Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

[NorCal Dave]

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.

As Phil says, aesthetics and possibly for learning photography. I was using B&W for collage as well, and like our supposed lads, while working as a part time cook at a Mexican place in '84-'85ish. I used my dad's '70s era hand me down Pentax K1000. If one wanted to study photography, one started with at least 2 semesters of B&W, learning all the technical aspects such as developing and printing as well as the artistic techniques. Then one could move on to color work in advanced classes.

IIRC, I could buy at least basic Kodak PanX B&W film at some corner drug stores. The actual camera store would have more selection, including Ilford, as well as the various papers for making prints. B&W was still a thing in the mid to late '80s at least in the States, and I would think on into the '90s. Home darkrooms were also a thing. People would take photos, develop and print them all at home or out in the garage, especially in B&W. Home color work was rarer. I don't know about the UK.

When Robinson first claimed the original photo was taken in B&W, I became suspicious of his other claim of no manipulation. IF our photographer was shooting in B&W, it was likely a conscious decision. And if that's the case, is it possible they were a home darkroom guy? That opens the door to all kinds of possibilities and manipulations.

Personally, I lean toward the MoD notes as saying the originals were in color, meaning this photo is some sort of B&W copy of the original, I suspect made in the photo department of the Daily Record.

 

[Ann K]

Why would anyone be using B&W film in 1990 ?

So they could develop it at home.

 

[Andreas]

When Robinson first claimed the original photo was taken in B&W, I became suspicious of his other claim of no manipulation. IF our photographer was shooting in B&W, it was likely a conscious decision. And if that's the case, is it possible they were a home darkroom guy? That opens the door to all kinds of possibilities and manipulations.

Exactly! Someone with their own darkroom could easily manipulate the pictures. In this case, I think reducing the quality and adding grain was crucial to hiding any detectable signs of a hoax. And yes, the MoD mentioned color photographs, but we haven't seen any of them. Why send a b/w photo to Lindsay if there were color versions of it?

 

[Andreas]

So they could develop it at home.

And possibly manipulate the photos before sending them to the newspaper…

 

[Andreas]

I'm not convinced that the blurry dot in the picture is actually a Harrier jet. It could be, but it could just as easily be a model plane, a bird, a boat, or even a piece of debris in the water. The quality of this picture is simply too lousy to tell what it is. But let's assume for a moment that it is a Harrier flying over the Scottish landscape. It would be interesting to estimate how quickly the plane would have passed through the scene. Of course, this is impossible to determine precisely since we don't know its speed, and given that (assuming it's a jet) it's clearly banking, it was likely turning. Still, I couldn't help myself—I created a short animation showing the "jet" flying over the scene at different speeds. I had to simplify things by assuming the jet was flying in a straight line. It's far from scientific, but it gives us a rough idea of how long the photographer would have had to take the six photos.

Some have argued that the Harrier can fly at incredibly low speeds or even hover in midair, but since it's banking significantly, I think that's impossible in this case. Every video I've seen of a hovering Harrier—where the nozzles are pointing downward—shows the plane flying level. And according to what we know from the original testimony, the photographer claimed that a jet circled the UFO—not a word about a jet hovering in midair.

So, once again, if we're to believe the backstory: someone was secretly watching a stationary UFO, waited until a jet came into view, and immediately snapped six photos within a few seconds. And then what? He just put the camera down and watched as the mysterious spacecraft zoomed off into outer space? Nah, something's fishy here.

 

[Scaramanga]

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.

I don't know what version you are looking at but the horizontal stabilisers are clearly there in the original...if a bit blurry.

I mean, one can see the straight fuselage of the plane, the curved back wings, the bulge where the canopy is, the stabilisers, the correct relative proportions, etc. I really do not see why the need to invent wild theories about it being a bird...that simply do not fit at all...when we have so much that does fit a Harrier.

