...LIZ is an abbreviation or acronym of something else.
Could you help me out here?
The Low Information Zone. It is where UFOs live.
...LIZ is an abbreviation or acronym of something else.
Could you help me out here?
Sorry it stands for low information zone, where a lot of UFO evidence is.So theres either a colored photo of the calvine UFO inside a very weird and allegedly very well known woman called Elizabeth or LIZ is an abbreviation or acronym of something else.
Could you help me out here?
@Domzh see also https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ufo-acronym-defnitions.11742/The Low Information Zone. It is where UFOs live.
source: https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/tag/condign-report/In August 1990 the Scottish Daily Record in Glasgow were sent six colour slides showing a large diamond-shaped UFO that had been taken by two men walking near the A9 at Calvine in Perthshire.
I looked at the area around the A9 at Calvine for anything that would allow the reflection hypothesis
Our baseline according to guidelines assumes the observer / witness is not lying.The problem is, if it's a reflection it's a hoax, and if it's a hoax there's no reason to think it was taken in that area, or even in that country.
Full reflection hypothesis discussion here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/
Our baseline according to guidelines assumes the observer / witness is not lying.
If we assume hoax, we must provide evidence.
Which assumes that the location information was correct and therefore rejects the reflection hypothesis, because there is no calm water source existent.
The fencing looks pretty new. Given the steep drop off I think its fair to assume that they had some fencing also back then in some shape or form.
not really:That seems somewhat circular to me.
Thats a very valid argument that needs to be addressed. Thank you for pointing it out.Barb wire is specifically for livestock, so unless there were cattle out hiking to the falls it seems unlikely.
not really:
Correct location information doesnt mean it was not a hoax. It does however reject the reflexion hoax hypothesis because there is no still water.
it kinda depends on what the "lost photographs" in the set show, as the reconstructions have them displaying quite a lot of landscape. if that's in the original photos, lying about the location would've exposed the hoax shortly after the newspaper with the story (that it was submitted to) would've been published. so it'd have been better to not lie about that, even if it's a hoax.What I mean is it's based on the assumption that they weren't lying about the location. But if you're open to it being a hoax then you're open to them lying about the whole story, which includes the location.
thats kind of a slippery slope.What I mean is it's based on the assumption that they weren't lying about the location. But if you're open to it being a hoax then you're open to them lying about the whole story, which includes the location.
You are correct. It was poorly phrased on my part. Exchange "assume" with "conclude".I don't think so. It's okay to assume things - that's where theorising starts. Proof comes later.
You are correct. It was poorly phrased on my part. Exchange "assume" with "conclude".
For example a picture that only shows a ufo against the sky without any terrain, structures etc. cant (easily) be matched with a location.
It makes sense in this case to assume a high probability of every information provided being lied about.
However, if the claim made can be falsified quite easily, then I would assign a lower probability to it being a lie.
It would be reasonable for them to assume that they will be asked about the specific location details and everything would fall apart immediately if the scenery on the picture doesnt match the location.
Thank you. I literally spit out my soup laughing. My mind creates way too vivid pictures for these kind of situations...and pointed up in the sky and the newspaper blokes noticed a rock that looked exactly like the supposed craft.
Witnesses, by their very nature, are not 100% accurate. If they are not purposely falsifying having seen some thing or event, shouldn't we assume they have as much chance being incorrect/inaccurate on both sides of any debunk theory? I note members here using witness statements to support a debunk hypothesis, but are quick to dismiss witness statements if they don't support the hypothesis du jour.Our baseline according to guidelines assumes the observer / witness is not lying.
Yes, of course. Being incorrect is different to lying though. When I said "the baseline assumption should be the witness is not lying" then this doesnt mean that everything they say is also what really happened. It was their perceived reality.Witnesses, by their very nature, are not 100% accurate. If they are not purposely falsifying having seen some thing or event, shouldn't we assume they have as much chance being incorrect/inaccurate on both sides of any debunk theory?
