Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
Something to keep in mind if you think we might be looking at the surface of a body of water, these are the winds speed that day as per https://weatherspark.com/h/d/38062/...-1990-in-Pitlochry-United-Kingdom#metar-20-50

Wind Speed on Saturday, August 4, 1990 in Pitlochry.png

13 mph is between 3 and 4 on the Beaufort scale (gentle to moderate breeze). Not exactly a millpond.

If it's a hoax, there's no reason to suppose it was taken on the day, or at the place, claimed. I think taking the witnesses at their word is fine, as a starting point, but their credibility is obviously destroyed if they intended a hoax.

Clarke interviewed staff at the hotel where the men worked, and knocked on doors in the area, and nobody had any recollection of anyone talking about UFOs at the time.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This guy did a decent mockup of the reflection theory on the UFOs subreddit
In his recreation, the "jet" is a person in a small row boat.

That makes the ufo be a rather large pointy rock. I doubt that such a distinctive rock could go unrecognized if the location is in the UK.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In his recreation, the "jet" is a person in a small row boat.

That makes the ufo be a rather large pointy rock. I doubt that such a distinctive rock could go unrecognized if the location is in the UK.

Although that said, the OP mentions a good location in terms of reflections, and some small islands.

Seems like mirror conditions are reasonably common there. 2022-08-14_03-17-57.jpg

And if the suggestion is that this is a hoax, the location need not match the description.
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
In his recreation, the "jet" is a person in a small row boat.

That makes the ufo be a rather large pointy rock. I doubt that such a distinctive rock could go unrecognized if the location is in the UK.
Where did you see it noted the plane is depicted as a row boat?
 

Easy Muffin

Active Member
If it's a hoax, there's no reason to suppose it was taken on the day, or at the place, claimed. I think taking the witnesses at their word is fine, as a starting point, but their credibility is obviously destroyed if they intended a hoax.

Clarke interviewed staff at the hotel where the men worked, and knocked on doors in the area, and nobody had any recollection of anyone talking about UFOs at the time.
It's from the same source that you got your visibility from in post #50. Doesn't seem entirely fair to bring up that one but go 'well if it's a hoax then the weather could have been different anyway' here. Which is a fair point of course but it also makes this entire debate redundant, because 'could have been somewhere else at some other time' is essentially a free get-out-of-jail card for any argument against this being a reflection.
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
It's from the same source that you got your visibility from in post #50. Doesn't seem entirely fair to bring up that one but go 'well if it's a hoax then the weather could have been different anyway' here. Which is a fair point of course but it also makes this entire debate redundant, because 'could have been somewhere else at some other time' is essentially a free get-out-of-jail card for any argument against this being a reflection.
Unfortunately that's the way things go when we don't have any evidence of the location, or even access to the witnesses.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
13 mph is between 3 and 4 on the Beaufort scale (gentle to moderate breeze). Not exactly a millpond.
would be much less disturbed leewards of a mountain/hill
In his recreation, the "jet" is a person in a small row boat.

That makes the ufo be a rather large pointy rock. I doubt that such a distinctive rock could go unrecognized if the location is in the UK.
wouldn't that also depend on the observer's location? the rock could look different from the usual observation spots
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Where did you see it noted the plane is depicted as a row boat?
In the mock-up they indicated an axis of reflection of the "jet", meaning it's in the water.
2022-08-14_03-47-52.jpg

It may have been someone else who suggested "man in boat" - I was assuming this was a mock-up by that person.

I don't think the reflection is symmetrical enough for a person in a boat, and the lighting being flipped seems even harder to explain in that theory.
 

Easy Muffin

Active Member
Unfortunately that's the way things go when we don't have any evidence of the location, or even access to the witnesses.
Yeah, it's quite unfortunate. It would help a lot if there was more context.
would be much less disturbed leewards of a mountain/hill
Much less disturbed isn't going to cut it here, though. This needs to be an almost perfect mirror-like surface without any ripples. Note how in pretty much every photo posted here you can immediately tell it's a reflection because the surface is minutely disturbed.
Also note that the wind at the time was coming from the SW, from the direction that we're supposedly looking towards, i.e. it's coming from the general direction of the supposed water body.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
So now our debunk has been degraded to "the witness was lying" narrative. Dangerous direction. I understand the reflection theory LOOKS similar, but it by far is not a debunk.
 