My thinking on any issue is...what is it most likely to be. Occam's razor. There's any number of things it 'might' be....I've even seen it suggested that it's a guy rowing on a lake. One could extend the 'might be' list to infinity. It 'might be' a model of a Klingon warbird. I just go with...if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....I'll go with duck.

I also wonder why the need to explain away parts of the photo that are not the UFO, given that if one was presented with the pic without the UFO most people would simply accept it as a pic of a cloudy sky with a Harrier in it.

 

[Scaramanga]

but it could just as easily be

Ah....I see what you did there. No....I don't accept the use of ' could just as easily be'. All the possible 'might be' options are not 'just as easy'. Some are clearly better options than others, and there's little point even discussing the issue unless that is accepted...otherwise one ends up with a long list of 'might be' that is just fanciful whims of imagination.

 

[Scaramanga]

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 clear how a person's state of mind affects their camera. Most people's hands wobble a bit anyway...and image stabilisation existed even in 1990. The Calvine photo is simply far worse than I'd expect even from a bad photographer on a bad day. Something is suspiciously bad about it...and I think that is the road to go down. Why is the photo so bad ? Cameras in 1990 were quite capable of taking crisp and clear photos even in poor light.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Why send a b/w photo to Lindsay if there were color versions of it?

True. But I've argued that the photo department at the Daily Record could have easily made copies of the color ones in B&W as the paper published in both color and B&W and would want the options available. My speculation, reasoned I would argue, is that if the photo department knew that Lindsay was going to be sending the photo off electronically, a B&W print is much more suited to the equipment of the time.

We think of outdated FAX machine nowadays, but when I interned (worked for free and some credits) at our local podunk TV station in ~'86 we didn't have anything remotely as sophisticated as a FAX machine. To get scripts from our 1 remote office I would look after a spinning drum of a contraption that I had to load with special thermal paper. The paper was attached to the drum and a similar drum with a script printed on it was in the remote office. The remote unit scanned the script as the drum spun and sent some sort of signal over the phone lines to the spinning drum I was watching over so the script would appear on my piece of thermal paper. Sorta. 90% of the time what I got was barley legible and I would have to retype it.

IF, big if here, if the Daily Record people had any inkling that Lindsay was going to use some sort of device to send the photo to the home office, a B&W print would be a much better choice given the technology of the time, what @John J. calls a Vu-Foil. Resulting in this image at the home office:

 

[John J.]

I'm not convinced that the blurry dot in the picture is actually a Harrier jet.

Nor am I, although it looks like a poorly-focussed Harrier to me. The (possible) wings suggest first generation, not AV-8B / Harrier II. Even if it is a Harrier, whether it's a model, a picture on glass, or real, is impossible to tell.
(I guess there's still the possibility of a transposed photographic detail? I don't know enough about photography to be confident that the Sheffield Hallam investigations rule this out; I get the impression from discussion here they probably don't.)

We just don't have any other evidence about what it is, other than
(1) The claimed witness accounts, via Mr Lindsay. They refer to a jet, possibly a Harrier. Those claims have almost no checkable provenance at present.
The accounts describe something remarkable which has not been reliably documented before or since, although broadly similar claims, sometimes photos, have been shown to be hoaxes. The Calvine photo together with the account (a large hovering object, a silent very rapid ascent) seem intrinsically improbable. The simplest (and perhaps most likely) explanation is the whole thing is a hoax.

(2) The UK Ministry of Defence opinions on the photo negatives, and 5 others. They "established" one aircraft was a Harrier and that a second barely visible aircraft was "probably" a Harrier.
They also noted there were no records of Harriers flying in the area at the time claimed. There is no evidence of any great MoD concern re. the photo or account.

We do not have access to any negatives, and our picture is possibly a copy of a copy as @NorCal Dave has pointed out.
The second aircraft implies there was more visual information available across the six photos than we have in our one.

