Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

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):

External Quote:

"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!


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. ;)
You make a valid point, but it's still relevant to discuss the strange shape of the "object." Since the picture itself is of poor quality and lacks enough identifiable landmarks for a meaningful analysis, speculation about the object is, in a way, what we're left with.

Why, in this case, does the "UFO" not resemble the common assumption among "believers" of what an alien spacecraft *should* look like? One possibility is that the hoaxer deliberately chose a shape no one would easily identify. Avoiding similarities with known hoaxes is, of course, a smart move—something Bob Lazar probably should have considered.

However, the unusual shape could also suggest that the hoaxers used an object that was easily accessible to them, such as a rock in the water or a piece of fishing or hiking equipment. Identifying such an object would debunk the entire case.
 
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.
I'm no expert on Harriers, but can they really fly at such a slow speed while banking? The "plane" in the picture appears to be banking heavily to the left.
 
I'm no expert on Harriers, but can they really fly at such a slow speed while banking? The "plane" in the picture appears to be banking heavily to the left.
Anything just above stall speed and even stall speed for brief period is possible for an airplane, depends on load and wind speed etc.
 
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):

-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!

If you are going to hoax a diamond shaped UFO, you'd add the vertices facing the observer. Yet no such vertices are actually visible. The object then gets reduced to being two cones....one inverted on the other...and not a 'diamond' at all.

But there is then the further problem that the UFO must surely be angularly above the observer, which means the rim of the UFO ought to curve upwards slightly in the centre. Yet that rim is totally straight implying seeing an object directly side on. This really does not make sense...as it would imply that the horizon is where the UFO is, or the UFO just happened to be conveniently tilted downwards, and I very much doubt that.

So if this is a deliberate fake UFO then it is an incredibly bad one. It lacks any sense of perspective. And the odd markings and sticky out bits further imply that the UFO itself is not 'designed' but accidental in some way.

Which would be an argument for a reflection of a rock, a camera fault, or some such thing.
 
I'm no expert on Harriers, but can they really fly at such a slow speed while banking? The "plane" in the picture appears to be banking heavily to the left.
I'm no fan of the identification as an Harrier, but yeah, Harriers were vertical take-off planes and they could even hover in air, at zero airspeed.
 
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.

If you don't mind Mr. Wolf, I'm going quote you over on the main Calvine photo page. I think it's important to figure out exactly what this photo is and getting into the weeds about films stocks and such isn't really focused ( :D ) on the reflection theory. So, over to the main page:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/
 
I'm no fan of the identification as an Harrier, but yeah, Harriers were vertical take-off planes and they could even hover in air, at zero airspeed.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Harrier identification either. The biggest issue with the object in the picture is the bright left "wing"—it just doesn't fit.

IMG_9678.jpeg


Why is it so much brighter than the rest of the object? And why does it look more like a blurry circle than an actual wing? Almost as if it's a stain or some other artifact unrelated to the object itself. And how did the military even identify this blob as a Harrier? It would be interesting to know how they arrived at that conclusion.

IMG_9683.jpeg

IMG_9692.jpeg

It could be a lot of different things. A Harrier at certain angles is possible, but personally, I think it could also be a more common aircraft, like a small Cessna.

IMG_9696.png

When turned upside down, it doesn't even resemble a jet anymore—it actually looks quite a bit like a large bird, such as a heron. In the end, the poor quality of the photograph makes it impossible to say for sure.
 
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.

I really don't think it is. There are definite hints of colour in the photograph being held...which is supposedly THE original. Here I have included the version directly from the Guardian photo....and then after that a version with saturation turned up. There is very definite and distinct colour ! So why are we being presented with the 'original' as black and white ?

4000xx.png
4000xx - Copy.png
 
how did the military even identify this blob as a Harrier? It would be interesting to know how they arrived at that conclusion.
I think they said "please identify this aircraft" and Harrier was their best fit.

When turned upside down, it doesn't even resemble a jet anymore—it actually looks quite a bit like a large bird
Perhaps this one very specific question really does deserve its own thread?
 
Last edited:
If you are going to hoax a diamond shaped UFO, you'd add the vertices facing the observer. Yet no such vertices are actually visible. The object then gets reduced to being two cones....one inverted on the other...and not a 'diamond' at all.

