Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

The location was supplied by the Reddit thread the location of where this Reddit user thought the UFO was shot was never in question.

I went through the entire Reddit thread and no exact location was supplied...just a vague reference to the road alongside the lake, without even saying if it was the north road or the south road. I had to literally 'travel' along the road for several miles to find it.

EDIT...I see a location link has since been added. But it was not originally there.
 
Last edited:
Your AI needs to know that using barbed wire in a roadside fence in Scotland is subject to a whole host of laws that in most cases make it illegal. There'd be no actual reason to put barbed wire on a fence that was simply demarcating the steep drop off to the lake. The idea of such fencing would be to protect people...not to injure them.
I'm in Scotland a lot and barbed wire is typically used for the top wire— whether by a road or between fields—to keep animals in. I didn't save the prompts I used but I think I may have only specified "wire fence like is used in Scotland" I think it went a bit overboard...
For example:
Screenshot 2025-01-20 at 23.55.02.png
 
As for the reflected rock, I've never understood the difference between the top point and the bottom point:

1736978792729.png

Indeed, I really don't understand why people are calling it a reflection when it very clearly isn't. Not only is the 'reflected' shape different, with the bumps and curves in the top part not being reflected, but even the light and dark patches are not reflected.

You can have a reflection that is elongated, twisted, distorted, or whatever...but what you cannot have from what is ostensibly a reflection off a flat surface is the reflection being a completely different shape !
 
I'm in Scotland a lot and barbed wire is typically used for the top wire— whether by a road or between fields—to keep animals in.

Yes, I've been all over Scotland and the single line of barbed wire at the top is generally what is used, and the fences are generally the same height and spacing wherever you go. What's interesting is that the original Calvine UFO fence is not of that nature but actually appears to be an electric fence ( top wire ) with barbed wire in the wires below. You can see its an electric fence because it even contains ( see fence column to the left, which is different to the wooden posts ) one of those special posts that contains the loop to hold the wire. There'd be no reason to have barbed wire on the lower wires and no barbed on the upper wire...other than it being an electric fence.


calvine.JPG
 
Yes, I've been all over Scotland and the single line of barbed wire at the top is generally what is used, and the fences are generally the same height and spacing wherever you go. What's interesting is that the original Calvine UFO fence is not of that nature but actually appears to be an electric fence ( top wire ) with barbed wire in the wires below. You can see its an electric fence because it even contains ( see fence column to the left, which is different to the wooden posts ) one of those special posts that contains the loop to hold the wire. There'd be no reason to have barbed wire on the lower wires and no barbed on the upper wire...other than it being an electric fence.


View attachment 76224
Maybe, but maybe not. There tend to be little bits of insulator (or old hose pipe) on the wire where it touches the fence for electric fencing and these tend to stick out from the fence posts.
Also, I'm surprised to see that I have quite an extensive collection of Scottish fences in my photo gallery...
Barbed top wire. non-electric.
Screenshot 2025-01-21 at 01.05.44.png
 
You can see its an electric fence because it even contains ( see fence column to the left, which is different to the wooden posts ) one of those special posts that contains the loop to hold the wire.


It's a temporary fencing pin, also known as a pin stake.
In very widespread use, in agriculture, on construction sites to hold up lane markers, many other uses.


b.JPG
Capture.JPG
FP-9-5.jpg




There are variants for carrying electric fence strands but in the Calvine photo it looks like a standard pin has been used in lieu of a (probably wooden) fencepost.

Livestock often rub against fencing (including barbed wire) and leave small clumps of hair/ wool (which might explain the apparent clumps of material on the top strand of wire in the Calvine photo); this is much less common with electric fencing.

detail from alleged UFO pic Calvine.JPG

Calvine fence.JPG
 
Indeed, I really don't understand why people are calling it a reflection when it very clearly isn't. Not only is the 'reflected' shape different, with the bumps and curves in the top part not being reflected, but even the light and dark patches are not reflected.

