Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

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?

Again, where did you establish the distance of the fence, the slope of the hill, the angle of the photo, or any of that totally relevant info...rather than trying to force it all to fit a hypothesis ?

There is absolutely nothing even remotely difficult or impossible about it genuinely being a photo of a distant view taken over a fence. Given that the camera is photographing an object in the sky....and that is the subject matter and not the scenery...of course the scenery is going to be low down. Most of the photo is of the sky. WHY is that a problem ? I've taken very similar sunset photos...where the scenery is just a small sliver at the bottom.
 
An object close to the water level viewed from a reasonable distance above the water will not match its reflection,
Screenshot 2025-02-14 at 17.14.25.png
 
There is absolutely nothing even remotely difficult or impossible about it genuinely being a photo of a distant view taken over a fence.
There is absolutely nothing even remotely difficult or impossible about it genuinely being a photo of a rock or small islet and its reflection in the water.
 
So is your contention that a thing is "less fake" if it's only a tiny area?

No, its my contention that given that photo presents itself as a photo of the view over a fence on a cloudy day in Scotland....99% of the photo is precisely what I would EXPECT to be seeing !

Indeed, I am pretty sure that if you took out the UFO and asked 1000 people what the photo is, 999 would say its a photo of the view over a fence on a cloudy day in Scotland...as they'd have no reason to suppose it was anything else !
 
Indeed, I am pretty sure that if you took out the UFO and asked 1000 people what the photo is, 999 would say its a photo of the view over a fence on a cloudy day in Scotland...as they'd have no reason to suppose it was anything else !
If you took out the thing that looks like an object reflected in water, it wouldn't look like a reflection in water? Your reasoning doesn't impress me.
 
No, its my contention that given that photo presents itself as a photo of the view over a fence on a cloudy day in Scotland....99% of the photo is precisely what I would EXPECT to be seeing !

Indeed, I am pretty sure that if you took out the UFO and asked 1000 people what the photo is, 999 would say its a photo of the view over a fence on a cloudy day in Scotland...as they'd have no reason to suppose it was anything else !

Correct... but what if they saw this picture? Just a mountain scene, right?

1739554578874.png


OK, what about now?

1739554676856.png


 
There is absolutely nothing even remotely difficult or impossible about it genuinely being a photo of a rock or small islet and its reflection in the water.

Other than the fact that you need a reason to suppose it is that...rather than it simply being the view over a fence on a cloudy day that it portends to be. We need a null hypothesis, a default of some sort that requires the least jiggery pokery and which best fits what one would expect to see over a fence on a cloudy day in Scotland.

After all, the 'view over the fence on a cloud day' is what the photo is CLAIMED to be. Nowhere in 21 pages of thread has anyone provided even the remotest evidence that that part of the claim isn't true. You are surely supposed to be debunking THE claim...not something completely different. Where is the debunk of it being the view over a fence on a cloudy day ?

I've seen page after page of ideas that it 'might' be a reflection...but not one piece of 'gotcha' evidence that it actually is.
 
Again, where did you establish the distance of the fence, the slope of the hill, the angle of the photo, or any of that totally relevant info...rather than trying to force it all to fit a hypothesis ?

There is absolutely nothing even remotely difficult or impossible about it genuinely being a photo of a distant view taken over a fence. Given that the camera is photographing an object in the sky....and that is the subject matter and not the scenery...of course the scenery is going to be low down. Most of the photo is of the sky. WHY is that a problem ? I've taken very similar sunset photos...where the scenery is just a small sliver at the bottom.
It's not the fact that the scenery is a small sliver at the bottom. It's the fact that the fence, of the sort that is usually only about 3ft high, is higher than any other scenery, even what appear to be the tops of distant hills. Therefore either the camera would have to be less than 3ft from the ground, or the fence itself would have to be higher than the surrounding landscape. Which, given that there seem to be lowland-type trees in frame, seems unlikely.
 
Correct... but what if they saw this picture?

