Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis
- Thread starter Space_Raider
- Start date
John J.
Senior Member.
It's obviously a mini submarine.
I was just responding to @jackfrostvc's query; I'm not endorsing Andrew Robinson's analysis.
(And I'd be very surprised if it's a real plane, if the photo's time and place of origin were as claimed).
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Then go over to the other thread and assume it's a bird, I guess.
Nessie reference noted...
I don't mean to be rude to Mr. Robinson, but this all sounds like pure speculation to me. I spoke to an experienced photographer—a professor of photography at Sweden's largest university—and he dismissed Robinson's conclusions as nothing more than amateurish guesswork. Sure, it's fun to play the "guess the size" game, but does it really matter? We know how big an actual Harrier is—that's about the only solid fact we have. We have no clue what lens was used, how the image was cropped, or any other crucial details.
John J.
Senior Member.
Sort of agree. Robinson did use the space between barbs on the wire as an additional comparator which I thought was quite ingenious; it never occurred to me that there was a "standard" (or at least very common) spacing of 10cm.
One of the main issues I have with Robinson's analysis is the assumptions he makes. Robinson apparently believes this is a hastily taken shot of a large, unknown craft.
Let's assume for a moment that he's right. In his photographic analysis, he assumes that the image was slightly cropped on both sides to fit the 20x25 cm paper, but that the full height of the photograph probably remains intact. That would mean something like this:
But if this really were a hastily taken picture by a frightened person hiding under a tree, it's rather surprising how well-composed it is—featuring a perfectly centered "UFO" and a fairly level angle. A much more plausible explanation would be that Allan (or another professional at the Daily Record) cropped the photo to make it look as good as possible. Perhaps something like this:
Why would he do that? Well, first of all, it would probably be second nature. When preparing a photo for publication, cropping and adjusting it for maximum visual impact is standard practice. And beyond that, removing "unnecessary landscape" would be a great way to make the "UFO" appear larger and more prominent in the final print.
I'm not saying that's what happened, just that it's a reasonable possibility. Yet Robinson continues to make assumptions and builds his conclusions on these. The same with the "ufo" being the object best in focus. Really?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
To reference Nessie again, and "The Surgeon's Photo" which remains the most famous hoax picture from Scotland, though the Calvine UFO is doing its' best darn it:
The Surgeon's Photo as we usually see it...
And uncropped. To me, this was a reasonably successful effort to hide how small something was with a tighter crop.
So, yeah, cropping can be used to help make a hoax pic look more impressive.
Yeah, that's a great example of what can happen when you crop a photograph! Since we're in the reflection-in-water thread, let's consider what a heavily cropped Calvine photo could mean. One of the main objections to the reflection theory has been that it seems unlikely a hoaxer would manage to capture a random stone/island and a jet-like object—after all, they couldn't be sure how it would look once the pictures were developed.
But what I find remarkable is how this entire story seems to originate in the photo department of the Daily Record, a place where thousands and thousands of negatives were likely stored. Sure, it's said that the photos were sent to the newspaper by "Russell," but we have no real proof of that.
Now, imagine some employee browsing through the archives and stumbling upon a random set of negatives of a Scottish landscape. They notice that part of the scene kind of looks like a UFO being chased by a military jet. What if that person decided to orchestrate a hoax? Let's assume, for example, that the original image was cropped like this:
Why would anyone do such a thing? Well, maybe someone wanted to play a prank on Allan. Maybe they were just experimenting with the lab equipment. There could be a thousand different reasons, and we'll probably never know. The only real challenge in this theory is explaining "Russell's" testimony. But even that isn't impossible—perhaps Allan fell for the prank and made a fool of himself by contacting the MoD. Suddenly, confessing to tricking your boss didn't seem so appealing. Maybe having a friend make up a fake backstory was an easier way out.
The key point here is that dismissing the reflection theory because it would take too many lucky coincidences assumes the case started with someone deliberately trying to capture a hoax photo. But what if it didn't? If the photos already existed, then there were no lucky coincidences—just someone spotting an opportunity. No photos, no hoax. Not the other way around.