You can have a reflection that is elongated, twisted, distorted, or whatever...but what you cannot have from what is ostensibly a reflection off a flat surface is the reflection being a completely different shape !
I've explained that ad nauseam, and many photos on this thread show rocks in water in which the reflection is a conspicuously different shape. You're not paying attention if you've missed all of those multiple images and explanations. (Hint: go look at the duck.) https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/post-333289
IMG_0910.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I've explained that ad nauseam, and many photos on this thread show rocks in water in which the reflection is a conspicuously different shape. You're not paying attention if you've missed all of those multiple images and explanations. (Hint: go look at the duck.) https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/post-333289
View attachment 76241

No, I simply don't accept that at all. You are showing close up rocks where clearly the angle of incidence on the water is considerable. This is in no way comparable to a distant rock where that angle is far smaller and the line of sight is more parallel to the water. With the latter I'd expect a good symmetry, especially on a calm surface....and there are literally thousands of examples on Google that show that. I would not expect such an image to have sticking out bits that did not show up at all in the reflection. Neither would I expect the reflection to be sizeably larger than the thing reflected, or to have light and dark areas completely different ( even if the general hue of the reflection is darker ).

blog6150512-2-750x420.jpg
 
No, I simply don't accept that at all. You are showing close up rocks where clearly the angle of incidence on the water is considerable. This is in no way comparable to a distant rock where that angle is far smaller and the line of sight is more parallel to the water. With the latter I'd expect a good symmetry, especially on a calm surface....and there are literally thousands of examples on Google that show that. I would not expect such an image to have sticking out bits that did not show up at all in the reflection. Neither would I expect the reflection to be sizeably larger than the thing reflected, or to have light and dark areas completely different ( even if the general hue of the reflection is darker ).

View attachment 76251
The difference between the reflected view and the straight view is the difference between the viewer's eyes above the water level times two. Let's say 4m in your example. The subject is, I don't know, 2000m high, and probably a fair few kilometers away.

Obviously, moving your viewpoint of something distant that 2000m high by 4m doesn't significantly change the view - 4m is almost not moving at all. Draw the ray diagrams - to scale - for this scenario. I'm not joking. Do it - put in the effort, we are. The more you invest in what you learn the higher value you will place on it.

That you can find an example that does not seem to demonstrate perspective changes in reflections does not prove that perspective changes don't happen, which they do - always (unless the camera's somehow intersecting the reflecting surface).
 
No, I simply don't accept that at all. You are showing close up rocks where clearly the angle of incidence on the water is considerable. This is in no way comparable to a distant rock where that angle is far smaller and the line of sight is more parallel to the water. With the latter I'd expect a good symmetry, especially on a calm surface.
Take a good look at your own photo. It's obvious that there is less of the dark mountain showing above the trees, (the red line on the right) and almost none at all in places (the red line on the left), because the nearer parts (the trees) screen some of the more distant parts (the lower part of the mountain) so they cannot be reflected. Your viewpoint is looking directly above the trees, but if your eye were at water level you'd miss some of that view because the the trees are in the way. And essentially that's what the reflection is: it shows what you'd see from water level, not what you'd see from your higher viewpoint.
IMG_3012.jpeg
 
Last edited:
This is in no way comparable to a distant rock where that angle is far smaller and the line of sight is more parallel to the water.
Sorry, can you explain how you know the distance to the "UFO" in the picture, or the angle at which it is being seen relative to the water surface (if there is a water surface...)?
 
The difference between the reflected view and the straight view is the difference between the viewer's eyes above the water level times two. Let's say 4m in your example. The subject is, I don't know, 2000m high, and probably a fair few kilometers away.

Obviously, moving your viewpoint of something distant that 2000m high by 4m doesn't significantly change the view - 4m is almost not moving at all. Draw the ray diagrams - to scale - for this scenario. I'm not joking. Do it - put in the effort, we are. The more you invest in what you learn the higher value you will place on it.

No...the trees reflect perfectly as well, and they are not 2000m high. Show me a single tree that has a sticking out bit above the water that doesn't have it in the reflection.
blog6150512-2-750x420.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sorry, can you explain how you know the distance to the "UFO" in the picture, or the angle at which it is being seen relative to the water surface (if there is a water surface...)?

I'll explain that when you explain why the clouds are not 'reflected' in the water. I mean, they just aren't. The Calvine UFO is very clearly an object 'in the sky'. The reflection theory just ignores way too many blindingly obvious errors.
 
I'll explain that when you explain why the clouds are not 'reflected' in the water. I mean, they just aren't. The Calvine UFO is very clearly an object 'in the sky'. The reflection theory just ignores way too many blindingly obvious errors.
With the note that I do not believe it is a thing in the water, thing-on-a-string seems simpler...
If all we are seeing is the surface of a lake, the mirror effect for the clouds would not be apparent, unless the image extended above the horizon. But there do seem to me to be hints of cloudiness in the pic. Clouds might not be reflected more strongly because:

There aren't any, and what looks like smudgy traces of clouds are imperfections in film/paper/etc., or
There is a solid reasonably uniform overcast.

