deirdre
Senior Member.
why would you put a fence that far down the hill..your sheep would roll into the wire. i guess you couldve climbed the tree and are sitting on a tree branch.Neither the fence
why would you put a fence that far down the hill..your sheep would roll into the wire. i guess you couldve climbed the tree and are sitting on a tree branch.Neither the fence
im picturing a flooded road (at smallest) like: ??Maybe a mirror would have to be absurdly big to pull this off
Maybe they'd rather the sheep rolled into the wire than into the pond.why would you put a fence that far down the hill..your sheep would roll into the wire. i guess you couldve climbed the tree and are sitting on a tree branch.
but if youre out hiking and stop for a break and your buddy says..."heh heh that rock looks like a UFO".. it could be a spur of the moment hoax.If it's a hoax, I would lean more to a simpler answer, like a model hanging from the tree in the foreground.
No need for reflections and double exposures to make a hoax.
but if youre out hiking and stop for a break and your buddy says..."heh heh that rock looks like a UFO".. it could be a spur of the moment hoax.
like i doubt the bridge rivets in a puddle famous ufo was planned out before hand.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ci...nd-objects-reflection-of-bridge-rivets.11813/
Sometimes, hoaxes make use of opportunity. A reflection or other trick photography is simpler than models. If the hikers knew the local flight paths, it would be pretty easy to plan out.If it's a hoax, I would lean more to a simpler answer, like a model hanging from the tree in the foreground.
No need for reflections and double exposures to make a hoax.
Sometimes, hoaxes make use of opportunity. A reflection or other trick photography is simpler than models. If the hikers knew the local flight paths, it would be pretty easy to plan out.
The angle of the shot (or specifically, the fence) is really bizarre, if the thing is in the sky. David Clarke posted a scenery image of where he believes it was taken - fence and all - and the topography doesn't make any sense. From that angle, surely there should be ground showing in the image all the way into the distance. From: https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2022/08/12/the-calvine-ufo-revealed/Also (maybe it was obvious to some but it just occurred to me) the reflection idea would explain why the photo appears to be taken from such a low angle.
Makes more sense than someone lying on the floor next to a very low fence, or a very tall fence in a farm for that matter.
I don't think a double exposure is necessary. Just wait until the plane flies over.But it's not simple though, they would have to take a pic of a rock reflecting in the water, that doesn't mirror like it is a reflection. Then ad a double exposure of it against another pic with clouds and a plane flying by
Hanging something from a tree is far simpler
BTW, anyone have a link to the hand written incident report where it supposedly says the object shot off?
Exactly my first thought.im picturing a flooded road (at smallest) like: ??
View attachment 53380
I don't think a double exposure is necessary. Just wait until the plane flies over.
Differences in the reflection symmetry could be accounted for by stuff under the water - weeds, a fish disturbing the currents, etc.
I found the actual puddle in another shotExactly my first thought.
See the attached photo of my SO I took in a puddle after rain. It is also flipped.
View attachment 53372
I'm not 100% sure this is a real picture. But it's one of the results from googling "reflection lake". Could murkiness be responsible for making the reflection appear slightly brighter than the mountains?
My guess is that in this picture of mountains, particles just under the surface are scattering light from the sky.Given that it's a reflection, the first thing that comes to mind is polarisation - can someone with the appropriate filters take photos of such a scene with and without a circular polarisation filter (and with a linear polarisation filter at canonical orthogonal directions, if that's also possible)?
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:
The rock (UFO) is in a pool of water, and the water is reflecting the sky and the jet (as well as the rock).But a reflection needs a pool of water, where is that? the back drop is clouds
So if it is a reflection, it has to have been taken and added to a pic of a cloudy background
David Clarke mentions Scots Pine in this video:I agree. The branches of the left tree resemble that of a weeping willow, with the shoots hanging down. They would go straight up if the photo was flipped.
View attachment 53386
But a reflection needs a pool of water, where is that? the back drop is clouds
So if it is a reflection, it has to have been taken and added to a pic of a cloudy background
If this is a hoax, of course, we really have no idea where it was taken.
Those might not be hills at all.There's what appears to be rolling hills or maybe some hangar-like structures along the bottom of the original photo.
View attachment 53390
I don't see how the geometry would work out here if this was a reflection? 1, how these features could be lined up with the top of the fence and 2, how they're not upside-down.
the camera only captured the reflection not the edge of the lake, like: (i'm using this grass clump as the rock. the castle is the fence.But a reflection needs a pool of water, where is that? the back drop is clouds
So if it is a reflection, it has to have been taken and added to a pic of a cloudy background
as a rule, sheep do not roll down hillswhy would you put a fence that far down the hill..your sheep would roll into the wire
But again, the clouds above what would have to be the mirror line do not mirror the clouds in the reflection below, assuming their is a reflection.
I just dont buy this reflection theory based on the image itself.
Well like I said, they are not necessarily hills but they do look rather like features on the ground. Got a suggestion what this could be if it's something in the sky?Those might not be hills at all.
i guess that one guy on the hill didnt give the memo to all those other sheepsheep are used to keep the grass on dikes short (and the ground tread down) because they easily cope with the incline
The entire image is water, so we can't see the sky it's mirroring.But again, the clouds above what would have to be the mirror line do not mirror the clouds in the reflection below, assuming their is a reflection.
I just dont buy this reflection theory based on the image itself.
Maybe they're not reflections at all - they could just be the crud collecting at the edge of the loch or pond.Well like I said, they are not necessarily hills but they do look rather like features on the ground. Got a suggestion what this could be if it's something in the sky?
Another image of Loch Bhac from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-48472958 - very similar fence:Not necessarily. If the water area is large enough and quite still, you get a near perfect sky. The clouds don't have any distiguishable orientation in the UFO photo.
Here is a photo of Loch Bhac, three miles from Calvine (Wikipedia, "Loch Bhac") :
I considered that too at first but eventually ruled it out. There are so many different objects here that I don't see how you could bring them all together if you were looking down at a reflection.Maybe they're not reflections at all - they could just be the crud collecting at the edge of the loch or pond.
points toward this being a run-of-the-mill picture of the sky taken through the top part of a fence, sort of like this one.
The photos weren't kept hidden. The MoD returned the negatives to the local paper after determining they were nothing special. The paper never printed them - maybe they were informed it was a hoax. Nick Pope said the picture was on the wall as a poster - obviously not top secret, more like a joke to fool newbies. The MoD press officer Lindsay took the print home for 30 years (indicating it was not classified) and then handed it over to the first journalist who asked after it (again, not classified).I don't buy the reflection theory one bit.. Also, why would the MoD keep a photo of a reflection hidden for 30 years, and even more, the ID of the persons is secret for the next 50 years. Or is that all a big lie/hoax (I don't know what to trust these days anymore).
The facts are that the names and addresses of all UFO witnesses and MoD officials who dealt with their reports have been routinely redacted from files transferred to The National Archives since 2005. From that date section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act, covering personal information, replaced the former '30 year rule'.
What different objects? The stuff on the right seems to be vegetation on the bank. Other than that, all I see are vague lines. Andrew Robinson sees hills and trees but it's not at all clear. Could even be dirt on the print. Robinson's close-up:I considered that too at first but eventually ruled it out. There are so many different objects here that I don't see how you could bring them all together if you were looking down at a reflection.
Another image of Loch Bhac from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-48472958 - very similar fence: