Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

[Scaramanga]

It does raise the question of why there appears to be a distant hillside below the level of the fence.

Indeed....not just distant hillside including a clearly defined ridge at the bottom left, but what look distinctly like trees on that ridge.

Which, of course, is exactly what you'd expect to see looking out over the area. I've walked there, and there are large areas of moorland, and isolated or even large patches of trees.

 

[Mauro]

It does raise the question of why there appears to be a distant hillside below the level of the fence.

Again at it? To me it's a near shoreline. But it could actually be anything (or even nothing at all).

 

[Mauro]

Indeed....not just distant hillside including a clearly defined ridge at the bottom left, but what look distinctly like trees on that ridge.

Which, of course, is exactly what you'd expect to see looking out over the area.

Trees? If there is anything at all there they could be anything (ie. reeds, shrubs). You're overfitting the picture to your preconceptions I fear.

 

[JMartJr]

It's difficult to search this thread effectively: has anyone presented a good theory as to why the UFO is darker on the bottom (with the photo as normally presented) while the jet is darker on the top?

I have no theory in this specific case, but note that either is possible under the right circumstances...

Darker on the bottom (reflection darker), which seems to be more usual:

Darker on the top (Reflection lighter):

 

[Ann K]

Darker on the bottom (reflection darker), which seems to be more usual:

Please note, "darker on the bottom" is characteristic of a view of just plain water as well. Without getting into Snell's Law, here's a very simple discussion. At a very small angle, almost all the light is reflected and very little is refracted, so a bright sky can be seen. At the opposite extreme you can stand on a dock and look straight down at 90° into the water, and you are looking into the water without reflections. In clear water you can see the rocks at the bottom. In turbid water you are looking at whatever color is imparted by the mud. In a peaty loch, that water can be very dark indeed.

The result is that in most pictures of a large body of water, there is a distinct gradient from bright in the distance (top) to darker water closer to the photographer (bottom).

Edit to add: turbidity can give you reflections that can be lighter than the objects that are reflected, because you are seeing the mud or silt in the water. See @JMartJr 's picture, in which the reddish silt (probably from a recent rain on the red rocks) imparts a red color to both the water and the reflection:

 

[John J.]

I suspect the rainfall data is incomplete as I don't think there was zero rain for August

(Re. Tummel Bridge, Scotland weather returns).

But the summer was notably dry across pretty much the whole UK.

The Met Office daily weather summaries are online, with maps showing locations where rain was recorded each day

Thank you for the link (https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/IO_988a2914-1297-4653-94d8-d38337883b91/).

I've since read your (Trailblazer's) more recent post, which renders my concerns about the chances of a nice triangular rock being found (due to low water levels) which is not familiar to locals rather redundant:

For me the "rowing boat" argument seems very implausible as the rock would have to be enormous and probably well known in the area. If it is a reflection, it makes much more sense for the UFO to be the tip of a small roughly triangular rock

I accept that a relatively small rock might be exposed and photographed, and not be a local landmark! Equally, if we're thinking of something modest in size, it could be some piece of junk or a model/ prop deliberately placed in the water.
Again, though, I feel @Scaramanga is right in pointing out that there are simpler ways to make a hoax picture resembling the Calvine photo (which doesn't mean that a hoaxer used those simpler methods).

Anyway, though the issue of rain in 1990 Scotland might be redundant (for me anyway) the linked-to Meteorological Office reports might indicate that there wasn't a lack of rain in Scotland. In honesty I couldn't be ars bothered to try totalling the rainfall figures at different locations, as surely many minor showers were in places where they were not recorded.
And higher temperatures cause greater evaporation; so rainfall does not preclude drought.

However, I had gone through the UK weather reports from 4 July 1990 (one month prior to the claimed date of the Calvine sighting) to, somewhat arbitrarily, 14 August 1990, copying down references to rain (or otherwise) in Scotland.
Looks like 1990 was a fairly normal summer in Scotland!
Any omissions/ errors are mine. This is not very scientific.
Numbers at left are dates.