To me, the pic looks like a gloomy overcast day, but that might not be an accurate impression.
 
There aren't any, and what looks like smudgy traces of clouds are imperfections in film/paper/etc., or
There is a solid reasonably uniform overcast.

To me, the pic looks like a gloomy overcast day, but that might not be an accurate impression.

It's very clearly clouds occupying the entire frame beyond the fence. There's not even the remotest hint of any edge to any alleged 'water'. If anyone was shown the photo and there wasn't a 'UFO' in it.....most people would quite happily accept it as clouds...which is the Occam's razor explanation. The whole 'reflection' thing adds totally un-necessary layers of complication. I think Don Quixote has better chance of chasing windmills than there is chance of there being anything to the 'reflection' theory.

I mean...people have even managed to turn a Harrier jet into a man in a rowing boat. We're supposed to be explaining this thing with a simple solution, not a more complex one !

ufo.jpg
 
There's one aspect to the photo that I don't think has been mentioned yet it is relevant....

Howcome the 'bobble' thing on the end of the UFO just 'happens' to line up nicely so it appears at one end ? I mean, the UFO could have been at almost any angle of relative rotation....and half of that would in fact have hidden that appendage completely. It strikes me as being suspiciously well lined up to show off that appendage.

091f6d0b-a84d-4b07-9f9f-418eab3c7fc2_694x544.jpg
 
It's very clearly clouds occupying the entire frame beyond the fence.
I would agree that there appear to be overcast clouds in the picture. But things often look like other things -- I would disagree that there are "clearly" clouds, while there might be clouds, it might as easily be something to do with the paper the image was printed on, or something else.

There's not even the remotest hint of any edge to any alleged 'water'.
There wouldn't be, if the edge of the water is above the frame of the picture.
reflection no far shore.jpg
 
"I wish I was as sure of anything as you are of everything."

Here's another picture, with a child reflected in a shiny table (therefore no ripples to confuse you). It's very clear that the reflection isn't the same as the child. The table reflects an image as if it were looking up from below, whereas the viewer sees the child from a position that is higher. You can clearly see that the reflection shows up into the nostrils, the end of the nose hides the bridge, and the cheeks hide a bit of the eyes, whereas none of those show in the child. That's what happens with a 3-D object viewed from different angles; you're thinking of reflections as if they were 2-D stage sets at perfect right angles to the reflective surface, and they're not.
IMG_3013.jpeg
 
Last edited:
@Scaramanga
External Quote:

Mirror, but Not a Mirror Image


Remember that a reflection isn't a mirror image from a printing plate. Instead, it is a view from a different angle. This is important because the reflection will often see things that do not appear in the object itself.

In a landscape, for example, you will notice that the reflection reveals a little more of the underside of bridges or the shadow of overhanging plants. A tree reflected in water may have crisply visible branches, seen from underneath the obscuring foliage.
https://www.liveabout.com/tips-for-drawing-reflections-1123201
 
I would disagree that there are "clearly" clouds, while there might be clouds, it might as easily be something to do with the paper the image was printed on, or something else.

Seriously ? It walks like a cloud and quacks like a cloud...but its not a cloud ? It's Scotland in the rainy season. I'm not entirely clear what else one would expect to be in the sky.

And I've yet to see a photographic defect that covered the sky in clouds but left the fence and trees and 'UFO' and plane clear of them.
 
Here's another picture, with a child reflected in a shiny table (therefore no ripples to confuse you).

And once again you are showing a very close up image, which in itself increases the angle of incidence.

Just as a matter of interest...how far away do you think the 'reflection' is in the Calvine photo ? It has to be further way than the fence, which I'd estimate is at least 30 feet away. Even my closest guess would be 60 feet.

Can you explain why there's an entire cloud right in the middle of where the water line should be...and why this cloud is dark at the bottom ( as clouds usually are ) if it is also a reflection ? Why are the 'reflected' clouds not upside down ?

To me the whole 'reflection' thing is even more absurd than UFOs. I am at a loss to grasp why people can't look at this picture and see what is patently there and have to resort to illusions or tricks for the entire scene rather than just the UFO bit.


091f6d0b-a84d-4b07-9f9f-418eab3c7fc2_694x544.jpg
 
Last edited:
And once again you are showing a very close up image, which in itself increases the angle of incidence.