But I am not interested in that picture...all I care about is THE picture. It is THE picture we are debunking. What some other picture shows is as relevant as using George Adamski to debunk David Fravor. The fact that some other case or picture or whatever shows this or that is really not relevant to this case. It's just muddying the water. It doesn't happen with other UFO cases...where we deal specifically with the actual case ( like with the Turkey UFO ) so why should it happen with this one ?
 
But I am not interested in that picture...all I care about is THE picture. It is THE picture we are debunking. What some other picture shows is as relevant as using George Adamski to debunk David Fravor. The fact that some other case or picture or whatever shows this or that is really not relevant to this case. It's just muddying the water. It doesn't happen with other UFO cases...where we deal specifically with the actual case ( like with the Turkey UFO ) so why should it happen with this one ?

How do you mean? The possibility that a photo shows a reflection rather than a real object in the sky is one of the first things that gets considered when examining a UFO picture, as any search on this site will show you. The Turkey UFO thread has lots of discussion about whether it could be a reflection.
 
It's not the fact that the scenery is a small sliver at the bottom. It's the fact that the fence, of the sort that is usually only about 3ft high, is higher than any other scenery, even what appear to be the tops of distant hills. Therefore either the camera would have to be less than 3ft from the ground, or the fence itself would have to be higher than the surrounding landscape. Which, given that there seem to be lowland-type trees in frame, seems unlikely.
To expound on that: the horizon is always at the eye level of the observer/the camera¹. Take a look afar, then bend your knees to see this directly.

Ground objects in the distance are close to the horizon.

If the squiggly line in the Calvine photo is a ridge in the distance, it indicates that the eye level of the observer is about halfway down that fence.

To be that far down and look up to see an aircraft is not an easy thing to do.


¹ If you're up a mountain, it could drop a little from horizontal, up to 1⁰ maximum in the UK (on Ben Nevis).
 
It's not the fact that the scenery is a small sliver at the bottom. It's the fact that the fence, of the sort that is usually only about 3ft high, is higher than any other scenery, even what appear to be the tops of distant hills.

I still don't see the problem. In the first place those fences are not a mere 3 feet high, and why can you not envisage a situation where we are simply a little way down a slope of a ridge with the fence on top ?? I mean...have you never had a situation where you've walked up a ridge and just as you near the top a small sliver of the distant terrain beyond appears ? I have encountered this on an almost daily basis ( including the fence ) on my walks in Scotland. There is absolutely nothing anomalous to explain.
 
If the squiggly line in the Calvine photo is a ridge in the distance, it indicates that the eye level of the observer is about halfway down that fence.

No it doesn't.....it simply indicates the camera is pointing upwards. I mean, this whole 'problem' is analogous with those who think an aircraft contrail pointing downwards means something falling from the sky...rather than just moving away. It really is just about that level of illogic.
 
No it doesn't.....it simply indicates the camera is pointing upwards. I mean, this whole 'problem' is analogous with those who think an aircraft contrail pointing downwards means something falling from the sky...rather than just moving away. It really is just about that level of illogic.
You can not change the perspective relationship of the horizon and the fence by tilting the camera. It's impossible.
Screenshot 2025-02-14 at 14.43.12.png

@Giddierone posted this picture, where the blue line I drew on it indicates the horizon=eye level. Its height above the fence is about where a tall person's eyes would be.

To tilt the camera does nothing to change that.

To get the ridge indicated by the blue line to go below the top of the fence, the camera needs to be lowered below the top of the fence.

Try it yourself!
 
To expound on that: the horizon is always at the eye level of the observer/the camera¹. Take a look afar, then bend your knees to see this directly.

Ground objects in the distance are close to the horizon.

If the squiggly line in the Calvine photo is a ridge in the distance, it indicates that the eye level of the observer is about halfway down that fence.

To be that far down and look up to see an aircraft is not an easy thing to do.


¹ If you're up a mountain, it could drop a little from horizontal, up to 1⁰ maximum in the UK (on Ben Nevis).
I can't seem to find the original right now but most reports I've read seemed to mention the photographers were rather unsettled by the object in the sky and 'hit the ground' or 'hid in some bushes', so it would make sense that their pictures were taken from a crouched position. I've always assumed it's essentially a rabbit's-eye view looking upwards.
 
