Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

Rory

Senior Member.
What a weird thing to say.

Yeah, maybe my whole post was a little weird. Perhaps I was taking terms like "every time" and "nobody" too literally and wasn't understanding your words properly. It seemed like you were saying something like "these other people should be doing x, y and z, it's not good enough that they're not". But maybe I was wrong in reading it that way.

Clarke and his research team have done several panel podcasts and not addressed the reflection hypothesis properly. I would like to know why they exclude certain (non-strawmanned) hypotheses based on all that research.

Have you emailed him/them and asked them?

Every time the reflection hypothesis is mentioned it's a strawman version in order to eliminate it (e.g. "there's no horizon, therefore it's not a reflection").

Can you quote them on that? I've searched the transcript of the Q&A and found Andrew Robinson saying that it was still a possible explanation and don't see anybody mentioning the word "horizon" with regard to the reflection theory.
 
Last edited:

Itsme

Active Member
From 30m10s-ish in the Disclosure Team video:
Thanks for that. It seems that claim by Stu Little is in direct contradiction with the claim by David Clarke, who states:
He was willing to talk to me and, most exciting of all, I discovered that he’d broken protocol that day and stashed a copy of the image before, on Whitehall’s orders, sending the entire dossier — negatives included — to the Ministry of Defence in London.

He’d kept the secret copy in his desk for 32 years — hidden inside his copy of Great Aircraft Of The World. When I eventually tracked him down, now 83 and still living in Scotland, he sounded almost relieved.

‘I have been for waiting for someone to contact about this for more than 30 years,’ he said.
See: https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/...-the-most-spectacular-ufo-photo-ever-captured
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
Have you emailed him/them and asked them?

I have interacted with Clarke on Twitter. He became instantly defensive and we didn't get far. They are all clearly aware of the competing theories because they've (inadequately imo) addressed them on podcasts.

Can you quote them on that? I've searched the transcript of the Q&A and found Andrew Robinson saying that it was still a possible explanation and don't see anybody mentioning the word "horizon" with regard to the reflection theory.

Robinson didn't address it in his report but mentioned it in the Disclosure Team podcast on 22nd. Looking at it upside down, he dismisses it because we should be seeing a "pure" mirrored image, no ripples or debris, we should see reflection of landscape, and the viewing angle doesn't work for a reflection. We've seen that all those comments are not true.

He also considered the image viewed right-way up with the "plane" being a rowboat, therefore the rock being huge, but didn't consider how the photo could be hoaxed with a small rock (which would address the lack of landscape reflection he previously mentioned). He said the photo is a "convincing image of a highland landscape" - I don't know why he said that, since there's no landscape. He also said "the image itself feels very very genuine". Overall, he didn't sway me with this sort of language.

Stu Little, the photographer who saw the negatives in 1993, talks about the horizon here - he's referring to what he would expect to see if this is a reflected rock - "the water would always be darker than the sky" - as if he expects to see both with a line (horizon) between. (I actually don't think he even understands the reflection hypothesis, given the image he puts up as an example.)
Source: https://youtu.be/QFc9pe2-RdE?t=4281
 

Itsme

Active Member
He said the photo is a "convincing image of a highland landscape" - I don't know why he said that, since there's no landscape.
The sky looks typically like an overcast sky in the highlands, with just visible contours of distant hills behind the barbed wire fence. Note that allegedly these guys were hiding, i.e., laying low on a hillside which explains the horizon is behind the barbed wire fence.
Below is another picture from the highlands for comparison. Make of it what you will.
Screenshot_2022-08-25-12-45-47-523~3.jpeggettyimages-110501506-1024x1024~2.jpg
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Thanks for that. It seems that claim by Stu Little

That wasn't Stu Little speaking, that was David Clarke.

There are a few contradictions and inconsistencies in The Daily Mail article. I would put other sources above that one (who knows what the editors did with it or what needed to be changed to make it more "tabloid-worthy"?)

I have interacted with Clarke on Twitter. He became instantly defensive and we didn't get far.

Do you mean this thread?

I suppose if you "instantly go on the offensive" - and continue, and escalate - you can expect someone to be defensive back.

Have you considered trying to be more respectful? Especially when it's involving people you want something from.

Stu Little, the photographer who saw the negatives in 1993, talks about the horizon here (I actually don't think he understands the reflection hypothesis)

Again, neither he nor the others have any obligation to understand or address it. If you think the reflection theory has promise then do the work to prove it and perhaps once there's good supporting evidence for it they'll see things your way (perhaps not).