This would be biased indeed. I dont know if there is a specific case you are talking about?I note members here using witness statements to support a debunk hypothesis, but are quick to dismiss witness statements if they don't support the hypothesis du jour.
We agree. My point was coming into any investigation with a preconceived notion that a witness is lying/hoaxing is bound to impact both how the investigation is conducted and the conclusion. In the Calvine case, the preconceived notion is it has to be a hoax and most posts here are based on that belief. I was trained to look at and follow evidence with an open mind, make no preconceived conclusions and assume nothing. At the end of the day, it's entirely possible, and acceptable, to conduct a thorough investigation and admit you don't know.Yes, of course. Being incorrect is different to lying though. When I said "the baseline assumption should be the witness is not lying" then this doesnt mean that everything they say is also what really happened. It was their perceived reality.
I understand all that and agree with your points. My comments were directed specifically at Calvine and cherry picking witness statements to support pet theories, in particular accepting the witnesses were correct in saying the "object" was hovering. If they were wrong, as you theorize Cmdr Fravor was incorrect about the account of his TicTac hovering as a function of perspective, then things change. Doesn't mean either the Calvine witnesses or Cmdr Fravor saw a craft from another planet/time/realm, but it does show how making unfounded suppositions based on unsubstantiated claims can drive unsupportable conclusions.This would be biased indeed. I dont know if there is a specific case you are talking about?
Its really a matter of plausibility.
Lets take "pheonix lights" for example. If there really are 100s of witnesses saying they could see the dark triangle flying above them and it covered the sky, then this should be taken seriously.
It wouldnt be reasonable to pick the one witness claiming he clearly saw three chinese lanterns and dispute everything else. You could take it as a hint to form a hypothesis but the single witness alone wouldnt be enough, given that every other variable is equal (same place, same time, etc).
Or lets take the Fravor encounter for example. If he said the tic tac was hovering and Dietrich said it was flying in a straight line then you could conclude (assuming both are not lying) that the tic tac was flying and Fravor perceived it as hovering from
his POV.
Its also easier to explain differences in perceived movement, distance and size than sound (there was a massive explosion).
We go off topic though ;-)
There's a statement that they were "near Calvine", but that statement is from the recipient of the photos rather than the photographers. If I recall, the story is that they were returning to Calvine after work in Pitlochry, and there are a good many suitable places with still water closer to Pitlochry, even if we accept "along the A9" as fact.I couldnt find anything like a lake that would allow for a still water reflection setup as hypothesized in this thread.
Other than it is a bit easier to estimate a speed of zero fairly accurately than it is to recognize what a 5000 mph object looks like. You can he fooled, by perspective and such with an object moving toward you and the like, but at least looking at a stationary object is within pretty much everybody's experience.We have no basis on which to believe that statement is accurate, anymore than we do a witness telling us a craft is going 5000 mph
And they can still be wrong, like Cmdr Fravor apparently.Other than it is a bit easier to estimate a speed of zero fairly accurately than it is to recognize what a 5000 mph object looks like. You can he fooled, by perspective and such with an object moving toward you and the like, but at least looking at a stationary object is within pretty much everybody's experience.
This honestly doesnt seem very plausible to me at first sight for the following reasons:There's a statement that they were "near Calvine", but that statement is from the recipient of the photos rather than the photographers. If I recall, the story is that they were returning to Calvine after work in Pitlochry, and there are a good many suitable places with still water closer to Pitlochry, even if we accept "along the A9" as fact.
