Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

Vee7

New Member
Right now I'm thinking the rock and plane are the only reflections. The strike against is the plane is (apparently) right-way up instead of upside down but I can't really tell. I don't think the pic is rotated because it makes the vegetation look wrong. I think the rock might be bigger and further away than these ripples make it seem - how to tell? I don't know how to interpret the clouds.

This image just looks "right" to me.

Reflection rock in pond.jpg
maybe unrelated but something that sprung to mind when looking at this image, why would the fence posts be so black? if it was not a hoax and there was a genuine object in the sky, and nearby fence posts were in the foreground, out of focus, would they appear that dark? is this possibly another point in favour of the reflection hypothesis?
 

flarkey

Senior Member.
Staff member
Just two points regarding the aircraft and possible flight paths (it may help in pinpointing the location) - I know that Tornado crews at RAF Lossiemouth would regularly follow the A9 road at low level heading North as they return to base after a sortie as it was a quite fun and winding route.

iMarkup_20220813_173002.jpg

Also, the plane in the photo, although it does look like a Harrier, also looks a bit like a Hawker Hunter, of which a few of the 2 seat variant were based at RAF Lossiemouth in 1990.

Harrier
FLIP-1660408654772.jpg
Hunter
b20c6c74d2a91c623d1abffe668a41c5.jpg
Calvine jet (flipped horizontally)
FLIP-1660409616620.jpg
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Nice picture. Notice how little of the pine tree is actually reflected, because from water level it's mostly hidden by the bank.
:) and how the reflection is lighter.

i think this pic is a good idea of how your angles would work...here if we were on the dam walkway the fences might reflect in the "reservoir". i see no rock in any other pics but if there was a drought or after they release some water?

not at all saying this is the location, just the concept is there
Screenshot 2022-08-13 114136.png
https://collections.st-andrews.ac.uk/item/the-chno-dearg/61321/viewer#?#viewer&c=&m=&s=&cv=&xywh=287,665,2285,1142


and this is loch bhac you can zoom to see details more.. i'm not seeing a plausible angle.
https://collections.st-andrews.ac.uk/item/beinn-a-ghlo-from-loch-bhac/61053/viewer#?#viewer&c=&m=&s=&cv=&xywh=296,491,2181,1090
Screenshot 2022-08-13 120427.png

just to point out there is a specific path from Blair to the Bhac loch.
Screenshot 2022-08-13 094139.png
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
would regularly follow the A9 road at low level heading North
there are some walking paths along some parts of a9 with similar fences by the highway, and even a small river in some sections.. but google car doesnt really get in there to see much so no idea if there are fences closer to the water.
1660408967180.png

1660409343684.png

1660409723927.png
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
The hikers apparently worked at the Atholl Palace according to Craig Lindsay, who doesn't remember if the hiker he spoke to at the time walked a long distance or a short distance before reaching the spot but Calvine is 10 miles to the NW and Loch Bhac is on the way. There are several bodies of water on their route.

According to David Clarke's article in the Daily Mail they finished work, drove about 13 miles north along the A9 to Calvine, and then went for a walk in the hills.

They hadn’t gone far when they saw a huge, solid, diamond-shaped object, about 100ft long, hovering silently in the sky above them. Terrified, they hid in some bushes and looked up.

https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/features/211532/
Content from External Source
Note the "looking up", which matches the angle suggested by the original photo (ignoring the reflection hypothesis).
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
maybe unrelated but something that sprung to mind when looking at this image, why would the fence posts be so black? if it was not a hoax and there was a genuine object in the sky, and nearby fence posts were in the foreground, out of focus, would they appear that dark? is this possibly another point in favour of the reflection hypothesis?
Exposing for the sky makes the other things dark, the problem with this photo is there's just no detail to anything, sky is almost blown out and the other things are under exposed.

