, I think the blokes stumbled upon a highly experimental US test aircraft, for some reason being escorted by a Harrier jet.
I do not think it is an ET craft, simply because it seems to have some sort of tail. If, as a civilisation, you have mastered zero-point energy and antigravity, what would you need any sort of cumbersome steering or stabilisation device for?
What the USAF were thinking allowing testing of such a thing in unrestricted airspace, over publicly accessible land is another story!

 

[Scaramanga]

For me, the most persuasive evidence is not the image itself, nor the extensive analysis done on it over the years, but the fact that the two gents who took the photos seem to have lived a remarkably quiet life since. No book deals, involvement in documentaries, films - nothing you could really hang a hat on at all when you review the backstory of how this all came to light.

I'd suggest they lived a quiet life because they themselves did not really think what they'd photographed was a UFO, and it is others who have blown the story out of all proportion while the original photographers just got on with their lives.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

For what it's worth, I think the blokes stumbled upon a highly experimental US test aircraft,

How does a US test aircraft, even a highly experimental one, hover with no visible means of propulsion and then shoot vertically into the air at great speed?

In the 90s.

Why has this amazing physics-defying technology never found its way into US aircraft (or any other application) since then?

 

[NorCal Dave]

How does a US test aircraft, even a highly experimental one, hover with no visible means of propulsion and then shoot vertically into the air at great speed?

In the 90s.

Why has this amazing physics-defying technology never found its way into US aircraft (or any other application) since then?

And as I've said before, what the hell is it doing in Scotland? The US government already has huge tracts of land, especially out west, with chunks of it off limits. Area 51/Groom Lake was literally created to develop and test secret aircraft starting with the U2, then the Oxcart/A12/SR71 and the F117. Why fool around in Scotland? It's a hoxed photo.

 

[Mendel]

Why fool around in Scotland?

MI5 testing a new James Bond craft?

 

[John J.]

MI6.
Arguably not a very low-profile vehicle, but then nor is an Aston Martin with Eva Green or Lea Seydoux in the passenger seat.

 

[jackfrostvc]

Given how many UFO videos that seem to be hoaxes of a UFO (apparently in the foreground) photographed hanging from under a tree. And given this has the same tell tale signs , tree etc. This could very well be something hanging from a tree, both craft and plane. Out of all the theories, I think this one was probably the strongest in my opinion

 

[John J.]

Given how many UFO videos that seem to be hoaxes of a UFO (apparently in the foreground) photographed hanging from under a tree. And given this has the same tell tale signs , tree etc. This could very well be something hanging from a tree, both craft and plane. Out of all the theories, I think this one was probably the strongest in my opinion

One of the disadvantages of threads being split is that conversation in a "daughter" thread can proceed without relevant information (or theorising) that exists in a sister thread.

The Calvine Photo Hoax Theories thread has examples of attempts by Wim wan Utrecht (and @NorCal Dave) to model the Calvine photo using essentially the technique suggested by @jackfrostvc,
e.g. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/post-286688,
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/post-286700.

Wim van Utrecht's pictures don't prove that the Calvine UFO photo is a hoax, but I think they convincingly demonstrate how it could be a hoax, and one that takes very little in the way of resources or skills to stage.

 

[JMartJr]

Wim van Utrecht's pictures don't prove that the Calvine UFO photo is a hoax, but I think they convincingly demonstrate how it could be a hoax, and one that takes very little in the way of resources or skills to stage.

...and given that we KNOW hoaxes exist, that becomes a preferred explanation to all those that rely on things that we do NOT know exist.

 

[Scaramanga]

Wim van Utrecht's pictures don't prove that the Calvine UFO photo is a hoax, but I think they convincingly demonstrate how it could be a hoax

I don't see how that helps...as almost anything 'could' be a hoax. Surely the job of skeptics is to establish that it is.

 

[Mendel]

I don't see how that helps...as almost anything 'could' be a hoax. Surely the job of skeptics is to establish that it is.

It's the "job" of the claimant to establish the legitimacy of the evidence, but we lack elementary data such as the location, time, or even the identity of the witnesses.

This lack of supporting data opens the discussion to a number of viable hypotheses. We need to weigh them against each other to come to a conclusion that we find most plausible. A demonstration how a similar image could be hoaxed adds weight to that option (in addition to British military saying they didn't have that kind of aircraft in the air in that place that day).