Why posit that the hypothetical hoaxer was trying to make a diamond-shaped UFO?
The UK MoD referred to it as diamond-shaped, but they might have simply been referring to the 2D outline (like the diamonds in a deck of cards).
Two shallow cones base-to-base sounds like quite a stereotypical UFO to me!
I agree with your point made earlier that the "diamond" isn't particularly symmetrical, although also accepting that a reflection in water need not be (my feeling is that it isn't a reflection, but I don't have evidence to support this, other than the foreground of fence and dangling foliage which we're all familiar with- I suspect they're real and the "right way up", but can't prove it).

But there is then the further problem that the UFO must surely be angularly above the observer, which means the rim of the UFO ought to curve upwards slightly in the centre. Yet that rim is totally straight implying seeing an object directly side on. This really does not make sense...as it would imply that the horizon is where the UFO is, or the UFO just happened to be conveniently tilted downwards, and I very much doubt that.

Part of what I would describe as asymmetrical is the "midline" between the two differently shaded/ coloured halves of the diamond. It seems (to me) to travel from each outer edge, angled slightly upward to meet at a dark spot just right of the (approx.) vertical axis, possibly an indication it's not being viewed exactly side on.

(I then go down a rabbit hole of my own digging: )

I sketched this out (below) wondering if there were vertices between the dark spot and the (approx.) corners of the diamond:
calv2.jpg

(The lower sketch I've "lifted" the point with the dark spot to make my supposition a bit clearer).

My impression was that the dark spot might be the nearest point of a roughly octahedral body. If that were the case, there would be vertices. I was toying with the idea that the object might be a real military item, perhaps a radar reflector of similar topology to, but flatter than, ones we're familiar with,

e.g. a reflector for small boats, another near the tail of a badly-damaged TDU-10 Dart towed aerial gunnery target,

radar reflector boat use.jpg
017.jpg

[one of the photos of Dart wreckage at Vegas Hikers.com, where there are some specs as well.]

-but covered with a skin- maybe the whole thing being a lightweight inflatable containing an octahedron of e.g. Mylar reflecting panels stretched between a lightweight frame.

Hypothetical purposes: A towed cheaper alternative to the TDU-10 Dart and similar targets; a towed test rig for radar absorbent materials; an experimental radar decoy.
Not particularly hi-tech, but possibly sensitive.
In my reverie, I entertained thoughts of a floating inflatable on a very long line frightening the witnesses- that old thing about time seeming to pass more slowly during fright- suddenly to be jerked away as the circling jet takes up the slack.
Or maybe it slipped its line and was being followed by the planes (tug and observer), "popped" and the sudden upward movement of a piece of skin distracted the witnesses from falling debris which ended up, like at Roswell, as so much foil and mangled struts in a farmer's field. -All rather unlikely I guess.

Unfortunately for me, on checking through the original Calvine thread I found most of this had been discussed before,
starting with @NorCal Dave here, with hon. mentions to @JMartJr, @Duke, and @DavidB66 in subsequent posts.

And as for the vertices, I'm unsure if I really see indications of them or if it's pareidolia on my part, or visual noise from a possibly mottled or rough-surfaced object.
So much for all that.

But I don't feel that the angle of the "UFO" to the observer necessarily shows it to be real, a fake UFO, or a non-UFO related item. There are photos of UFOs at various angles (all of which I'm confident are fakes); equally there are photos taken from the ground of real aircraft viewed side-on.

The biggest issue with the object in the picture is the bright left "wing"—it just doesn't fit.
I'm thinking that the plane in question is likely to be a Harrier. The strange lightness of the left wing could be explained because the Harrier's wings have significant anhedral. In other words, one has a flatter angle to the camera than the other, reflecting more light.

harrier.png
-And I gave some examples in post #870.
Maybe not a good analogy but here's my take on the "Colorado Phoenix", which I believe is an airliner partly reflecting the setting sun (the witnesses had gone outside to watch the sunset :)):
Capture.JPG



Aviation enthusiasts tend to try and get clear pictures showing the form and "natural" colours and markings of their subjects, so photos in books, online etc. are a bit self-selecting.

The Calvine photo is not a clear picture. We don't know what the "diamond" and "jet" are.
But we do know David Clarke's photography friend at Sheffield Hallam University, who went to some lengths in analysing the photo, described the jet as being consistent with a Harrier, and that defence officials who saw the six original negatives "established" it was a Harrier, and that another aircraft was "probably" a Harrier.
We don't have the evidence the defence staff saw, or know what examination took place, but we know that evidence existed.
(I think it's probably a model).

