Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

[Giddierone]

(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!)

No, I think this has pushed me over the edge...

 

[FatPhil]

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.

I let the first one pass, but now you've repeated it you need correcting.

@Mendel is making a criticism of your approach towards contributing to this thread, specifically in that you appear to not have read it all, and then you make posts in ignorance of what has come before.
That is *not* an /ad hominem/. An /ad hominem/ is the making an inference (to the negative) about the validity of an argument based on a (perceived negative) property of the person presenting that argument.
That has not happened.

 

[Scaramanga]

@Mendel is making a criticism of your approach towards contributing to this thread, specifically in that you appear to not have read it all, and then you make posts in ignorance of what has come before.
That is *not* an /ad hominem/. An /ad hominem/ is the making an inference (to the negative) about the validity of an argument based on a (perceived negative) property of the person presenting that argument.
That has not happened.

Oh come off it. No-one's going to read through 900 posts every single time they think of a new perspective on the matter. And on top of that, I had specifically raised two issues that had NOT been referred to early on or in Mendel's 'read this' reference....which maybe he'd have got to if he hadn't been so eager to hastily type a snarky response just a few minutes later.

Failing to fully read what someone has actually said in a post ( very ironic for someone who wants me to read the entire thread !) and instead launching a tirade against someone is ad hominem. It is inventing an 'approach' by me to the thread that simply isn't true...and is attacking me rather than the points I made.

The bulk of my post that was responded to in such manner never actually got responded to...and I'm the one ignoring stuff ??

 

[Mauro]

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.

I'd rather stop to say it's a "fact" there were more than one pictures. The only fact we have is someone said that, but noone has ever seen those pictures, and one cannot argue from evidence he does not have.

 

[Scaramanga]

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).

The UFO looks like it is slightly tilted.....but in fact in is the photo that is tilted, by an amount roughly equal to the apparent tilt of the UFO. It seems the photo was stuck on a white background at a slightly tilted angle and that's been photographed again.

This would mean the UFO was actually totally level and not tilted....which counters one of the objections to the reflection/mirror theory.

I also note that whilst the UFO is not completely 'central' in the photo, the centre of the UFO is exactly on one of the diagonals of the photo....

 

[Giddierone]

but noone has ever seen those pictures,

IIRC there's a guy who spoke on a podcast a couple of years ago who claims to have seen all 6 images, and describes the jet/or two in various positions moving right to left. I think the podcast is mentioned in one of the other threads — I don't recall his name. (and yes, a guy who said something is not evidence).

 

[JMartJr]

IIRC there's a guy who spoke on a podcast a couple of years ago who claims to have seen all 6 images, and describes the jet/or two in various positions moving right to left.

Yet another reason to wish we had those other photos (and to ponder how convenient it is that we do not, from the point of view of a possible hoaxster.)

It would be interesting to compare how much the "jet(s)" cross the frame, when compared to the speed of a jet and the speed at which individual frames could be taken with the equipment (winding film to the next frame is not instantaneous!)

 

[Giddierone]

So, to try and explain the image in #921 with this rough mirror simulation. It's a hybrid reflection + thing on string hypothesis.
If the observer frames the photo looking down at a mirrored surface (a puddle or water trough perhaps) then it seems possible that the branch, UFO, jet, and fence can all be in the same plane (i'm holding the UFO directly above the toy fence). So, the actual scene, looking directly at these objects would be very different with the distant hills (Bose speaker) appearing well above the fence.
Why use a reflection? It helps mask any wires used to suspend the UFO and Jet, and gives the illusion of distance from the observer. If someone is going to go the trouble of hanging up models to hoax a UFO photo, then why not also photograph it all via a reflection?
As you can see this solves the problem of the shadow appearing upside down on the UFO. It's not on the reflected surface itself, but is suspended, and the darker lower portion is it's own less illuminated underside. (I used a square of paper with a single fold, which when held at a particular angle appears diamond shaped. The variation in the tone of it's shadow is an illusion caused by smudges on the mirrored surface).

 

[Andreas]

Yet another reason to wish we had those other photos (and to ponder how convenient it is that we do not, from the point of view of a possible hoaxster.)

It would be interesting to compare how much the "jet(s)" cross the frame, when compared to the speed of a jet and the speed at which individual frames could be taken with the equipment (winding film to the next frame is not instantaneous!)

Good point! It should be possible to estimate how long it would take for a Harrier to pass through the area seen in the picture. Given the apparent distance, capturing six photos in such a short time seems questionable. But then again, we don't know what type of camera was used.

