Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

[Minus0]

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.

Then why are you wasting time here attempting to shame everyone else who is exploring different ways of viewing the situation? There's another thread about the Calvine photo without the reflection hypothesis.

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.

Everyone agrees those are clouds. Clouds reflect in water. Here's a neat picture looking out over a lake. The clouds show up clearly in the water, right? Nothing weird about it or particularly hard to comprehend

Now we can take a similar picture of a boat floating in the water

Note the reflection: where's the interior of the boat? Where's the red? The reflection, surrounded by clouds, is completely different.

Here's a picture of a weird landmass UFO floating over the trees. It's in the clouds so it must be floating in the sky right?

Well no, I just zoomed in and cropped this picture

If you imagine the photographer was standing under a tree with the branch's coming into the frame from above that's the approximate orientation we're talking about in this thread. Although i suspect the Calvine photo was close to the water. Perhaps you didn't read the thread but I posted this image approximating the possible orientation using a street view location from near where the boys went for a walk (the flotsam is just random garbage i pasted on the photo to approximate where the object(s) could have been)

Lastly just to demonstrate how easy it is to trick the mind, you probably had no problem perceiving the first picture i posted above of the lake with reflected clouds. But if we zoom out a bit…

We have a boat hanging in the sky.
Because I had flipped and cropped it

Your brain literally can't tell the difference with many reflections like that.


It's possible the jet was flying low over the Loch or it's a couple pieces of garbage that look like something else. Or they faked it entirely and the jet is a floating toy. The ufo could be something like a partly submerged box or an outcropping of rock? For me personally the angle of the fence posts align more with the downward looking reflection hypothesis in my mind but it could be something hanging from a string etc.

There's another thread without the reflection idea if you'd prefer avoiding it!

 

[Scaramanga]

Everyone agrees those are clouds. Clouds reflect in water. Here's a neat picture looking out over a lake. The clouds show up clearly in the water, right? Nothing weird about it or particularly hard to comprehend

I'm not entirely sure who you are responding to....as that is precisely the point I was making. It helps if you read what a person is actually saying.

Note that your clouds upside down in the water are darker at the top, which is precisely how you know they are a reflection in water. Also precisely the point I was making, and that the clouds in the Calvine photo are darker at the bottom....which means they are in the sky and not a reflection.

 

[Minus0]

Note that your clouds upside down in the water are darker at the top, which is precisely how you know they are a reflection in water. Also precisely the point I was making, and that the clouds in the Calvine photo are darker at the bottom....which means they are in the sky and not a reflection.

On an overcast day there can be variation on that rule depending on a number of factors such as cloud thickness, sun direction, etc.. Especially if the camera is pointed down at a steeper angle

These clouds are darker on the bottom in the reflection so it's certainly not always true as a rule, but it's near sunset so that affects things.

We don't know the time of the original although I'd guess earlier

Perhaps your argument about shading of the clouds is a slam dunk. Admittedly I was put off by your tone and didn't read all your comments . Something for me to work on I suppose

 

[Ann K]

Note that your clouds upside down in the water are darker at the top, which is precisely how you know they are a reflection in water. Also precisely the point I was making, and that the clouds in the Calvine photo are darker at the bottom....which means they are in the sky and not a reflection.

This is a picture of clouds lit from below, as they are in the evening when we are told the photo was taken. They're light on the bottom, dark on the top. The Calvine picture was taken in Scotland, which is quite far north, and in the summertime, when sunset and twilight go on for hours and hours. (I've been at the far north of Scotland in summer, and could have read newsprint outside at midnight.) You're reading an awful lot into a blurry photo of clouds, and you're assuming a dark base to clouds which may have no basis in fact. Your conclusions are not a slam-dunk.

 

[Mendel]

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.View attachment 76289

 

[Scaramanga]

You're reading an awful lot into a blurry photo of clouds, and you're assuming a dark base to clouds which may have no basis in fact. Your conclusions are not a slam-dunk.