Just as a matter of interest...how far away do you think the 'reflection' is in the Calvine photo ? It has to be further way than the fence, which I'd estimate is at least 30 feet away. Even my closest guess would be 60 feet.

Can you explain why there's an entire cloud right in the middle of where the water line should be...and why this cloud is dark at the bottom ( as clouds usually are ) if it is also a reflection ? Why are the 'reflected' clouds not upside down ?

To me the whole 'reflection' thing is even more absurd than UFOs. I am at a loss to grasp why people can't look at this picture and see what is patently there and have to resort to illusions or tricks for the entire scene rather than just the UFO bit.


View attachment 76307
I showed you close up reflections, I showed you distant reflections ...on your own photo, no less. Are you still "just asking questions"? Contact me AFTER you've done the diagram.
 
Seriously ? It walks like a cloud and quacks like a cloud...but its not a cloud ? It's Scotland in the rainy season. I'm not entirely clear what else one would expect to be in the sky.
I'm seeing indistinct smudges -- if it is clouds, it's a pretty solid overcast, which is of course possible. As a general point, I don't find the "if it looks like a duck/cloud, it must be a duck/cloud" line of argument convincing, as the world is too full of things that like like something other than what they are. (Her is me, manfully refraining from posting the picture that is NOT a Jesus-like profile at all, again! ^_^)

It would have been handy if there were some discrete clouds, then we'd have a better sense of it, but alas, it is what it is.

And I've yet to see a photographic defect that covered the sky in clouds but left the fence and trees and 'UFO' and plane clear of them.
That is a more convincing point, to me -- but note that the dark bit of "cloud" that lies behind the "jet" lies behind the darker bit of the "jet," the lighter wing is in front of the lighter bit of sky -- so possibly the effect is in the paper after all?

That said, I think we'll get distractedly into the weeds debating clouds or not too extensively -- both the "thing on a string" and "reflection" hypothesis could well be showing us a direct or reflected view of the sky, and if it is really something mysterious flying around in the sky that would be the sky behind it as well. It seems pretty likely in any of the three that that's some sky back there, and skies often contain clouds so the presence of clouds does not seem useful to discriminate between the leading hypotheses. I'm content to leave the "clouds" debate where it is, unless it becomes more important than it seems to be just now.
 
Can you explain why there's an entire cloud right in the middle of where the water line should be..
How are you determining where the water line should be? It may well be out of frame at the top (always assuming there is water involved, of course.)
 
One of the things I'm struck by is the poor quality of the Calvine UFO photo. It really is pretty dire for a 1990 camera. Look....here's a better photo I took in Scotland 20 years earlier in 1970, on a puny Instamatic 25 camera which was probably the cheapest camera ever made.

And its in colour too ! Notice how well the detail of the clouds and the sky and the distant scenery is picked up...compared with the Calvine pic 20 years later. ( That's Loch Lomond, by the way....on a very overcast and rainy day )

g566677.jpg
 
Last edited:
How are you determining where the water line should be?

That's just it...there isn't one. So wherever it 'is'...there's a cloud crossing it. Which is absurd.

And...try turning the Calvine photo upside down, and you see upside down clouds. That's a big clue.
 
Here's another picture, with a child reflected in a shiny table

I suspect you've fallen for a manipulated picture of the islet known as Wee Ben Munro, but it was quite well done so no criticism from me.
Some say that looking across the water to Wee Ben they see the face of a small child. The parallel tunnels dug into the island by Jacobite artillerymen in 1745 do have some resemblance to eyes from a certain angle.


Untitled.png
 
Unless it is out of frame to the top.

So all the clouds are a reflection...so why aren't they upside down. You know, like this is what clouds look like in Scotland or anywhere else...dark at the bottom, just like in the Calvine pic.....

You can only stretch this 'reflection' stuff so far, before it just becomes more absurd than aliens.


g566677.jpg
 
So all the clouds are a reflection...so why aren't they upside down.
Assuming we are looking at sky and clouds, one of these is upside down. I'm not sure is is all that clear which it might be, your perceptiveness may vary of course! :) (UFO and plane removed to remove that cue as to which is which.)
Capture.JPG


(Dang, what has happened to the world that I, of all people, am arguing for the plausibility of the reflection hypothesis? have we slipped into some weird alternate timeline????:D)
 
Seriously ? It walks like a cloud and quacks like a cloud...but its not a cloud ? It's Scotland in the rainy season. I'm not entirely clear what else one would expect to be in the sky.

