Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

[Scaramanga]

Look through this thread: is this what we have been doing?

Yes, it is. What is the point of a thread where all anyone can ever say is ' yes...its a reflection' and nobody can say 'hmm..I really don't think so' ? All you then end up with is back slapping confirmation bias.

And it is erroneous to suggest that my objection is due to 'incredulity' etc. It is based on the theory showing very clear signs of simply being wrong. None just one detail wrong, but multiple aspects wrong.

Of course, if you have a thread devoted to a specific theory.....that is also going to be the place where proponents are least likely to ever admit they were wrong as they have so much energy invested in it . That is the danger of theory devoted threads.

 

[Mauro]

What is the point of a thread where all anyone can ever say is ' yes...its a reflection' and nobody can say 'hmm..I really don't think so' ?

Strawman again.

 

[Ann K]

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.

It would be strange geometry indeed if it were true for, say, forty-five degrees but not for less than ten degrees.

Once again, here's a portion of a photo that has been presented here before. It's at a much smaller angle. A good portion of the darker hillside shows above the yellow tree (red arrow). Where is it in the reflection? It is hidden behind the much smaller tree, that's where, so although we know light travels in straight lines there isn't a direct line of sight from that part of the dark hillside to the water, although there is from the hillside to the observer. I've kept this as simple as possible for you, so please try to understand.

 

[Mendel]

Yes, it is. What is the point of a thread where all anyone can ever say is ' yes...its a reflection' and nobody can say 'hmm..I really don't think so' ? All you then end up with is back slapping confirmation bias.

Dude.
6 of the 40 posts on the first page raise objections.
What you are doing "is what UFO forums do" (your words).
Specifically, making stuff up that suits your narrative.

 

[Scaramanga]

Specifically, making stuff up that suits your narrative.

LOL. That is precisely what I am complaining about on this thread. It is the entire substance of of what I have posted.

For example the entire ' no....you can't see distant stuff through a fence ' claim. You and others were telling me not that many posts ago that it was impossible....that I didn't understand geometry...and so on.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/post-336732

And yet I notice that my definitive proof that you CAN see distant stuff through such a fence just got conveniently ignored.....

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/post-336754

I've been told how silly it is to suppose that the stuff in the bottom left of the Calvine pic is trees on a hill....and yet there you have an almost identical segment of pic of trees on a hill viewed through a fence.

And...not a single admission that I was right about that.

 

[Mendel]

Your paraphrase:

For example the entire ' no....you can't see distant stuff through a fence ' claim. You and others were telling me not that many posts ago that it was impossible....that I didn't understand geometry...and so on.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/post-336732

What I actually wrote:

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.

You've not shown a single picture with sky and a horizon/ridgeline behind a low fence. But I noticed you pivoted to fog instead of sky early on.

So, your conditions are now
• cattle fence on a ridgeline
• sloping ground leading up to it, or
• fog/cloud in the distance
and we don't really have a photo that looks anything like the scenery in the Calvine photo

 

[Scaramanga]

Once again, here's a portion of a photo that has been presented here before. It's at a much smaller angle. A good portion of the darker hillside shows above the yellow tree (red arrow). Where is it in the reflection?

But you are making my point for me. The reflection in the 'not upside down' interpretation of the reflection pic is LARGER in height ( not smaller or missing ) than the upper part.

The 'not upside down' interpretation of the pic has the clouds the wrong way up. Easily spotted when the photo is darkened...as in this example....

Yet another objection to the theory that is just ignored.

And to cap it all off, the 'reflection' isn't a reflection as the shading on the top part of the rhomboid does not even remotely resemble a mirror image of the bottom part. There are numerous inconsistencies, and to try to explain them all away by odd angles or whatever is truly clutching at straws.

To quote the photography expert from Sheffield University.....

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

 

[Scaramanga]

You've not shown a single picture with sky and a horizon/ridgeline behind a low fence.

I never said 'horizon ridge'. Nowhere did I specifically demand that what was seen had to be the horizon. All I got was sneering 'at it again' remarks when I pointed out...