July 1990

4. During the night heavy rain spread across Northern Ireland and into Wales, western England and southwest Scotland... The wet weather spread... to the highlands of Scotland by the end of the morning.
The southern half of Scotland was wet for most of the day, while northeastern Scotland had only a few showers and a good deal of dry but cloudy weather.
5. There was rain everywhere overnight and strong winds with gales on many coasts. Before morning... northwest Scotland turned drier.
There was rain in many places during the day as well and Shetland was wet all day. Southern Scotland was mainly dry...
6. Most places were fairly dry and clear overnight, but there were showers, especially in Scotland...
In Scotland most places had a bright day with some sunshine, but in the north there were showers and in the evening the west had persistent rain.
7. Apart from northern Scotland which was mostly dry, most parts of the British Isles had some rain during the night. ...after a dry start rain reached northern Scotland during the day. In... southwest and northern Scotland the rain was persistent and heavy for a time.
8. Scotland... had a bright day with showers. The showers were most frequent in western and northern Scotland, but parts of eastern Scotland had some lengthy spells of sunshine.
9. Scotland... had a lot of showers overnight.
...There were quite a few showers, with the heaviest of these over Scotland.
10. Scotland... had varying amounts of cloud and a scattering of showers overnight.
During the day there were isolated showers in the far north of Scotland but otherwise it was dry and bright, the sunniest places being in eastern Scotland. In the late afternoon and evening cloud and patchy rain spread in from the west across Northern Ireland and Scotland.
11. Scotland ...[was] mostly cloudy overnight with patchy rain and drizzle. During the day sunny spells developed but there were still scattered showers. During the evening there were a a few showers in northern Scotland, the rest of Scotland... being dry with clear spells.
12. A weak warm front gave Scotland... a cloudy day with a little rain- this chiefly in the west and south- whilst the east managed a little sunshine.
13. ...a weak frontal system gave... southern Scotland a generally cloudy day with drizzle in a few places. The rest of Scotland was bright and quite sunny, and dry...
14. ...most places had virtually unbroken sunshine right through the day. Apart from one or two spots of rain in eastern Scotland right at the start of the morning it was a dry day across all of the British Isles.
15. ...western Scotland had a cloudy day with rain at times but in the evening brighter weather moved in from the west.
In the late afternoon thundery rain moved into northwest England and Wales and then proceeded to move east in the evening... into northeast England and eastern Scotland.
16. Much of the British Isles had a fairly cloudy night, and it was wet over the Northern Isles [Nothing specific about mainland Scotland].
17. Most of the country had a dry and quite sunny day.
Nearly everywhere had a dry day but there was a spot or two of rain in the Hebrides
18. ...most of the British Isles had a dry and sunny day. The far north and west of Scotland became cloudy by the evening with patchy rain into the Western Isles.
19. The northwest of Scotland was rather cloudy with rain at times.
20. A weak cold front crossed Scotland... there was a little rain and drizzle. It brightened up in the west... Temperatures were generally above average. It was quite warm in central and southern Scotland.
21. Parts of eastern Scotland... were rather dull...
It was quite warm across... much of Scotland, especially southwest Scotland, although the far north was cooler with a few light showers.
22. It was a fairly dry night everywhere... There was sunshine over much of Scotland too, with some places having a sunny day...
23. The night was mainly dry.
The day was generally dry... Temperatures were near normal in the cloudier eastern areas but warm or very warm in western Scotland, most of Wales and southern England.
24. ...most of Scotland had a dry 24 hours with clear skies overnight, followed by a sunny day and clear spells in the evening.
25. Much of Scotland turned cloudy overnight... ...in Scotland too some places had patchy fog.
26. Most of the UK had a dry, clear night...
Many regions had a dry and mainly sunny day.
27. The highlands and the northwest of Scotland had a fairly sunny day but elsewhere [in Scotland] it was rather cloudy with patchy rain spreading north in the late afternoon and evening.
28. Shetland was dull for much of the day with rain and drizzle but the rest of Scotland had some sunshine. Most places stayed dry...
29. Much of England and Scotland had clear skies but during the night rain reached... southwest Scotland.
Most places had some sunshine early on and parts of... northeast Scotland were sunny into the afternoon...
In Scotland most places had some rain and in the west and north heavy rain and a few thunderstorms.
30. There were some showers over Scotland...
The rain quickly weakened in the morning with just some mostly light showery outbreaks of rain for the rest of the day over southern Britain - and a few further mostly light showers also over Scotland.
31. There were a few patches of rain over Scotland overnight... During the day, northwest Scotland had fairly cloudy skies and a little more rain...