I'm no expert on Harriers, but can they really fly at such a slow speed while banking?
I think that's a very good point; the instructor in the video implied that transition to a hovering regime starts at 120 knots, but for all I know that might require level forward flight. I've seen Harriers "bow" in the hover (bring the nose slowly down then up again) but not tilt laterally as far as I can recall. Although Harriers have puffer jets near the wingtips, nose and tail, the main nozzles only rotate in the vertical plane (parallel to the aircraft's length).
 
Last edited:
I really don't think it is. There are definite hints of colour in the photograph being held...which is supposedly THE original. Here I have included the version directly from the Guardian photo....and then after that a version with saturation turned up. There is very definite and distinct colour ! So why are we being presented with the 'original' as black and white ?
But the photo has the same damage in the lower right corner as the one used in the threads here. It really seems to be the same photo, but I agree with you—it looks like a color photo.

IMG_9712.jpeg
 
The UK MoD referred to it as diamond-shaped, but they might have simply been referring to the 2D outline (like the diamonds in a deck of cards).
Yes, good point. We don't know the intention of a potential hoaxer, and we don't know what the MoD meant by a "diamond shape."

(my feeling is that it isn't a reflection, but I don't have evidence to support this, other than the foreground of fence and dangling foliage which we're all familiar with- I suspect they're real and the "right way up", but can't prove it).
Yes, the fence looks like it's "the right way up" to me. But potentially, everything except the fence could be a reflection. The idea of someone taking a picture of a stone in a lake, with a large seabird reflecting in the water and appearing like a plane, is still a possible explanation. However, this would require disregarding some of the statements made by the MoD and accepting that it was a "lucky shot" rather than a well-planned hoax. I'm not saying this is the case—just that it's a possibility.
And as for the vertices, I'm unsure if I really see indications of them or if it's pareidolia on my part, or visual noise from a possibly mottled or rough-surfaced object.
Yeah, that's the problem with this picture. If you zoom in on a small area, you'll find all sorts of strange patterns, lines, and even shapes that look like letters or logos. The poor quality of the image makes it almost impossible to say anything with certainty. Initially, I tried to make out patterns on the "UFO," but for reference, I did the same with the branches in the upper left corner. Unfortunately, the same type of "clutter" appears there as well.
We don't have the evidence the defence staff saw, or know what examination took place, but we know that evidence existed.
(I think it's probably a model).
We don't really know what evidence they had or how they reached their conclusions. However, we do know that the image we have is supposedly the best of the six. Personally, I think we should be cautious when drawing conclusions based on what the defense staff may or may not have determined. If they were asked to identify "the plane" using a process of elimination, a Harrier might have been a reasonable guess—but that doesn't necessarily mean that's what it actually is.
I think that's a very good point; the instructor in the video implied that transition to a hovering regime starts at 120 knots, but for all I know that might require level forward flight.
That was my thought too. I've watched dozens of air show videos of Harriers performing all sorts of stunt maneuvers, but not in a single one does a hovering Harrier bank.
 
But the photo has the same damage in the lower right corner as the one used in the threads here. It really seems to be the same photo, but I agree with you—it looks like a color photo.

I'm not disputing that it's the same 'image'....but where have the blue and pink and green gone that are visible in the photo being held in the Guardian article ? I mean, it doesn't just 'look like' there is colour.....there is colour. Here's the photo being held and the 'original' side by side....quite a difference. And why does the 'original' B&W pic have less detail in its over-exposed upper left than a smaller hand held copy that's part of another photo. I mean, notice that small branch hanging down just to the left of the frame at the top left....that is barely visible in the 'original' B&W pic. Something is just not right.

colour_vs_BW.jpg
 
I'm not disputing that it's the same 'image'....but where have the blue and pink and green gone that are visible in the photo being held in the Guardian article ? I mean, it doesn't just 'look like' there is colour.....there is colour. Here's the photo being held and the 'original' side by side....quite a difference. And why does the 'original' B&W pic have less detail in its over-exposed upper left than a smaller hand held copy that's part of another photo. I mean, notice that small branch hanging down just to the left of the frame at the top left....that is barely visible in the 'original' B&W pic. Something is just not right.

