Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

[deirdre]

How did you do that? I might want to fool around with it a bit more.

Gimp is similar to Photoshop but free to download.
https://www.gimp.org/downloads/ (i always pick "directly" but i have no idea why)

your pic -i am using- is a bit crooked (see white edge in lower left).
you can google anything (like i had no idea how to add or edit a grid, so googled "gimp add grid overlay")
basically "File>Open" pic in gimp.
under "view" make sure 'show grid is checked', then under image you can configure the size of the grid squares.

ps to see how many pixels your image is (to do grid math), click "Image>Scale Image" and it will tell you.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Gimp is similar to Photoshop but free to download.

Thanks deirdre! That's why I hang around here, always something to learn. I've fooled with Gimp before, but it's been a while.

 

[Scaramanga]

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

The same place people get birds and men in rowing boats and upside down clouds and reflections that don't actually reflect........from.

 

[Scaramanga]

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!

It's pretty damned physics defying to me to be photographing a 'UFO' and in the 1/40th of a second that the shutter is open a bird just 'happens' to fly past that looks exactly like a Harrier.

 

[Scaramanga]

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.

You're seeing patterns where there aren't any. If the UFO was right over a fence post, which it only needs to move marginally to either side to be, then you'd equally have a pattern. And in any case the photo really isn't divided into three by the posts. And the UFO is not centred in the photo....it is below and to the right of centre....

 

[John J.]

a bird just 'happens' to fly past that looks exactly like a Harrier.

In fairness, even if it is a Harrier (or a model/ representation of one) it doesn't look exactly like a Harrier, there's certainly room for doubt. Against that, we have to consider the image on the transparency, which strangely looks more like a poorly-resolved Harrier,
and the fact that in at least one other image a second aircraft was seen and described as "probably" a Harrier by MoD personnel.

It could be two rowing boats, or two birds, or one rowing boat and one bird (or reflection of a bird) in conditions where both looked a bit like Harriers to the extent that MoD staff with access to all 6 negatives were fooled, even though they established that no Harriers were in the area at the time. But I think it's unlikely (though maybe more likely than a 10 minute UFO visit).

On a slightly different tack, I don't know what Craig Lindsay's job involved as a (civilian, I think) public relations officer at RAF Pitreavie. Maybe he had an interest in photography, or took photos as part of his role?
Just something that makes me wonder a bit at times.
-We should of course remember that Mr Lindsay is now a gentleman of senior years; I'm not sure it would be right to bother him with more questions.

 

[Ann K]

The same place people get birds and men in rowing boats and upside down clouds and reflections that don't actually reflect........from.

You still don't comprehend reflections, I see. Pity.

 

[JMartJr]

It's pretty damned physics defying to me to be photographing a 'UFO' and in the 1/40th of a second that the shutter is open a bird just 'happens' to fly past that looks exactly like a Harrier.

In what way does that defy physics? It's merely unlikely, a one in a million coincidence (if it happened in this case.) But many millions of pictures get taken, something like one out of every million will have a million to one coincidence. Many millions means many pictures with odd million to one coincidences in them must exist. Physics does not mind that at all.

 

[Mendel]

It's pretty damned physics defying to me to be photographing a 'UFO' and in the 1/40th of a second that the shutter is open a bird just 'happens' to fly past that looks exactly like a Harrier.

The point here is that the MoD reportedly had 6 pictures, and identified Harriers on them, and the chance of catching a bird in flight looking like a Harrier aircraft closely enough to fool someone at the MoD 6 times is pretty slim.


If we were talking about a harrier looking like a harrier, it'd be easy, though.

 

[Andreas]

It's pretty damned physics defying to me to be photographing a 'UFO' and in the 1/40th of a second that the shutter is open a bird just 'happens' to fly past that looks exactly like a Harrier.

Nah, not really. It all depends on the context. If it's a hoax, then we have no idea how many pictures the photographer actually took—perhaps hundreds, just to get the perfect ones to send to the paper. In that case, capturing a bird in a few of them seems quite likely.

Then there's the possibility that the photographer never set out to take a "UFO photo" at all but was simply snapping pictures while hiking for fun. If so, the fact that the bird happened to resemble a jet might have made him realize he could potentially fool the newspaper. If that's the case, a bird looking like a jet isn't unlikely at all, since no one was intending to take a picture of a bird looking like a jet. I've taken pictures of clouds that looked like Donald Trump, mushrooms that resembled faces, and stains that formed words. These things just happen sometimes.