The Calvine photo is totally overcast. I really don't need a whole load of extraneous photos and demos in order to clearly see that with my own eyes. It looks like a cloudy sky, walks like a cloudy sky, and even quacks like a cloudy sky.

I don't think I've ever seen a case where people introduce quite so much extraneous ' hey...look at this' stuff in lieu of simply looking at the photo the case is all about.

It's one thing calling for not taking anything as 'obvious'....but in the case of the Calvine photo the content ( apart from the UFO ) is obvious.

 

[JMartJr]

The Calvine photo is totally overcast. I really don't need a whole load of extraneous photos and demos in order to clearly see that with my own eyes. It looks like a cloudy sky, walks like a cloudy sky, and even quacks like a cloudy sky.

The "I know what I saw" line of argument is not always a good one... this feels like a variant of that, though with at least the advantage of not having to rely on memory, and the errors that can come from that, and that we can all look at it together. But still, things are not always what they look like. It is worth looking really close, and trying alternate hypotheses, even if they don't pan out. And sometimes the duck, on closer examination, turns out to be a rabbit, maybe?

I agree with you to this extent: to me, too, the reflection hypothesis is not convincing. But I'm not seeing a downside to exploring it, perhaps somebody can find the smoking gun that proves that I'm wrong. Or, while looking at the minutia, finds the string that I think the model is hanging from.

It's one thing calling for not taking anything as 'obvious'....but in the case of the Calvine photo the content ( apart from the UFO ) is obvious.

If it is in fact what it so obviously looks like, it will survive the attempt to figure out if it might be something else.

 

[Ann K]

I really don't need a whole load of extraneous photos and demos in order to clearly see that with my own eyes.

"I know what I saw" has about as good a track record as "I was just following orders". We have just been through a long run of "New Jersey drones" that observers knew were not planes, and most of them were ...planes. "Definitely not a butterfly" = a butterfly. "It wasn't a bug on the lens" = a bug on the lens. Time and again, people who know what they saw have been shown NOT to know what they saw. Please remember, your certainty is not evidence.

 

[Scaramanga]

"I know what I saw" has about as good a track record as "I was just following orders". We have just been through a long run of "New Jersey drones" that observers knew were not planes, and most of them were ...planes. "Definitely not a butterfly" = a butterfly. "It wasn't a bug on the lens" = a bug on the lens. Time and again, people who know what they saw have been shown NOT to know what they saw. Please remember, your certainty is not evidence.

Well....no. Those are all things people saw for seconds or for which one can see aircraft navigation lights on what is allegedly a 'drone', and so on. Here we're talking about a picture anyone can look at for hours on end. It's clearly taken on a cloudy day in Scotland as there is no evidence of direct sunlight anywhere in the photo. On a cloudy day in Scotland I'd expect to see clouds in the sky !

And sure enough, there above the fence is what looks identical to clouds. Which is precisely what I'd expect to be in the sky on a cloudy day.

WHY suppose it to be anything else ? You need a good reason to defy Occam's razor and start complicating the matter with 'reflections' and turning a Harrier jet into some guy in a rowing boat ( which it doesn't really even look like ). Why add this totally un-necessary complexity to the most obvious and rational explanation that what one is seeing is precisely what one would expect to see from a Scottish mountain side on a cloudy day ?

 

[Scaramanga]

I agree with you to this extent: to me, too, the reflection hypothesis is not convincing. But I'm not seeing a downside to exploring it

The downside is that one is adding a layer of complexity that is not actually warranted. That's what Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp do. It should not be what skeptics do. Our job is not to add complexity but to eliminate it. Everyone was quite happy with 'what is the simplest explanation' for the Phoenix lights. I didn't see many question that some guy had seen aircraft navigation lights on the different elements of the 'UFO'...or was that curious 'reflections' too ? I'm not at all clear why the simplification ethos has been bucked on this one.

 

[JMartJr]

The downside is that one is adding a layer of complexity that is not actually warranted. That's what Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp do. It should not be what skeptics do. Our job is not to add complexity but to eliminate it.