For me, I don't find it convincing either, though I can see how the mind might go there.

The sky looks typically like an overcast sky in the highlands, with just visible contours of distant hills behind the barbed wire fence.

The other idea - which I think holds water - is that the thin line is some sort of string or rabbit mesh or something along those lines. Others see water lapping on a shore. Point being, the idea of distant hills isn't really conclusive.
 

Itsme

Active Member
That wasn't Stu Little speaking, that was David Clarke.

There are a few contradictions and inconsistencies in The Daily Mail article. I would put other sources above that one (who knows what the editors did with it or what needed to be changed to make it more "tabloid-worthy"?)
David Clarke told that Lindsay showed the photo to his RAF colleagues in the years before his retirement. That is not the same as "Lindsay freely showing the photo around for years". After his retirement in 1999 he kept it in a book for 20 years.
I assume his RAF colleagues had the appropriate clearance.

The other idea - which I think holds water - is that the thin line is some sort of string or rabbit mesh or something along those lines. Others see water lapping on a shore. Point being, the idea of distant hills isn't really conclusive.
I'm not talking about the thin line (which could be anything) but about the slightly darker wobbly areas which look strikingly similar to a distant scottish landscape as in the other photo.
 

Duke

Active Member
David Clarke told that Lindsay showed the photo to his RAF colleagues in the years before his retirement. That is not the same as "Lindsay freely showing the photo around for years". After his retirement in 1999 he kept it in a book for 20 years. I assume his RAF colleagues had the appropriate clearance.
Neither his RAF colleagues nor his dust bin man needed a clearance because the photos nor anything associated with the Calvine sighting was classified.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
David Clarke told that Lindsay showed the photo to his RAF colleagues in the years before his retirement. That is not the same as "Lindsay freely showing the photo around for years".

Ah, "freely showing" = "showing to people who weren't in the RAF"? True, I don't currently have anything to support that.

But here's a funny/interesting comment I saw on facebook just now while I was looking for it:

1661435888298.png
 

Duke

Active Member
Has anyone seen anything that tells us Lindsay's rank in 1990 and at retirement in 1999? "Press Officer" is a job title, not a rank.
 

Itsme

Active Member
Ah, "freely showing" = "showing to people who weren't in the RAF"? True, I don't currently have anything to support that.

But here's a funny/interesting comment I saw on facebook just now while I was looking for it:

1661435888298.png
That must be the same guy who calls himself "chopperlad" in the comments on Dave Clarke's site:
Screenshot_2022-08-25-18-42-52-121~2.jpeg

Note how he tells Lindsay was a bit 'cagey' and how he himself destroyed his photocopy, all because of the Official Secrets Act (OSA).

So no, I don't think Lindsay has shown it to his garbage bin guy ;)
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Since the very presence or absence of aircraft has been so frequently questioned here, perhaps it's time to revisit post number one, from Mick West. Either multiple passes or multiple aircraft would adequately explain why a photographer could have time to set up a shot. It doesn't clarify the type, of course.
West quotes :
When providing their witness statement, the men also recalled seeing what were believed to be RAF jets making multiple low-level passes in the area at the same time. It is still unclear whether the jets were accompanying the strange craft, or just happened to be flying through the area at the time. Calvine lies close to the only main road through that part of the Scottish Highlands, one which is a relatively busy thoroughfare even on summer evenings, and the valley it follows was a popular low-flying route for RAF aircraft. Indeed, Calvine sits in the middle of Low Flying Area 14 (LFA 14) and UAP Media UK member & aviation author Graeme Rendall recalls using various mountainside locations in the general vicinity of Calvine for low-level aviation photography back in the early 2000s.
Source: https://www.uapmedia.uk/articles/calvinerevealed
Content from External Source
 

Duke

Active Member
Note how he tells Lindsay was a bit 'cagey' and how he himself destroyed his photocopy, all because of the Official Secrets Act (OSA).

So no, I don't think Lindsay has shown it to his garbage bin guy ;)
No, he tells us he thought Lindsay was being cagey. That's just the opinion of the individual who posted on the other site, not a statement of fact. If Lindsay was concerned about being prosecuted under OSA, I doubt he would have put himself at risk by admitting a violation of the Act over an unsecure phone line. Similar, he wouldn't have fessed up and allowed Dr Clarke to go public with his name and location. There is no statue of limitations on prosecution under OSA.