We do not know what technical resources were used (if any) to inform the MoD's conclusions; but the MoD would have had access to professional photographic analysts.
It is frustrating that we cannot examine the evidence delivered to the MoD, and we cannot examine their investigation or decision-making, but the conclusions drawn- on superior evidence than we have- are a matter of public record.
We can't know if those conclusions were right or wrong, of course.

So, once again, if we're to believe the backstory: someone was secretly watching a stationary UFO, waited until a jet came into view, and immediately snapped six photos within a few seconds.

But- possibly apart from David Clarke's retelling of what Lindsay told him, that isn't part of the backstory.
You (sensibly) raised the the same concerns on the "Original Calvine..." thread, which caused me to do a bit of re-reading;
it is not claimed that the jet was photographed six times, and it is not claimed that photos featuring the jet were taken during the same pass.

Then there's the fact that the six alleged photos are said to show the Harrier moving from right to left while the "UFO" remains fixed in the same spot. Given the size of the "jet" in the one picture we have, it must have passed through the scene incredibly fast.

We don't know (IIRC) if the jet appeared in all 6 photos.

From the archived MoD file (Lindsay's cover letter?- or a summary of it) ref. as above:

During sighting RAF aircraft, believed to be a Harrier, made a number of low level passes for 5 to 6 minutes before dissapearing off.

The "Loose Minute" from D/Sec(AS)12/2, 14 September 1990 says

They show a large stationary, diamond-shaped object past which, it appears, a small jet aircraft is flying.

I feel "...it appears..." is a qualifier.

David Clarke's blog, https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/; though basically re-hashing the same sources:

During the sighting both also saw what they believed was a RAF Harrier jump jet make [a] number of low-level passes. During this time a series of six colour photographs were taken by the informant and '1 unidentified other [person]'.

I'd sort of assumed that the claim was that the pictures were taken during one pass of the (claimed) jet, but I can't find evidence that this was the claim of the original (claimed!) witnesses.

We can't criticize the claimed narrative on what is assumed to be the case, but which in fact isn't part of the original claim.

I also wonder why the need to explain away parts of the photo that are not the UFO

Have some sympathy with this. It might be a bird, if it's part of a photograph of a body of water it could a distant rowing boat, some sort of nondescript floating debris or a reflection of a jet or bird.
But as far as I can tell no-one has established that it's a photograph of a body of water- just that a hoax using that technique might be possible. Just as Wim van Utrecht has shown that dangling models on fine gauge fishing line allows a similar scene to be photographed.

 

[John J.]

...a B&W print would be a much better choice given the technology of the time, what @John J. calls a Vu-Foil.

-I'm probably guilty of using an old brand name. TBH I was just thinking of the types of transparencies /acetates which could be used, with the right ink, as "paper" in photocopiers so you could photocopy images or text onto transparencies for overhead projectors.

 

[Scaramanga]

Have some sympathy with this. It might be a bird, if it's part of a photograph of a body of water it could a distant rowing boat, some sort of nondescript floating debris or a reflection of a jet or bird.

But it just seems to me that people are going out of their way to invent wild and wacky 'might be' options rather than going for the 'walks like a duck...etc' normal one. I mean, to suppose that the photo is a reflection of a rock AND a bird as well is to complexify the matter...not simplify or explain it. And, of course, the reflection then has to be the right way up, or the bird would be upside down....along with the clouds that are obviously upside down in the 'upside down reflection' theory.

And why would the makers of the hoax photo a bird as well and then say it was a Harrier ? You just add the complexity of a million to one chance that a passing bird just happens to look like a harrier !

Frankly...it all gets to the absurd realms where it is easier to suppose that it actually is aliens from Beta Reticuli, as that is simpler than some of the explanations put forth here.

 

[Mauro]

So they could develop it at home.

Not only that. B&W is a fundamentally different means of expression in respect to colour, so a lot of amateurs used B&W (my father, for instance).. Even, large format cameras (ie. 6cm x 6cm), if one could afford them, were used B&W almost exclusivelty.