I'm going to politely disagree -- our job is to figure out what the picture shows, if we can, which may be more complex than a hypothetical simpler explanation. I do agree that the reflection hypothesis is more complex then the Something Hanging On A String hypothesis. And I agree that the case is not persuasive at this point. But to me, investigating both is reasonable. If you wanted to go over tho the other thread where the Thing On A String hypothesis has been discussed, and see if there is anything new to be said in favor or refutation of that hypothesis, I'll be glad to come over and chime in if I see anything that I can add.

As for this thread, I'm not sure there is a whole lot more to be said about whether the Reflection Hypothesis SHOULD be discussed.

 

[NoParty]

...I'm not sure there is a whole lot more to be said about whether the Reflection Hypothesis SHOULD be discussed.

After 731 posts, i think th' horses might be outta the barn, on that...

 

[Scaramanga]

I'm going to politely disagree -- our job is to figure out what the picture shows, if we can, which may be more complex than a hypothetical simpler explanation. I do agree that the reflection hypothesis is more complex then the Something Hanging On A String hypothesis. And I agree that the case is not persuasive at this point. But to me, investigating both is reasonable. If you wanted to go over tho the other thread where the Thing On A String hypothesis has been discussed, and see if there is anything new to be said in favor or refutation of that hypothesis, I'll be glad to come over and chime in if I see anything that I can add.

As for this thread, I'm not sure there is a whole lot more to be said about whether the Reflection Hypothesis SHOULD be discussed.

How do you 'investigate' something that you have yourself added to the equation by ignoring the simplest and most obvious explanation ? What is there to 'investigate' ? Whilst one might reasonably suppose that the 'UFO' is something other than an alien craft....it is totally bizarre and out of the domain of any other UFO investigation to make all the stuff that is not UFO be something other than what one would expect to see on a cloudy day in Scotland !

I've never seen a ghost explained by supposing that its the entire house that doesn't really exist and is an illusion. The 'reflection' theory is on par with that.

 

[JMartJr]

I've never seen a ghost explained by supposing that its the entire house that doesn't really exist and is an illusion. The 'reflection' theory is on par with that.

I understand that is your opinion. I'd not go that far, though I think the hypothesis is unlikely at this point. Other people want to delve into it. I see no downside to that, if they are wasting their time, it is after all THEIR time. They don't need our approval to continue, and I expect they will do so.

That's all I have to say on this point, I'm out.

 

[Giddierone]

So, I saw this weird flying thing the other day...

 

[Scaramanga]

So, I saw this weird flying thing the other day...View attachment 77080

But now add an upside down fence, and bear in mind those fences are only 4-5 feet high, without getting into the frame the edge of the water...and on top of that throw in a tree of some sort that is nearer to the camera than the fence...without the base of the tree being in the lake.

 

[Giddierone]

Challenge accepted.

 

[Mendel]

tree of some sort that is nearer to the camera than the fence...without the base of the tree being in the lake.

I don't understand where these conditions come from.

 

[Scaramanga]

I don't understand where these conditions come from.

If one is arguing that the Calvine photo is an upside down image in a pond or lake, the fence and tree near it have to be upside down too. That fence surely has to be on solid ground, which means the lake has to end not far 'above' where the edge of the picture is. I mean...do the geometry of it. And then one has to add in a tree that is nearer than the fence....and all of this fitting into the short angular gap that would be available before the edge of the pond or lake showed in the image and the illusion was broken.

I don't think people have really thought out the geometry of the 'Calvine pic is upside down pond' theory/.

 

[Mendel]

If one is arguing that the Calvine photo is an upside down image in a pond or lake, the fence and tree near it have to be upside down too. That fence surely has to be on solid ground,

which means the lake has to end not far 'above' where the edge of the picture is.

you mean outside the camera's field of view?

I mean...do the geometry of it.

I can't. Perhaps you can?

And then one has to add in a tree that is nearer than the fence....

How do you know the tree is nearer than the fence?

and all of this fitting into the short angular gap that would be available before the edge of the pond or lake

what if it's a partially flooded meadow?

showed in the image and the illusion was broken.

I don't think people have really thought out the geometry of the 'Calvine pic is upside down pond' theory/.