Yet again, I'm not saying it's a bird in the picture. It could be a jet, a bird, a piece of wood, or something else entirely. We just can't say for sure.

 

[Mendel]

If it's a hoax, then we have no idea how many pictures the photographer actually took—perhaps hundreds

that's not likely with chemical film, people only do this digitally (or when they get paid, e.g. as a sports photographer).

 

[Andreas]

The point here is that the MoD reportedly had 6 pictures, and identified Harriers on them, and the chance of catching a bird in flight looking like a Harrier aircraft closely enough to fool someone at the MoD 6 times is pretty slim.

I'm not going to argue further about the bird hypothesis since I don't think it's the most likely explanation. But I still believe it's a possibility. The "analysis" by the MoD is, of course, an issue, but since we know extremely little about what was actually done, we can't say for certain whether a misidentification was possible.

The photo we have is said to be the best of the six, but we can only guess about the quality of the others. Let's say a bird flew by, happened to resemble a Harrier in the clearest shot, and appeared as an out-of-focus blur in the others. If that were the case, the MoD could have concluded that a Harrier was present in all six images—even if, in reality, it was just a bird.

That said, it's just as possible that a Harrier is clearly visible in some of the other photos, making the identification undeniable. I just think we know too little to say for sure. And we've seen in other cases that government analyses of UFO photographs aren't always the most reliable…

 

[FatPhil]

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.

Yay, you've invoked FatPhil's favourite art/photography rant! Are you calling Stanley Kubrick an amateur? Symmetry is *powerful*

exposition at: http://fatphil.org/photography/bent_rules.html#thirds
Do a websearch for images of Brooklyn bridge - which are the ones that really jump out at you? It's the symmetrical ones. (I am reminded of this example as the pub I was in last night has a wonderful linocut of the bridge in the loos, and, yes, it's a perfectly symmetrical one, and that's what makes it wonderful.)

 

[Mauro]

The point here is that the MoD reportedly had 6 pictures, and identified Harriers on them

Arguing from evidence one does not have is always problematic. The pictures might or might not exist, and they might or might not show what the MoD reported: any inference based on MoD's words is very weak, and expecially so because they also said there were no Harriers there. The only real, reliable piece of data we have beyond anedoctes is the photo itself, I'd stick to that.

 

[Mendel]

Arguing from evidence one does not have is always problematic. The pictures might or might not exist, and they might or might not show what the MoD reported: any inference based on MoD's words is very weak, and expecially so because they also said there were no Harriers there. The only real, reliable piece of data we have beyond anedoctes is the photo itself, I'd stick to that.

I don't think it's possible that the MoD file says there were 6 pictures when there was only one.

 

[Chundered]

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.

Where do you get a few seconds from ?

The account states the object was visible for several minutes.

I don't think it's possible that the MoD file says there were 6 pictures when there was only one.

The MOD file states they were provided with 6 negatives, page 116.

http://www.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/UK/Oct2008/defe-24-1940.pdf

Arguing from evidence one does not have is always problematic. The pictures might or might not exist, and they might or might not show what the MoD reported: any inference based on MoD's words is very weak, and expecially so because they also said there were no Harriers there. The only real, reliable piece of data we have beyond anedoctes is the photo itself, I'd stick to that.

The MOD documents are reliable data and authentic.

Note for those not familiar with English political and civil service terms of language, the statement said that there was no record of Harriers at that time. Note that is not a definitive answer, just that there was no record and is wording that is used to provide a negative answer that can be defended in the future if it turns out to be incorrect. Such as I have no recollection of being in Scotland (which is what the guy who is the right age and has the same name as the alleged photographer who works as a MOD photo analyst said when asked if it was him).

The MOD absolutely would be aware of a military jet flying in their own airspace but there are plenty of reasons why a record of it may not have been found.

 

[deirdre]

Where do you get a few seconds from ?

it reads as if a [or the] harrier was in each of the 6 pictures. so i think its based on the idea a plane would fly out of frame in a few seconds.

 

[Andreas]

Where do you get a few seconds from ?