Most importantly, if we accept the description of the additional photos—showing a stationary "UFO" and a jet flying from right to left—then I'd say that's the single biggest giveaway of a hoax. Think about it: You see a giant UFO, but you wait until a jet approaches before taking any pictures? Then you snap six shots of the jet passing by, and those are the only pictures you take? That doesn't sound very plausible—it sounds more like someone trying to create the illusion of a jet intercepting a UFO.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

View attachment 77352

View attachment 77353

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.

The horizon is not below the fence in your photo. Cropping the horizon out and pretending it's not above the fence does not make it so.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Think about it: You see a giant UFO, but you wait until a jet approaches before taking any pictures? Then you snap six shots of the jet passing by, and those are the only pictures you take? That doesn't sound very plausible—it sounds more like someone trying to create the illusion of a jet intercepting a UFO.

And the jet with UFO photo was a thing at the time. The counter argument is that they supposedly stumbled upon this UFO while it was being escorted by the jets. The jets were a consistent part of the scene as they were buzzing around the object. This is basically Clark's argument, just that it's a classified US craft of some kind, instead of a UFO being escorted by the jets. Not saying I'm buying that, just offering the argument.

I'd rather stop to say it's a "fact" there were more than one pictures. The only fact we have is someone said that, but noone has ever seen those pictures, and one cannot argue from evidence he does not have.

There are actually 2 MoD documents that state a number of, or 6 photos. The original handwritten one and the MoD summery notes:

But no, it appears they have not been seen since they were returned to the Daily Mail.

IIRC there's a guy who spoke on a podcast a couple of years ago who claims to have seen all 6 images, and describes the jet/or two in various positions moving right to left. I think the podcast is mentioned in one of the other threads — I don't recall his name. (and yes, a guy who said something is not evidence).

I believe the guy was named Stuart Little, yes like the mouse, and he claims to have seen the photos in Daily Mail's photo department IIRC. By his own admission he only spent about 15 minutes viewing them and he was recalling an event from 30+ years ago. While one could argue he was reenforcing what the MoD summery said about 6 photos with jets, he also doesn't really say anything that's not already in the MoD summery. He didn't talk about this until after the MoD documents were public knowledge. Maybe he saw the real photos and has an excellent memory, or maybe he's confabulating a different event(s) with the publicly available information in the MoD summery.

It's a hybrid reflection + thing on string hypothesis.

That's an interesting take. I've never been a big fan of the reflection theory; the photo is to compose WITH a low flying jet on a training maneuver that just happens by at the right time in the right spot. However, the actual craft has always seemed a strange shape. What was it supposed to be? It's obviously not a saucer and while there were vaguely triangular shaped advanced aircraft at the time, none of them look like a symmetrical diamond. If one wanted to fake an advanced aircraft or even a UFO, there are other more convincing shapes to use. So, I could see where the craft itself is some sort of lucky reflection, that the hoaxer thought looked UFOish enough to composite it and a jet(s) into the final photo we have now.

 

[Andreas]

The horizon is not below the fence in your photo. Cropping the horizon out and pretending it's not above the fence does not make it so.

It's also worth pointing out that we can't be certain there's a visible horizon behind the fence. The image quality is far too poor and grainy. When increasing the contrast, it seems reasonable to assume that what we're seeing is some kind of wiring running between the black "spots" on the upper wire and the areas some interpret as trees. Could these spots possibly be insulators or some other parts of the electric fence?

 

[Ann K]

It would be interesting to compare how much the "jet(s)" cross the frame, when compared to the speed of a jet and the speed at which individual frames could be taken with the equipment (winding film to the next frame is not instantaneous!)

I recall a discussion (way back in the twilight zone) concerning groups of pilots using those long lochs as a place to practice low-altitude flight. I don't think we have to assume it was the same plane in each of several (reported) photos. Indeed, if there were several planes, it would be natural for a photographer to be prepared to take photos of each in turn, not knowing which plane image might be blurry or in a poor position.

 

[FatPhil]

Oh come off it. No-one's going to read through 900 posts every single time they think of a new perspective on the matter.

Irrelevant to my point.

 

[Andreas]

And the jet with UFO photo was a thing at the time. The counter argument is that they supposedly stumbled upon this UFO while it was being escorted by the jets. The jets were a consistent part of the scene as they were buzzing around the object. This is basically Clark's argument, just that it's a classified US craft of some kind, instead of a UFO being escorted by the jets. Not saying I'm buying that, just offering the argument.

True! But there's a problem with this explanation. If the description of the additional pictures is accurate, they supposedly show a jet passing from right to left. I take this to mean it's the same plane seen in all the photos (except for a possible second plane). If that's the case, then all the pictures must have been taken within a few seconds, regardless of how long the plane may have circled the object. Why is that? The alleged sighting lasted much longer, yet every photo is said to show the "UFO" from the exact same angle.