The possibility that a photo shows a reflection rather than a real object in the sky is one of the first things that gets considered when examining a UFO picture

The problem with the reflection theory is that there is absolutely no reason to prefer it to the default ' view of sky over fence' theory. There is absolutely nothing that says it is more likely to be a reflection. Even if there was the tiniest 0.01% of a sliver of preferential evidence for it I'd myself go with it. But there simply isn't.

I thus see no reason to suppose it is a reflection. It is as simple as that. 21 pages of arguing have not increased the balance in its favour.
 
To get the ridge indicated by the blue line to go below the top of the fence, the camera needs to be lowered below the top of the fence.

Which you get by the photographer being on a downward slope from the fence. But sheesh....I guess I'll just have to abandon any idea of ever seeing distant hills though a fence !..... ( shakes my head in sheer disbelief that I'm even having this argument )

Stock-Fencing-L9-120-15_4.jpg
 
The problem with the reflection theory is that there is absolutely no reason to prefer it to the default ' view of sky over fence' theory. There is absolutely nothing that says it is more likely to be a reflection. Even if there was the tiniest 0.01% of a sliver of preferential evidence for it I'd myself go with it. But there simply isn't.

I thus see no reason to suppose it is a reflection. It is as simple as that. 21 pages of arguing have not increased the balance in its favour.
you are conflating "unlikely" and "untrue".

nobody is forcing you to suppose it is a reflection
you have tried for 100 posts to claim that it can't be
 
@Giddierone posted this picture, where the blue line I drew on it indicates the horizon=eye level. Its height above the fence is about where a tall person's eyes would be.

But...notice how you can still see part of the landscape through the fence, including distant ridges and trees.

Well...fancy that, distant ridges and trees viewed through a fence. Now where have we seen that before ? Ironically your attempt to disprove my point only ends up proving it.

Q.E.D

Screenshot 2025-02-14 at 14.43.12.png
 
nobody is forcing you to suppose it is a reflection

I guess there is just no way anyone could possibly see distant hill ridges and trees through a fence in Scotland on a cloudy day...all the jiggery pokery angles just wont allow it....so I am told....

Screenshot 2025-02-14 at 14.43.12 (1).png
 
I guess there is just no way anyone could possibly see distant hill ridges and trees through a fence in Scotland on a cloudy day...all the jiggery pokery angles just wont allow it....so I am told....

View attachment 77327
Nobody is trying to say that there is "no way" that it can be what it appears to be, a photo of the sky. But this entire thread is about the possibility that it could be a reflection, which is why it is called "Reflection in Water hypothesis". And it is a possibility. There are at least two other threads about the photo where alternative ideas can be discussed.
 
Nobody is trying to say that there is "no way" that it can be what it appears to be, a photo of the sky. But this entire thread is about the possibility that it could be a reflection, which is why it is called "Reflection in Water hypothesis".
And this is a debunking site. Bunk can also come from skeptics....who are not immune from exactly the same confirmation bias and convoluted thinking as believers.

Can I take it that we have firmly established that one can see distant hills and trees through a fence ? That would at least be some progress after 21 pages.
 
Last edited:
This has the feel of a discussion that is devolving into bickering with the feel of a personal stake in whatever the answer to how this pic was taken turns out to be. I doubt that is what anyone intends, I am confident that if and when it is definitely solved we'll all be happy with that. With that in mind, I am going to (again) take a dandelion break and try to step away for a bit -- not to abandon the subject, but to take a deep breath and not get too "het up" about it.

Given the garbage quality of the evidence, I doubt we'll ever get to a definitive answer on this one unless the other pictures surface or the photographer comes forward and fesses up, so this one is going to be with us for a long time...
 
This has the feel of a discussion that is devolving into bickering with the feel of a personal stake in whatever the answer to how this pic was taken turns out to be. I doubt that is what anyone intends, I am confident that if and when it is definitely solved we'll all be happy with that. With that in mind, I am going to (again) take a dandelion break and try to step away for a bit -- not to abandon the subject, but to take a deep breath and not get too "het up" about it.

