Calvine UFO Photo - Reflection In Water Hypothesis

deirdre

Senior Member.
Not really. I don't think it can be eliminated, but I think there's also a few problems with it. I would not rank it that differently from "model on a string"
i've never done anything with the camera in Blender... do you know (or think you can figure out) what settings i can give the camera in blender to have it more mimic the 1990 cameras?
i'm going to play with the reflections, but if the rock is real and plane is reflection...not sure that would happen with any particular focus setting.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
I don't think it can be eliminated, but I think there's also a few problems with it. I would not rank it that differently from "model on a string"
I tend to agree. Model on a string seems simpler, possibly even two models on a string. My presumption is "reflection" gets its own thread largely because working out exactly how it might be accomplished requires a bit more work than "toss string over branch, tie model to it, point and shoot."
 

Vee7

New Member
Not really. I don't think it can be eliminated, but I think there's also a few problems with it. I would not rank it that differently from "model on a string"
If we're talking about the version where the fence and tree are not reflections, and it's not rotated 180°, what are the outstanding issues you see with it?
 

john.phil

Member
I'll try another hypothesis I have not seen anyone covering yet:

The plane in the picture is a small RC airplane or a rubber band model flying over the body of water, either upside down and that's the reflection of it, or upright between the camera and the object.

1660758392469.png
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/post-276539

Enhanced image from colorized version:

1660758629239.png

1660759784699.png

Example of rubber band models:
1660758829352.png
1660758953818.png
If it's between the camera and the object, it lacks a reflection, thus it cannot be too close to the water. Its altitude and proximity to the camera would need to be such that its reflection would have fallen in the cropped area of the photo.

Rubber band models do not fly very well, neither go too far, except when launched from an elevated area, but once airborne cannot be controlled, thus by chance it would have been upside down when clicked, if it's a reflection.

An RC plane requires an engine, none is noticeable in the processed images.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
I'm no ornithologist but I'm uncomfortable with the one wing flapping bird hypothesis.

I totally lost it when I'm supposed to believe it's possible to discern bloomin' feathers from such a poor quality photograph.

Of a bird.

That's how far away?
Well, why the heck not; we have certainly gone all around the petunia patch trying to identify both the "UFO" and the "plane". For goodness sake, we have already been through the "moldy ravioli" speculation. Perhaps the first question should have been (like Superman) "Is it a bird? Is it a plane?"
:D
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
I'll try another hypothesis I have not seen anyone covering yet:

The plane in the picture is a small RC airplane or a rubber band model flying over the body of water, either upside down and that's the reflection of it, or upright between the camera and the object.

This could nicely explain the weird very light wing, which is what makes the "jet" look odd to me.
But why would the witnesses risk saying it was Harrier they saw? I guess they must've been fairly satisfied that the photo would fool the Daily Record that it was a Harrier. They didn't know the MoD would chime in. So then the question is, how could a rubber band plane fool the MoD? Possibly because they started with the assumption that it was a real jet.
 

Doodiewiz

New Member
I came to realise from the reflection hypothesis that it seem impossible to make it all work. To have the clouds the right way up and UFO reflection darker doesn't seem possible. Whether you take the image directly from a body of water's reflection or then flip the image I can't see how the clouds, plane and stone reflection can line up correctly at the same time as they do in the photo.

The 3D recreation on post 278 has the darker reflection on the UFO the wrong way round - that's why it works in that example.
 

Tomer

Member
I think the main problem with the reflection hypothesis is the logistical complexity of pulling it off when compared to other, more common hoaxing methods. If it was just the 'island' in the photo then I can see that being conceptualized and achieved, but trying to explain the plane, the background, and everything else coming together to make a sensical image, it's a little bit ridiculous.

It reminds me of the infamous backmasking theory on Stairway to Heaven, if you play it backwards and put some words to it, sure you can imagine it's saying 'Hail Satan' or whatever. But when you really think about it and consider that Robert Plant would have to conceptualize what he wanted the secret message to be, and then find a way to use normal language to create this effect in reverse, it would be incredibly complicated and time-consuming. Not beyond the realms of possibility sure, but highly unlikely.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
OK, this discussion is way off the rails, so I'll give my opinion and try to restrain myself from engaging with any more back-and-forth. Here's my scenario.