 

[Matt33]

Could these spots possibly be insulators or some other parts of the electric fence?

View attachment 77399

You can walk around a lot via Street View in that area, and there are lots of fences. The spots are probably wire tighteners.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's also worth pointing out that we can't be certain there's a visible horizon behind the fence. The image quality is far too poor and grainy. When increasing the contrast, it seems reasonable to assume that what we're seeing is some kind of wiring running between the black "spots" on the upper wire and the areas some interpret as trees. Could these spots possibly be insulators or some other parts of the electric fence?

View attachment 77399

Robinson's analysis certainly presents it as a visible horizon.

However he also says, when considering the reflection hypothesis:

If the image was taken at eye level, then we should see a reflection of the landscape beyond the fence rising above it in the 'reflection' unless the lake were on high ground with no higher land present.

But he doesn't seem to think it odd that we don't see any landscape rising above the fence if it's not a reflection - even though the effective "eyeline" for a reflection would be the surface of the lake, and so would require even higher ground in order to appear above the fence!

Even though he goes on to say...

The ground level at An Teampan is fairly level either side of the fence or rises as one moves away from the fence and under the overhanging trees. To date investigations have not been able to locate a camera position looking UPHILL towards a sheep fence from under overhanging trees.

And for anyone interested in more details of the possible location, see my post here and the previous one, in the other thread.

 

[NorCal Dave]

True! But there's a problem with this explanation. If the description of the additional pictures is accurate, they supposedly show a jet passing from right to left. I take this to mean it's the same plane seen in all the photos (except for a possible second plane). If that's the case, then all the pictures must have been taken within a few seconds, regardless of how long the plane may have circled the object. Why is that? The alleged sighting lasted much longer, yet every photo is said to show the "UFO" from the exact same angle.

The UFO supposedly stays in the same place because it was hovering before shooting up into the sky. The bigger problem I see is the complete lack of motion blur anywhere in the photo. It's possible with a very fast shutter speed. The photo was supposedly taken 9/4/1990 at ~9:00pm, so there could be enough light for a very fast shutter:

That assumes there is any validity to the original story, which I doubt. The photo looks like it's overcast or misty, meaning a lower level of available light. Even slower moving aircraft like a C130 photographed at the Mach Loop can show some motion blur in the background as the plane is followed:

Though with a fast enough shutter both a fast-moving aircraft and the ground can be in focus:

In the Calvine photo, the whole thing is vaguely out of focus, but there is no apparent motion blur on the foreground trees and fence, the UFO or the aircraft. The camera, at least for this one photo we have, appears to be still with the fence and tree nicely framing the UFO. The aircraft is also out of focus, but doesn't seem to be motion blurred. If the camera was following the aircraft, the foreground would certainly be blurred, as it's not, I'd argue the camera is more or less stationary and the aircraft is flying through the scene. Which I think means the camera has to be using a pretty fast shutter to capture the aircraft without motion blur. That raises the question was there enough light available for a fast shutter on what looks like a gloomy day?

When I really look at the photo, the UFO is just to composed, almost exactly between the fence and tree. Even if we allow for cropping, the relationship is just too good for a random reflection, that ALSO happens to have 2 lanes, above or below the UFO for an aircraft to buzz through. AND it just so happened that an aircraft DID buzz by in one of those lanes on a perfectly calm day while also being light enough to use a fast shutter. It seems to be asking a lot.

I know the argument: This person was familiar with the low-level training areas, then found this unique reflection of a rock and possibly the tree and fence are also part of the reflection, then they found the spot where the reflected rock lines up almost exactly between the tree and fence and the low-level aircraft would also reflect in the desired area. Having found this, they headed out on a training day, assuming there was notification for this training, and waited by the pond for just the right shot or 2, or 6.

Conversely, they may or may not have known about low-level training but stumbled upon this almost perfectly composed scene of a reflected rock between a tree and fence and just lucked out that a low-level aircraft also got in the reflection. I suppose.

IF some of the photo is a reflection, I'm not convinced the entire thing is. I still think something is composited or there is some trickery going on. I think I made a decent case that this is a 2nd or 3rd generation analog copy we are looking at. It's possible the original reveled some signs of manipulation, such that the Daily Mail never ran them. And it appears the original photographer never asked for the negatives to be returned. If it was series of cool reflection shots, even if he tried to pass them off as a UFO and nobody bought the story, they're still cool shots. Why not get them back? Just speculating, but if he tried to pass off manipulated photos as genuine, maybe he already had other versions of them and didn't need the ones he sent to the Daily Mail or was embarrassed about the whole thing and just moved on.