Easy Muffin

Active Member
Did the witnesses claim the object was in the SW?
Not that I know of but the sun was setting in the NW (300°) that day and with it being behind us in the photo we are looking roughly south.
I think the supposed location also has them look south/southeast-ish but I don't know how much faith we should put into that. From what I gather the main piece of evidence is that they found some trees and similarly spaced fence posts? I don't know how confidently you can determine the location from that.
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
So now our debunk has been degraded to "the witness was lying" narrative. Dangerous direction. I understand the reflection theory LOOKS similar, but it by far is not a debunk.
If the object was anything but a huge airborne diamond-shaped craft being circled by jets, then the witnesses were lying. There's no getting around that.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
If the object was anything but a huge airborne diamond-shaped craft being circled by jets, then the witnesses were lying. There's no getting around that.

What I am saying is that in this thread we tried everything to show it is a hoax, so we are automatically driven to this conclusion (directional thinking). Perhaps we are stuck in a local minimum, and indeed because we have no more information.
 

Easy Muffin

Active Member
This is the information I was asking about in the other thread: what makes you say the sun is behind the camera? I don't know how to tell from the photo.
Not sure what other thread you mean but I can't see how the lighting of the plane works out if the sun wasn't behind the observer. Even accounting for the diffuse lighting conditions of a heavily overcast sky I don't know what could make the near wing appear brighter than the one on the far side.
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
Not sure what other thread you mean but I can't see how the lighting of the plane works out if the sun wasn't behind the observer. Even accounting for the diffuse lighting conditions of a heavily overcast sky I don't know what could make the near wing appear brighter than the one on the far side.
If the sun was behind, wouldn't both wings be lit up given the aircraft is banking? (I'm going with "banking" based on what someone else said and given the apparent near-horizontal angle of the camera).
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
What I am saying is that in this thread we tried everything to show it is a hoax, so we are automatically driven to this conclusion (directional thinking). Perhaps we are stuck in a local minimum, and indeed because we have no more information.
The photo is not compelling hugely compelling, the reason for the attention is the historical story and "fame" of this photo. That's why there's a clamour to analyse it.

But really there's not much more actual information, maybe if the other photos had emerged or a camera model/lens type then we be able to do some comparative analysis.

We now know Nick Popes description to his concept artist was not inaccurate regarding the relative light/dark halves, but the photo is missing the seam around the "waist," which adds to the "made craft" aspect of the object in the artistic recreation.

There is also no landscape in the photo and the trees are missing from the recreation and the fence is further away. The dull sky is right though.
 

Easy Muffin

Active Member
If the sun was behind, wouldn't both wings be lit up given the aircraft is banking? (I'm going with "banking" based on what someone else said and given the apparent near-horizontal angle of the camera).

I was thinking there's some self-shadowing going on given that the sun at the time was only a few degrees about the horizon. But I can see what you're saying.
Would be nice to know the exact plane so we could at least rule out some weird camo pattern or something like that.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
but the photo is missing the seam around the "waist,"
what do you mean? the seam around the waist is the most defining part.

What I am saying is that in this thread we tried everything to show it is a hoax, so we are automatically driven to this conclusion (directional thinking). Perhaps we are stuck in a local minimum, and indeed because we have no more information.
because this is a debunking site and the claim by many is that this is best photo of an ET UFO or a secret us/uk spy plane.
The thread title is "hypothesis" and we are only trying to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

If it's not a hoax then it is a kite, a balloon or an et ufo or a secret military spy plane. it's not an et ufo and extremely unlikely it's a secret military plane that noone else noticed, so we're left with balloon or kite. it's almost always a bird, balloon or kite. Me, I'm just hoping it's something more exciting than that for once.

I understand the reflection theory LOOKS similar, but it by far is not a debunk.
which is why everyone is still "arguing"/disagreeing with each other in this thread on different details. If it was debunk we'd all say "yup that's what it is, we're done".

we can't even agree on which way the picture should be held. That's the opposite of a debunk.

ps i still see a spear head or maybe an antique rusty pen nib (its angled toward us so that s why the end seems shorter than a typical pen nib)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Although that said, the OP mentions a good location in terms of reflections, and some small islands.
thats what's bothering me (as much as the bottom triangle is too pointy) with the lighter part on top. i know it's a super bad photo but "typically" reflections are a muffin top shape. the bottom is smaller than the top.
dsc_0156.jpg

but the ufo the dark part is bigger length wise, than the light part.
Screenshot 2022-08-13 232839.png

full pic so you can see my "muffin top" rock (with a lighter bottom btw) bigger

elkton-rv-park (1).jpg
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
What I am saying is that in this thread we tried everything to show it is a hoax, so we are automatically driven to this conclusion (directional thinking). Perhaps we are stuck in a local minimum, and indeed because we have no more information.

We are discussing the reflection hypothesis which implies that this is a hoax. It's ingrained and therefore detaches the discussion from the witness' claims.