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

Where is 'horizon ridge' ?? You spent several posts objecting to a claim I had never made....yet I am the one doing 'straw men' apparently.

 

[Scaramanga]

ou've not shown a single picture with sky and a horizon/ridgeline behind a low fence. But I noticed you pivoted to fog instead of sky early on.

So, your conditions are now
• cattle fence on a ridgeline
• sloping ground leading up to it, or
• fog/cloud in the distance
and we don't really have a photo that looks anything like the scenery in the Calvine photo

What ? I posted something that looks very much like it only a few posts ago....once again my refutals just get ignored.....

How about you stop making up what I have said ( where did I say anything about fog ? ) and respond to the evidence ??

Oh look...I am 'at it again' posting about hills and trees viewed through a fence....which I am told is impossible.

 

[Andreas]

...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.

Thanks for your reply and insights. My guess is that there's no visible shadow below the model plane (if it is a model plane) because it's floating on the water (partly submerged) and is seen from a relatively high position—perhaps something like this:

If it's a hoax using a reflection in a lake, the photographer likely had to take the picture from a rather high position to avoid capturing the far shore. It's possible the picture was taken from a hill, but the photographer could even have climbed a tree—perhaps the very tree whose branches we see in the upper left corner. I do think most plastic plane models float, and adding some styrofoam if needed would hardly be a problem.

And yes, another plane was mentioned, but the details seem unclear. I recall someone saying "possibly another plane"—perhaps just an imperfection or shadow in the picture? Everything about those additional images seems highly speculative. It's claimed they depict a stationary "UFO" and a plane traveling from right to left. That doesn't make much sense. I find it hard to believe that someone would spot a UFO, wait until a jet approaches, take a handful of pictures within seconds, and then stop photographing after the plane has left. This could be a telltale sign of a hoax, with the plane playing an essential role. Additionally, the photographer seems to go out of their way to avoid showing the "UFO" from more than one angle. Pictures of a reflection in water fits this scenario.

We're still left with the issue of the clouds. They do seem to be the "right way up," suggesting it's not a reflection after all. (If the picture isn't flipped, but I think this sounds a bit too much as a forced ad hoc hypothesis.) But I'm not entirely sure. The picture is grainy, with stains and imperfections, and the clouds are most visible when contrast is significantly increased. I'm not sure we can fully trust the cloud pattern. Could it be affected by imperfections in the picture, reflections, small ripples in the water, etc.?

These uncertainties keep me from fully dismissing the "reflection and toy plane" hypothesis. Why is it somewhat plausible and worth considering? Well, it would take very little knowledge of photography and minimal preparation to pull off such a prank.

 

[Scaramanga]

We're still left with the issue of the clouds. They do seem to be the "right way up," suggesting it's not a reflection after all. (If the picture isn't flipped, but I think this sounds a bit too much as a forced ad hoc hypothesis.) But I'm not entirely sure. The picture is grainy, with stains and imperfections, and the clouds are most visible when contrast is significantly increased. I'm not sure we can fully trust the cloud pattern. Could it be affected by imperfections in the picture, reflections, small ripples in the water, etc.?

But why concoct various convoluted 'explanations' for the clouds appearing the right way up rather than the simplest Occam's razor view in which they 'appear' the right way up because they are the right way up ?

The problem with the reflection theory is that once you have gone down that road...everything else has to be forced to fit. Odd anomalies such the clouds being the wrong way up have to be explained away. No such explaining away has to be done for the premise that the photo is directly of the sky.

 

[Ann K]

The problem with the reflection theory is that once you have gone down that road...everything else has to be forced to fit. Odd anomalies such the clouds being the wrong way up have to be explained away. No such explaining away has to be done for the premise that the photo is directly of the sky.