1. Two young guys who liked photography stopped one evening to take an "artsy" photo of a loch with still water and a reflected islet.
2. They were photobombed by a bird-or-a-plane while doing so. If they thought it was a Harrier, they may not have identified it correctly.
3. They printed the photo later and said "Wow, that's a great "UFO" picture."
4. They sent it off to the newspaper just as a laugh. Profit may also have motivated them.
5. The MoD took a look, asked a few perfunctory questions, and shelved the information as they didn't take it seriously either.
6. The photographer, having no clear memory of something done as a lark many years ago, is understandably hazy about details.
 

john.phil

Member
OK, this discussion is way off the rails, so I'll give my opinion and try to restrain myself from engaging with any more back-and-forth. Here's my scenario.

1. Two young guys who liked photography stopped one evening to take an "artsy" photo of a loch with still water and a reflected islet.
2. They were photobombed by a bird-or-a-plane while doing so. If they thought it was a Harrier, they may not have identified it correctly.
3. They printed the photo later and said "Wow, that's a great "UFO" picture."
4. They sent it off to the newspaper just as a laugh. Profit may also have motivated them.
5. The MoD took a look, asked a few perfunctory questions, and shelved the information as they didn't take it seriously either.
6. The photographer, having no clear memory of something done as a lark many years ago, is understandably hazy about details.
Also, the plane could have been a model on a string, or a rubber band powered plane, or a model plane in the water, or another object in the water that by chance looks like a plane.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I think the main problem with the reflection hypothesis is the logistical complexity of pulling it off when compared to other, more common hoaxing methods.
i agree. as a hoax it would be silly. but if it wasnt a hoax maybe he was just in the right place at the right time to snap a cool shot. and he would have been disappointed when the film was developed that he didnt get a good shot of the scene.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
It reminds me of the infamous backmasking theory on Stairway to Heaven, if you play it backwards and put some words to it, sure you can imagine it's saying 'Hail Satan' or whatever. But it would be incredibly complicated and time-consuming. Not beyond the realms of possibility sure, but highly unlikely.

Actually easy. You say what you want to say forwards, listen to it backwards and write it down phonetically, then say that. I used to do this as a kid on a 4-track.
 

Ruan

New Member
Hey everyone!

So let's talk about the Calvine UFO photo.

I did a basic raytracing render using Blender showing that the reflection theory might actually be possible. See animation below. Let me know if you are interested in looking at the Blender file then I can share it as well.

I then went out and did a little test using a camera, a small "puddle" and a pebble.

My "UFO"
MyUFO.png

Original Photo
MyUFO_Original.png

The Setup
MyUFO_Setup.png
 

Attachments

  • Animation2.mp4
    30.8 MB

Ruan

New Member
i've never done anything with the camera in Blender... do you know (or think you can figure out) what settings i can give the camera in blender to have it more mimic the 1990 cameras?
i'm going to play with the reflections, but if the rock is real and plane is reflection...not sure that would happen with any particular focus setting.
Hi there - let me know if you want to look at my latest Blender project for this. Not sure if I can upload it here as it's over 100mb...
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Hi there - let me know if you want to look at my latest Blender project for this. Not sure if I can upload it here as it's over 100mb...
thanks i downloaded the one you had linked on twitter. i can manipulate your sculpts as i need.. i just didnt know how to make a mirror in Blender.

and im very happy i dont have to try to make my own plane :) i cant even draw one decent.
 

john.phil

Member
Hi there - let me know if you want to look at my latest Blender project for this. Not sure if I can upload it here as it's over 100mb...
Can you add the vertical stabiliser to the plane model, record and publish the animation again please?
 

Ruan

New Member
thanks i downloaded the one you had linked on twitter. i can manipulate your sculpts as i need.. i just didnt know how to make a mirror in Blender.