There are certainly other hypotheses that don't have to make that implication.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
I think for the reflection theory to progress we need at least:

a) a photo of a reflection where you can't tell it's a reflection
b) a photo of a reflected object that doesn't have any mirroring going on, like the UFO here
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I think for the reflection theory to progress we need at least:

a) a photo of a reflection where you can't tell it's a reflection
b) a photo of a reflected object that doesn't have any mirroring going on, like the UFO here
that would take a 1990s camera on black and white film someone gets developed. i doubt people were posting too many reflection photos with this quality of camera...because if you take a reflection photo you want it to look like a reflection normally.
https://www.eastlothiancourier.com/...otos-show-glasgow-1990s-published-first-time/


and there is mirroring going on in the ufo. its just doesnt jump out at you since the quality is so cruddy.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
and there is mirroring going on in the ufo. its just doesnt jump out at you since the quality is so cruddy.

I had a real zoom in, I couldn't see any that I was confident of. Though there were definitely places that suggested it.

Zoom and arrows time to show what you consider mirroring?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I had a real zoom in, I couldn't see any that I was confident of. Though there were definitely places that suggested it.

Zoom and arrows time to show what you consider mirroring?
actually i just found a tree branch (i had to snip off the limb which obviously looked like mirroring and i changed it from color to black and white
1660492682426.png

mirroring..i am so late Ann pointed out the blaack [ shape earlier off the back dot in middle. and the "bump" textures mirror. im familiar with trompe l'oeil though so not sure if you can pick them out even if i point to them.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
BTW, the cloud looks decidedly upside down too in the contrast enhanced mirrored version. Normally you'd expect them to be darker at the bottom and that's what can be seen in the original picture as well. If it were a reflection, the darker parts would have to be at the top.
But not necessarily around sunset... not sure how much prior to sunset you can get this effect, though.
1-sky-background-at-sunset-clouds-vivid-moreiso.jpg
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
But not necessarily around sunset... not sure how much prior to sunset you can get this effect, though.
I've found several pictures too of sunset clouds that are darker on top. The orientation of the clouds (as evidence for a reflection, or for which way up the photo/reflection should be) is still up in the air for me.
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
I think for the reflection theory to progress we need at least:

a) a photo of a reflection where you can't tell it's a reflection
b) a photo of a reflected object that doesn't have any mirroring going on, like the UFO here
What do you mean by "doesn't have any mirroring going on"? I straightened the object (rotate ~1 degree anti-clockwise) - and while it's not a mirror image, there is *some* mirroring going on - specifically the white marks and the black spot.

ufo alone symmetry.jpg
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Just wanted to drop these two "reflections in water" UFOs into the thread, in case they stimulate anybody's thinking. The first was posted here somewhere, I think it was Mick who either discovered or pointed out to us here that the famous fleet of UFOS is some rivet-like-projections reflecting in water after a rain shower left a puddle (I cannot now find the thread, if it was somebody else please correct the record!)

rivets ufo.jpg

The other was, to my knowledge, never popularized as a "real" UFO pic, but has been passed around for fun on the Internet for some time now -- I have no recollection of it being posted here before but it likely has been:

reflected sunken car ufo.jpg

Enjoy.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
What do you mean by "doesn't have any mirroring going on"? I straightened the object (rotate ~1 degree anti-clockwise) - and while it's not a mirror image, there is *some* mirroring going on - specifically the white marks and the black spot.

Can you zoom in and point to them?
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
What I find intriguing is the far right of the ' ufo'.
It looks very similar to what can be found at the extreme ends of some airship ' kind of craft.
Or some ' sensor ' akin to pitot tubes ( perhaps relating to weather / temperature etc ).

Of course we cannot see enough detail but it is in many ways the elephant in the room.

Could it be an ' individual ' made and perhaps even an ' illegal ; flying creation?

It is a remote area and we have only the words of alleged soaring away into the distance at speed ' statement accompanying the little information.
It just simply looks like some special designed fangled blimp/ airship.
 

Attachments

  • t4FXW.jpg
    t4FXW.jpg
    12.3 KB · Views: 21
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    64.2 KB · Views: 22

Ann K

Senior Member.
I don't see symmetry there, I just see a similar shade that straddles the axis.
I"ve boosted the contrast and made it vertical for easier comparison of the halves. See how the black spot near the center has a darker oval around and below (in this view) it, bracketed on both sides by a lighter area? The symmetry is easier to see here.B37AF98C-65DF-4A19-976C-6C2B4C1F99BB.jpeg
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
I don't see symmetry there, I just see a similar shade that straddles the axis.

If you do an image search for rocks or stones reflected in water, you often don't get exact duplications in the reflection - particularly when the objects are closer to the camera.

Even the slight change of angle with regard to the original can change features because the aspect is different.

Example (stock photo):

mirror_aspect.png
 
Top