...except the "UFO". And that's the whole point, isn't it? Essentially you have started from a position of "it's a hoaxed photo" (without evidence), whereas I prefer to give the young photographers the benefit of the doubt, and think it likely that they took a photo, thought afterward that "gee whiz, that could be a UFO", and only made up the story. Neither of us has definitive evidence, but you have based yours on a complete misinterpretation of the physics of reflection, despite my attempts to explain it to you.

The fact that something COULD be faked is not evidence that it HAS been faked.

Over and out.

 

[Scaramanga]

...except the "UFO". And that's the whole point, isn't it? Essentially you have started from a position of "it's a hoaxed photo" (without evidence), whereas I prefer to give the young photographers the benefit of the doubt, and think it likely that they took a photo, thought afterward that "gee whiz, that could be a UFO", and only made up the story. Neither of us has definitive evidence, but you have based yours on a complete misinterpretation of the physics of reflection, despite my attempts to explain it to you.

Is that supposed to be a response to the quote from me that you give ? How about actually responding directly to it and answering the point ?

And simply repeatedly demanding that I have 'misinterpreted physics' does not make it so. I see all that as a red herring because none of the supposed examples you give is THE actual photo. I see some examples where the angle of incidence is as much as 45 degrees...which it clearly isn't in THE photo. You have stretched the parameters to make it appear that I don't understand the physics.

I mean, its no different with the trees and ridge visible under the fence. My claim of that was stretched to make it appear as if I was talking about 'the horizon'...and we even had posts showing how it was impossible for the horizon to be visible in such manner. Never mind that I'd never actually said 'the horizon'.

None of this surprises me, given that I see the 'disagree' flag appear against my posts faster than anyone can possibly have actually read them

 

[Slow Joe]

Well, it seems to me this is most likely a picture of opportunity. RAF aircraft flies by, guy snaps picture, and then it realizes of the reflection effect, and turns the picture upside down, and cuts it to eliminate the shores of the lake.

Professional hustlers would have milked this image for eternity, not let it forgotten for decades.

 

[Mendel]

None of this surprises me, given that I see the 'disagree' flag appear against my posts faster than anyone can possibly have actually read them

you know the reactions have time stamps, right?
so it's easy to see that claim is a complete fabrication.
(Most Metabunk posts don't take that long to read, anyway.)

 

[Scaramanga]

if it were a reflection then the jet would have the tail pointing down right?

Strangely enough that never occurred to me, and from what I can see no-one responded to this. Yet it is true.

So not only are the clouds the wrong way up, but we have an object ( the Harrier ) for which we can actually say what the right way up is.

Now of course...someone could argue that its just a toy plane or whatever, and deliberately put wrong way up so as to be the right way up when pic is inverted. BUT...why is the tail-plane of the plane not then underwater ?

The model plane theory would work if the plane was on its side...with the tail pointing towards the observer. So literally the only part being mainly reflected is the wing.

There is then still an issue remaining if that is the case. Why is the upper part of the 'UFO' in the original ( not inverted ) photo dark and the bottom light....while with the model plane it is the reverse of that ?

 

[Mendel]

Strangely enough that never occurred to me, and from what I can see no-one responded to this. Yet it is true.

FIRST PAGE yet again. That's why I asked you to re-read the thread. You are wasting everyone's time, which is ironic given that you complained this thread wastes our time. You seem bent on making that prediction true yourself.

This is an attempt to make it easier to understand (I was confused at first). Look at the bottom blueish half but as a pond, with a bank and a fence on the other side, and the overhanging trees are (I think) also on the other side. So in the reflection theory, we see the reflected scene at the bottom, plus the rock, and the reflection of the rock. That's then flipped

 

[John J.]

I do think most plastic plane models float, and adding some styrofoam if needed would hardly be a problem.

Yes, you're right, it's hardly an insurmountable problem. -And if the possible plane is a model, it could be stuck on top of a length of stiff wire, the other end pushed into the mud.
I'm still not sure about a rock (or whatever it is, the UFO) being reflected in what must be calm water while the above water portion of the "plane" isn't- though I liked your (Andreas') graphic demonstrating your theory about the underwater wing.
But if the photo is of a reflected rock and a model jet, why have the nearer wing of the jet underwater?