The account states the object was visible for several minutes.

it reads as if a [or the] harrier was in each of the 6 pictures. so i think its based on the idea a plane would fly out of frame in a few seconds.

This whole discussion is rather speculative since we know little about the additional five pictures. But the documents state, "They show a large stationary... object past which... a small aircraft is flying." Lindsay also recalled seeing a jet passing from right to left in the pictures, with the UFO remaining stationary in the center.

 

[Scaramanga]

It could be two rowing boats, or two birds, or one rowing boat and one bird (or reflection of a bird) in conditions where both looked a bit like Harriers to the extent that MoD staff with access to all 6 negatives were fooled,

This is the bit I find truly absurd. Why Is everyone so eager to conjecture 'could be this or that' when one already has a perfectly reasonable, logical, explanation in it being a Harrier...which is what the original witnesses even said it was. What additional advantage towards solving anything is added by conjecturing that it is a rowing boat, for example ?

For it to be a rowing boat...one is effectively taking something that is 0.01% of the photo and having to re-imagine the entire photo to fit it in. One all of a sudden has to imagine a large lake, a large rock...which would have to be at least 100 feet wide to scale with the 'rowing boat', a mysterious absence of any edge between sky ( or land ) and water, a bizarre upsidedown-ness of the clouds, and a mystery 'reflection' constituting 99% of the photo. And all just to explain something that takes up a minute potion of the photo. That is going from the sublime to the ludicrous.

What is conceivably gained by adding complexity to the hypothesis that the photo is simply of the sky ? I mean, if it is just the sky then one doesn't have to explain why there is no edge of some mysterious 'lake', one doesn't have to go searching non-existent lakes for non-existent 100 foot wide rocks, mysterious rowing boats, or visit the land of upside down clouds.

Occam's razor !

 

[Scaramanga]

You still don't comprehend reflections, I see. Pity.

I understand reflections perfectly well enough to easily grasp that the photo clearly isn't one. There's only so many excuses one can make for why the 'UFO' has zero reflectional correspondence. None of the light and dark patches match up at all. None of the shape matches up. A reflection is supposed to reflect ! All people have done is provide crazy counter-arguments using absurd examples taken at some 45 degree angle....when there is zero evidence the 'UFO' reflection is taken at any such angle.

Hey...but maybe if I look in the mirror at just the right angle in just the right lighting on just the right day...I will see Brad Pitt !

 

[Scaramanga]

it reads as if a [or the] harrier was in each of the 6 pictures. so i think its based on the idea a plane would fly out of frame in a few seconds.

View attachment 77983

So...taking into account all 6 photos it appears we have not just one but TWO 'birds' that have achieved the remarkable feat of looking just like Harriers.

 

[JMartJr]

Why Is everyone so eager to conjecture 'could be this or that' when one already has a perfectly reasonable, logical, explanation in it being a Harrier...which is what the original witnesses even said it was.

The witnesses also said there was a huge hovering UFO. If we just go with what the witness said, we can delete all these UFO threads and get a new hobby! ^_^

What additional advantage towards solving anything is added by conjecturing that it is a rowing boat, for example ?

Thinking about things it COULD be might eventually help figure out what it actually was. I understand you don;t think it was a reflection. I'm still unclear why you object so strenuously to the hypothesis being discussed.

Hey...but maybe if I look in the mirror at just the right angle in just the right lighting on just the right day...I will see Brad Pitt !

Possibly, if you are standing off to the left of the mirror and Mr. Pitt is on the right.

 

[JMartJr]

So...taking into account all 6 photos it appears we have not just one but TWO 'birds' that have achieved the remarkable feat of looking just like Harriers.

Possibly, or maybe not -- show me the pictures and we can consider them as evidence.

 

[Scaramanga]

Thinking about things it COULD be might eventually help figure out what it actually was.

No. Not when you have to re-imagine 99.9% of the photo in order to 'explain' 0.01% of the photo that isn't even the primary object of concern.

The point about 'could be a rowing boat' is not the rowing boat...but that in order for it to BE a rowing boat you have to re-conceive the entire rest of the photo. You are making the photo fit the theory to explain some tiny part...when you should be making a theory that fits the photo as a whole !

 

[deirdre]

Thinking about things it COULD be might eventually help figure out what it actually was

i dont know why your brain can't accept that it is a moldy ravioli hanging from a tree.