 

[Scaramanga]

The horizon is not below the fence in your photo. Cropping the horizon out and pretending it's not above the fence does not make it so.

Yet again I have to ask...where did I mention 'the horizon' ? Why do people keep on injecting a straw man of 'the horizon' when I never said the distant ridgeline and trees visible through the fence was 'the horizon' ?

I removed 'the horizon' from the cropped image because it wasn't relevant to the point that was making....namely that there are ridges and trees visible below the top of the fence. I'm not the one who keeps thinking that those distant ridges can only be 'the horizon'. They clearly are not.

 

[Scaramanga]

It's also worth pointing out that we can't be certain there's a visible horizon behind the fence.

Once again the assumption that its being claimed the view seen through the fence is 'the horizon'. No...I don't think anyone arguing that its the real ( not reflected ) sky in the photo thinks the actual physical horizon is below the fence line. I'd probably place the actual horizon, at a guess, at about twice the visible height of the fence...above that fence.

What's being argued is simply that the view seen through the fence is distant hills, trees, etc....probably 10 or 15 degrees below the horizon.

 

[Minus0]

The photo was supposedly taken 9/4/1990 at ~9:00pm

I missed it was supposedly taken at 9pm. That would confirm the lighting on clouds is inverted from normal daytime hours so a reflection would not have to be flipped. Sunset clouds are lighter at the bottom, darker on the top. For what it's worth

 

[Scaramanga]

IF some of the photo is a reflection

If the photo is a reflection then why does the 'water' look like it is a flat plane perpendicular to the line of view ( i.e like the sky ) rather than looking like a plane at an angle to the line of view ? There is no sense in which the upper part of the photo, which must be a reflection from further away, looks further away. The entire image looks like it is in the same plane. There is zero sense of perspective.

No matter how hard I look at the photo....my brain just does not click 'reflection'. Part of that is the vertical extent of the alleged reflection, part is the lack of perspective, but mainly my brain cannot wrap itself round the entire photo being a reflection. It just doesn't look like one if one pays attention to the entire image....something is wrong about it.

EDIT : Notice the perspective in the clouds in post https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/post-337279

...there is none of that in the Calvine photo, in fact the entire photo lacks perspective.

 

[Scaramanga]

I missed it was supposedly taken at 9pm. That would confirm the lighting on clouds is inverted from normal daytime hours so a reflection would not have to be flipped. Sunset clouds are lighter at the bottom, darker on the top. For what it's worth

Except there is zero evidence the sun is actually shining anywhere in the Calvine photo. The entire sky that we visibly see is overcast and there's no evidence of sun on the UFO or the Harrier or indeed anything else...that would make one side brighter than another.

EDIT : And its worth adding that if we don't know where the photo was taken then we equally don't know when the photo was taken, either date or timewise.

 

[Andreas]

Once again the assumption that its being claimed the view seen through the fence is 'the horizon'. No...I don't think anyone arguing that its the real ( not reflected ) sky in the photo thinks the actual physical horizon is below the fence line. I'd probably place the actual horizon, at a guess, at about twice the visible height of the fence...above that fence.

What's being argued is simply that the view seen through the fence is distant hills, trees, etc....probably 10 or 15 degrees below the horizon.

Okay, just to make sure I understand you correctly: The horizon is somewhere well above the fence, but it's not visible due to weather conditions, fog, or some other obscuring factor? And the features we see through the fence are actually nearby hills? That's possible, and it highlights the main issue with this picture—it's difficult to say anything with certainty. The quality isn't as good as it's often claimed to be, and there are very few identifiable landmarks. In many ways, the backdrop is a prankster's dream.

 

[Andreas]

Except there is zero evidence the sun is actually shining anywhere in the Calvine photo. The entire sky that we visibly see is overcast and there's no evidence of sun on the UFO or the Harrier or indeed anything else...that would make one side brighter than another.

A lot of things are unclear, but if the backstory is correct, the photo was taken at sunset, which would have been around 9 PM. If it's a plane, one wing appears bright while the other is dark, which could suggest sunlight. Personally, I don't think it's an actual fighter jet, but if it is, it's worth noting that the Harrier has an anhedral wing design—indicating that the light source is coming from the direction of the photographer. That said, I think the entire story about when, where, and by whom this picture was taken should be taken with a grain of salt. Consequently, the photo could have been taken at midday—we just can't say for sure.

 

[Andreas]

I missed it was supposedly taken at 9pm. That would confirm the lighting on clouds is inverted from normal daytime hours so a reflection would not have to be flipped. Sunset clouds are lighter at the bottom, darker on the top. For what it's worth

Yeah, that's an interesting observation, and I'm not entirely convinced we can say anything definitive about the clouds.