 

[Scaramanga]

We need to weigh them against each other to come to a conclusion that we find most plausible. A demonstration how a similar image could be hoaxed adds weight to that option

I agree we need to weigh things. But I disagree that evidence that something 'could' be a hoax adds any weight at all given that almost anything could be a hoax. You cannot really weigh up non-specific probabilities. You can weigh up if it was a bird, because a bird is a quite specific thing. Or you can weigh up is the photo really an island, because once again that is a quite specific thing and you've got some metrics to compare against and try to exclude it.

But 'hoax' is such a broad range, and one that includes all of the specific items within it too. For example the photo may originally have been just an island and not an intentional UFO hoax, but they then thought ' hey, this looks like a UFO '. How on earth does one unravel that ? There is then no way of proving that the original photo is a hoax...as it isn't. It would be just the interpretation of it that is hoaxed.

I'm simply arguing that if one is going to make counter claims and weigh things up, one needs to be very specific in those counter claims.

 

[Mendel]

But I disagree that evidence that something 'could' be a hoax adds any weight at all given that almost anything could be a hoax.

I'm simply arguing that if one is going to make counter claims and weigh things up, one needs to be very specific in those counter claims.

Now compare what I wrote, " A demonstration how a similar image could be hoaxed adds weight to that option", and tell me where we disagree.
It doesn't get any more specific than creating a hoax for comparison.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I agree we need to weigh things. But I disagree that evidence that something 'could' be a hoax adds any weight at all given that almost anything could be a hoax. You cannot really weigh up non-specific probabilities. You can weigh up if it was a bird, because a bird is a quite specific thing. Or you can weigh up is the photo really an island, because once again that is a quite specific thing and you've got some metrics to compare against and try to exclude it.

Forgive me sir, but I'm going to quote and respond to this over in the more appropriate thread about Calvine photo hoax theories:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/

 

[Scaramanga]

He never admitted to hoaxing them and maintained they were real photos of real UFOs that followed him around. Now there is what I would call circumstantial evidence of hoaxing:

I was always puzzled by the white bit on the left hand side of the Calvine UFO. A little stretching and editing and...this is actually Aisla Craig, an island just off the Mull Of Kintyre in Scotland.....

( EDIT ... I just noticed that the A77 road that looks out over Aisla Crag has fencing near the B734 that looks identical to the fencing in the Calvine photo )

 

[FDSaussure]

I was always puzzled by the white bit on the left hand side of the Calvine UFO. A little stretching and editing and...this is actually Aisla Craig, an island just off the Mull Of Kintyre in Scotland.....

( EDIT ... I just noticed that the A77 road that looks out over Aisla Crag has fencing near the B734 that looks identical to the fencing in the Calvine photo )


View attachment 73063

To be honest that seems unconvincing. It's way more rounded than the UFO, and lacks the little 'bobble' on the right of the UFO. Also the stretching and editing seems more hard work? The Xmas ornament recreations look way more convincing and are easier to do...

 

[Scaramanga]

The Xmas ornament recreations look way more convincing and are easier to do...

The Xmas ornament doesn't contain all the little un-symmetric bumps and so on that appear in the Calvine photo, or the fact that the edges of the object in the photo are slightly concave.

 

[Mendel]

the fact that the edges of the object in the photo are slightly concave.

that's an optical illusion, they're not

 

[Ann K]

that's an optical illusion, they're not

Yes, they are slightly concave, and definitely irregular.

 

[Mendel]

Yes, they are slightly concave, and definitely irregular.

View attachment 73166

When I'm holding a straightedge to it, none of the 4 edges seem concave.

 

[Scaramanga]

When I'm holding a straightedge to it, none of the 4 edges seem concave.

Well, if i actually draw a line between the end points I see daylight above it.....

 

[JMartJr]

Well, if i actually draw a line between the end points I see daylight above it.....

I see daylight above it at the endpoints of the line, too. ^_^

But I'm not sure this is all particularly relevant. There are many manufacturers of ornaments, some will be more precisely made that others, some will have "glitter" or "snow" glued to them while other will not, some will have clean straight edges other may be concave or convex. Smoothness and straight edges are not a necessary component of a Christmas Tree ornament.