 

[Scaramanga]

The witnesses also said there was a huge hovering UFO. If we just go with what the witness said, we can delete all these UFO threads and get a new hobby! ^_^

The witnesses also said it was daylight. 'Maybe' it was night. They said they were in Scotland. 'Maybe' they were on the French Riviera. They said it was August. 'Maybe' it was March. The list of 'maybe' is infinite.

Why not just simplify the whole thing and decide that the ONLY thing we need to explain is the UFO, and that it might just as well be what it is claimed to be...a photo of the sky...as we can explain the UFO even if it is a photo of the sky. In the absence of further information we will never prove otherwise.

If there was convincing evidence that it is all a reflection and could only be a reflection then I'd go for that. But there is zero evidence for a reflection. There's absolutely no reason to suppose the witnesses were lying about that aspect.

 

[JMartJr]

i dont know why your brain can't accept that it is a moldy ravioli hanging from a tree.

I think it IS most likely something hanging, possibly for a tree. I remain agnostic as to whether it is ravioli. ^_^

 

[John J.]

it reads as if a [or the] harrier was in each of the 6 pictures. so i think its based on the idea a plane would fly out of frame in a few seconds.

I very much thought the same- that all 6 photos were taken during one pass of the claimed aircraft- but in retrospect we don't actually have any firm evidence that this was part of the original claim as far as I can make out.

Assuming that this is what happened, and then raising the difficulty of taking several photos including the (claimed) jet making one pass as evidence of fakery, might be seen as a straw man argument.

From the "Original Calvine UFO photo" thread:

If the jet is a real aircraft, it's probably safe to say it flew from right to left because its nose is on the left.

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]'.

If the claimed jet were only in one or two photos, it might still be described as "appearing" to be flying past the (claimed) UFO.

 

[John J.]

I think it IS most likely something hanging, possibly for a tree. I remain agnostic as to whether it is ravioli

Ravioli is a manufactured product. The only pasta produced by trees is spaghetti, as per a 1957 BBC documentary,
"The Spaghetti Harvest", Panorama, 1957 (below), although most spaghetti in supermarkets is the wheat-based product.

Panorama reports from lake Lugano, Switzerland, where the combination of a mild winter and the virtual disappearance of pests like the spaghetti weevil, has resulted in a bumper spaghetti crop.

"Archive: A look back at the 1957 spaghetti harvest", BBC News, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-68707739


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8scpGwbvxvI

 

[deirdre]

he only pasta produced by trees is spaghetti, as per a 1957 BBC documentary,

great, now i have Monty Pythons coconut/swallow argument in my head.

 

[Scaramanga]

Possibly, or maybe not -- show me the pictures and we can consider them as evidence.

Well...its amazing that people want additional picture evidence even though the original investigation says they exist and contained TWO craft that look like Harriers.....yet people are quite happy, with absolutely ZERO evidence, to pontificate rowing boats and birds.

 

[Scaramanga]

I think it IS most likely something hanging, possibly for a tree. I remain agnostic as to whether it is ravioli. ^_^

It's clearly a reflection of ravioli. Only amateur hoaxers would hang ravioli from trees.

 

[deirdre]

Only amateur hoaxers would hang ravioli from trees.

you'd still have to hang the moldy ravioli to get the reflection shot. Raviolis dont hover on their own.

some guy tried to nail jello to a wall. other people hung spaghetti from trees. Rural life before video games and the internet was pretty boring.

 

[Andreas]

that's not likely with chemical film, people only do this digitally (or when they get paid, e.g. as a sports photographer).

It wasn't that expensive to buy film and have it developed. Back in the day, I often shot several rolls while on vacation. But personally, I don't think the hoaxer used more than one roll of film for this "project."

Furthermore, I don't think it's a coincidence that he shared exactly six pictures. As I recall, when sending a film away for development, you'd get it back cut into segments, usually with six negatives per strip. It's likely that one such strip was given to the newspaper. If that's the case, it would be a remarkable coincidence that all six "UFO photos" just happened to end up on the same strip. A more likely scenario is that the hoaxer used a whole roll of film to experiment and then handed over the segment with the "best" shots.