The reference to a second jet comes from a minute, dated 14 September 1990, sent from D Sec (AS)12/2, a (UK) Royal Air Force /Ministry of Defence department, to the Assistant Private Secretary (a civil servant) for the Under Secretary of State (Air Force), a government junior minister.
@jackfrostvc usefully downloaded the relevant documents as seen in this post in the "Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo" thread,
from The National Archives, reference DEFE 24/1940/1.

There's been some discussion over what level of examination was used in reviewing the 6 photos, the fact is we don't know.
To me, "...established..." implies a positive identification, remembering this is being passed to a government minister, but again we don't know. And senior politicians are sometimes provided with incorrect information!
The identification of a second aircraft- not mentioned by the (claimed) witnesses- is interesting if they are responsible for a faked jet. It is also frustrating for us, as it reveals that at least 1 photo contained additional information that we don't have.

 

[Scaramanga]

FIRST PAGE yet again. That's why I asked you to re-read the thread. You are wasting everyone's time

Why do you consistently feel the need to use this aggressive ad hominem ? You are not even directly responding to the points I am making. Nowhere have you actually responded to the points I raised... and nothing that I have said in the post you profess to be responding to warrants your response...which is all the more out of place given that I was attempting to go along with the reflection theory.

 

[Mendel]

Why do you consistently feel the need to use this aggressive ad hominem ?

because you consistently bring up points you label as new or "ignored" that have been discussed before, and that annoys me

Nowhere have you actually responded to the points I raised...

I responded to 1 point.
I'm not going to put 5 times as much work in my response than you did in your post, only for you to ignore it.

 

[PublicStranger]

Strangely enough that never occurred to me, and from what I can see no-one responded to this. Yet it is true.

Would be true, but flipping the reflection resolves this. I think it's already been discussed.

 

[Giddierone]

As a reference Andrew Robinson's analysis of the photo, which includes many of the points raised in this thread, (particularly pp.16, 21-22), is here:

https://shura.shu.ac.uk/34877/1/Robinson-PhotographicAnalysisVersion5(VoR).pdf

 

[NoParty]

As a reference Andrew Robinson's analysis of the photo, which includes many of the points raised in this thread, (particularly pp.16, 21-22), is here:

https://shura.shu.ac.uk/34877/1/Robinson-PhotographicAnalysisVersion5(VoR).pdf

Wow! Robinson says sooooooooooooo much! (and he's pretty damned dismissive of the reflection hypothesis)

 

[Andreas]

Yes, you're right, it's hardly an insurmountable problem. -And if the possible plane is a model, it could be stuck on top of a length of stiff wire, the other end pushed into the mud.
I'm still not sure about a rock (or whatever it is, the UFO) being reflected in what must be calm water while the above water portion of the "plane" isn't- though I liked your (Andreas') graphic demonstrating your theory about the underwater wing.
But if the photo is of a reflected rock and a model jet, why have the nearer wing of the jet underwater?

The reference to a second jet comes from a minute, dated 14 September 1990, sent from D Sec (AS)12/2, a (UK) Royal Air Force /Ministry of Defence department, to the Assistant Private Secretary (a civil servant) for the Under Secretary of State (Air Force), a government junior minister.
@jackfrostvc usefully downloaded the relevant documents as seen in this post in the "Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo" thread,
from The National Archives, reference DEFE 24/1940/1.

View attachment 77356

There's been some discussion over what level of examination was used in reviewing the 6 photos, the fact is we don't know.
To me, "...established..." implies a positive identification, remembering this is being passed to a government minister, but again we don't know. And senior politicians are sometimes provided with incorrect information!
The identification of a second aircraft- not mentioned by the (claimed) witnesses- is interesting if they are responsible for a faked jet. It is also frustrating for us, as it reveals that at least 1 photo contained additional information that we don't have.