View attachment 77539
Yeah, it's a bit strange. But since both pictures have identical damage in the lower right corner, it's reasonable to assume they are the same. As I understand it, the raw file appears to be a scan or a photo of the original image, with the edges clearly visible. The loss in resolution could be due to somewhat sloppy scanning.

But if the original photo with the damaged edge is in color, then something is really suspicious. Why remove the colors, and why degrade the resolution just slightly? Someone with a conspiratorial mindset could argue that the original image revealed too much—perhaps enough to expose a hoax or even identify what the "UFO" actually is.

That said, are we certain it's a color photograph, or could it be some kind of illusion?
 
I'm not disputing that it's the same 'image'....but where have the blue and pink and green gone that are visible in the photo being held in the Guardian article ? I mean, it doesn't just 'look like' there is colour.....there is colour. Here's the photo being held and the 'original' side by side....quite a difference. And why does the 'original' B&W pic have less detail in its over-exposed upper left than a smaller hand held copy that's part of another photo. I mean, notice that small branch hanging down just to the left of the frame at the top left....that is barely visible in the 'original' B&W pic. Something is just not right.
You're reason, something is not right.

IF the two photographs (B&W version and colour version) are physically the same (as the identical damage in the corner suggests, but does not prove) the only thing I can think is the B&W version is the original and then someone colourized (painted) it by hand. See ie. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-colouring_of_photographs

If they are two different physical photos it might be colour the B&W version is a black and white copy of the colour original, or the original is B&W ans yet again someone colourized a copy.

Edit: or everything happened after the scans were made, so electronic means could have been used to add/remove the colour
 
That said, are we certain it's a color photograph, or could it be some kind of illusion?

Well it would take quite an illusion to correctly make the sky blue, the sunset pink, and the foliage green whilst looking at the 'original' B&W image there is no such colour at all.

Also, I've always thought ( as have many others ) that the photo was taken on a miserable overcast day with low cloud...typical Scotland. BUT, here's the MOD original notes which say the cloud base was 25,000 feet, dropping to 15,000 feet 'during showers'. So it was a showery day, typical of early August....and not a horrendous overcast low cloud day.

That means we should not be surprised to see both bits of blue sky and sunset shades, as the photo is claimed taken at 9pm....which was just minutes before sunset.

What I like with the colour version is it actually gives the whole image more depth...and depth is the one thing that might finally reveal if it is a reflection.

mod.jpg
 
Well it would take quite an illusion to correctly make the sky blue, the sunset pink, and the foliage green whilst looking at the 'original' B&W image there is no such colour at all.

Also, I've always thought ( as have many others ) that the photo was taken on a miserable overcast day with low cloud...typical Scotland. BUT, here's the MOD original notes which say the cloud base was 25,000 feet, dropping to 15,000 feet 'during showers'. So it was a showery day, typical of early August....and not a horrendous overcast low cloud day.

That means we should not be surprised to see both bits of blue sky and sunset shades, as the photo is claimed taken at 9pm....which was just minutes before sunset.

What I like with the colour version is it actually gives the whole image more depth...and depth is the one thing that might finally reveal if it is a reflection.

View attachment 77540
This is really confusing. Both photos have very similar damage in the same spot. It could be a coincidence—stranger things have happened—but I'd say it's a strong indication that they are the exact same photograph. And if that's the case, and the original is in color while the digital scan is in black and white, then to me, that's a sign of foul play.
 
You're reason, something is not right.

IF the two photographs (B&W version and colour version) are physically the same (as the identical damage in the corner suggests, but does not prove) the only thing I can think is the B&W version is the original and then someone colourized (painted) it by hand. See ie. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-colouring_of_photographs

If they are two different physical photos it might be colour the B&W version is a black and white copy of the colour original, or the original is B&W ans yet again someone colourized a copy.

Edit: or everything happened after the scans were made, so electronic means could have been used to add/remove the colour
This is a bit confusing to me. I'm not entirely convinced that the photograph in the picture is actually in color, but it does appear that way. The damaged corner suggests that the raw file is a scan of this exact photograph. You're right—we can't prove it definitively—but it is rather strange that both photos have the same damage.

IMG_9719.jpeg


That's why I don't think the colorization theory makes sense. Would someone have taken a digital scan of the picture and then altered the original by manually colorizing it? That doesn't really add up. Removing the colors from a digital file is obviously easy, but the real question is why someone would do that.