The more I look into the Calvine case, the more convinced I am that it's impossible to say what we're actually looking at. It could be a Christmas ornament, silhouettes on a sheet of glass, or a reflection in a lake. The quality of the image is simply too poor to know for sure. But all of those explanations seem far more likely than someone accidentally photographing a secret anti-gravity craft—or an alien spaceship.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
The Wee Beastie hypothesis deserves it's own thread IMO #658
Ann K
Senior Member.
That's been my thought all along, although the same could be said of an uncropped photo. If, as has been previously discussed, a number of planes were out to practice low-level flights over a loch, that removes the plane from the "coincidence" category into the "predictable", as each one could have been heard coming and it's just a matter of trying to snap a picture at the right moment. The fence and tree and islet may not have been chosen, but might just have been where they happened to be when they heard or saw the planes coming.
John J.
Senior Member.
If the Calvine scene was photographically enlarged by a significant amount, wouldn't the film grain also be enlarged?
Sure, the new image would have the grain size/ texture of the film onto which it was transposed, but I can't see how this would hide the magnified grain of the original image.
I'm no expert on the subject (I'm sure someone with more experience in analog photography can explain this better), but doesn't that depend on the method used to crop the photograph? For example, if someone made duplicate negatives from the cropped positive prints, couldn't that explain the graininess and the slightly out-of-focus feel of the whole scene? (If cropping was a crucial part of the hoax, then faking negatives would have been just as important.) It seems like if creating new negatives from prints is a rather straightforward process:
https://www.nedcc.org/free-resource...tting/6.2-duplication-of-historical-negatives
Frankly, the "disadvantage" of losing detail could actually be an advantage for a hoaxer looking to conceal elements that might otherwise expose the hoax. If that's the case, then what we're looking at is a digital scan of a print of a negative of a print of the original negative.External Quote:
John J.
Senior Member.
To be honest, I have no idea.
So I'll happily accept correction, but I think a professionally duplicated negative would be, well, a duplicate for most practical purposes.
Robinson examined the grain in his analysis.
I've contacted a photographic historian specializing in traditional photo techniques. Hopefully, he can clarify things.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
It's almost like they cropped it as a homage to a classic UFO photo (the Trent, McMinnville photo).
I posted the picture on a forum for professional photographers to hear what people outside the UFO community thought about it. Interestingly, without any background information, everyone said it looked like a reflection in a lake. Everyone. Some didn't even realize it was supposed to be a "UFO photo"...
Mendel
Senior Member.
If it's a public forum, please provide a link and some quotes.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
To quote Jeran Campanella... Interesting.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Except...people can't seem to make up their minds whether its a right way up reflection or an upside down reflection.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Be fair, that would depend on how much of what is shown is a reflection, assuming any of it is, of course. And that is part of what has been debated here.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Anybody who looks at the light side - dark side of the islet knows which way is up.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
So why are the clouds upside down ? That's not exactly a minor detail that gets hand waived away.
Ann K
Senior Member.
We've discussed that already, Scaramanga. You just don't read posts that disagree with you.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
No, there was never a satisfactory answer. It was just hand waived away....using cloud types that are not those in the photo. As was the fact that the 'reflection' does not in any way even vaguely 'reflect' the upper and lower halves of the UFO. Once again, hand waived away....using reflections that are at some absurd angle. And on top of that, if the reflection in the photo is the right way up, one also has to explain why there are distant hilltops and trees at the fence line....like you'd expect to see in a photo near Calvine. But again, hand waived away as weeds or plants on the shore of some mythical lake that nobody has ever identified.
Ann K
Senior Member.
It's not my fault that you are unable to comprehend that reflections of a 3-D object do not look like those of a 2-D object. I tried...
Scaramanga
Senior Member
No, I totally object to this rather patronising type of response. Nothing about the so-called reflection actually reflects. None of the markings on the top have corresponding marks on the bottom. How can you call it a reflection when not a single aspect of it actually reflects !
You'd expect at least something to correspond...for there to at least be some vague similarity of markings....but absolutely nothing does.