In this image, we can compare the "clouds" as they appear in the original photo with an upside-down version of the same image. I've removed the "UFO" and "jet" to make it easier to focus entirely on the cloud pattern. First, we need to acknowledge that the clouds are barely visible in the original picture. To analyze them, we have to significantly increase the contrast and adjust various settings.

I've done my best to enhance the image without using AI or other tools that could introduce elements that aren't actually present. However, the dark (almost black) areas are clearly exaggerated, and some are simply artifacts. The black area on the far right is one such example—it's difficult to distinguish between clouds and potential clutter, stains, scratches, or even a possible waterbed visible in shallow water.

My conclusion is that it's simply not possible to determine whether the clouds are upside down or not. In fact, it's difficult to say with certainty whether the irregular pattern represents clouds at all or if it's a combination of reflections, shadows, stains, and ripples in the water. As a result, an analysis of the image itself doesn't rule out a "non-flipped" reflection.

 

[Scaramanga]

Okay, just to make sure I understand you correctly: The horizon is somewhere well above the fence, but it's not visible due to weather conditions, fog, or some other obscuring factor? And the features we see through the fence are actually nearby hills?

Yes indeed...that's what I've been saying all along.

 

[Scaramanga]

My conclusion is that it's simply not possible to determine whether the clouds are upside down or not

I beg to differ. A different enhancement that I did clearly shows the clouds dark at the bottom, and there is at least a vague sense of cumulus shape with the clouds narrowing with altitude. You can see one such cumulus just below the Harrier and another to the right of the UFO. And the cloud over on the far left has a dark base and narrows as one goes up. To me it could not be clearer that this is the right way up....

That would mean that if its a reflection its not a photo of a direct reflection but that the reflection itself is upside down.

 

[Andreas]

Yes indeed...that's what I've been saying all along.

That makes sense, and I see what you mean. But on the other hand, since no horizon is visible, it doesn't contradict the reflection theory. After studying this picture for way too long, I've come to the conclusion that it can't be definitively debunked. It's most likely a hoax, but the lack of quality and information makes it impossible to analyze in a meaningful way.

Can this picture be replicated? Absolutely. Does that prove it's not an alien craft? Obviously not. Yet again, a blurry picture with a dubious backstory is presented to believers, but it's by no means proof of extraterrestrial life on Earth.

It's frustrating because I'd love to find that stone in some local body of water or a piece of camping equipment that matches the object. But honestly, I think that will be impossible. The only real hope is that the photographer comes forward and tells the full story.

 

[Andreas]

I beg to differ. A different enhancement that I did clearly shows the clouds dark at the bottom, and there is at least a vague sense of cumulus shape with the clouds narrowing with altitude. You can see one such cumulus just below the Harrier and another to the right of the UFO. And the cloud over on the far left has a dark base and narrows as one goes up. To me it could not be clearer that this is the right way up....

That would mean that if its a reflection its not a photo of a direct reflection but that the reflection itself is upside down.

View attachment 77430

I'm not entirely sure about this. The dark area to the right seems to be an artifact rather than part of the actual "cloud pattern." Some might argue that this area represents the seabed, but whether we can truly see cumulus clouds is open to interpretation.

That said, I'm not saying you're wrong—far from it. The challenge is that different enhancement methods can lead to different conclusions about what we're actually seeing.

 

[Scaramanga]

After studying this picture for way too long, I've come to the conclusion that it can't be definitively debunked. It's most likely a hoax, but the lack of quality and information makes it impossible to analyze in a meaningful way.

I think the one thing we can definitely say is it's not some advanced military craft. Given that the incident was over 34 years ago any such craft would be an antique in some museum by now....and in any case would have surely been used ( and thus observed ) in military incidents otherwise billions of dollars were wasted.

I also find it odd that a hoaxer would add such strange and asymmetric markings and odd sticking out bits. No other UFO I've seen before or since has such a 'camouflage' type covering and most hoax UFOs are symmetric ( for example the classic George Adamski type ).

I've thus finally persuaded myself that the photo is a camera/photographic/emulsion defect. The photographer wanted to capture the Harrier, and when the film got developed there was this weird rhomboid in the centre. I don't believe ( there is no proof of it ) that there ever were 5 other photos of the UFO.

 

[Andreas]

I think the one thing we can definitely say is it's not some advanced military craft. Given that the incident was over 34 years ago any such craft would be an antique in some museum by now....and in any case would have surely been used ( and thus observed ) in military incidents otherwise billions of dollars were wasted.