If the photo had been classified, it would have been clearly marked with its level of security classification. We've seen the photo, there is no classification annotation on the photo. Even FOUO documents (which I think the Brits refer to as just "Official") are clearly marked as such. The level of classification defines security storage requirements. As I recall, Lindsay said he stashed the photo in his office desk. You don't put classified documents in a desk, and if you do and get caught, that's a security violation that could get your clearance pulled.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
he thought Lindsay was being cagey. That's just the opinion of the individual who posted on the other site

See also Clarke in the Disclosure video (from around 40:45):

"He was quite reluctant to part with the [photo and envelope] at that stage. He was a bit worried about whether he was subject to the Official Secrets Act. He was also concerned about data protection because on the back of the print was written in bright red letters the name of the copyright holder - we presume the name of the photographer - and it says 'care of Scottish Daily Record'. But he wouldn't let us see the name and he wouldn't let us get too close to the photograph."

Seems concerned to me. Probably most guys are a bit less cavalier at 83 than at 55.
 
Last edited:

Duke

Active Member
See also Clarke in the Disclosure video (from around 40:45):



Seems concerned to me. Probably most guys are a bit less cavalier at 83 than at 55.
Yet he still discussed it over an unsecure phone line five years ago and allowed his identity and location be used publicly by Dr Clarke and his team. He couldn't have been too concerned.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
If the photo had been classified, it would have been clearly marked with its level of security classification.
i dont think the MOD ever had his photo based on his verbal interview. he said the Daily Record sent him the photo. He faxed the photo (after making a few bad copies so it wouldnt be super clear through the fax machine (in case someone intercepted the fax i guess). The Mod called him said they wanted negatives. He called the Daily Record and said london wanted the negatives. A few weeks later he goes to London and the London guys said that yes they received the negatives from the Daily Record and had returned them.

Lindsay never handed in that particular photo. According to his interview with clark.
 

Duke

Active Member
i dont think the MOD ever had his photo based on his verbal interview. he said the Daily Record sent him the photo. He faxed the photo (after making a few bad copies so it wouldnt be super clear through the fax machine (in case someone intercepted the fax i guess). The Mod called him said they wanted negatives. He called the Daily Record and said london wanted the negatives. A few weeks later he goes to London and the London guys said that yes they received the negatives from the Daily Record and had returned them.

Lindsay never handed in that particular photo. According to his interview with clark.
Which further shows it wasn't classified. If the photo was sent to him officially as a function of his job as an RAF press officer, there was/is a possible case of theft and possession of stolen government property. I doubt that falls under OSA since the photo or the Calvine case in general weren't classified. But we're getting far afield here. The bottom line is there is no evidence to support the supposition the photo(s) was classified.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
The bottom line is there is no evidence to support the supposition the photo(s) was classified.

Yep, that's established. Even Nick Pope said it outright in a talk he gave (posted several pages ago).
 

Itsme

Active Member
Linsday's photo never was an official document so obviously it doesn't have any official security status.

One of the memos released by the National Archives does contain evidence that the MOD had made prints of the negatives on 'vu foils' (overhead sheets), and that this was considered 'sensitive material' that suggests 'very special handling'.
"Enclosed are 5 (five) vu-foils of an unidentified flying object. Please produce line drawings of object with size and dimensions where possible. This is a retask of an original passed in Sept 90. Original negatives are not available.

1. Task already discussed with Ops 4 Sqn

3. Since revisit exists, official tasking would be in order, but sensitivity of material suggests very special handling. Suggest therefore an ad hoc on DI55's IP 4005 with minimum handling by listed personnel."

Source: DEFE 31/180
No wonder Lindsay was concerned about owning his own private print.

Why line drawings of the object had to be produced (with size estimates) about a year later is anyone's guess.
Screenshot_2022-08-26-10-51-27-523~2.jpeg
 
I found a link to a analysis performed on the print itself, looking for any evidence of manipulation.

Source: Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tWMZ232qgDE6Tru7jwgG-nsqoeQZpIm3/view
I agree with the analysis. It does look like a genuine photo of a real object taken in one shot. The greyscale Range of the object is close to that of the plane.

I am looking for horizontal blur. This would happen if the photographer tried to follow the plane. A skilled photographer would do that, to get a sharp picture of the plane. Looking at the poles in the bottom, it looks like a little blur. But not the trees. The ufo looks like the most stable object and this is a little suspicious, but it is really not possible to say for sure.