So possible light but overcast sky low cloud detail.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
The plane in the photo, although it does look like a Harrier, also looks a bit like a Hawker Hunter, of which a few of the 2 seat variant were based at RAF Lossiemouth in 1990.

I wonder why the MoD stated they were "confident that aircraft is a Harrier"? Is there really enough detail to make that out, and to eliminate other planes (especially given no Harriers operating in the area at the time)?
 
Last edited:

flarkey

Senior Member.
Staff member
I wonder why the MoD stated they were "confident that aircraft is a Harrier"? Is there really enough detail to make that out, and to eliminate other planes (especially given no Harriers operating in the area at the time)?
It really is hard to tell. It may be a Harrier. It may be a Hunter. I think the possibility of it being a Hunter should at least be considered bearing in mind the proximity to a base that operates them. Although I'm still not convinced that an RAF plane of either type would be flying at 9pm on a Saturday night.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I wonder why the MoD stated they were "confident that aircraft is a Harrier"? Is there really enough detail to make that out, and to eliminate other planes (especially given no Harriers operating in the area at the time)?
there were supposedly 5 other photos they had to look at.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Yes, that's true. This surviving photo may be the best one of the object but perhaps the others showed more detail of the plane.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Yes, that's true. This surviving photo may be the best one of the object but perhaps the others showed more detail of the plane.
it also looks a pretty big pic Craig [..] was holding, it sounds like the MOD had the actual negatives. maybe its actually eaier to tell in a less blown up pic?
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I feel like this colorized version helps pour some cold water on the reflection hypothesis:

1660415334088.png
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I feel like this colorized version helps pour some cold water on the reflection hypothesis:
it also makes it look like a rock floating in space.

turn it around, its better reflection wise. sitting on your Adirondack chair sipping a beer, zoning out on your pretty pond:
1660415334088.png
 

saucerpilot

New Member
I know these are 'anecdotes', but if you search for water reflection photos, the reflection is almost always darker than the original.

rock_water.png
I thought the same thing. But there are some examples of the reflection being brighter. I think one way to explain that could be particles in the water scattering light from the whole sky. So reflection + scatter.

Compare the overall brightness between the tree and its reflection in this picture:
1660425386237.png
A bright overcast day would probably scatter the most amount of light off of a murky water.
 
Last edited:

saucerpilot

New Member
Well like I said, they are not necessarily hills but they do look rather like features on the ground. Got a suggestion what this could be if it's something in the sky?
It could be something in the water. Perhaps we're seeing the lake bed just at the shoreline, where we can see a little bit through the murk because the water is shallow enough.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
I thought the same thing. But there are some examples of the reflection being brighter. I think one way to explain that could be particles in the water scattering light from the whole sky. So reflection + scatter.

Compare the overall brightness between the tree and its reflection in this picture:
1660425386237.png
A bright overcast day would probably scatter the most amount of light off of a murky water.
It's good old muddy water, probably after a rain storm. The apparent color of water changes considerably depending on its clarity on any given day. Another factor (that I don't think really affects this particular case) is that water at a distance reflects most of the light, but the closer it is to the observer (that is, the closer the viewing angle gets to 90° from the horizontal), the less light is reflected and the image darkens. So when you look right through the water to the bottom of a pond, that can only be done if you're looking nearly straight down, and you'll usually need to be in the shade to cut out as much sky reflection as possible.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
I thought the same thing. But there are some examples of the reflection being brighter. I think one way to explain that could be particles in the water scattering light from the whole sky. So reflection + scatter.

Compare the overall brightness between the tree and its reflection in this picture:
1660425386237.png
A bright overcast day would probably scatter the most amount of light off of a murky water.

I hope you do not intend to imply that the clear water in a proud Scottish pond has any resemblance to such a mess !!!
:cool:

Seriously, in this case the particles in the water scatter the daylight. At the same time, they substantially weaken the contrast of the reflection. The details are lost.