I also find it odd that a hoaxer would add such strange and asymmetric markings and odd sticking out bits. No other UFO I've seen before or since has such a 'camouflage' type covering and most hoax UFOs are symmetric ( for example the classic George Adamski type ).

I've thus finally persuaded myself that the photo is a camera/photographic/emulsion defect. The photographer wanted to capture the Harrier, and when the film got developed there was this weird rhomboid in the centre. I don't believe ( there is no proof of it ) that there ever were 5 other photos of the UFO.

I completely agree with you. It's definitely not a secret military craft (those claims are simply ridiculous), and nothing suggests it's an alien spacecraft either. This isn't the jungles of Borneo—if a huge anomalous craft had been in the area, multiple witnesses would likely have seen it, especially considering it was supposedly photographed near the A9.

And yes, if this is a deliberate hoax, the strange shape is hard to explain. If someone wanted to create a fake "UFO photo," why choose something that doesn't resemble what people typically associate with a UFO? (The Puerto Rico hoax, for example, makes much more sense in that regard.)

That said, a camera defect is a possibility—but I just don't get it. If the photographer was trying to capture the Harrier, why isn't the jet centered in the frame? And I haven't come across any similar defects in other analog photographs. My gut tells me this is a deliberate hoax, but relying on gut feelings isn't exactly the best way to analyze data.

 

[john.phil]

I've thus finally persuaded myself that the photo is a camera/photographic/emulsion defect.

It might be worth starting a new thread where examples of similar defects are given. Under this hypothesis, the apparent symmetry or parting line of the presumed UFO might have been due to briefly folding the photographic material, similarly to a Rorschach inkblot test, for instance.

No other UFO I've seen before or since has such a 'camouflage' type covering

Example of film reticulation producing an unnatural texture:

source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO7xSA7lKxw

 

[JMartJr]

I think the one thing we can definitely say is it's not some advanced military craft. Given that the incident was over 34 years ago any such craft would be an antique in some museum by now....and in any case would have surely been used ( and thus observed ) in military incidents otherwise billions of dollars were wasted.

I agree with the above.

I also find it odd that a hoaxer would add such strange and asymmetric markings and odd sticking out bits. No other UFO I've seen before or since has such a 'camouflage' type covering and most hoax UFOs are symmetric ( for example the classic George Adamski type ).

Might not be an added feature -- might have already existed as part of the Christmas ornament on a string or rock in a pond or whatever other sort of found object was pressed into service as a UFO. (Given the huge range of reported shapes for UFOs over the years, I particular reported shape being pretty unique in the Lore is not unheard of. The recent "Jellyfish" being another example.

I've thus finally persuaded myself that the photo is a camera/photographic/emulsion defect. The photographer wanted to capture the Harrier, and when the film got developed there was this weird rhomboid in the centre. I don't believe ( there is no proof of it ) that there ever were 5 other photos of the UFO.

You may be right, if the other photos don't exist. If they ever turn up, that would be a problem. I'm sticking with thing on a string, with the proviso that there is insufficient data to say what it IS with any certainty, while a few things, as in your initial point in this post, seem like they can be pretty much ruled out.

 

[John J.]

I'd rather stop to say it's a "fact" there were more than one pictures. The only fact we have is someone said that, but noone has ever seen those pictures, and one cannot argue from evidence he does not have.

Good point that we can't argue from evidence we don't have.
But it seems very highly likely that this evidence did exist, and was seen by defence personnel who were sufficiently confident about their findings to forward that they had "established" one plane was a Harrier, and that there was a second jet, "...probably a Harrier", to a government minister. Their main concern seemed to be that it would be a story in the Daily Record.

There are actually 2 MoD documents that state a number of, or 6 photos. The original handwritten one and the MoD summery notes

These documents were archived by the UK MoD, and later released/ opened to the National Archives with their reference code DEFE 24/1940/1.

We don't know the quality of the evidence in the 6 original negatives, but cumulatively they probably contained more information than our one picture of a picture (e.g. a second apparent plane).
We also don't know what specialist resources, if any, were used (something I had a bit of fun with in debunking humour).
And we don't know if framing or other psychological biases played a role, e.g. people trained to identify aircraft were asked to look at an ambiguous image and describe what aircraft it is; that would be supposition on our part (but a possibility).

The fact that a number of negatives showed (presumably not identical) details that resemble a Harrier in different locations, and one or more showed a second detail that was "probably" a Harrier, is I think a problem for the theory that our Calvine photo is a fortuitous "natural" photo of a reflection with two chance airborne, floating or reflected items which are not model or real planes, but which both resembled a specific aircraft.
This isn't a problem if the photo is a staged hoax with model or real planes, but why the (claimed) photographer only mentioned one aircraft in their (claimed) account becomes a bit of a mystery.