It's possible that keeping the model aircraft level in the water was difficult. And as you mentioned earlier, the Harrier has an anhedral wing design, meaning it wouldn't take much for a wing to become partially submerged.

If the story about the additional photos is correct and they show an aircraft passing from right to left, the hoaxers would have had to move the model several times, risking it not being perfectly aligned with the water at some point. Another possibility is that a fishing line was attached to the model, allowing it to be moved remotely from the shore. Using this method, controlling the exact angle of the model would have been even more challenging.

Nothing about this suggests an especially elaborate or well-prepared hoax—rather, it seems like a simple prank designed to fool the local newspaper. To my knowledge, the photographer made no money from the story, and it wasn't even published at the time.

Interestingly, the photographer apparently handed over the negatives, meaning all the photos had to be "good enough." It would have been impossible to remove one just because it wasn't 100% perfect. As always in these cases, examining all the negatives—not just the ones showing the mysterious craft—would have been crucial. Were these the first pictures taken? Was the reason no more photos were taken simply that the photographer ran out of film? Are there pictures from the hiking trip?

Sadly, we will probably never know—unless the photographer comes forward.

 

[Andreas]

As a reference Andrew Robinson's analysis of the photo, which includes many of the points raised in this thread, (particularly pp.16, 21-22), is here:

https://shura.shu.ac.uk/34877/1/Robinson-PhotographicAnalysisVersion5(VoR).pdf

Yeah, but the "analysis" seems highly biased. He draws conclusions without any hard evidence, doesn't he? He claims to see trees and hills and can even determine the distance from the camera. Sure, it could be hills—or just as easily rocks on a waterfront, stains on the negative, or a combination of all these factors. We all tend to see what we want to see.

I mean, no one can convince me that it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the "jet" shows signs of lateral movement. It's just a blurry spot that somewhat resembles the silhouette of a Harrier. Even calling the small object a "jet" is problematic because that assumes it is actually a jet rather than just some clutter, a nearby object, or even a model.

Just because someone writes a lengthy document analyzing a picture doesn't necessarily make the conclusion any more reliable.

 

[Scaramanga]

because you consistently bring up points you label as new or "ignored" that have been discussed before, and that annoys me

No....you are totally out of order and have been for a number of posts in which ad hominem seems to have replaced rational response.

Nobody is going to read through 23 pages of posts to see if one specific post was ever directly responded to ( which in fact it never directly was ) ...and do that for every single issue everyone ever raises. Being 'annoyed' is no justification for the sort of snarky ad hominem I've encountered...all the more so as it means you never actually responded to the point I made.

I understand people getting annoyed, but you need to understand that I equally am too...as I do feel that issues I've raised have just been glossed over. I would not need to keep raising them if they were properly responded to.

 

[Scaramanga]

Yeah, but the "analysis" seems highly biased. He draws conclusions without any hard evidence, doesn't he? He claims to see trees and hills and can even determine the distance from the camera. Sure, it could be hills—or just as easily rocks on a waterfront, stains on the negative, or a combination of all these factors. We all tend to see what we want to see.

If we all see what we want to see then why even discuss this or any other matter...as no-one's 'highly biased' opinion is of any more worth than anyone else's.

Surely we are in the business of deciding probability. What is more likely to be the explanation. After all, the ONLY reason we are considering that it is not a craft from Beta Reticuli is not that that's impossible....but that it is highly unlikely. So we are already assigning probability...so lets go all the way !

Thus we get round the bias ( that everyone has ) by assigning probability to the various theories. Even biased people can ascertain that one explanation is more likely to be the cause than another.

And surely we weight that probability according to how many counter-points each theory has against it. And that is all I have been doing in this thread...even if it ( annoyingly ) means re-raising prior points again.....generally making the point that there are more possible objections to the 'refection' theory than there are to the 'direct view' theory.

In the end...that is all one can do !

 

[JMartJr]

Andrew Robinson's analysis of the photo, which includes many of the points raised in this thread, (particularly pp.16, 21-22), is here

Including relevant points here would be useful -- with the understanding that pulling relevant bits from a report that runs at least 22 pages might make for a long post!

