Giddierone
Senior Member.
No, I think this has pushed me over the edge...(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...(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 let the first one pass, but now you've repeated it you need correcting.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.
@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.
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.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 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).
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).but noone has ever seen those pictures,
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.)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.
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.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!)
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.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.
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.
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.
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).
It's a hybrid reflection + thing on string hypothesis.
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?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.
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.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!)
Irrelevant to my point.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 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.
You can walk around a lot via Street View in that area, and there are lots of fences. The spots are probably wire tighteners.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.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
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!External Quote: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.
External Quote: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.
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 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.
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 worthThe photo was supposedly taken 9/4/1990 at ~9:00pm
IF some of the photo is a reflection
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
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.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.
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.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.
Yeah, that's an interesting observation, and I'm not entirely convinced we can say anything definitive about the clouds.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
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?
My conclusion is that it's simply not possible to determine whether the clouds are upside down or not
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.Yes indeed...that's what I've been saying all along.
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.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
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 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.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.
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.I've thus finally persuaded myself that the photo is a camera/photographic/emulsion defect.
Example of film reticulation producing an unnatural texture:No other UFO I've seen before or since has such a 'camouflage' type covering
I agree with the above.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.
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 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 ).
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.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.
Good point that we can't argue from evidence we don't have.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.
These documents were archived by the UK MoD, and later released/ opened to the National Archives with their reference code DEFE 24/1940/1.There are actually 2 MoD documents that state a number of, or 6 photos. The original handwritten one and the MoD summery notes
How can we tell? It looks blurred to me (admitting I know very little about photography).The aircraft is also out of focus, but doesn't seem to be motion blurred.
-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.External Quote: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.
...yet every photo is said to show the "UFO" from the exact same angle.
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.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?
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?
-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!External Quote:
"This isn't a fake UFO, because it doesn't look like what a fake UFO ought to look like."
A smart hoaxer isn't going to make a model that looks like one used in an identified hoax.most hoax UFOs are symmetric ( for example the classic George Adamski type ).
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.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
..there is none of that in the Calvine photo, in fact the entire photo lacks perspective.
I don't believe ( there is no proof of it ) that there ever were 5 other photos of the UFO.
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.
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:
That was addressed in the other Calvine thread in post #445That 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.
But would low level training include hovering through the Scottish countryside?
Exploring another way to get a the weak color cast on that photo in question: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.