I always felt there isn't enough information to nail that geometry down.
Perhaps a diagram would help.

 

[Scaramanga]

View attachment 77085

you mean outside the camera's field of view?

I can't. Perhaps you can?

How do you know the tree is nearer than the fence?

what if it's a partially flooded meadow?

I always felt there isn't enough information to nail that geometry down.
Perhaps a diagram would help.

So....the hoaxers had to find a partially flooded lake, and make sure there was a tree closer to the camera than the fence yet not show the base of either, making it harder and added for no real reason at all I might add, and make sure it was a windless day in Scotland of all places, and somehow find a perfect angle to photograph the whole thing without the edge of the lake showing....

...and all of that is simpler than just hanging a model from a tree ?

Oh..and I'm pretty sure New South Wales isn't in Scotland...regarding your fence pic

 

[NoParty]

So....the hoaxers had to find a partially flooded lake, and make sure there was a tree closer to the camera than the fence yet not show the base of either, making it harder and added for no real reason at all I might add, and make sure it was a windless day in Scotland of all places, and somehow find a perfect angle to photograph the whole thing without the edge of the lake showing....

...and all of that is simpler than just hanging a model from a tree ?

Pretty obvious they used Adobe Firefly!

 

[PacketSniffer5000]

This case got a write-up in the Guardian. My brief impression is that without the other photos there is little to add because more context is needed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...mystery-behind-the-best-ufo-picture-ever-seen

Apparently, Craig Lindsay didn't make copies of the other ones before they got lost in some MOD archive, but the description seems to indicate the same framing for all of them.

That autumn, Lindsay attended a routine meeting in London. On his lunch break, he went for a wander around the MoD's offices and saw something familiar. "There, on the wall in front of me, was a great big poster-size print of the best of them [the photographs]. So, I spoke to the guys that were there and I asked them what their other photographs were like." The ministry's staff placed the other photographs on a windowsill. The snaps showed the Harrier jet moving from the right side of the frame to the left, while the diamond didn't move an inch.

edit:
One other quote of interest sourced to Nick Pope who wrote some book about, though we have no evidence of same to back it up. Searching your website, I can see this true believer and UFO buff often used that term "trained observer" which I was chided for using when linking to some FOIA release.

By 2009, he was using his encyclopedic knowledge of UFOs to curate the release of thousands of UFO documents for the National Archives. Among the papers was a photocopied drawing of a diamond shape next to a plane. Alongside the sketch was a note intended for defence ministers in Margaret Thatcher's cabinet. Under the heading "Defensive lines to take", it read: "Have looked at the photographs, no definite conclusions reached regarding large diamond-shaped object. Confident that jet aircraft is a Harrier. Have no record of Harriers operating in location at stated date/time. No other reports received by MoD of unusual air activity or sightings at location/date/time."

 

[Giddierone]

Just adding this quote from same article published today.

The second theory is the one to which Sean Kirkpatrick, a former UFO hunter for the Pentagon, subscribes: "It's a reflection in the lake and the photo has been doctored," Kirkpatrick says. "It's been analysed multiple times. If you look carefully towards the right side and in the raw [uncompressed] image, the top and bottom are reflections of each other." However, there is no body of water on that Calvine hillside.

Quite a funny bit of editorial. [in bold].

 

[jarlrmai]

People talk about this as though the location the photo is taken is known, as far as I know there is no 100% known location and the photo does not offer enough detail to be able to prove one location over another either way.

 

[Trailblazer]

It would be recognised (and it hasn't been, for the past 35 years). The top half of the "diamond" has a pleasing symmetry.
What the two youngsters noticed would have been noticed countless times before by locals.

Apologies if someone else has already said this, but not necessarily.

There are only two separate Street View photos of the loch, less than a year apart, and the water levels are very different:

Look at the nearer shoreline - there are lots of rocks visible in the second image that are underwater in the first. It's perfectly possible that there could be a nice triangular rock lurking under the water that became visible during drought conditions.