August 1990

1. Most parts of the British Isles had a dry and sunny day. The far north and west of Scotland were rather more cloudy and rain affected the Western Isles. The rain here was rather persistent and occasionally heavy.
2. ...and eastern Scotland all had a dry and sunny day. The northwest of Scotland was rather more cloudy but here too there was sunshine at times. ...some rain reached the Western Isles.
3. Scotland...had a mostly cloudy day with some outbreaks of rain spreading southeastwards ...reaching Cumbria and the extreme Northeast of England
4. Scotland... had a rather cloudy day, but some Eastern parts of Scotland were quite sunny. There was some rain in the north and west of Scotland with a few showers over ...southern Scotland.
5. During the day everywhere in Scotland had some sunshine and a few places had a sunny day, but most places had showers with frequent showers in the north and west.
6. ...there were showers in Northern Ireland and Scotland... ...a few other places, especially in the south coast of England and in southern Scotland, were sunny for much of the day. ...quite a few showers in Scotland
7. Apart from a few showers in the north and west of Scotland, most places had a dry start...
More persistent rain reached the northwest of Scotland in the afternoon and spread to most other parts of Scotland by the evening.
8. Scotland had a rather cloudy day with occasional rain or drizzle mainly in the north and west. Eastern Scotland had some bright spells and brief sunshine.
9. ...weak Atlantic fronts brought rain to Scotland... Scotland... had much more in the way of showers, Kinloss had close to half an inch of rain and Fraserburgh head a heavy downpour in the afternoon. More rain spread in from the west during the evening.
10. Scotland... had a few showers today, and although it was generally cloudy, most districts saw something of the sun, and it became quite warm in the east too. In the west and over the islands... showers were heavier.
11. Overnight most places in Scotland had rain, some heavy, but everywhere was clearer by morning, although in the north and west there were showers.
During the day everywhere in Scotland had some sunshine, but there were showers, mainly in the north and west.
12. ...most places in Scotland had rain, some of it heavy.
During the day much of Scotland brightened up with showers, but much of the south stayed cloudy with rain or drizzle.
13. ...most of Scotland had a rather cloudy night with scattered showers but part of eastern Scotland were dry and clear. During the day Scotland... had scattered showers but with a little sunshine in places. There were further showers around during the evening.
14. Scotland... had variable cloud overnight and scattered showers. During the day there were sunny spells and scattered showers, and thunder was reported in the far northeast of Scotland.
During the evening Scotland had some clear spells and isolated showers...

(Love the line, August 12, "During the day much of Scotland brightened up with showers..." )

 

[Andreas]

First of all, we have to remember that we don't know where, when, or by whom the picture was taken. The background story is hearsay and shouldn't influence an analysis of the image. If the picture is a hoax, then the backstory is also bogus.

Found this random picture online, claimed to be taken at a highland lake. (I think it's Loch Rannoch, about 14 miles from Calvine.) It's interesting to take a closer look at the small stones poking up from the water. The first thing we notice is the grayish, irregular color with white patches, followed by the dark reflection in the water, which doesn't perfectly match the shape of the actual stone. I'm not saying this is where the Calvine picture was taken, but it's an example of what stones in water look like in the area.

For fun, I turned the picture into black and white and then cropped in the "Calvine object" among the stones. This doesn't prove anything, obviously, but it's interesting to note the similarity.

And then there's one more thing that's always bothered me about the Calvine photograph—the angle of the "fighter jet." It just happens to be at the exact angle we would expect if it were a small plastic model floating on the surface of the water (assuming the "UFO" is actually a rock).

And it's not just the angle but also the lighting. When we take a closer look at the wings (assuming they actually are wings), we notice that one is dark while the other is bright. How is this possible if it's a large jet flying in the sky? I can't think of any situation where light would reflect off only one wing on a cloudy day. But this, on the other hand, makes perfect sense if it's a small model floating in the water, with one wing partially submerged. It would also explain the blurriness of the wings—honestly, the bright wing looks more like a blurry blob than an aircraft wing.