 

[Chundered]

IF, big if here, if the Daily Record people had any inkling that Lindsay was going to use some sort of device to send the photo to the home office, a B&W print would be a much better choice given the technology of the time, what @John J. calls a Vu-Foil. Resulting in this image at the home office:

View attachment 77852

A Vu-Foil is a transparent sheet for use with an overhead projector, not film. It can be put over an image which can then be traced onto the sheet and as described in the MOD notes this was done as a line drawing and was projected onto a wall for the purpose of trying to work out the objects size. The image shown, whilst described in the MOD documents as a Vu-Foil, is obviously not a line drawing and matches the photo that has been released exactly so the MOD description is wrong.

BTW, I think the most likely reason the copy was B&W from a colour print was that Lindsay asked them for a copy there and then so he could fax it to the MOD and they just currently had B&W film in the copier, as opposed to it being a conscious decision as only being sent via a B&W electronic transfer, but unless the reason is confirmed by someone who knows then conjecture, in the meantime there are at least reasonable explanations as to why it was B&W.

 

[Chundered]

Frankly...it all gets to the absurd realms where it is easier to suppose that it actually is aliens from Beta Reticuli, as that is simpler than some of the explanations put forth here.

I think the following scenario is simpler than aliens.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-338596

 

[Trailblazer]

The image shown, whilst described in the MOD documents as a Vu-Foil, is obviously not a line drawing and matches the photo that has been released exactly so the MOD description is wrong.

Presumably this was a photocopy onto a Vufoil sheet? I'm sure from my school days in the early 90s I remember photos being reproduced onto overhead projector sheets, in greyscale.

 

[NorCal Dave]

@Trailblazer @Chundered @John J.

Just to clarify. I wasn't sure what JohnJ. meant by "Vu Foil" as many items in the states are called something different in the UK. We have "vacuums" you guys have "hoovers". We cook on a "range" or "stove top" not a "hob".

So, I thought maybe "Vu Foil" was some sort of UK speak for a "Fax". It sounds like a Vu Foil is what we would call a transparency. A copy of something on a clear sheet of plastic that can be placed on an overhead projector and shined on a screen or wall for others to see.

I'm suggesting that Linsday sent a copy of the photo to the home office, as he describes, via a fax machine of some sort, not a Vu Foil. Specifically, I was thinking of this old spinning drum type machine from the '70s-'80s:

Regardless of what type of Fax machine he used, I would think it was very difficult if not impossible to actually feed a piece of photographic print paper into a Fax machine. It's too thick and stiff. He would have likely had to make a paper copy of the photo in a copier first, then load the paper copy of the photo into the Fax machine.

Any of these options would have worked much better with a B&W photo as opposed to a color one. A B&W copy makes everything grey scale before anything else is attempted.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, I thought maybe "Vu Foil" was some sort of UK speak for a "Fax". It sounds like a Vu Foil is what we would call a transparency. A copy of something on a clear sheet of plastic that can be placed on an overhead projector and shined on a screen or wall for others to see.

Vufoil (one word, no space or hyphen) specifically seems to refer to ready-printed transparencies made by a company called ITL Vufoils Ltd in the UK, containing diagrams, lecture notes, etc.

There aren't many references to them online but here are a couple:

Link

Link


However it may be that the term "Vufoils" here was applied generically to describe a copy made on a transparency by some other means. As I mentioned, from my memories of school I think photocopiers in the late 80s/early 90s were capable of copying onto transparencies.

 

[Ann K]

Presumably this was a photocopy onto a Vufoil sheet? I'm sure from my school days in the early 90s I remember photos being reproduced onto overhead projector sheets, in greyscale.

We did that all the time at work, photocopied graphs and text (black onto a clear sheet with a very pale blue cast) for use with an overhead projector to accompany technical presentations, but I'm sure we did it back in the 1970s. I don't recall the product name but I don't think it was "Vufoil" (in the USA). I think I still have some sheets here at home, nearly-blank ones I rescued to use if I needed to trace something. They were stiff enough sheets that my sister used them to make pattern blocks for quilts.