I think the UFO is fake and somehow put in the picture afterwards in the post production. You can put an object onto the photo paper, do a lets say 50% exposure, remove the object and do another 50%.

The object also looks mirrored in the "artifacts", the light and dark spots. That is also a clue.

Will get back on this.
Full color printing simply uses 4 half-tone screens, one each for cyan, magenta, yellow, and black; and since the picture is b/w anyway, that's pretty much exactly what it would have looked like, possibly bigger and with a finer grid, but still the quality of the photographic paper used for the "poster" would be leagues above the quality of the news-printed reproduction.

Take a magnifying glass and look at a newspaper if you don't believe me.
Correct. I have worked in the printing business and also developed film and prints in darkroom at home and work. To print a photo on paper, newspaper og posters, you use "raster". Basically dots in different sizes on transparent films. One film for each color, Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black (for better contrast in the dark areas, since CMY only produces a dark brown color. Reason is the "offset" print technology can only either put ink or no ink on the paper. No greyscales. The different sizes of raster dots, makes the grey-/color scale. It's actually a optical illusion. The dots a small and unnoticeable when viewing from a distance, lets say 30 cm, reading a book og newspaper.

The dots are transferred from the film to a offset printing plate witch then transfers the ink to the paper.

Low quality paper like newspapers and books smear out the printing ink, so you would use bigger raster sizes to avoid the big raster dots that covers 90% of the are smear out and covers 100% = not dark grey but black.

On the other hand you can use finer raster dots on high quality paper for magazines.

The viewing distance also plays a role. A big wall poster is normally viewed from a bigger distance like meters and not centimeters. Then you can use much bigger raster dots.

But there is much more to the story about image quality.

Any film used in analog camera (like 35 mm Ilford XP1 400 in this case) produces the color or grey scale with fine grains of metallic silver. They get dark when exposed and developed. But in a analog way. More light = darker color/grey. The grains are randomly distributed but has a somewhat fixed size. ISO refers to the grain size. Bigger ISO (like 400 vs 100) mean bigger grains. Bigger grains needs less light and therefore you would use bigger ISO number in lower light conditions. Downside is it looks more noisy, because you can begin to see the grains visually.

But there is more... the photographic paper also has grains.

The apparatus used for transfer negative film to photographic paper also as lenses and needs to be in focus.

The camera lens plays a big role in image sharpness too.

... so you can imagine the quality loss for each many processes before you have a picture on paper, if you are not very careful and skilled.

Today you can scan the negatives and get GREAT results form old films. The XP1 400 produces very sharp images with the right camera lens.

This UFO picture is very bad quality. It's very unsharp. It could easily be a photo of a photo of a photo. Is that the case is difficult or maybe impossible to say. But could it be done and produce a picture like this, sure.

You can google "newspaper raster", "ILFORD XP1 400 pictures" etc to see examples of offset print and the quality of the film.
 

Itsme

Active Member
I don't doubt for one second that the Calvine photo can be faked. But what does that tell you?

The moon landing photos can also be faked. And the recent images from the James Webb telescope as well. Even the pictures we see from the war in Ukraine can be faked.

The bottom line is: to what extend does one trust the source of these images? And how much information can be collected from various other sources that paints a coherent picture? That is why this kind of background research is much more important than demontrations that something can be faked.

Demonstrating that the moon landing photos can be faked will only convince believers in the moon landing hoax. Demonstrating that a ufo picture can be faked will only convince ufo sceptics.
 
The bottom line is: to what extend does one trust the source of these images? And how much information can be collected from various other sources that paints a coherent picture? That is why this kind of background research is much more important than demontrations that something can be faked.

Good points, but can't there also be fake without photo manipulation? A hypothetical example of what I'm wondering would be the possibility that the "UFO" turns out to be an object pulled up by a thread not made visible by the camera lens resolution.
 
Last edited:

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
Do you mean this thread?

I suppose if you "instantly go on the offensive" - and continue, and escalate - you can expect someone to be defensive back.
My initial tweet was not instantly on the offensive. I think he took offense because I said he'd changed his mind (which is a statement of fact). He made two factual errors in his responses, too, which again put him on the defensive. Promoting the photos as "top secret" in his tweet (his own words) was monumentally misleading. I have no idea why he'd insert false information into the story like that.

Have you considered trying to be more respectful? Especially when it's involving people you want something from.
My respect for him is quickly waning due to the above problems, although obviously his research over the past few years has been invaluable on this case.