What you've had is precisely what you should expect when people spend 200 posts telling me that it can't be distant hills and trees viewed through a fence.

It most definitely can....as seen below. I'm quite pleased particularly with how the left side looks so similar.

And that is surely what this site is all about. Person A makes claim, person B refutes it definitively.

c.jpg
Screenshot 2025-02-14 at 14.43.12 (1) - Copy.png
 
The problem with the reflection theory is that there is absolutely no reason to prefer it to the default ' view of sky over fence' theory. There is absolutely nothing that says it is more likely to be a reflection. Even if there was the tiniest 0.01% of a sliver of preferential evidence for it I'd myself go with it. But there simply isn't.
Except the "UFO"...
 
A question for those familiar with traditional photography: When increasing contrast, the clouds become more apparent, which makes sense. However, when zooming in on the dark areas, they appear to be made up of asymmetrical dark spots. Why is that? These spots are difficult to distinguish from dirt and stains on the negative. Can we really trust the "cloud pattern" that emerges when contrast is increased?

IMG_9591.jpeg
 
Except the "UFO"...
Yes, that's the thing. We tend to resist the idea of it being a reflection because someone allegedly claimed it depicts a strange, large object hovering in the sky. But if we disregard all hearsay, we're simply left with a picture that looks remarkably like a stone reflecting in a lake. "Default" depends on the context.
 
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...

...Wouldn't that depend on what angle we were viewing it from? I don't think there's an exact angle that would indicate it's a reflection.

If our eyeline was just above water level, we would see (assuming the model was floating more or less evenly, tailfin pointing roughly upwards) the side, or the top half of one side of the aircraft- and presumably its reflection underneath, something very roughly like this:

20579671948_0021dd0c9d.jpg


I'm imagining that as we increase the height of our POV, we would gradually see more of the top surface, the tailfin would be foreshortened and the starboard wing would start coming into view, as if it were a real aircraft seen (from the same horizontal plane) banking.
With a plan view of a floating plane model, we would see whatever top surface was visible above water.
So I don't think the possible jet/ model jet/ whatever it is, is being viewed at a specific angle, or is at a specific angle, that supports a reflection hypothesis.

If the water is sufficiently still to enable a fairly good reflection of a modest rock, intuitively I feel that the "jet" (as seen in the Calvine photo) should be more symmetrical than it is, if it too is an object on the water's surface.

If this is a hoax using a reflection with a floating "jet", the hoaxer has to place it on the water, wade back (maybe only a very short distance) and wait for the ripples to subside.

I made loads of plastic aircraft models as a kid; don't recall trying to float any of them but I remember the Harrier kits often had "posable" jet nozzles on each side, so small boys (and girls) could angle them pointing down or rearwards, so I guess water would soon leak into the fuselage. Other plane models might not have this problem, but I doubt they were designed for buoyancy! Not a major problem for a committed hoaxer though, and we have "the surgeon's photo" of the Loch Ness Monster, a model dinosaur mounted on a (clockwork ?) 'functioning' toy submarine.

Another possible issue with a floating model hypothesis is the second "Harrier" reported by UK Ministry of Defence examiners in one of the other photos (which we don't have). No reason that hoaxers couldn't build two floatable models, but then why claim to have seen only one jet when they've deliberately spent time composing a scene with two?

(A quick aside re. the different brightness of the "jet's" "wings": Not all aircraft have wings that are in the same horizontal plane; Harrier wings have a marked downward angle
Harrier Aero Technika Lotnicza 91-040003.jpg
...so the apparent brightness of the wings can differ from each other depending on the position of e.g. the sun/ the observer relative to the aircraft; below Kestrel prototype, Harrier, Harrier II):

9c796d599b17fc14320b6d1603aef31b--timeline-photos-harrier.jpg
 
Last edited:
Except the "UFO"...

Ah...you mean that object where the photographic analyser Andrew Robinson, Senior Lecturer in Photography, Sheffield Hallam University states...