Edit to add: on browsing my junk collection I also find I have a 3-M brand sample pack in several tints to be used with laser printers. They're thinner and more flexible. We didn't have those printers in the building until later years, but I'd guess those date from well into the 1980s. I left the company in 1993, so they're older than that.

 

[JMartJr]

Frankly...it all gets to the absurd realms where it is easier to suppose that it actually is aliens from Beta Reticuli, as that is simpler than some of the explanations put forth here.

Gotta disagree there. While I consider the reflection in water hypothesis unlikely, it is orders of magnitude more likely than aliens.

 

[John J.]

Yes, apologies for any confusion @Chundered, @Trailblazer, @NorCal Dave; I used "Vu-Foil" as a generic for a transparency onto which an image or text can be printed using a photocopier. I haven't heard the term used for years.

"Vu-Foil" does crop up in Andrew Robinson's June 2024 analysis of the Calvine photo, along with other details that might be relevant:

...it is my considered opinion that:
-The Calvine Image provided by Craig Lindsay is a genuine photograph of the Calvine sighting and identical to both the photocopies faxed to the MoD and the original negatives provided by the Daily Record and subsequently printed as Vu-Foils (images on transparent film) and studied by the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (JARIC) before being finally released to the public in the form of poor-quality photocopies from the Vu-Foil images in 2009.

I'm sure it's been posted elsewhere, but to save the hunt,
"PHOTOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE CALVINE UFO PHOTOGRAPH By Andrew Robinson, Senior Lecturer in Photography, Sheffield Hallam University EXTENDED and UPDATED VERSION 5.0 – June 2024", PDF attached below.

many items in the states are called something different in the UK.

Maybe we should have a glossary somewhere- doesn't need to be limited to US/UK. I've always liked the German "Handy" for a cell-phone.
And I remember my 15 year old self burning with embarrassment and confusion when an Australian lady said she would wrap up some promised trinket with lots of Durex and send it on to me; I later found out "Durex" is a generic term for adhesive tape in Oz. In the UK, it's a condom.

 

[Chundered]

Regardless of what type of Fax machine he used, I would think it was very difficult if not impossible to actually feed a piece of photographic print paper into a Fax machine. It's too thick and stiff. He would have likely had to make a paper copy of the photo in a copier first, then load the paper copy of the photo into the Fax machine.

Any of these options would have worked much better with a B&W photo as opposed to a color one. A B&W copy makes everything grey scale before anything else is attempted.

Agreed and a reasonable explanation as to why the copy released in the MOD files was B&W but not why the photo Lindsay kept was B&W - hence my suggestion he was only given a B&W photo by the paper when he asked for a copy to send to the MOD.

My only point about the Vu-Foil was that the B&W copy of the photo released in the MOD files was described as one of the Vu-Foils, which it wasn't as they were described as line drawings either traced or copied from the photos. The transparencies could be typed on or written / drawn on easily with pencil or pens and used for presentations before the digital age, it was the 1980's powerpoint and many of my school / college lessons / lectures used them with OHP's.

 

[Scaramanga]

Gotta disagree there. While I consider the reflection in water hypothesis unlikely, it is orders of magnitude more likely than aliens.

But I was referring to reflection plus bird, man rowing on water, or any of the other wacky alternatives to Harrier.

I quite definitely think that aliens are more likely than that hoaxers fabricated a UFO and during the 1/40th of a second of the shot a bird that just happened to look exactly like a harrier flew past.

 

[PublicStranger]

Already touched upon but ever since it was mentioned I now just cannot unsee it. It looks uncannily like somebody on a row boat from a distance, would explain why the left wing of the '' harrier'' is faded out. It could just be water disturbance from somebody rowing. Of course if that is the case then it means it's a photo or reflection of water. Then it begs the question, why can we not see any ripples or disturbance elsewhere?