Once again, I'm not convinced it's a color photo—it could just be an illusion.
 
Once again, I'm not convinced it's a color photo—it could just be an illusion.
or it could be a colorized version
this has actually been discussed in the thread where it is on topic
I was thinking 18 pages in it might be nice to have an index of some of the most useful posts. Let me know if I've missed anything important or made any errors (maybe in dm could be best so as not to clutter up the thread).

Posts on metabunk:

Basic story with links to download the image
Story of how the photographs got to the MoD
Contrast-enhanced image
Colorized image (Photoshop AI)
Comparison of Hawker Hunter with plane outline (also here)
Witnesses' age and why some details still withheld
Summary of Clarke's four articles on Calvine and the Disclosure Team's video
More on Craig Lindsay's interview
December 1990 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine article showing hypothetical hypersonic craft
Hopeless Diamond images and discussion
Related comments by members of the army and air force (some of whom recall seeing the original photo in the 90s)
Insider view on how easily files and documents are discarded
Tree analysis (and reply)
1991 'retask'
Summary of Calvine mentioned in Nick Pope's book
Info from RAF Lossiemouth
Short summary of Disclosure Team Q&A video (full summary)
Short summary of Stu Little interview (full summary)
Short summary of David Clarke's answers to questions put to him via email (full summary)
Pre-2014 classification system
Reflection hypothesis thread
Summary of hoax theories (and their drawbacks)
Animation of reflection theory by Ruan

External links

Original MoD documents (from FOIA request)
Disclosure Team photo reveal and backstory video
Disclosure Team Q&A video
Andrew Robinson photo analysis
Comparison of the two versions of the analysis
Mountaintop hypothesis video
Proposed location for the photo (Google Maps)
Location of viewpoint for the Nick Pope recreation
Pope writing about Calvine in 2012
Nick Pope article in The Sun (October 2020)
Also May 2021
Puerto Rico UFO hoax (example of "model on a string")
Video of Pope talking about Calvine in 2017
Chapter of Pope's book containing writing on Calvine and Aurora
Star decoration hypothesis
Stu Little slideshow

Basic info
  • Photo allegedly taken around 9pm on Saturday August 4th 1990 (one of six; other five missing)
  • Sunset in Calvine at 21.22 that day (light conditions in photo very possible)
  • Area used by military planes for low-level flying - but not on weekends
  • Photographer likely 18ish at the time, therefore around 50 now
  • Holiday workers in a kitchen in a hotel in Pitlochry, English accent according to Craig Lindsay (who interviewed one on the phone)
  • Often reported as the Atholl Palace Hotel but apparently this is incorrect
  • Photos sent to Scottish Daily Record and from there to MoD
  • Name known to Clarke & team and they have contacted over 200 people
  • Photo was never classified as far as we know (photocopies and other related documents weren't)
  • Photos and story not published (hypothesised as being due to a standing D-notice; Daily Record editor was on the committee)
  • MoD says negatives returned to Daily Record (disputed by some)
  • Apparently seen there by photographer Stu Little in 1993 (who says the whole photo is out of focus due to the way it was copied)
  • A copy of the photo is now archived at Sheffield Hallam University
 
This is really confusing. Both photos have very similar damage in the same spot. It could be a coincidence—stranger things have happened—but I'd say it's a strong indication that they are the exact same photograph. And if that's the case, and the original is in color while the digital scan is in black and white, then to me, that's a sign of foul play.
Here's my post in the "Original Calvine Photo" thread discussing that point.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-337571
 
Why posit that the hypothetical hoaxer was trying to make a diamond-shaped UFO?
The UK MoD referred to it as diamond-shaped, but they might have simply been referring to the 2D outline (like the diamonds in a deck of cards).
Two shallow cones base-to-base sounds like quite a stereotypical UFO to me!

I'm not positing anything. As you say, its the MOD who called it diamond shaped. I see no sign of any vertice pointing this way ( though others on the forum have mentioned such notion ).

In fact ( and here's one in favour of a reflection ) I see no indication at all of any depth to the craft. If we are above two cones stuck back to back, the rim of the craft should curve downwards....and vice versa if we are below it. The only way we'd get a non-curved straight line ( as in the pic ) is if we are seeing the cones directly edge on.