My point is, why involve a series of unknown factors, like upside-down reflections and men in rowboats? All that's needed is someone noticing a rock in a local lake that reminded them of a UFO. (Perhaps the person had seen the Puerto Rican hoax photograph and wanted to do something similar.) Add a small plastic fighter jet, wait until it's in a good position near the stone, snap a picture, and send it to a newspaper. A fun little joke that most people could pull off.

 

[Scaramanga]

Trees? If there is anything at all there they could be anything (ie. reeds, shrubs). You're overfitting the picture to your preconceptions I fear.

I find such response quite irrational. I'm the one overfitting things ?

Just how much 'preconception' is involved in supposing that an image of a distant landscape from a hillside in Scotland IS actually an image of a distant landscape from a hill in Scotland ? That is pretty much the default. WHY would the photo be anything other than the simplest possible explanation of what it appears to be ?

To me this entire issue is a fascinating case study of confirmation bias. Once people have latched onto the reflection theory there's no end of handwavium from those who have invested in it.....

First it is a direct reflection....then it is an upside down one. Hmm. That's not a particularly good start.

Then it is ' oh...well sometimes clouds are darker at the top'.

Then it is 'oh...well sometimes a rock reflection is darker at the top at the same time as the clouds are dark at the top'

Then it is ' oh....well sometimes fences are in lakes'

Then it is 'oh...well sometimes nearby trees are in lakes too'

Then it is ' oh...well sometimes the reflection is somewhat off...but its all just odd geometry'

Then it is ' oh...well somehow the hoaxers manged to line it all up perfectly to make it look like the view from a hillside. Never mind that the simpler option is that it simply IS the view from a hillside !'

Then it is 'oh...those trees on a Scottish hillside are REALLY shrubs...or 'anything' '


And yet, skipping all this utter handwavium and arguing that the photo is simply what it appears to be and what one would EXPECT to see from a Scottish hillside on a cloudy day....is 'overfitting' things. I have to chuckle just a little.

 

[Scaramanga]

Again at it?...

I'd just like to object to this sort of response, as it comes across as simply outright dismissive in terms of no actual point being made, rather than objective. Of course those who think the distant view is trees are 'at it'....and why would they not be allowed to repeat that view 'again' as many times as the reflection theory people do their idea ?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then it is ' oh...well somehow the hoaxers manged to line it all up perfectly to make it look like the view from a hillside. Never mind that the simpler option is that it simply IS the view from a hillside !'

But it doesn't, because the "distant landcape" is below the level of the fence, which seems unlikely unless the photographer was at sheep level. Livestock fences and trees like this wouldn't be on the top of a hill, so why is the skyline apparently lower than the photographer?

 

[Andreas]

And yet, skipping all this utter handwavium and arguing that the photo is simply what it appears to be and what one would EXPECT to see from a Scottish hillside on a cloudy day....is 'overfitting' things. I have to chuckle just a little.

I don't agree with you here. One hypothesis is that it's a photo of a Scottish hillside on a cloudy day. Another hypothesis is that it's a reflection on water. Determining which one is most likely depends on several factors, but essentially, it comes down to the "UFO"—how can it be explained?

As I see it, it's impossible to say for certain what the vague vegetation at the bottom of the picture really is. Sure, it could be hills, but there's no definitive proof of that. We all have assumptions and tend to guess. When I look at it, I see a shoreline with some small stones in the water, but that's just my interpretation. However, I haven't seen any arguments contradicting this assumption. When you say you see a hillside, that's based on the assumption that what we're looking at is exactly that.

Looking at the whole picture, we have a photograph that is strikingly similar to a known hoax taken two years earlier. Conveniently, the angle of the photograph makes it impossible to identify any landmarks, preventing us from determining the location. The angle of the jet aligns with what could be a rock in the water, and while this alone isn't proof, it's worth noting that the angle of the fence posts suggests the picture was taken from a relatively high vantage point, looking downward.

What is the most likely explanation? If we assume the backstory is true, then interpreting it as a legitimate photo of a Scottish hillside makes sense. But if we assume it's a hoax designed to fool the local paper, then a reflection in the water makes far more sense.