" It should be noted that the top half of the diamond is NOT a mirror image of the lower half. "

That
UFO ?

https://ugc.production.linktr.ee/fa...ufo-photographic-analysis-v5-2024-publish.pdf


And why has not a single person noticed that the interior of the diamond shaped rhomboid is itself an image ? This explains the odd markings. It is quite literally part of another photo...with horizon and objects and so on. This raises a whole new theory....the 'photographic defect'. It seems it was not a digital camera, so the defect may be in the actual processing....

I have always wondered why the very odd markings. Look at it close enough and it almost seems like the 'UFO' is itself an image of some sort.....

c - Copy.jpg
 
And why has not a single person noticed that the interior of the diamond shaped rhomboid is itself an image ? This explains the odd markings. It is quite literally part of another photo...with horizon and objects and so on.
"Why is everyone wrong except me?"

Please use the hi-res scan from the "original Calvine Photo" thread. And post your theory there, this is the wrong thread.
SmartSelect_20250215-021859_Gallery.jpg
 
A question for those familiar with traditional photography: When increasing contrast, the clouds become more apparent, which makes sense. However, when zooming in on the dark areas, they appear to be made up of asymmetrical dark spots. Why is that? These spots are difficult to distinguish from dirt and stains on the negative. Can we really trust the "cloud pattern" that emerges when contrast is increased?

View attachment 77332
I believe you're seeing the silver halogenide grains embedded in the chemical film.
 
this is the wrong thread

I object to that, and rightly so. To make a thread exclusive to a specific interpretation of a photo and automatically naysay any counter-evidence or better theory by default is to effectively bias discussion in favour of a particular theory. If you want a thread solely full of 'yes' people all agreeing then that's not much of a 'discussion' is it. I mean...that is what UFO forums do.
 
Duh. The geometry of reflections is what you fail to grasp, yet again.

That comment was a quote from a senior lecturer in photography at Sheffield University. Feel free to write and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
That comment was a quote from a senior lecturer in photography at Sheffield University. Feel free to write and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about.
All I know of his story is what you quote to me. Has he a degree in physics? Did he say "it's not a mirror image" with an implied "of course"? There have been dozens of photos shown on this thread where the reflection was not a mirror image; did you fail to look at ANY of those?
 
All I know of his story is what you quote to me. Has he a degree in physics? Did he say "it's not a mirror image" with an implied "of course"? There have been dozens of photos shown on this thread where the reflection was not a mirror image; did you fail to look at ANY of those?

He clearly states...

" It should be noted that the top half of the diamond is NOT a mirror image of the lower half. "

I would add....all your own reference to reflections ( and much of the other 'examples' here ) makes constant reference to photos taken from ABOVE the plane of reflection ( i.e the water, etc ). In fact significantly above. But there is zero evidence that angle of reflection in the Calvine pic is significant at all. In fact even if I did consider it a reflection I would not consider the angle of incidence to me more than 10 degrees at most. Whilst your claims may be true for an angle of 45 degrees or so...which is what many of the 'examples' that supposedly tell me off show....anything like such a high angle simply does not fit the Calvine photo. And that is why I 'ignored' those examples.
 
I object to that, and rightly so.
You are objecting to something unsaid.
To make a thread exclusive to a specific interpretation of a photo
that's what we do. There is a "master thread" and threads for other popular interpretations.
and automatically naysay any counter-evidence
that's what we don't do
note "counter-evidence", not simply "counter-everyone sees it is obvious"
or better theory
post these in the appropriate thread, please
by default is to effectively bias discussion in favour of a particular theory.
yes. because discussing 6 different theories in the same thread is unwieldy and doesn't do any theory any favors. That's why they have separate threads.
If you want a thread solely full of 'yes' people all agreeing then that's not much of a 'discussion' is it.
That is not what has been happening here, even before you joined. Please re-read the thread. Seriously.

I mean...that is what UFO forums do.
They do what you do: defend their own viewpoints based on incredulity, building straw men, not taking the time to respect and understand different viewpoints, or support their points with evidence. Look through this thread: is this what we have been doing? Or is it what you've been trying to get away with and got challenged on again and again?
 
Back
Top