The photo was apparently taken in August 1990. I remember the summer of 1990 being extremely hot and dry; indeed August 1990 saw a new UK record maximum temperature being set. A look at the UK weather confirms that July and August 1990 were very dry indeed, so could the lake levels have been exceptionally low?

July.
Warm (16.9), and very dry: only 7 mm at Heathrow, the driest since records begain in 1947. The first week was cool, windy, and unsettled; it then became consistently hot, sunny, and dry. The temperatures peaked on the 20th and 21st, with temperatures of 32C in parts of the south, and 33.3C at Jersey on the 21st. There were some cool nights at the end of the month, with 0.9 at Glenlivet on the 23rd, and some reports of ground frosts.

August.
An exceptional month: it was very warm, dry, and sunny, with record-breaking temperatures at the beginning...
In many places, a drought of 38 consecutive dry days ended on the 14-15th, as a depression moved NE across Scotland, bringing wind and rain to much of the country.

Source: https://www.trevorharley.com/1990.html

 

[Trailblazer]

I have also found some climate data for 1990 from Tummel Bridge, which is very close to the suggested photo location: https://en.tutiempo.net/climate/08-1990/ws-30600.html

I suspect the rainfall data is incomplete as I don't think there was zero rain for August, but it does show that the average wind speed (column headed "V") on August 4 was just 5km/h.

Here is the weather chart for that day:

High pressure and slack winds over most of the UK but a trough to the north suggesting overcast skies. The 4 August date seems plausible.

 

[DavidB66]

Just adding this quote from same article published today.

The second theory is the one to which Sean Kirkpatrick, a former UFO hunter for the Pentagon, subscribes: "It's a reflection in the lake and the photo has been doctored," Kirkpatrick says. "It's been analysed multiple times. If you look carefully towards the right side and in the raw [uncompressed] image, the top and bottom are reflections of each other." However, there is no body of water on that Calvine hillside.

Quite a funny bit of editorial. [in bold].

What could Kirkpatrick mean by a 'raw' image? As I understand it, the original photos were taken on traditional photographic film. Everything else must be a copy. Is it possible Kirkpatrick is confusing this with some other case? (It wouldn't be the first time.) If so, what? It's also odd that he would be commenting on in a case way outside AARO's remit.

 

[Giddierone]

I think he's just referring to the Sheffield Uni scan that we're all looking at. Also, it's not clear if he's referring to the right side of the object being doctored and reflected or what. Would like to see the analysis he's referring to.

 

[jarlrmai]

I really wish Kirkpatrick was clearer about things, he's doing a disservice with these ad-hoc off the cuff debunks.

 

[JMartJr]

Oh..and I'm pretty sure New South Wales isn't in Scotland...regarding your fence pic

Must have been in the other thread, but the discussion of "can you reasonable expect to see a fence in the water from time to time?" came up before, and the answer is "Yes, there are reasons you might build a fence in the water. Even in Scotland! ^_^

 

[Giddierone]

I spotted a fence lurking dangerously near some water...

 

[Scaramanga]

Must have been in the other thread, but the discussion of "can you reasonable expect to see a fence in the water from time to time?" came up before, and the answer is "Yes, there are reasons you might build a fence in the water. Even in Scotland! ^_^

I find this sort of retort somewhat absurd....because of course you will occasionally find a fence underwater due to floods etc. But 99.999% of the thousands of miles of fence in Scotland is not underwater or even deliberately placed running through some lake. A photo of some flood in Australia is a bad example...if you've ever watched Aussie Opal Hunters you'll regularly see thousands of square miles of fence underwater in the floods, but given how flat most of Australia is...that's hardly surprising. Scotland is somewhat different.

You can find rare counter-examples to almost anything....but all it actually does is negate Occam's razor and add to the complexity. Our alleged UFO hoaxers now have to scour Scotland looking for just the right lake or pond that has to have a fence in just the right place and a tree conveniently overhanging in just the right place, and another tree in just the right place near the fence....AND on top of that be able to find just the right angle to photo all this without giving the game away....and all on a cloudy day in Scotland with zero wind !!