Again, neither he nor the others have any obligation to understand or address it.
I never said they had an "obligation" to address anything, so it's okay for you to stop pointing this out.
 

Itsme

Active Member
Good points, but can't there also be fake without photo manipulation? A hypothetical example of what I'm wondering would be the possibility that the "UFO" turns out to be an object pulled up by a thread not made visible by the camera lens resolution.
I consider anything that tries to mimic a large object hovering in the sky a 'fake'.
 

Duke

Active Member
Linsday's photo never was an official document so obviously it doesn't have any official security status.

One of the memos released by the National Archives does contain evidence that the MOD had made prints of the negatives on 'vu foils' (overhead sheets), and that this was considered 'sensitive material' that suggests 'very special handling'.

No wonder Lindsay was concerned about owning his own private print.

Why line drawings of the object had to be produced (with size estimates) about a year later is anyone's guess.
Screenshot_2022-08-26-10-51-27-523~2.jpeg
As I pointed out earlier, if he acquired the photo in his official role as an RAF press officer, there was/is a possible case for theft and possession of stolen government property. I'd be concerned if I possessed stolen property from my USAF/DoD career, especially if I had admitted possessing it over an unsecure phone line and allowed my identity/crime to be made public by someone like Dr Clarke.

Assuming the MoD/RAF works similarly to the DoD/USAF, the only way he would have been able to legally remove the photo from his duty station and retain it for personal use would have been with a hand receipt signed by the cognizant, real property authority in his chain of command. Apparently this was not done.

I doubt "sensitive" and "special handling" have any official meaning in the RAF/MoD security classification system. More than likely the author of the document was referring to what's designated in the USAF/DoD as "For Official Use Only," or FOUO. This is not a security classification, and as such does not require those accessing such a document to have a vetted security clearance. They are granted access to such material simply as a function of their job, and must use the material only in the course of their job. Such material is not for public release or personal use.

In this case, although the photos (or anything associated with the Calvine incident) was never classified, I can understand why they would have been designated FOUO while the RAF/MoD was evaluating them. There's also the bit about the government not actually owning the photos, but that's outside the discussion of security classification.
 
Last edited:

Duke

Active Member
Good points, but can't there also be fake without photo manipulation? A hypothetical example of what I'm wondering would be the possibility that the "UFO" turns out to be an object pulled up by a thread not made visible by the camera lens resolution.
This point leads to an issue I think is being overlooked, that of fraud/hoax v. victim of a fraud/hoax. If this is a photo manipulation, clearly the photographer's intent was a hoax. On the other hand, if the chefs/poachers/photographers happened to see and photograph a physical hoax (however it was done), then they were simply in the right place at the right time to get the photos. In that case, they are guilty of nothing other than taking photos of something confounding to them at the time.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
I am looking for horizontal blur. This would happen if the photographer tried to follow the plane. A skilled photographer would do that, to get a sharp picture of the plane.
I disagree. Assuming a real object hovering out there, a photographer would be interested in capturing an image of that object, the plane is of secondary unimportance, if that. Why in the world would a skilled photographer trying to take a picture of a mysterious UFO mess up his picture of the object to get a clearer shot of the mundane plane?
 
Last edited:

Biggles79

New Member
I doubt "sensitive" and "special handling" have any official meaning in the RAF/MoD security classification system. More than likely the author of the document was referring to what's designated in the USAF/DoD as "For Official Use Only," or FOUO. This is not a security classification, and as such does not require those accessing such a document to have a vetted security clearance. They are granted access to such material simply as a function of their job, and must use the material only in the course of their job. Such material is not for public release or personal use.
This is correct. Until 2014 the classifications were UNCLASSIFIED, RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET. This material would have been 'restricted', requiring 'special handling' but not actually classified in the sense that we usually think of. Don't leave it on the train, basically.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Until 2014 the classifications were UNCLASSIFIED, RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET.

Good point. Going by wikipedia:

Article:
The [pre-2014] system used five levels of classification, supplemented with caveat keywords. The keyword was placed in all capital letters in the centre of the top and bottom of each page of a classified document and described the foreseeable consequence of an unauthorised release of the data (a ‘breach of confidentiality’). In descending order of secrecy, these are:

TOP SECRET
Information marked as TOP SECRET is that whose release is liable to cause considerable loss of life, international diplomatic incidents, or severely impact ongoing intelligence operations. Prior to the Second World War, the highest level was "Most Secret"; it was renamed so that both the UK and U.S. operated to a consistent system.