 

[Mendel]

why would they not be allowed to repeat that view 'again' as many times as the reflection theory people do their idea ?

because this the reflection theory thread, with a topic of discussing reflection theories
(you don't go into a Manchester United pub and demand they give equal time to Arsenal)

Just how much 'preconception' is involved in supposing that an image of a distant landscape from a hillside in Scotland IS actually an image of a distant landscape from a hill in Scotland ?

You're begging the question.

The actual question is this:

• We see a couple of squiggly lines and blotches behind the bottom part of a fence.​

Are they

1) the ground behind the fence (example pictures abound)?
2) water behind the fence (example pictures upthread)?
3) a distant hillside (no example, not even among your hundreds of Scottish photographs)?​

You want to see a Scottish hill, that's why you're seeing one so firmly that you think you can convince us to rule the other options out. Please take a step back!

Then it is ' oh....well sometimes fences are in lakes'

Then it is 'oh...well sometimes nearby trees are in lakes too'

They are! Do you deny it?
What I said was that we do not know if that's the case here.

 

[Mendel]

For fun, I turned the picture into black and white and then cropped in the "Calvine object" among the stones. This doesn't prove anything, obviously, but it's interesting to note the similarity.

I love your "floating fighter jet" idea!
The problem is this:

These clouds are flat at the bottom and puffy at the top. For this to be a reflection, the picture must be turned around or flipped. But when you composited the UFO into your excellent example photo, you didn't flip it.

 

[Ann K]

And then there's one more thing that's always bothered me about the Calvine photograph—the angle of the "fighter jet." It just happens to be at the exact angle we would expect if it were a small plastic model floating on the surface of the water (assuming the "UFO" is actually a rock).

And it's not just the angle but also the lighting. When we take a closer look at the wings (assuming they actually are wings), we notice that one is dark while the other is bright. How is this possible if it's a large jet flying in the sky? I can't think of any situation where light would reflect off only one wing on a cloudy day.

I can. Take a look at your picture. The light portion extends up into the body of the plane. Is it not just a photo with a floating leaf obscuring one wing of the plane's reflection? There's even a twig or leaf stem crossing the tail of the plane.

 

[Favious M]

I can. Take a look at your picture. The light portion extends up into the body of the plane. Is it not just a photo with a floating leaf obscuring one wing of the plane's reflection? There's even a twig or leaf stem crossing the tail of the plane.

I agree with you. I've not seen the "plane" zoomed in like this before but to me it looks like there's an object like a leaf or something in front of whatever we're looking at (perhaps much closer to the camera than the dark object).

As if some piece of debris (leaf, flower petal etc etc) just happened to be falling past that spot at the time that makes it look like there's a piece sticking out the bottom, though that would be a fortunate coincidence for sure

 

[Mauro]

I find such response quite irrational. I'm the one overfitting things ?

Just how much 'preconception' is involved in supposing that an image of a distant landscape from a hillside in Scotland IS actually an image of a distant landscape from a hill in Scotland ? That is pretty much the default. WHY would the photo be anything other than the simplest possible explanation of what it appears to be ?

To me this entire issue is a fascinating case study of confirmation bias. Once people have latched onto the reflection theory there's no end of handwavium from those who have invested in it.....

As I explained repeatedly, I did not latch onto the reflection theory. I give the photo 50% probability (and something more, actually) to be a staged hoax, and about the same to be a lucky picture of a lake reflection. And I don't give a dime if it turns out to be one or the other (or even something else).

So, if there is confirmation bias here, it's probably not on my part.

First it is a direct reflection....then it is an upside down one. Hmm. That's not a particularly good start.

Now you're strawmanning. When did I (and most of us) ever say it's an upside down reflection? It was only @Trailblazer (iirc) to say that, and I don't agree with that, and I find it an unnecessary complication.

Then it is ' oh...well sometimes clouds are darker at the top'.

Then it is 'oh...well sometimes a rock reflection is darker at the top at the same time as the clouds are dark at the top'

Then it is ' oh....well sometimes fences are in lakes'

Then it is 'oh...well sometimes nearby trees are in lakes too'

Then it is ' oh...well sometimes the reflection is somewhat off...but its all just odd geometry'

Then it is ' oh...well somehow the hoaxers manged to line it all up perfectly to make it look like the view from a hillside. Never mind that the simpler option is that it simply IS the view from a hillside !'