I mean...c'mon. Why go to all that bother when one can just dangle a model from a tree against the real sky ?

 

[Trailblazer]

The "reflection" idea does seem less likely when you consider that right at the bottom of the photo behind the fence it looks very much like there is a distant hill skyline: a nearer hill with trees on top, and a more distant hazy ridge line.

I'm not sure how that would work with a reflection. Unless it is somehow part of the nearer shoreline, but I can't see it.

Contrast enhanced further, without labels.

 

[Mauro]

The "reflection" idea does seem less likely when you consider that right at the bottom of the photo behind the fence it looks very much like there is a distant hill skyline: a nearer hill with trees on top, and a more distant hazy ridge line.

Maybe a distant hill skyline, or maybe a nearby shoreline.

 

[JMartJr]

I find this sort of retort somewhat absurd....because of course you will occasionally find a fence underwater due to floods etc.

...or are built intentionally into the water, for example when you want your livestock to have access to the water but not to be able to cross it onto somebody else's property, or into another pasture. Yeah, most fence is not in the water... but it is not particularly rare. And how many miles of fence exist that are not on/in water and so could not feature in a water reflection photo is not relevant -- IF you were taking a picture using water reflection to fake a UFO, all that fence away from water is not usable, but it also doesn't make it harder for you... it is irrelevant. Like all those miles and miles of countryside with no fence in the shot, it doesn't matter.

Of all the objections that can be raised to the reflection hypothesis, supposed difficulty of finding a fence by/in water is just not on the list.

 

[Ann K]

Maybe a distant hill skyline, or maybe a nearby shoreline.

Like this:

 

[Trailblazer]

It's Scotland. There are bodies of water all over the place, lots of them near Calvine and Piltochry where the witness supposedly worked

View attachment 75781

The tree near the water with the knarely branches:

View attachment 75784
Looks a lot like a Sessile Oak:


View attachment 75782View attachment 75783

Which is common in Scotland and most of Europe.

Or maybe a willow:

View attachment 75785

View attachment 75786



View attachment 75787

One thing the trees in the photo don't look like is the sort of trees that you might find on "the moors above Calvine" which is where it was meant to have been taken. The only trees up on the moors proper are conifer plantations.

 

[John J.]

A look at the UK weather confirms that July and August 1990 were very dry indeed, so could the lake levels have been exceptionally low?

July.
Warm (16.9), and very dry: only 7 mm at Heathrow, the driest since records begain in 1947. The first week was cool, windy, and unsettled; it then became consistently hot, sunny, and dry. The temperatures peaked on the 20th and 21st, with temperatures of 32C in parts of the south, and 33.3C at Jersey on the 21st. There were some cool nights at the end of the month, with 0.9 at Glenlivet on the 23rd, and some reports of ground frosts.

August.
An exceptional month: it was very warm, dry, and sunny, with record-breaking temperatures at the beginning...
In many places, a drought of 38 consecutive dry days ended on the 14-15th, as a depression moved NE across Scotland, bringing wind and rain to much of the country.

The same source,

A very sunny year. Until 2006 (1999 equalled 1990), it was the warmest year on record in the UK temperature series, with a CET of 10.65C (beating 1921 and 1949). It was a very wet year in Scotland, with an average of 1820 mm.

The line "In many places, a drought of 38 consecutive dry days ended on the 14-15th, as a depression moved NE across Scotland, bringing wind and rain to much of the country" is a bit ambiguous; it doesn't say there was a state of drought in Scotland- unlikely if it had been a very wet year; a depression moving across Scotland brought wind and rain to much of the country, but it's not clear if Harley means Scotland or the UK. BBC weather forecasters (obviously) use the names of the UK nations in national forecasts, but frequently also use "...the country" to mean the whole UK.

 

[Scaramanga]

The "reflection" idea does seem less likely when you consider that right at the bottom of the photo behind the fence it looks very much like there is a distant hill skyline: a nearer hill with trees on top, and a more distant hazy ridge line.

I pointed that out several gazillion posts ago. But it's an inconvenient fact for the 'reflection' theory so just gets ignored.