So on what basis is this thing a reflection ? I mean, you cannot simultaneously argue that almost every aspect can not look like a reflection, and at the same time make the basis ' it looks like a reflection'. That is akin to sawing off the branch you are sitting on.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
I've explained.
You've ignored.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
No...at no time have you ever explained the utter contradiction of arguing that something looks like a reflection whilst arguing that none of it actually has to 'reflect'. The entire basis of arguing that it is even a reflection in the first place....I mean why even argue such unless it 'looks like' one...gets undermined by all the ' ah...but a reflection doesn't have to reflect' hand waiving.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Allow me to reword that. I explained. You failed to comprehend the explanation.
deirdre
Senior Member.
just because someone disagrees with something you state, does not mean they dont comprehend you.
and you...enough already. she obviously isnt
We all heard the two of you the first 30 times you had this same argument. Just agree to disagree and move on.
edit to separate sentences
Last edited:
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Er, yes...I totally fail to comprehend how the discussion effectively goes like this....please explain...
'That looks like its a reflection'
' Well...no...actually no part of the image actually reflects'
'Ah...but a reflection doesn't have to reflect'
'But in that case, how can it LOOK like a reflection ?'
There is a fundamental contradiction at play.
Last edited:
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Not really. All you heard was my objections being hand waived away and me getting a patronising response if I dared raise them again. Are we after the truth here or not ? If so, then how about my objection be properly responded to rather than an endless patronising ' you failed to comprehend' that is in any case simply not true.
And I'm not asking for 'agreement'. I'm asking how does the clear dilemma that I presented get resolved.
deirdre
Senior Member.
it doesn't, because she doesn't see it as a dilemma.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
OK, fine, then I'll make a mental note that it's been ignored. Par for the course in this thread.
I would just add that its odd how we are asked to 'move on' when I raise an objection but not when others do.
deirdre
Senior Member.
i didnt say anything the 35 other times you raised an objection.
but i did say "you two". (i edited my post to separate the sentences)
Ann K
Senior Member.
The reflection of a 3-D object is just simple optics, with light always traveling in a straight line. I explained it more than once, with diagrams. It is not, as are some parts of the image, open to interpretation or opinion. Scaramanga simply doesn't understand it.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
That's a misrepresentation of the arguments put forward:
"That looks like a reflection"
"But it doesn't have bilateral symmetry"
"In 3D space, reflections don't need to have bilateral symmetry"
"But it doesn't have bilateral symmetry"
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Not at all.
The entire reflection hypothesis starts with the supposition 'that looks like a reflection'.
On that basis, there then surely needs to be some aspect of the image that does actually reflect.
To then find that on closer inspection there is NO aspect of the image that reflects....not a single one....well, it is just ludicrous to try to counter that with 'ah, but 3D...etc, etc' when the entire initial position was that the image looks like a reflection yet one is reduced to making excuses for why it doesn't !
You can't claim in one breath that something looks like a reflection, and then in the next breath make every conceivable excuse imaginable for why there is absolutely zero symmetry that the very argument that it looked like a reflection in the first place would be based on !!
If the sheer absurdity of that cannot be seen then I am wasting my time here.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
I fully understood the optics years ago and did not need them 'explained' to me here. It is you who completely fail to grasp my point.
The entire basis of 'that looks like a reflection' is that some aspect of the image actually reflects symmetrically. Otherwise there is no 'that looks like a reflection' argument in the first place.
So every time some argument is made for why the image is not symmetrical, one is effectively negating the entire basis of 'that looks like a reflection'. To find that there is no aspect of the image that reflects symmetrically, as is the case, is to quite justifiably ask why one ever posited that it was a reflection in the first place.
As I said...it is all akin to someone sitting on a branch whilst sawing it off.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
No, the *scene* needs to actually reflect - In 3D. What you observe is a 2D projection of the scene.
In a movie, or on telly, when you see someone preening themselves in a mirror, do you ever say to yourself "that can't be a reflection in that mirror because I can see the back of their head from behind, and their face in the mirror"? Because you really ought to - that is the level of misunderstanding you are demonstrating here.
Similar threads