 

[Scaramanga]

Including relevant points here would be useful -- with the understanding that pulling relevant bits from a report that runs at least 22 pages might make for a long post!

Relevant points would form a sort of tree-like structure, because there are dependencies between points. That's half the issue here...that people can be arguing completely different branches of the tree, and sub-branches, and so on....even within a specific theory. For example some believe the reflection is right way up...some believe it is upside down.

There is probably a tool for this somewhere. It would make all the discussion very much easier to follow in the form of a single diagram with nodes people can point to, like a family tree of points. The crucial thing for any theory is the dependencies...as that is all one really needs as the spine of any theory.

 

[Mauro]

That's half the issue here...that people can be arguing completely different branches of the tree, and sub-branches, and so on....even within a specific theory. For example some believe the reflection is right way up...some believe it is upside down.

But this holds for the hoax hypothesis too, ie. someone argues it was models hanging from strings, others that it was a photo of a photo. Hoax vs. reflection score even here.

 

[Ann K]

Including relevant points here would be useful -- with the understanding that pulling relevant bits from a report that runs at least 22 pages might make for a long post!

The relevant point (singular) is that one for which he IS qualified to comment. The short version is that it's not a manipulated photo, as ascertained by grain size of the image. What he thinks he can identify is not evidence.

 

[Giddierone]

Including relevant points here would be useful

I included page numbers so you don't have to consider the whole document. It's also not an endorsement of Robinson's analysis—as if that needed to be said out loud.

 

[NorCal Dave]

As a reference Andrew Robinson's analysis of the photo, which includes many of the points raised in this thread, (particularly pp.16, 21-22), is here:

https://shura.shu.ac.uk/34877/1/Robinson-PhotographicAnalysisVersion5(VoR).pdf

Yeah, but....

He back tracks on some of this report in the YouTube interview. It's in the main page, I'll go look for it in a bit. In the report he makes a big deal about the photo being originally taken with Ilford XP, a specialized B&W film for B&W photography enthusiast that could be developed at a local photo shop with their color developing equipment. By the '90s color photography was so popular that getting B&W film developed was difficult or a home brew job. Ilford XP fixed this by being able to be developed in the common color equipment.

Robinson makes much of the fine grain in the photograph claiming it was shot on XP, but the print was made on Kodak color paper. Thus, the slight hue we see. HOWEVER, in the YouTube interview he backtracks and says the grain wasn't nearly as fine as he first thought and it was shot on plain B&W film stock, not Ilford XP. So, I take what he says in his report with a grain or two of salt. He changed his mind.

In addition, we have 3 pieces of primary evidence from the time: the photo, the handwritten notes from the MoD and the summery from the MoD. The photo is B&W printed on color paper. But both MoD documents state there were 6 COLOR negatives/photos, so we have a discrepancy.

IF Linsday's account is reasonably accurate, he says this print was made for him by the Daily Mail from the negatives they had in their possession at the time. And we know that the newspaper published both color and B&W photos at the time.

I have suggested that it's likely the Daily Mail's photo department made copies of the original in both color and B&W for possible publication. When Linsday requested a copy, they gave him a B&W one made from the original color negatives. It seems likely the paper would have made B&W copies, and it reconciles the photo with the MoD documents.

We are looking at a photo of a photo. It is a B&W copy made from a color original. As such, much of Robinson's claims about the grain patterns and such don't mean much in reference to the original. Not only does he rule out a reflection, but he also rules out any manipulation due to the grain patterns. If this is already a photo of a photo, it's hard to say the original isn't also a photo of a photo, or a composited image.

Again, all of this info is in this, and the other threads and I can go find it if needed.

 

[Giddierone]

Yeah, but....

But, no, but...
I think this all goes in one of the many other threads. I was simply pointing out that he'd made an attempt to address the reflection hyp and mentions the possible trees seen in the lower left—on the page numbers indicated. Again, not an endorsement.