 

[Mendel]

Well, if i actually draw a line between the end points I see daylight above it.....

View attachment 73168

except you're outside the corners at both ends
so unsurprisingly if you draw a line parallel to the edge, you see a distance
but what you do not see is curvature

 

[Scaramanga]

except you're outside the corners at both ends
so unsurprisingly if you draw a line parallel to the edge, you see a distance
but what you do not see is curvature

To be frank...the concave curvature is blatantly obvious to see. I mean just look at the bottom right. There's no way that is a straight line.

 

[Scaramanga]

But I'm not sure this is all particularly relevant. There are many manufacturers of ornaments, some will be more precisely made that others, some will have "glitter" or "snow" glued to them while other will not, some will have clean straight edges other may be concave or convex. Smoothness and straight edges are not a necessary component of a Christmas Tree ornament.

Sure, but then...just like all the other explanations...you find yourself increasingly having to fiddle it to explain the bits that don't fit. Also, though I seem to have lost track of it....didn't the original pic of the Xmas decoration have the little ball thing at the end below the centre line ? And what explains the dark and light markings on the Calvine pic ?

Also....these two are 'similar'....but certainly by no means the same.....

 

[Mendel]

To be frank...the concave curvature is blatantly obvious to see. I mean just look at the bottom right. There's no way that is a straight line.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I was always puzzled by the white bit on the left hand side of the Calvine UFO. A little stretching and editing and...this is actually Aisla Craig, an island just off the Mull Of Kintyre in Scotland.....

( EDIT ... I just noticed that the A77 road that looks out over Aisla Crag has fencing near the B734 that looks identical to the fencing in the Calvine photo )


View attachment 73063

You'll have to explain how you could accomplish this distortion on a photographic print.

There are ways to accomplish distortion on a print, but so far I can't think of way to do it selectively. IOW distorting just one object but nothing else in the print. Not without making a composite.

 

[Scaramanga]

View attachment 73201

Well you are simply exemplifying that people see what they want to see. To the naked eye there is no way that either lower edge is a straight line. I mean...how can we complain about UFO witnesses and their 'I know what I saw' when we can't even agree on what is patently there in a photo.

 

[JMartJr]

Looks to me like a grainy image blown up until the edges are all lumpy and indistinct -- you can draw a line making one set of assumptions as to where the REAL edge is, and see a curve. Another set of assumptions gives you a straight edge. Don't make too much stew from not enough oyster.

 

[Scaramanga]

Looks to me like a grainy image blown up until the edges are all lumpy and indistinct -- you can draw a line making one set of assumptions as to where the REAL edge is, and see a curve. Another set of assumptions curves you a straight edge. Don't make too much stew from not enough oyster.

I'm not that bothered, but to me it is a good example of how people can look at the exact same thing and see something different.....which in many ways is a good thing as it is precisely the point a lot of UFO skepticism makes.

 

[John J.]

Also, though I seem to have lost track of it....didn't the original pic of the Xmas decoration have the little ball thing at the end below the centre line ? And what explains the dark and light markings on the Calvine pic ?

Also....these two are 'similar'....but certainly by no means the same.....

I'm not sure that Wim van Utrecht was saying that his model photo was using exactly the same sort of decoration as might have been used in the Calvine photo, merely that small, lightweight objects that resemble the Calvine UFO are cheaply and readily available (and might have been in 1991).
Christmas tree decorations have the advantage that they're designed to be light enough to hang from trees!

If you rummage through a bin of affordable Christmas tree ornaments at your local thrift store or supermarket I'd guess different examples of the same item will show some differences and imperfections- they're not precision engineered, some might be imperfectly made, and a few might accrue bends, folds, concavities etc. through shipping and handling.

 

[Mendel]

Well you are simply exemplifying that people see what they want to see. To the naked eye there is no way that either lower edge is a straight line. I mean...how can we complain about UFO witnesses and their 'I know what I saw' when we can't even agree on what is patently there in a photo.

no, it's definitely a bit bumpy (and obviously there's a protrusion on the right), but I don't think the evidence supports the claim that the edges are concave. If it were, you should be able to draw a line with the outer ends inside the object and the middle of the line being outside.