 

[Scaramanga]

It looks uncannily like somebody on a row boat from a distance

Except that hypothesis becomes ludicrous when you consider the photo as a whole, which would give us a 'rock' at least 100 feet wide in an infinitely extending lake...as there is not a hint of any partition between lake and sky.

All the wild and wacky theories just remind me of that Biblical phrase about 'straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel'. The entire photo has to be re-conceived in ever more absurd mental gymnastics to account for some tiny detail.

Of course...there wouldn't be any partition between lake and sky if one was just looking at the sky. Sorry for pointing out the obvious. I do wish people would stand a little closer to Occam's razor and shave off all the wacky ideas.

 

[JMartJr]

I quite definitely think that aliens are more likely than that hoaxers fabricated a UFO and during the 1/40th of a second of the shot a bird that just happened to look exactly like a harrier flew past.

The latter seems very unlikely, though I'd modify "exactly" to sorta, in a blurry way," but let's not quibble! ^_^

It does not matter much, because even allowing the more demanding conditions, one alternative uses only things that we KNOW exist -- reflections, birds, cameras, hoaxers, a bit of luck on the timing -- and the other uses aliens, which we do not KNOW exist, and then has to posit some physics-defying way of getting them here!

 

[Ann K]

a 'rock' at least 100 feet wide in an infinitely extending lake

Nearby Loch Tummel, as has been pointed out before, is seven miles long. I'm not sure where you get your "100 feet" from.

 

[John J.]

Nearby Loch Tummel, as has been pointed out before, is seven miles long. I'm not sure where you get your "100 feet" from.

I think @Scaramanga's referring to the minimum possible size of the rock or islet, if we assume the rowing boat hypothesis.
(Apologies to the both of you if I've got that wrong).

 

[Andreas]

True. But I've argued that the photo department at the Daily Record could have easily made copies of the color ones in B&W as the paper published in both color and B&W and would want the options available.

Yeah, that's obviously a reasonable possibility. And from what I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong), the photograph is also cropped. We don't know exactly how much or in what way, but the proportions strongly suggest that it is. Who did the cropping? It could have been the Daily Record, adjusting the photo to make it more suitable for publication. But there's also the possibility that the photographer cropped it himself. If so, the obvious question is: why? If the photo is indeed cropped, that might explain why the "UFO" appears (almost) perfectly centered in the image.

And why would the makers of the hoax photo a bird as well and then say it was a Harrier ? You just add the complexity of a million to one chance that a passing bird just happens to look like a harrier !

Frankly...it all gets to the absurd realms where it is easier to suppose that it actually is aliens from Beta Reticuli, as that is simpler than some of the explanations put forth here.

But it's always easier to just assume it's "aliens from Beta Reticuli." Easy, however, doesn't mean probable. Explaining a "UFO photo" almost always requires piecing together a chain of events.

When someone says it's a "million-to-one chance" that a bird would look like a plane, they're making a flawed assumption. A blurry bird can resemble many different things. Let's assume the photographer never intended to fake a "UFO" picture and that the whole thing was pure coincidence. If the bird had simply looked like a bird (or an out of focus blob), the photographer wouldn't have even considered sending the photo to the newspaper, claiming it depicted a UFO and a jet.

Millions of times, people take pictures of birds (or men in rowboats or some other ordinary object), and it doesn't result in a fake UFO photo. It's like when someone happens to snap a picture of a cloud that looks like the Virgin Mary. It's unlikely, sure—but once in a while, it happens.

Again, I'm not saying it's a bird—I have no idea what it is. But personally, I don't see any details that prove for certain that it's a Harrier (or a model of one).

Determining what we see is highly dependent on context. If this is a view of the Scottish countryside with a large craft hovering in the center, then a Harrier is definitely the most likely explanation. But if we're looking at a reflection in a lake, then a piece of wood, a bird, or a boat is just as plausible.