And I've yet to see a photographic defect that covered the sky in clouds but left the fence and trees and 'UFO' and plane clear of them.
It's just an overexposed surface, one cannot tell if it's sky or something else. Sky, water, fog, snow, a salt plain, chalk (first things which came to my mind) would all have the same appearance.
 
One of the things I'm struck by is the poor quality of the Calvine UFO photo. It really is pretty dire for a 1990 camera. Look....here's a better photo I took in Scotland 20 years earlier in 1970, on a puny Instamatic 25 camera which was probably the cheapest camera ever made.

And its in colour too ! Notice how well the detail of the clouds and the sky and the distant scenery is picked up...compared with the Calvine pic 20 years later. ( That's Loch Lomond, by the way....on a very overcast and rainy day )

View attachment 76309

I think, if one reads through some of the stuff in the other Calvine threads, it's very likely this is a photo of a photo.

While the photographic expert changed his mind quite a bit, he still maintains this is a B & W photo printed on color paper. All the notes from the MoD mention "color" negatives.

IF Lindsay's story is correct, this print was made by the photo department at the Daily Record (I often confuse the newspaper and I'm on my phone right now). They had the negatives by that point and the MoD in London was requesting a print from Lindsay.

He claims the Daily Record provided him with the print that he then faxed to London(?). He then kept the print for 30 years.

The Daily Record printed both color and B&W photos in their editions at the time. I suspect that their photo department would make a number of copies in both color and B&W that need only be good enough for a daily paper in the '90s. They made a B&W copy of the original color negatives then printed off a quick copy on color paper for Lisday to fax. That's what we see today. Just my suspicion.
 
It's just an overexposed surface, one cannot tell if it's sky or something else.

Oh come off it. Its about as clearly cloud as it gets. I can't believe any serious minded, rational person could ever believe it was anything else.

Why even bother with any UFO conspiracy when there's a ridiculous conspiracy that turns that stuff one normally gets in the sky ( especially in Scotland ) into everything except what it quite patently is.


091f6d0b-a84d-4b07-9f9f-418eab3c7fc2_694x544.jpg
 
Assuming we are looking at sky and clouds, one of these is upside down

And it is very easy indeed to spot that it is the lower one.

I can't believe people are still advocating a crazy 'reflection' theory that is about as far from Occam's infamous razor, and involves as many absurd manipulations and machinations, as it is possible to get. I recall the old show Catch Phrase that used to have the phrase 'Say what you see....' repeated often. I think people have gotten so hung up on the 'reflection' theory that they can no longer see the wood for the trees and cannot 'say what they see' that is quite patent and obviously there.

Its on par with having something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and then contriving some absurd theory that really its a distorted and manipulated and upside down reflection of an elephant.
 
Last edited:
Why even bother with any UFO conspiracy when there's a ridiculous conspiracy that turns that stuff one normally gets in the sky ( especially in Scotland ) into everything except what it quite patently is.
It quite patently is represented as a mysterious and perhaps other-worldly craft that can do magical stuff. Don't you think that's worth questioning? I do. We could have written it off as a deliberate hoax on day one without any evidence that was the case, but then we wouldn't have been doing our job.
 
It quite patently is represented as a mysterious and perhaps other-worldly craft that can do magical stuff.

Well, yes, but one should not have to defy logic and reason and contrive counter-intuitive and complex explanations for the stuff that isn't the UFO. There's absolutely nothing that requires one to postulate that somehow the entire picture is not what it seems.

I'm not clear why one has to posit that the entire thing is a reflection, solely based on the 'UFO' being somewhat ( though not entirely, as I have mentioned ) symmetrical. It's a lot easier and more sense to accept the background as what it looks like...clouds...and dismiss the 'UFO' as a model dangling from a tree. I suspect the Harrier may be genuine.....they often used to over-fly that area on training missions.

Another possible explanation is that the photo is actually a photo of a photo....with the 'UFO' added ( drawn onto ) to the original. That might also explain why it is such poor quality for a 1990 camera when I have better photos from 1970.
 
the photo is actually a photo of a photo.

Gosh...this took literally 5 minutes to create. With a little more time I could create a far better 'UFO'...

And the great thing about this method is that no negative was tampered with. Nothing's been altered in the original photo. I've simply stuck a 'UFO' to the screen and then photographed the photo. No need to even buy an Xmas decoration or any string.

P1140006.JPG
 
Last edited:
Back
Top