 

[Scaramanga]

But this holds for the hoax hypothesis too, ie. someone argues it was models hanging from strings, others that it was a photo of a photo. Hoax vs. reflection score even here.

Well...we have...

NOT HOAX....

1) It's a genuine craft from Beta Reticuli
2) It's a genuine craft from Earth....e.g some new secret design.
3) It's a mis-identified object from Earth...a real object ( like a kite ) but simply appearing oddly.

INTERMEDIATE ( That is to say the 'object' is not hoaxed at all...but the interpretation is )

4) It's some sort of camera/film defect. The photo itself is not deliberately hoaxed...but the interpretation of it is.
5) Some variants of the reflection theory.

HOAX ( Deliberately set up to deceive...not an accidental photo that is later misconstrued )

6) It's a right way up reflection on a pool/lake.
7) It's a wrong way up reflection on a pool/lake.
8) It's a cheap model hanging from a thread.
9) It's a manipulated photo of a photo.


There are probably more one can come up with. I tend towards (9) and (4). I think (9) is the easiest hoax to pull off ( I even gave an example created in 5 minutes ). I think (6) and (7) are harder and have 'doesn't quite fit' issues.

 

[Scaramanga]

I have suggested that it's likely the Daily Mail's photo department made copies of the original in both color and B&W for possible publication. When Linsday requested a copy, they gave him a B&W one made from the original color negatives. It seems likely the paper would have made B&W copies, and it reconciles the photo with the MoD documents.

We are looking at a photo of a photo. It is a B&W copy made from a color original. As such, much of Robinson's claims about the grain patterns and such don't mean much in reference to the original. Not only does he rule out a reflection, but he also rules out any manipulation due to t

Maybe I am seeing things....but isn't the photo that Craig Lindsay is holding in this Guardian article the 'original' colour photo ? It does look a bit coloured to me....

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

( The compressed AVIF to JPG version below does not do justice to the version in the paper itself )....

 

[NorCal Dave]

Maybe I am seeing things....but isn't the photo that Craig Lindsay is holding in this Guardian article the 'original' colour photo ? It does look a bit coloured to me....

That is the same photo everyone has been looking at and using in these threads, or at least a high-res scan of it. It's the only photo there is.

Again, according to Robinson, and this part seems accurate, it's printed on Kodak color paper. But according to him it's from a B&W negative. The color paper creates the suable hues we see and the rest of the image certainly looks B&W. If it's a color print from a color negative, then it's washed out to the point of being almost completely colorless. The obvious question becomes "Why print a B&W on color paper?". Don't know, maybe it's just what they had handy when Linsday asked for a copy. Giving him a B&W copy would make sense if they knew he was going to fax it to London. Faxes are all grey tones, so start off with a B&W photo.

Whether this has any bearing on it being a reflection or not is questionable, but I think it's important for any theory to have an idea of what the original photo is. I believe it's likely the photo is a copy, or photo of the original photo, and so, is degraded somewhat as any 2nd or 3rd generation analog copy would be.

 

[JMartJr]

NOT HOAX....

1) It's a genuine craft from Beta Reticuli
2) It's a genuine craft from Earth....e.g some new secret design.
3) It's a mis-identified object from Earth...a real object ( like a kite ) but simply appearing oddly.

INTERMEDIATE ( That is to say the 'object' is not hoaxed at all...but the interpretation is )

4) It's some sort of camera/film defect. The photo itself is not deliberately hoaxed...but the interpretation of it is.
5) Some variants of the reflection theory.

HOAX ( Deliberately set up to deceive...not an accidental photo that is later misconstrued )

6) It's a right way up reflection on a pool/lake.
7) It's a wrong way up reflection on a pool/lake.
8) It's a cheap model hanging from a thread.
9) It's a manipulated photo of a photo.