and im very happy i dont have to try to make my own plane :) i cant even draw one decent.
Ah nice! Yeah that plane I did was rough haha, just had to make something quick that kinnnndaaa looks like a plane. Have fun with Blender!
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
Personally I think the 'reflection' hypothesis is a very long shot, but now I'm wavering! Your B&W photo is about as convincing as UFO photos ever get, and a lot more convincing than Calvine. And it's important in showing that you don't need a large reflective surface to get a large expanse of sky in the photo, as some people on Twitter have assumed. A lot of people have got hung up on arguing whether there is a suitable body of water, like a loch, near Calvine. But you don't need a loch if you've got a puddle. You could even take your puddle with you (e.g. a bowl or dish to fill with water). Of course this does have implications for the status of the 'witnesses'. Even if the photo was not pre-planned, but spur-of-the-moment, the photographer could hardly be unaware that the 'UFO' was just a rock in a puddle. [Added: and as a hoax method it is probably even easier than hanging a cardboard UFO from a thread, which was my default hypothesis.]
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Personally I think the 'reflection' hypothesis is a very long shot, but now I'm wavering! Your B&W photo is about as convincing as UFO photos ever get, and a lot more convincing than Calvine. And it's important in showing that you don't need a large reflective surface to get a large expanse of sky in the photo, as some people on Twitter have assumed. A lot of people have got hung up on arguing whether there is a suitable body of water, like a loch, near Calvine. But you don't need a loch if you've got a puddle. You could even take your puddle with you (e.g. a bowl or dish to fill with water). Of course this does have implications for the status of the 'witnesses'. Even if the photo was not pre-planned, but spur-of-the-moment, the photographer could hardly be unaware that the 'UFO' was just a rock in a puddle. [Added: and as a hoax method it is probably even easier than hanging a cardboard UFO from a thread, which was my default hypothesis.]
well you need a puddle large enough to capture just shy of 4 fence posts. minimum
so in real life thats still a fairly large puddle to be carrying around with you.
 

Ruan

New Member
well you need a puddle large enough to capture just shy of 4 fence posts. minimum
so in real life thats still a fairly large puddle to be carrying around with you.
Not really, if you look at my example, see the large section of trees, sky and even the side wall that's in view. And I'm using a tiny 1ft puddle. It also depends how close to the puddle you are, the closer the more you will see.
 

Ruan

New Member
Ok here you go:

You will see in this new animation that I've flipped the jet horizontally to match the Calvine direction. I've also added some mock mountains / hills. Let me know your thoughts.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Not really, if you look at my example, see the large section of trees, sky and even the side wall that's in view. And I'm using a tiny 1ft puddle. It also depends how close to the puddle you are, the closer the more you will see.
in blender looks like your puddle spans 2 fence posts. but i havent opened it in blender yet to play with sizes or camera distance/height etc.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
one thing i saw yesterday is in rivers they add gravel islands so the fish and animals can use them for various things... but today looking at Murton deer reserve i see these "sandbar"?s when the water is low enough.
that would explain the texture of the UFo and allow you to get that focus of ufo while still grabbing plane in reflection.
unfortunately i wont be able to play with blender much for a few days. @Ruan but if you add a sand texture to your rock, and add a sun :) etc...

1660851427681.png
 

john.phil

Member
In the animation it's 2.84m apart but that was just a guess as we don't know how far the fence was from the camera.
The Professor counted the number of barbs between two posts and checked the manufacturing standard in order to estimate the distance. I guess with the posts distance updated to 1.70m in the model, it could fit easier in the pond, letting the photographer stand further away from it, as given the lighting conditions at the time (overcast) and the requirement to focus all objects as much as possible, they most likely used a tripod.
 

Ruan

New Member
The Professor counted the number of barbs between two posts and checked the manufacturing standard in order to estimate the distance. I guess with the posts distance updated to 1.70m in the model, it could fit easier in the pond, letting the photographer stand further away from it, as given the lighting conditions at the time (overcast) and the requirement to focus all objects as much as possible, they most likely used a tripod.
Yeah I also think a tripod was used - and they probably took a few photos when the plane flew across the background, then they selected the best one.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
i know fences can probably vary a bit but here we have google car drive bys of people and cars near the fence just to get a guesstimate of fence height.

unless of course it really is a deer fence. in which case the posts are probably like a foot apart. (and the barb wire doesnt make much sense)
 

Tomer

Member
Actually easy. You say what you want to say forwards, listen to it backwards and write it down phonetically, then say that. I used to do this as a kid on a 4-track.
It'll still sound like backwards audio, and thus unlikely to convince anyone that it was normal speech. Plus, with the Led Zeppelin example, you have to make it work forwards and backwards, but anyway we're getting away from the main topic..
 

Latest posts

Top