But that poses a problem for a real 'craft'...which is surely above the observers so the edge should curve up. The only aspect that seems to make sense to me is that the object is literally one dimensional. Which may favour the reflection theory as a one dimensional object hanging from a tree would be real hard to keep pointing the right way in the wind...but could be weight down in a pond.
 
Which may favour the reflection theory as a one dimensional object hanging from a tree would be real hard to keep pointing the right way in the wind...

Wim van Utrecht managed pretty well :)

a.JPG

DSC04635.JPG


Posted by Mick West https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/post-286688

If a length of fishing line can be used to hang an item yet remain invisible, another length of the same line could be used to "anchor" the item to the ground. Or you could wait till the wind isn't blowing.
 
If a length of fishing line can be used to hang an item yet remain invisible, another length of the same line could be used to "anchor" the item to the ground. Or you could wait till the wind isn't blowing.

That's what I did when trying to make a version of the photo. I hung my model UFO from a tree with 4# line, but because of the wind, I used an additional anchor line to the UFO to keep it from spinning. The anchor line was maybe just visible, but I was working in bright summertime sunshine.
 
The only way we'd get a non-curved straight line ( as in the pic ) is if we are seeing the cones directly edge on.

But that poses a problem for a real 'craft'...

How can we know? :)
I don't think it's a real craft. A photograph of a UFO at any angle should rouse our suspicions and invite sceptical examination, but I don't think we can tell if it's real or not just from its angle.

A sufficiently advanced intelligence, or radically different culture, might have a different relationship to oblique angles.

Untitled.png


This illustration is partly conjecture. Further information in the future might show that some details above are inaccurate.
 
I think images like this is why I hold out hope that the photo is a crafty reflection. It replicates the low angle the photographer would have had to be in in order to get the composition of the image, and the murky washed out colours without lying prone in a field.
P1070049.jpg
 
A sufficiently advanced intelligence, or radically different culture, might have a different relationship to oblique angles.

Untitled.png
...because, of course, an interstellar craft needs to have an earth-like relationship to gravity? ;)
 
I think images like this is why I hold out hope that the photo is a crafty reflection. It replicates the low angle the photographer would have had to be in in order to get the composition of the image, and the murky washed out colours without lying prone in a field.
True, I've been quite skeptical of the upside-down reflection theory, as it seems to require a lot of assumptions and preparation. At first, it felt like an overcomplicated attempt to explain the image by adding uncertain details. But I'm starting to think I might be wrong.
IMG_9980.png

It could actually be the simplest and most logical explanation. Someone interested in photography is out experimenting with their camera. (The fact that black-and-white film was used suggests to me that the photographer was experienced and aiming for more "artistic" shots.) Let's say he was capturing reflections in a river, lake, or puddle when a plane happened to pass by. He snapped a few shots of its reflection and later, upon developing the film, realized that some of the images resembled a jet tailing a UFO. And the rest is history…

That said, I'm still not 100% convinced that what we see in the picture isn't a bird—possibly a small one attempting to land on a rock in the lake.
IMG_9987.png

I'm not saying it is a bird, just that it's a possibility. If so, the photographer may have simply intended to take a photo of the bird. In that case, the bird and the rock would be the only elements in the image that aren't reflections. Of course, this would mean disregarding some of the testimonies about the additional five photographs, but since we haven't seen them, I still think the bird theory has more than a zero percent probability.
 
That said, I'm still not 100% convinced that what we see in the picture isn't a bird—possibly a small one attempting to land on a rock in the lake.

Gosh....I mean why not conjecture its a Klingon warship. It is so obviously a Harrier, or at the very least a scale model of one, complete with tail fin, cockpit visor, wing shape, correct proportions, etc, that I really don't know why one would even need to suppose it was anything else. As this thread has now totally abandoned Occam's razor I feel it's time I jumped on one of the lifeboats.
 
(The fact that black-and-white film was used suggests to me that the photographer was experienced and aiming for more "artistic" shots.)

Let's remember that the idea that the original photo was taken with B&W film is the opinion of the Robinson, the photographic expert, as there are no original negatives. Robinson originally claimed that, sue to the very fine grain of the print, the photo was shot on Ilford XP1, a specialty B&W film and, as you suggest, indicative of a possible enthusiast.

However, he later decided that the grain wasn't nearly as fine as he originally thought and maybe a more everyday B&W film was used. In either case, it contradicts what the original MoD handwritten notes say about a "number of color negatives". If the original photos were in color, then what we see is a B&W copy of some sort.