Such muddy water is instantly notable anyway.
 

saucerpilot

New Member
I hope you do not intend to imply that the clear water in a proud Scottish pond has any resemblance to such a mess !!!
:cool:

Seriously, in this case the particles in the water scatter the daylight. At the same time, they substantially weaken the contrast of the reflection. The details are lost.

Such muddy water is instantly notable anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised if the results depend hugely on the amount of particles, their size and color, as well as where they are concentrated in the water (near the surface, or deeper).

Anyway, there's not much detail in either the ufo or the jet, so it would be hard to tell how much the contrast is weakened.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
If the plane is reflected in the water why is it out of focus? Or is that considered as motion blur?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Exactly my first thought.

See the attached photo of my SO I took in a puddle after rain. It is also flipped.
all along B847 from Calvine "center" is a similar fence and a "lowland" nearby, could easily cause puddles at times or flooding since just as the fence ends the Garry River runs near enough the road i can see rocks in it.

I dont know anything about Scotland and rain or flooding though.
and i only saw 2 rocks big enough but wrong shape :)

ex:
Screenshot 2022-08-13 180350.png



A9 has some areas but i like the fence on B847 better
1660431843157.png
 

Rory

Senior Member.
The thing about the reflection hypothesis is that means the photographers were lying about what they saw and photographed and therefore there's no reason to believe what they said about the location.

Other hoax hypothesis: the photo was taken somewhere in England, hence why there's a Harrier in it.
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
but isnt the bush more in focus and the rock more in focus (<this is the questiony bit, the rock) than the fence posts?
The fence posts look fairly in focus to me - or specifically the wires. The photography expert Clarke used said the object was the most in-focus part of the image, but to me it's the least focused thing - its pretty fuzzy compared to the foreground leaves (followed by the fence posts and wires).
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
maybe unrelated but something that sprung to mind when looking at this image, why would the fence posts be so black? if it was not a hoax and there was a genuine object in the sky, and nearby fence posts were in the foreground, out of focus, would they appear that dark? is this possibly another point in favour of the reflection hypothesis?

I agree they look very dark and lacking in detail in the wood. Presumably there's a possible angle where you can see the fence reflection but with the fence itself out of frame?

Calvine how it was shot - closer.jpg
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
According to David Clarke's article in the Daily Mail they finished work, drove about 13 miles north along the A9 to Calvine, and then went for a walk in the hills.
Yes, it's the length of that walk that we don't know about because Craig Lindsay can't recall what the witness told him. However, if the photo is a hoax than the witness could have been lying about these details.
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
The thing about the reflection hypothesis is that means the photographers were lying about what they saw and photographed and therefore there's no reason to believe what they said about the location.

Other hoax hypothesis: the photo was taken somewhere in England, hence why there's a Harrier in it.
Assuming the photographers really did work at the Atholl (which is where Craig Lindsay called one of them to interview him, so he was physically there) as a holiday dishwasher, and that the photo was taken around the time they claimed, it seems likely that even if it's a hoax, it was taken somewhere in that region of Scotland. The specific location could be anywhere for miles around, though.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I agree they look very dark and lacking in detail in the wood. Presumably there's a possible angle where you can see the fence reflection but with the fence itself out of frame?

Calvine how it was shot - closer.jpg
reflections do not work like shadows
there is no optical path that allows this with a horizontal "mirror"
anything reflected but out of shot has to be above
 

saucerpilot

New Member
1660445851724.png

Does the vegetation near the fence appear to be in the foreground, as indicated in this diagram?

If the shapes seen behind the fence are hills, and if the picture was taken from a shallow angles, should the hills necessarily extend farther into the frame than they do?
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
1660445851724.png

If the shapes seen behind the fence are hills, and if the picture was taken from a shallow angles, should the hills necessarily extend farther into the frame than they do?
if you move the camera down, the distant hills will also appear to "move down" because of perspective.

They will appear lower than usual, not higher as close large objects do.
 
Top