Indeed. Sometimes all those things happen, and have been documented in this thread.

Then it is 'oh...those trees on a Scottish hillside are REALLY shrubs...or 'anything' '

And yet, skipping all this utter handwavium and arguing that the photo is simply what it appears to be and what one would EXPECT to see from a Scottish hillside on a cloudy day....is 'overfitting' things. I have to chuckle just a little.

Overfitting is seeing 'distant hilltop lines' and 'trees' in a few blurry pixels. I cannot say what those pixels are, so I just say 'they could be anything, including distand hilltops and nearby shorelines, if they are anything at all'.

 

[PacketSniffer5000]

But it doesn't, because the "distant landcape" is below the level of the fence, which seems unlikely unless the photographer was at sheep level. Livestock fences and trees like this wouldn't be on the top of a hill, so why is the skyline apparently lower than the photographer?

This thread has a crazy amount of posts, but going back to this post:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-277051

The identification made of Larch at the top left, and unknown but probably deciduous tree to right of that (maybe Ash?), suggest a less exposed site more like in the glens than in the higher uplands. The fencing, as noted by a poster here, is common to the area as you can confirm with Google Earth.

The shrubbery to bottom left and angle of view, if we indulge the backstory, could be a result of the photographer being prone or on knees. It could also be reeds at the water's edge, such as Loch Tummel which has a hydroelectric dam, and the jet perhaps a real reflection. The photo has very little context other than the trees, which are more common in the glens. Waterside usually has wooden fences, though, but you see barb wire too, e.g. 56°42'43.94" N 3°52'12.21" W

I don't know the area but live in Ireland, which has similar landscapes in the uplands.

 

[Giddierone]

the "distant landcape" is below the level of the fence, which seems unlikely

No, quite common.

 

[Scaramanga]

But it doesn't, because the "distant landcape" is below the level of the fence, which seems unlikely unless the photographer was at sheep level. Livestock fences and trees like this wouldn't be on the top of a hill, so why is the skyline apparently lower than the photographer?

Um....because the camera is pointed upwards ??

And since when were livestock fences not on ridgelines or on top of hills ? Here's a view I have stood at myself many a time, near summit of Skiddaw....it is one of MANY places where fences are on top of hills.

 

[Mendel]

When did I (and most of us) ever say it's an upside down reflection?

It's in post #1 of this thread.

Btw, a reflection would show an upward look from the water, and thus a ridgeline could easily appear behind the lower part of a waterside fence.

 

[Giddierone]

Not sure if this relates to the water reflection hyp, but did the apparent ring around the "front" of the object ever get discussed? Maybe it's just a mark on the print, or maybe it's part of the manipulation that Kirkpatrick thinks occured? [gif to highlight]

 

[Mendel]

No, quite common.View attachment 77297

Thank you, that's a good example.
It still doesn't quite fit my criteria, but it's close.

 

[Scaramanga]

What is the most likely explanation? If we assume the backstory is true, then interpreting it as a legitimate photo of a Scottish hillside makes sense. But if we assume it's a hoax designed to fool the local paper, then a reflection in the water makes far more sense.

No....that doesn't make sense at all.

WHY, logically, would one suppose that the 99% of the photo that ISN'T the UFO is anything other than what it portends to be....a photo of the view from a Scottish hillside. Why suppose otherwise when there is absolutely zero evidence to support such ? Could the 99% of the photo that isn't the UFO be simply a view from a Scottish hillside...yes. So why invoke a completely different explanation just to explain the 1% that is strange ?

Which is standing closer to Occam's razor and getting a better shave......that the entire picture is 100% hoaxed, or that 1% of it is ?

 

[Scaramanga]

Not sure if this relates to the water reflection hyp, but did the apparent ring around the "front" of the object ever get discussed?

Well....now you mention it....I'd also bring up why the UFO seems to be casting a shadow on the clouds. The Sun is supposedly at 4 o'clock on the dial here...and the shadows of the UFO are correctly at 10 o'clock.

 

[Giddierone]

the UFO seems to be casting a shadow on the clouds

Maybe someone just did a poor job of removing the shadow of their paper boat...