 

[Ann K]

If the photo is indeed cropped, that might explain why the "UFO" appears (almost) perfectly centered in the image.

That's an unnecessary thing to assume. If you saw an interesting thing (islet with reflections or UFO makes no difference), the instinct would be to point your camera at it, thus putting it in the middle.

 

[NorCal Dave]

If the photo is indeed cropped, that might explain why the "UFO" appears (almost) perfectly centered in the image.

That's an unnecessary thing to assume. If you saw an interesting thing (islet with reflections or UFO makes no difference), the instinct would be to point your camera at it, thus putting it in the middle.

There are problems with the cropping argument:

1. We don't have the original negatives, so it's impossible to say if it was cropped or by how much. For what it's worth, Robinson claimed the photo may have been cropped slightly to fit the paper better, but not much. Stuart Little claimed the photo was cropped quite a bit to create what we see. However, he also claims to have spent ~15 minutes with the 6 photos over 30 years ago. He only came out and gave an interview AFTER Clarke's team had released their report and most of Little's comments simply parrot that report, including the claim that the photo was shot on Ilford XP B&W film, something Robinson originally claimed but changed his mind on later. I think Little's recollections likely contain a fair amount of confabulation if not fabrication. Bottom line, nobody knows if or how much cropping took place.
2. No amount of cropping can account for the symmetry in the photo we have in relation to the tree, fence and UFO:

Not only is our UFO centered, as might be expected if one were trying to photograph a UFO, but it's nearly centered between the fence and tree. Not only centered, but the fence, tree and UFO create the classic thirds taught in photography in the horizontal while the fence post make for a nearly perfect thirds in the vertical.

No amount of cropping can create this. Even if there was half again as much image on the negative in any direction, when the UFO is moved to the center, this highly composed image results. Regardless of what is not seen, assuming that it has been cropped, the UFO ends up in the middle third related to the tree and fence and the fence posts.

This is one of my arguments against the reflection theory. The UFO rock MUST appear in the center third horizontally and vertically, just by chance. On a cloudy but totally calm day. And then a wayward Harrier on a low-level training flight buzzed by and ALSO happened to hit the center third. Or a bird or a dude in a boat happened into the center third AND happened to look a lot like a Harrier. Maybe. I know, not impossible.

The composition is an even bigger problem for the point and shoot argument. IF our lads are supposedly cowering behind hill or whatever and they popped up to take 6 photos, sure the UFO might be centered in the photo, but in the center third of the tree and fence? Seems like a stretch.

The photo is just to composed IMO.

 

[Mauro]

There are problems with the cropping argument

But there's also the fact that the picture has an aspect ratio of ~1.25:1, which must be explained.

The usual 35mm film has an aspect ratio of 1.5:1 (36mm x 24mm), so if the original photograph was in 35mm format it must have been cropped.

The only way to get an aspect ratio of 1.25:1 (that I know of) is to use the 120 film, which can take 7cm x 6cm pictures = 1.25:1

However the 120 film was most commonly used in 6cm x 6cm, or 6cm x 4.5cm, both with the wrong aspect ratio, and requiring an expensive medium format camera which was mostly used by professionists and some evolved amateur, so people who knew very well how to take pictures (and how to modify them in post-processing, if necessary). Moreover the 7cm * 6cm format was, I think, rarely used (I never heard of that in the 80s and 90s, while I remember very well the other formats, my father was an amateur photographer and he took both 35mm and 6x6 pictures) and required even more expensive cameras.

Conclusion: unless the picture was taken with a 7x6 camera (or some other format I don't know) it must have been cropped.

Note: I've never heard the suggestion it was a Polaroid, but in any case the Polaroid format has the wrong aspect ratio too, ~1:1

 

[Mendel]

The usual 35mm film has an aspect ratio of 1.5:1 (36mm x 24mm), so if the original photograph was in 35mm format it must have been cropped.