Maybe the pictures were taken/ constructed by someone not in our narrative, and they came into the possession of the claimed witness/ photographer (supposedly one of 2 young seasonal kitchen workers), who made up a story of witnessing the "UFO" himself not noticing that a second "...barely visible" jet was present in the photos.

The aircraft is also out of focus, but doesn't seem to be motion blurred.

How can we tell? It looks blurred to me (admitting I know very little about photography).

A Harrier can fly arbitrarily slowly- forward flight can be maintained below the speed at which the wings provide lift by gradually vectoring thrust:

CLIVE SOFFE [Harrier instructor]: The critical point for us is 120 knots to 30 knots, and what we have to try and do is teach a student to get through this area, to be able to get to the hover.

-Only need to watch about 1 minute from the timestamp. Toward the end of that minute, the plane is rotating in the air (watch the clouds); it's not the camera POV changing.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esDV4gjqsVA&t=293s

Uploaded by Naked Science 5 years ago (c. 2020)

...yet every photo is said to show the "UFO" from the exact same angle.

IIRC the (claimed) account is that the 2 young men were hiding, had "taken cover". I think I would! And they claimed the object was stationary. Their reported behaviour, and photos of the object being from the same angle, is consistent with the account given, albeit from an unidentified source and apparently of something extraordinary.

IF some of the photo is a reflection, I'm not convinced the entire thing is. I still think something is composited or there is some trickery going on. I think I made a decent case that this is a 2nd or 3rd generation analog copy we are looking at. It's possible the original reveled some signs of manipulation, such that the Daily Mail never ran them. And it appears the original photographer never asked for the negatives to be returned. If it was series of cool reflection shots, even if he tried to pass them off as a UFO and nobody bought the story, they're still cool shots. Why not get them back?

Agreed. I'm starting to wonder if maybe the claimed witness made up the story we're familiar with, but wasn't the source of the photographs. If he was uncertain of the process of how the images were made, he might have got cold feet about having to talk to reporters, or even "official" investigators, when he learned that the negatives had been forwarded to the RAF.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I also find it odd that a hoaxer would add such strange and asymmetric markings and odd sticking out bits. No other UFO I've seen before or since has such a 'camouflage' type covering and most hoax UFOs are symmetric

And yes, if this is a deliberate hoax, the strange shape is hard to explain. If someone wanted to create a fake "UFO photo," why choose something that doesn't resemble what people typically associate with a UFO?

Guys, guys! With considerable respect, and I enjoy reading your posts, but I'm unsure of the logic of these statements.
To me, they are saying (O.K., I'm committing the sin of paraphrasing- I hope this might be acceptable in this instance):

"This isn't a fake UFO, because it doesn't look like what a fake UFO ought to look like."

-Implying that fake UFOs have an agreed, identifiable shape or shapes, or common characteristics. But I'm not sure this is the case (though many do conform to broad categories of saucers, spheres etc.), otherwise much of the discussion on Metabunk would be over a lot sooner!

most hoax UFOs are symmetric ( for example the classic George Adamski type ).

A smart hoaxer isn't going to make a model that looks like one used in an identified hoax.

And, problematically, a real ETI craft (if such a thing exists) might not resemble a hoax UFO.

 

[Ann K]

Only need to watch about 1 minute from the timestamp. Toward the end of that minute, the plane is rotating in the air (watch the clouds); it's not the camera POV changing.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esDV4gjqsVA&t=293s

Thanks for the video! I remember seeing one in the sixties when they were newcomers to the aeronautic scene, at an air show in Cleveland, Ohio, and their hovering and vertical take-off were a big hit with the crowd.

 

[NorCal Dave]

..there is none of that in the Calvine photo, in fact the entire photo lacks perspective.

Agreed. That's a great point that I noticed but couldn't articulate. Obviously, all photographs are 2D, but many have visual ques in them to make us realize it's a 2D image of a 3D scene. Other than the size of the jet, which suggest it's out a distance from the trees, there are no ques to indicate depth or perspective. The whole thing looks like it is on a flat table.

I don't believe ( there is no proof of it ) that there ever were 5 other photos of the UFO.

But as @John J. and I have noted, there is 2 MoD documents claiming more than 1 photo. Yes, government documents can be wrong, and I suppose they can be wrong twice, but it seems there is primary evidence at least attesting to multiple photos from the MoD. For certain there is only 1 remaining print.