 

[Mendel]

Not sure if this relates to the water reflection hyp, but did the apparent ring around the "front" of the object ever get discussed? Maybe it's just a mark on the print, or maybe it's part of the manipulation that Kirkpatrick thinks occured? [gif to highlight]
View attachment 77299

taking the hires image from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-276328 and applying contrast, gamma, and brightness, it looks just like similar patches of cloud.

if the UFO wasn't there, you wouldn't think twice about it, and there are similar splotches elsewhere on the clouds.

I don't see how this is reflection-related at all, and should best be discussed in the other thread I linked.

 

[Scaramanga]

Now you're strawmanning. When did I (and most of us) ever say it's an upside down reflection? It was only @Trailblazer (iirc) to say that, and I don't agree with that, and I find it an unnecessary complication.

No, it has been both a right way up reflection and an upside down reflection....right here on this forum. I recall it originally being presented as a right way up reflection, with the 'harrier' even being presented as a guy rowing in a boat. Somewhere along the line it got changed to an upside down reflection. In fact if you read many of the posts right here in this thread you will see that the upside down reflection is what is being argued now.

 

[Mendel]

WHY, logically, would one suppose that the 99% of the photo that ISN'T the UFO is anything other than what it portends to be....a photo of the view from a Scottish hillside.

No one did that.
But the fact that the UFO looks symmetrical is a clue that we might be looking at a reflection.
"But if you remove the clue, we can't tell it's a reflection" is a line of argument that you've used before, that I've replied to, and where you keep ignoring the reply because it doesn't fit what you want to hear.

 

[Scaramanga]

Found this random picture online, claimed to be taken at a highland lake.

The problem I have with all these 'examples' is that proof that this or that can happen, or even that a UFO 'can' be faked using an upside down reflection, is not evidence that THIS photo is faked in such manner.

This is the one thing that seems to have been completely forgotten in this thread. Theories need evidence, or at the very least a reason to believe a hypothesis, not just similar 'examples'. Take the Phoenix lights UFO, where there is evidence of a flight of 5 planes. Yet for this photo, there is absolutely zero evidence that it is a reflection. None whatever. There is not a single 'gotcha !' element that gives the game away.

That is why my position is that the default has to be that the 99% of the photo that isn't UFO logically ought to be what one would expect to see from a Scottish hillside looking over a fence on a cloudy day.

I'm not saying it 'can't be a reflection...but that we have no reason to suppose that it is.

 

[Andreas]

I love your "floating fighter jet" idea!
The problem is this:

These clouds are flat at the bottom and puffy at the top. For this to be a reflection, the picture must be turned around or flipped. But when you composited the UFO into your excellent example photo, you didn't flip it.

Absolutely, it's a problem. But I still can't dismiss the simplest explanation—that it's actually just a reflection without any flipping. Honestly, I'm not certain about the flat-bottomed clouds. One possibility is that it's some sort of illusion caused by shallow water near the shore.

My assumption is that the area at the bottom of the image, behind the fence, is the shoreline, meaning the lakebed should be visible until the water becomes deep enough. We also can't disregard small ripples on the water, which could be disrupting the reflection.

I hope I'm not grasping at straws here, but I'm still unwilling to dismiss the basic assumption of a simple reflection and a plastic jet model.

 

[Scaramanga]

But the fact that the UFO looks symmetrical is a clue that we might be looking at a reflection.

But the UFO isn't symmetrical. Even the lower point of the UFO is not vertically in alignment with the upper point ( and I don't just mean because the camera may be tilted.....I mean it is literally not symmetric in that respect and would in fact be worse if you corrected the tilt ). The lower ( darker ) reflection part is larger than the upper part. The reflection of the shading does not match either. And there are various sticking out bits that are not reflected. Sure one can use various geometric jiggery pokery to 'explain' this....but the UFO most certainly is not obviously symmetric or plainly so. And bear in mind that this alleged symmetry is the sole basis for the reflection theory.

Again, I do not understand why we are 'faking' 99% of the photo to explain 1% of it.