The only way to get an aspect ratio of 1.25:1 (that I know of) is to use the 120 film, which can take 7cm x 6cm pictures = 1.25:1

so a potential explanation is that this happened when the newspaper's photo lab reproduced the images for the MoD. Obviously the repro technician would have chosen the crop.

It makes sense to me that a newspaper photo lab would have a setup that allowed them to produce different aspect ratios. Athough it may be simpler to half-tone the whole picture and then use a pair of scissors?

 

[Mendel]

1. No amount of cropping can account for the symmetry in the photo we have in relation to the tree, fence and UFO:

Not only is our UFO centered, as might be expected if one were trying to photograph a UFO, but it's nearly centered between the fence and tree. Not only centered, but the fence, tree and UFO create the classic thirds taught in photography in the horizontal while the fence post make for a nearly perfect thirds in the vertical.

Does it, though?

 

[NorCal Dave]

Does it, though?

Pretty darn close, I would argue, given that it's likely being done by eye, not a ruler. Thanks for doing it the right way with proper 1/3 lines, unlike my scribbles. How did you do that? I might want to fool around with it a bit more.

 

[Mendel]

Pretty darn close, I would argue, given that it's likely being done by eye, not a ruler. Thanks for doing it the right way with proper 1/3 lines, unlike my scribbles. How did you do that? I might want to fool around with it a bit more.

the "resize picture" screen of the Android photo gallery editor drew these lines, I screenshotted it and edited it to add the red lines.

The verical is not close at all, more like 25%—65%—10%.
Pivoting the camera a bit to the right and down would've created good symmetry.

 

[Ann K]

The photo is just to composed IMO.

I don't see that. You might say that in your opinion "it's too symmetrical", but it is not, artistically speaking, particularly well composed at all. The thing being dead center is exactly where an artist (or an artistic photographer) would never place the center of interest. Is is, however, just where an amateur photographer would put it.

 

[Andreas]

Conclusion: unless the picture was taken with a 7x6 camera (or some other format I don't know) it must have been cropped.

Agreed. I do think it was cropped; otherwise, the proportions of the print provided by Lindsey don't make sense to me. And absolutely, a photographer would likely point the camera toward the UFO. But managing to place the UFO dead center (or almost, at least) while snapping six pictures within a few seconds doesn't seem likely.

 

[Mendel]

Agreed. I do think it was cropped; otherwise, the proportions of the print provided by Lindsey don't make sense to me. And absolutely, a photographer would likely point the camera toward the UFO. But managing to place the UFO dead center (or almost, at least) while snapping six pictures within a few seconds doesn't seem likely.

with a viewfinder like this, it's not hard to do

 

[NorCal Dave]

I don't see that. You might say that in your opinion "it's too symmetrical", but it is not, artistically speaking, particularly well composed at all. The thing being dead center is exactly where an artist (or an artistic photographer) would never place the center of interest. Is is, however, just where an amateur photographer would put it.

Agreed. For an artistic shot. This is a UFO shot, so it gets placed center. As you note and I admit, it's my opinion . I just think the UFO is too composed between the fence and tree.

The verical is not close at all, more like 25%—65%—10%.

Agreed. I was not clear. I'm not saying the fence is exactly at the 1/3 mark and the tree is at the 2/3 mark. Rather, the fence is an element in the lower 1/3 and the tree is an element in the upper 1/3 with the UFO in the center 1/3. As I admit, just the way it looks to me.

I do think it was cropped; otherwise, the proportions of the print provided by Lindsey don't make sense to me.

As described in Robenson's report:

35mm film has a ratio of 3:2 while 10x8" paper has a ratio of 5:4 thus in order to print a 35mm image on a sheet of 10x8" photo paper without boarders a proportion of the sides of the image would have to be cropped. It should be assumed that this image has been cropped in this manner when printed. The common paper sizes for typical consumer 'en-prints' 6x4" (ratio 3:2) and 7x5" (ratio 3.5x2.5) are a better fit for 35mm film requiring little or no cropping.