 

[Mendel]

It's likely that one such strip was given to the newspaper. If that's the case, it would be a remarkable coincidence that all six "UFO photos" just happened to end up on the same strip.

so it's likely they were not on the same strip, then. They would still be shown to be consecutive by the numbers on the border.

if you assume a fact not in evidence and then disprove it, that just means your assumption was bad

 

[Scaramanga]

Furthermore, I don't think it's a coincidence that he shared exactly six pictures. As I recall, when sending a film away for development, you'd get it back cut into segments, usually with six negatives per strip. It's likely that one such strip was given to the newspaper. If that's the case, it would be a remarkable coincidence that all six "UFO photos" just happened to end up on the same strip.

This is where actual maths often defies human intuition. It seems like it would be unlikely.....but in fact it is not unlikely at all. It is actually likely.

Those old films had 24 negatives.....and thus you'd get 4 strips, each with 6 negatives.

But really, that means it is all identical to......what are the chances of rolling a 1, in 4 throws of a dice....which corresponds to all 6 negatives being on one strip.

The probability is 1 - (5/6)^4 which is 0.52.

So something that intuitively feels like it would be a remarkable coincidence actually has a 52% chance of occurring.


(EDIT : In fact technically the odds are even higher, as by definition your six photos can't start later than negative 19 )

 

[JMartJr]

Those old films had 24 negatives.

Acknowledging up front that memory is fallible, my memory is that you could by rolls of film in 12, 24 or 36 shots per roll (and often could get one more than advertised, if lucky), my memories of doing so stretching from the 70s into the late 90s early 2000s...

OK, to be a better poster, I went and actually Googled a bit. I searched for "Ilford XP-2" and found it remarkably hard to spot the number of exposures on this product in many cases. The ones I could find labeled were 36 and 24 exposures.

Caveat: What I can find today may not correspond to what was available back then.

Couldn't find a 12exposure roll for this film -- but I did see 12 and 20 exposure rolls of other films. (If we've stopped thinking that was the film used, I missed it, but I found 12, 20, 24 and 36 exposure rolls for a number of films that I didn't save a picture of.)

 

[Andreas]

so it's likely they were not on the same strip, then. They would still be shown to be consecutive by the numbers on the border.

if you assume a fact not in evidence and then disprove it, that just means your assumption was bad

But my main point in the post was that, even though people were generally more selective about taking pictures back then, developing film wasn't prohibitively expensive. That's why I don't buy statements like, "People didn't take large numbers of pictures back in the day." If someone were faking a UFO sighting, they'd likely be willing to spend a few extra pounds to experiment.

And let's not forget—the hoaxer wouldn't have known if the pictures turned out well until they were developed. Taking just six shots would have been a huge gamble. Using at least a full roll of film seems far more plausible. But that would leave the photographer with a problem. He obviously couldn't let anyone see the other photos from the same roll, so he'd need a good excuse for why the "UFO pictures" were cut out from the rest of the negatives.

My mention of six-frame film segments was simply to illustrate how a hoaxer might have made things easier for himself. Negatives were often cut into strips of six frames, so handing over just one segment wouldn't have raised much suspicion.

 

[Ann K]

Those old films had 24 negatives.....and thus you'd get 4 strips, each with 6 negatives.

Some had 36 exposures. I used to take a lot of film pictures, often using twenty to thirty rolls on a vacation trip. There were usually five strips for a 24-picture roll, the first and last photos having a bit of blank film on them.

That's just trivia; we have no idea if a strip of contiguous film was ever handed over, thus any discussion of the odds is meaningless.

 

[Andreas]

So something that intuitively feels like it would be a remarkable coincidence actually has a 52% chance of occurring.

I probably didn't pay enough attention in statistics class—math isn't my strongest skill… but to get all six photos on the same slide, you'd have to start at frame 1, 7, 13, or 19. Any other starting position would result in the six shots being split across different slides. That seems to suggest a probability of 1 in 6. But I'm probably getting it wrong.

Not that it really matters anyway (my fault for bringing up probability in the first place), since I'm convinced the case is a hoax and that the photographer took several more shots of the "UFO." My only point is that handing over exactly six shots to the newspaper could simply be a result of each slide of negatives containing six frames. By handing over one full slide, the photographer might have avoided having to explain why the rest of the negatives—that given the story told by the photographer should be depicting an ordinary hiking trip—weren't included.