Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

[Scaramanga]

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.

That's just nonsensical red herring obfuscation that nowhere answers my actual point....as is inventing some supposed analogy that has no bearing whatever.

What does 'the scene needs to actually reflect' even mean ? In what conceivable sense can the 'scene' reflect if no part of it does ?

 

[JMartJr]

The Hon. Mo Udall had a saying, "We've reached the point where everything has been said, but not everybody has had a chance to say it." I suggest on this topic that we've reached the point where everything has been said and everyone has said it. Barring additional evidence, or a new point to raise, it may be time to let this one marinate for a bit?

 

[Scaramanga]

The Hon. Mo Udall had a saying, "We've reached the point where everything has been said, but not everybody has had a chance to say it." I suggest on this topic that we've reached the point where everything has been said and everyone has said it. Barring additional evidence, or a new point to raise, it may be time to let this one marinate for a bit?

I agree...but I think its largely because I simply can't be bothered any more. It's more hassle than it's worth.

 

[Ann K]

To then find that on closer inspection there is NO aspect of the image that reflects....not a single one...

Claims facts not in evidence. It appears that you "can't be bothered" to take a good look at the image.

There are reasons why, as previously mentioned, the group of photographers all saw it as a reflection:

 

[deirdre]

I explained it more than once, with diagrams.

and he said your angles are too steep.

anyway, seems to me he understands what you are saying. he just disagrees with it as it relates to THIS photograph.

 

[Ann K]

and he said your angles are too steep.

anyway, seems to me he understands what you are saying he just disagrees with it as it relates to THIS photograph.

Facts are facts, not a thing subject to opinion, and rational people don't "disagree" with facts once they've been explained to them. But thanks for that peacemaker attempt.

 

[FatPhil]

That's just nonsensical red herring obfuscation that nowhere answers my actual point....as is inventing some supposed analogy that has no bearing whatever.

You're playing the "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong and I'm right" card. *AGAIN*.

What does 'the scene needs to actually reflect' even mean ? In what conceivable sense can the 'scene' reflect if no part of it does ?

It means that for every point in the scene in front of the reflecting surface there is a point in the reflection as far behind the reflecting surface as the original point was in front of it, within the contraints of the extent of the reflecting surface.

 

[Scaramanga]

You're playing the "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong and I'm right" card. *AGAIN*.

No...you are just playing the attempted patronising again

It means that for every point in the scene in front of the reflecting surface there is a point in the reflection as far behind the reflecting surface as the original point was in front of it, within the contraints of the extent of the reflecting surface.

Utterly meaningless...which you don't seem to 'understand'....in the context of this photo. Perhaps if some of you spent less time being patronising you'd grasp the point.

It's like me seeing a perfect black square in the sky and claiming that really its a bird...but just seen from a funny angle. Never mind that NO aspect of the square looks even remotely like a bird and there is absolutely nothing 'bird-like' about it. I can just invent hidden symmetry that's hidden by reflective angles.

No...you can't actually SEE this alleged symmetry that is hidden. I mean..it is hidden. You cannot directly observe it. It is the Emperor's New Symmetry. We have to all pretend that it is there because...erm...remind me why again.

Clearly, those who could not see the Emperor's new clothes were just ignorant of the laws of reflection and need to be patronised.

 

[Scaramanga]

anyway, seems to me he understands what you are saying. he just disagrees with it as it relates to THIS photograph.

Most of the examples given earlier were at rather high angles of incidence...which would lead to skewed reflections. However I long ago argued that for a whole host of reasons one cannot argue that the Calvine 'reflection' is at a high angle of incidence.

It is also worth noting that the reflection camp is split into whether the object is 3D ( e.g a rock ) or is 2D ( e.g a piece of cardboard ). But a 2D object would likely not have such incidence issues to any degree in the first place.

And, of course, there is the major issue of why we can't see the far shore or edge of whatever body of water it is. ( HINT : NO need to look for a far shore if it is simply the sky ). Oh, and the upside down clouds.....and a whole host of other objections that just get patronisingly ignored.

 

[deirdre]

or is 2D ( e.g a piece of cardboard ). But a 2D object would likely not have such incidence issues to any degree in the first place.

i thought the cardboard was always triangles? theres like 3 calvine threads going at once, so maybe they just posted int he wrong thread?

 

[Giddierone]

It does raise the question of why there appears to be a distant hillside below the level of the fence.

That distant hills and trees appear below the level of the barbed wire fence doesn't rule out the scene being a reflection or prove that the image was taken looking out over a valley.
Here's a reflection of a steep hill taken from the bottom of a valley. When viewed directly it rises far above the fence.