EDIT.....here I adjusted so the left edge of the frame exactly matches the top of the UFO. From which you can see the the bottom vertice of the UFO is not symmetric with the top one.... ( this also highlights how even the shading of the UFO is not reflected properly, or even at all in some places )

The reflection hypothesis just does not stand up to real scrutiny. Simply clicking 'disagree' does not alter that !

 

[Scaramanga]

This is clearly not a reflection. The two dark patches in light blue are the wrong way round to be a reflection. The patch in purple is not reflected at all. The light patch in red in not reflected at all. The sticking out dark bit in blue is not a reflection of anything in the upper segment. There's a large area in the middle where absolutely nothing is reflected properly. Most of the light and dark patches simply don't match...

 

[Mendel]

This is clearly not a reflection

is that a low-res image you used as source?

there's patchy fog in front of it?

and here's my post with circles:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/post-334403

 

[Ann K]

This is the one thing that seems to have been completely forgotten in this thread. Theories need evidence, or at the very least a reason to believe a hypothesis, not just similar 'examples'.

Your go-to hypothesis is that the UFO is a fake, something like a model on a string. You have no evidence of that. Don't you even READ what you yourself have written?

Your complaints about the apparent non-symmetry of the object STILL misunderstand the geometry of reflections, in spite of my attempts to explain it to you. It's disheartening to go to that effort yet have it ignored.

"I wish I was as sure of anything as you are of everything."

 

[Trailblazer]

No, quite common. View attachment 77297

That's above the level of the fence. That was my point - to get the skyline to be below the fence you'd have to have the camera very low - like, below the level of the top strand of wire. Why would you take a photo from that low?

But the UFO isn't symmetrical. Even the lower point of the UFO is not vertically in alignment with the upper point ( and I don't just mean because the camera may be tilted.....I mean it is literally not symmetric in that respect and would in fact be worse if you corrected the tilt ). The lower ( darker ) reflection part is larger than the upper part. The reflection of the shading does not match either. And there are various sticking out bits that are not reflected. Sure one can use various geometric jiggery pokery to 'explain' this

It's not "geometric jiggery-pokery". An object close to the water level viewed from a reasonable distance above the water will not match its reflection, because, as has been repeatedly explained in this thread, you are seeing the object itself from above, but the reflection is of the object as seen from below, so it will present a different aspect. This rock and its reflection are not very symmetrical at all.

And the argument about the lower, darker part being larger could be easily explained if the photo was presented upside down, as I suggested earlier. The fence would then be viewed as a reflection.

Again, I am not saying I necessarily believe this is what it shows, but it is an option.

From a more common-sense perspective, rather than a photographic analysis perspective, I think the reflection idea is probably less likely because it seems less plausible that someone would see a reflection and think to fake a UFO picture. If they wanted to fake it they would be much more likely to do it by hanging things from trees.

 

[Mendel]

geometry of reflections

and we don't even know how flat the water is, it might ripple

 

[Scaramanga]

Your go-to hypothesis is that the UFO is a fake, something like a model on a string. You have no evidence of that. Don't you even READ what you yourself have written?

Er, no...my hypothesis is that 1% of the photo is fake. I don't need to make the other 99% be fake as well.

Occam's razor !

 

[Mendel]

Er, no...my hypothesis is that 1% of the photo is fake. I don't need to make the other 99% be fake as well.

Occam's razor !

the "rock in the water" reflection theory says that none (0%) of the photo is fake, only the backstory is

(well, 0.5% if you go with the floating fighter jet toy)

but that doesn't matter because the truth is that it's as fake as it is.
it doesn't become more or less likely to be true by being more or less fake.

 

[Scaramanga]

It's not "geometric jiggery-pokery". An object close to the water level viewed from a reasonable distance above the water will not match its reflection, because, as has been repeatedly explained in this thread, you are seeing the object itself from above, but the reflection is of the object as seen from below, so it will present a different aspect. This rock and its reflection are not very symmetrical at all.

Where did you establish that were are seeing the 'UFO' from 'above' ? It looks pretty much face on to me...even as a reflection.

 

[Ann K]

Er, no...my hypothesis is that 1% of the photo is fake. I don't need to make the other 99% be fake as well.

Occam's razor !

So is your contention that a thing is "less fake" if it's only a tiny area? NOW I understand what you mean by "geometric jiggery pokery".