There were supposedly 6 photos that the MoD mentions and looked at, concluding the object, and possibly another one in other photos, were Harriers. Not saying they're correct, just that the older primary documents state that.
 
I managed to capture a bird in flight, some flotsam, and a high flying jet in reflection today.
View attachment 77835
View attachment 77834

That's great! Love the airliner in the distance. However, I would note there is stuff on the water. A completely calm rippleless day seemed to leave a lot of flotsam floating around. The Calvine photo is completely devoid of anything but the fence/tree reflection, the UFO and the Harrier. The rest of the reflection is just the overcast sky, if that's what it is.
 
That's great! Love the airliner in the distance. However, I would note there is stuff on the water. A completely calm rippleless day seemed to leave a lot of flotsam floating around. The Calvine photo is completely devoid of anything but the fence/tree reflection, the UFO and the Harrier. The rest of the reflection is just the overcast sky, if that's what it is.
Yes, but there are many differences. The sky is completely different with no clouds; it's an iphone shot autofocus. When it's overcast the flotsam is harder to see, like in many of the other photos upthread, and this was actually a very dirty part of a city canal. It's also properly exposed, while the Calvine shot is overexposed, etc. etc.
 
However, he later decided that the grain wasn't nearly as fine as he originally thought and maybe a more everyday B&W film was used.

Why would anyone be using B&W film in 1990 ? Even as far back as 1971, my crappy Kodak Instamatic was using cheap colour film. Specialist photographers might use B&W, but these guys were ( allegedly ) chefs at a local hotel and not professional photographers. There's even less evidence in the Calvine UFO pics themselves of professional photography....as there is a blurriness in the photo that just shouldn't be there in any good photo. And bear in mind that their own story is that the UFO didn't just appear and then instantly vanish...it was there for several minutes. More than long enough to take a bunch of quality photos. I have better photos ( in colour too ) from 1971 than the Calvine pic.
 
Why would anyone be using B&W film in 1990 ? Even as far back as 1971, my crappy Kodak Instamatic was using cheap colour film. Specialist photographers might use B&W, but these guys were ( allegedly ) chefs at a local hotel and not professional photographers. There's even less evidence in the Calvine UFO pics themselves of professional photography....as there is a blurriness in the photo that just shouldn't be there in any good photo. And bear in mind that their own story is that the UFO didn't just appear and then instantly vanish...it was there for several minutes. More than long enough to take a bunch of quality photos. I have better photos ( in colour too ) from 1971 than the Calvine pic.
But do you have better photos when you were in the same state of mind as the photographer may have been at the time, considering the circumstances ?

I'm not sure the general quality of the photo is evidence of anything, other than the specific detail which can confirm film type and camera / settings etc. Maybe all his photos looked like that.
 
Gosh....I mean why not conjecture its a Klingon warship. It is so obviously a Harrier, or at the very least a scale model of one, complete with tail fin, cockpit visor, wing shape, correct proportions, etc, that I really don't know why one would even need to suppose it was anything else. As this thread has now totally abandoned Occam's razor I feel it's time I jumped on one of the lifeboats.

I have to kindly disagree. When you say it's "obviously" a Harrier with all details and features in the right place, that's only partially true. Sure, it could be a Harrier. But when looking for details consistent with a Harrier, we also have to consider the details that don't match.
IMG_0173.png

The most obvious issue for me is the total lack of horizontal stabilizers—on a Harrier, these are quite large, about the same size as the tail fin. And isn't the "left wing" just a blurry dot? And the tail section, it just looks off to me.
IMG_0176.jpeg

I'm not saying it's not a Harrier (or a model of one)—it very well could be. But it could also be something completely different. Given the poor image quality, it's simply not reasonable to conclude with certainty that "it is a Harrier."
 
Why would anyone be using B&W film in 1990 ?
Hobbyists? I was using B/W in 1987, of that I'm sure, as I thought that might give me an edge in my college's photography competition. Apparently tiled roofs with a hyperbolic paraboloid shape aren't everyone's cup of tea.

My g/f still has an IBM M-series keyboard - with the AT connector, not the "modern" PS/2 connector (wikipedia dates that to 1987) - and she has no intention to give it up. There's nothing wrong with old.
 
Back
Top