I've thus finally persuaded myself that the photo is a camera/photographic/emulsion defect. The photographer wanted to capture the Harrier, and when the film got developed there was this weird rhomboid in the centre.

Maybe. But now it's kinda the same problem as the reflection theory. The defect is almost perfectly placed between the tree and the fence with the jet occupying one of the two lanes it would need to be in. I think the entire photo is to composed to be a random reflection and that same amount of composition argues against a perfectly placed random defect. If there is any validity to the MoD documents about multiple photos, that counts against it even more.

How can we tell? It looks blurred to me (admitting I know very little about photography).

A Harrier can fly arbitrarily slowly- forward flight can be maintained below the speed at which the wings provide lift by gradually vectoring thrust:

I'm thinking motion blur is a bit different from just out of focus. If we look at the jet in the photo, it seems that if we could turn the focus knob it would sharpen up:

A motion blurred aircraft gets almost stretched and no amount of turning the focus knob will sharpen it:

Side note: Holy shit, trying to search for "motion blurred aircraft" brought up an unending collection of AI generated images .

I do remember seeing a Harrier at an airshow back in the '90s, it was very fun as @Ann K noted above. But would low level training include hovering through the Scottish countryside?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

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.

That was addressed in the other Calvine thread in post #445

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/page-12#post-277453


What is Ilford XP-2 and who used it in the 1990's?

-It's a film designed for convenience. The typical drug store or one-hour photo service typically had one machine; which used a C41 chemistry, to make 3x5 color prints.

-C41 chemistry is for color print film and color prints.

-Ilford produced a B&W film that used color film technology. Instead of the traditional silver halide emulsion it uses dyes. It could be printed on color print paper that also used C41 chemistry; also just for convenience.

-The point. Snapshot photographers who wanted B&W prints (for some reason) could get them back quickly instead of using a local specialty photo processor, or waiting for a week to get them in the mail from Kodak.

-It was used (primarily?) by advanced amateurs because it has some advantages they liked:
-wider dynamic range
-small grain size
-grain size that is larger in darker areas and smaller in bright areas (of the print). The opposite of silver halide emulsion.

-A print this size would not be made by a one-hour type service. So it was printed on color paper by a specialty service or in an (amateur?) dark room.

The statement in the photo analysis that this film would only be used by a knowledgeable person who made a purposeful choice is suspect. This film could easily have been on the shelf of a drug store or one-hour photo service.

 

[John J.]

But would low level training include hovering through the Scottish countryside?

I doubt it- outside of designated training areas anyway.
I was more trying to make the point that a Harrier can fly forward relatively slowly; the instructor in the clip said the critical point for trainees was from 120 to 30 knots to get into the hover. So I guess it flies without too many problems at 120 knots, and a qualified Harrier pilot could* maintain forward speed below that.

*Would have to be able to do so.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

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.

Exploring another way to get a the weak color cast on that photo in question:

Going back to the use of a B&W negative to make a print on color paper...

If another type of B&W film was used, Panatomic-X would be a good candidate because it was fine-grained.

But color negatives have an orange masking layer and B&W negatives don't. Even Ilford XP-2 lacks that orange masking layer. Color papers are designed to work with the orange-masked color negatives (to compensate for quirks in the dyes used in the film emulsion). Without the mask, the color paper's emulsion layers would respond weirdly to the grayscale tones.

Color paper is a finicky and sensitive creature. Without that masking layer and without color information you'd easily get a color cast as the different layers react in unpredictable ways. Complicating this is the contrast mismatches you'd get by using a high contrast film like Panatomic-X.

For anyone who hasn't done it: When you handmake a color print with an enlarger (not with a machine), to correct color casts you use different color filters to make separate exposures. It can get maddingly complicated, because you also have contrast filters and exposure times to consider. Without the things I mentioned above, it would be quite a challenge and would take a lot of educated guesses and experiments (test strips).

I would think that the machines used by drug stores and 1 hour services to make B&W prints on color paper with Ilford XP-2 negatives would have had preset programs for making prints with Ilford XP-2 to avoid a color cast. Something that would have been worked out by specialists with the time and resources to do so. Maybe as simple as a special filter.

Someone, like a darkroom technician at a newspaper, trying to use an Ilford XP-2 or Panatomic-X negative to make a print with an enlarger would almost inevitably produce a print with a color cast. The kind of color cast we see in the print in that guy's hand.

It remains a question as to why you would do that, as printing an Ilford XP-2 negative on B&W paper wouldn't present any big challenge. Maybe a contrast mismatch... but that's a piece of cake.

I don't know if any of these specialist machines could be used to make a print this large. If the machine was off by a bit, it could produce a print with a color cast. Maybe that's the most likely scenario.