Put me down for 8, that seems to have been the first thing folks thought of when they wanted to make a fake UFO picture in those dim days of yore before PhotoShop, with the proviso that it need not be a CHEAP model, could be one of them high dollar Christmas ornaments, I suppose. 9 is certainly possible. 3 seems unlikely, especially if "kite" is the prime contender -- it is sort of kite shaped, but I'd bet large sums of money that it is not a kite. But I'd not rule out "balloon" or something -- and note that could fit under the HOAX category as well, in the sense of "Ha, that weird balloon we saw looks just like a big UFO with that distant Jet chasing it, we should tell everybody we saw a flyning saucer! Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck!"

 

[Ann K]

Well...we have...

NOT HOAX....

1) It's a genuine craft from Beta Reticuli
2) It's a genuine craft from Earth....e.g some new secret design.
3) It's a mis-identified object from Earth...a real object ( like a kite ) but simply appearing oddly.

INTERMEDIATE ( That is to say the 'object' is not hoaxed at all...but the interpretation is )

4) It's some sort of camera/film defect. The photo itself is not deliberately hoaxed...but the interpretation of it is.
5) Some variants of the reflection theory.

HOAX ( Deliberately set up to deceive...not an accidental photo that is later misconstrued )

6) It's a right way up reflection on a pool/lake.
7) It's a wrong way up reflection on a pool/lake.
8) It's a cheap model hanging from a thread.
9) It's a manipulated photo of a photo.


There are probably more one can come up with. I tend towards (9) and (4). I think (9) is the easiest hoax to pull off ( I even gave an example created in 5 minutes ). I think (6) and (7) are harder and have 'doesn't quite fit' issues.

Oh, are we voting? I'm for 3 and 4(b), not the "defect" part, but the "interpretation" part.

 

[John J.]

Just some musings- I don't think they have a direct bearing on whether the picture is a reflection or not.

I was playing about with a cut-out paper triangle stuck on a fair-sized mirror.
The top half of the diamond in the Calvine photo is very roughly symmetrical with the lower half (midpoint to apex height is approximately the same as midpoint to nadir depth).
If the picture is a reflection, it seems likely that
(1) the surface of the triangle facing us is is roughly perpendicular to the water; or
(2) the photo was taken at a relatively shallow angle. (Or both 1 and 2).
(If the mirror is held with the near edge just below eye level and the far edge angled up slightly, the triangle and its reflection appear to make a symmetrical diamond regardless of whether the triangle is perpendicular to the mirror, is angled towards the observer or angled away from the observer).

If the photo was taken at a shallow angle, we are "seeing" further away towards the top of the picture (when it's the right way up, whichever that is). We don't see a far "shoreline", so it's either a fairly substantial body of water, or quite misty.


(Thinking about it, most of you probably didn't need my picture of a triangle with a folding tab to be stuck on a mirror!)

I'd worked out an elaborate trigonometric proof, but to my surprise a small dog ran in, grabbed it and ran away.

Another possibility is that a fishing line was attached to the model, allowing it to be moved remotely from the shore. Using this method, controlling the exact angle of the model would have been even more challenging.

Yes, I agree- and if the model is partly in the water, the photographer would have to wait for any ripples to subside, and hope no leaf litter/ pond skaters/ midges entered the frame in the interim.

Nothing about this suggests an especially elaborate or well-prepared hoax—rather, it seems like a simple prank designed to fool the local newspaper.

Nit-picking a bit, The Daily Record was Scotland's best-selling daily newspaper (6 days a week) between 1974 and 2006; it's a national (within Scotland) not a local paper, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Record_(Scotland).
I agree the picture is probably a hoax.
Whatever effort was put into it, we've got three major threads, this one currently at 23 pages/ 920 posts, and we (collectively) can't even agree what side is up, if there's a jet present, or if we're looking at sky or water! So it's a reasonably effective hoax (IMO ).

The fact that there were six original negatives, not our one picture of a picture, which were at least looked at by RAF / MoD personnel who identified a second jet, "...probably a Harrier" which was not mentioned by the (claimed) witnesses might indicate a fairly sophisticated hoax.