SECRET
This marking is used for information whose side-effects may be life-threatening, disruptive to public order or detrimental to diplomatic relations with friendly nations.

CONFIDENTIAL
The effects of releasing information marked as CONFIDENTIAL include considerable infringement on personal liberties, material damage to diplomatic relations, or to seriously disrupt day-to-day life in the country.

RESTRICTED
Information marked as RESTRICTED is at a level where the release of the material will have effects such as significant distress to individuals, adversely affecting the effectiveness of military operations, or to compromise law enforcement.

PROTECT
Such information will cause distress to individuals; cause financial loss or improper gain; prejudice the investigation of, or facilitate the commission of, a crime; or disadvantage government in commercial or policy negotiations with others. PROTECT should always be used with a descript such as “Commercial”, “Management”, “Personal”, or a similar term.

UNCLASSIFIED
The term "UNCLASSIFIED" or "NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED" may be used in UK Government documents to indicate positively that a protective marking is not needed.

Of the surviving Calvine documents:
  • Incident report not designated
  • Loose minute not designated
  • Photocopies not designated
  • Retask originally RESTRICTED and CONFIDENTIAL, now UNCLASSIFIED
There was also a letter from December 1992 that may have referenced Calvine that is said to have originally been marked SECRET (but unclassified now).
 
Last edited:

Duke

Active Member
I disagree. Assuming a real object hovering out there, a photographer would be interested in capturing an image of that object, the plane is of secondary unimportance, if that. Why in the world would a skilled photographer trying to take a picture of a mysterious UFO mess up his picture of the object to get a clearer shot of the mundane plane?
I'm not a skilled photographer, but if I happened to be in the right place at the right time to see a saucer shaped object being CAPed by a military a/c, I'd certainly want the both craft in any photos I might take to validate what I saw.

Others looking at photos could debate the a/c type and photographic niceties of the images I captured, but they couldn't deny the a/c was in the photos and that I saw them as I claimed. Conversely, if I didn't get the a/c in the photos, but claimed to have seen them, the first thing doubters would say is, "Where are they? I don't see them."

I am curious, why do you think the photographer who took this image was skilled?
 

Philip

New Member
In the Disclosure Team Q&A video at 10.00 mins Andrew Robinson now appears to be saying that he thinks the film used was standard b/w negative film, not XP-1.

As nobody else seems to have mentioned it, have I got that wrong?
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
This point leads to an issue I think is being overlooked, that of fraud/hoax v. victim of a fraud/hoax. If this is a photo manipulation, clearly the photographer's intent was a hoax. On the other hand, if the chefs/poachers/photographers happened to see and photograph a physical hoax (however it was done), then they were simply in the right place at the right time to get the photos. In that case, they are guilty of nothing other than taking photos of something confounding to them at the time.
If they took a real but mundane scene, for example capturing a picture of a plane (or its reflection) while looking at a small island in the water, it could be a case of "Look at this, it looks like a UFO", and all the hoaxing that was done might have been in the fanciful story they related later.
 
I disagree. Assuming a real object hovering out there, a photographer would be interested in capturing an image of that object, the plane is of secondary unimportance, if that. Why in the world would a skilled photographer trying to take a picture of a mysterious UFO mess up his picture of the object to get a clearer shot of the mundane plane?

Well if the UFO wasn't in the picture in the first place. But I get your point, assuming there was an object.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
I'm not a skilled photographer, but if I happened to be in the right place at the right time to see a saucer shaped object being CAPed by a military a/c, I'd certainly want the both craft in any photos I might take to validate what I saw.
Sure, but if you knew enough to know panning along with the plane would make it clearer than the UFO that is what is interesting to you, would you concentrate on getting a good pic of the plane at the expense of the UFO image quality.

Others looking at photos could debate the a/c type and photographic niceties of the images I captured, but they couldn't deny the a/c was in the photos and that I saw them as I claimed. Conversely, if I didn't get the a/c in the photos, but claimed to have seen them, the first thing doubters would say is, "Where are they? I don't see them."
Getting them in the pic is fine, prioritizing how clear they are at the expense of the UFO seems unlikely. Or I guess more responsively to the post I replied to, I don't think it is reasonable to assume a skilled photographer would do that.

I am curious, why do you think the photographer who took this image was skilled?
I don't. henrikmorsing wrote about what a skilled photographer would do. I think a skilled photographer would indeed know how to pan along with the plane for a great plane pic, or to not do that for a clearer picture of the UFO.
 
Top