I was thinking they were on bicycles, but as this discussion has been split up into so many sub-threads, I can't find that info and don't know if I just supposed it. What seems clear is that they worked in Pitlochry but were staying in Calvine, and the distance between them is a long walk no matter whether they were taking photos or not. If they were young kids with a summer job, it's highly unlikely that they had a car, but bicycles would not have been an unusual means of travel, especially in that place at that time.1) Afaik they were always talking about hikers equipped with a camera for bird watching
I don't think that is actually a preconceived notion: it's a notion that gains weight when you look at the evidence.My point was coming into any investigation with a preconceived notion that a witness is lying/hoaxing is bound to impact both how the investigation is conducted and the conclusion. In the Calvine case, the preconceived notion is it has to be a hoax and most posts here are based on that belief.
i dont think that is barbed wire, just regular wireThere is indeed barbed wire in this area:
It also perplexes me how members here can accuse others of lying/hoaxing without violating the site's rules about not being rude and showing respect, but that's probably better discussed elsewhere.
There's a statement that they were "near Calvine", but that statement is from the recipient of the photos rather than the photographers.
Afaik they were always talking about hikers equipped with a camera for bird watching
Pitlochry to Calvine is a march of roughly 4 hours, which seems pretty odd for coming home from work.
I was thinking they were on bicycles
What seems clear is that they worked in Pitlochry but were staying in Calvine
iirc they were both chefs
Interesting. This contradicts a warning I was given here by a moderator.Politeness comes into play more strongly when we have a conversation with the actual observer.
The next post mentions itSo theres either a colored photo of the calvine UFO inside a very weird and allegedly very well known woman called Elizabeth or LIZ is an abbreviation or acronym of something else.
Could you help me out here?
are the accessories used and price confirmed? if yes then this would seem a bit odd and definitely unexpected for a 20ish kitchen worker but not impossible.As a bird photographer with a £4000 modern camera and a £5000 modern 500mm telephoto prime lens with extender the idea of anyone in any seriousness going on a walk for bird photographing on a dull evening with a wider angle 90's era film camera with black and white film seems fairly dubious.
Sure maybe a complete novice with no experience or understanding.
it varies a bit by topic and thread subject. Hoaxing UFO photos is a fairly well known and popular pasttime, so i personally don't think throwing hoax into the mix of explanations is that unreasonable.Interesting. This contradicts a warning I was given here by a moderator.
"Do not be impolite to anyone on or off the forum."
@jarlrmai did not claim that the Calvine photographer had access to that kind of equipment.are the accessories used and price confirmed? if yes then this would seem a bit odd and definitely unexpected for a 20ish kitchen worker but not impossible.
(wealthy parents, generous friends, borrowed, disciplined with finances, etc)
are the accessories used and price confirmed? if yes then this would seem a bit odd and definitely unexpected for a 20ish kitchen worker but not impossible.
(wealthy parents, generous friends, borrowed, disciplined with finances, etc)
hearsay: apparently you have light up until midnight in this area during summer
a quick check (link to a weather website) showed that in august '90 the sun is starting to go down at 21:30.
My point is really that the bird photography thing is used as an explanation as to why they had a camera, but it seems a bit forced and wrong
Article: bird watcher
a guy who hangs in public bathrooms trying to look at your penis
They were teenagers. It's hardly likely they were sophisticated bird photographers, so their equipment and lack of expertise are unsurprising. And don't be fooled by the apparent cloud cover; at that latitude twilight lingers for hours, and clouds lit from beneath can make the sky much brighter than it would be if it were cloudless. That part of their story seems plausible to me.the idea of anyone in any seriousness going on a walk for bird photographing on a dull evening with a wider angle 90's era film camera with black and white film seems fairly dubious.
traveling iceland multiple times, i can confirm that in the northern hemisphere it can easily look like early afternoon during the early part of dawn. it really takes ages until it starts getting dark. scotland is right below iceland so i would expect a similar experience.at that latitude twilight lingers for hours, and clouds lit from beneath can make the sky much brighter
I feel saying 'bird photography' for the reason they had a camera feels more like an excuse than a reason.They were teenagers. It's hardly likely they were sophisticated bird photographers, so their equipment and lack of expertise are unsurprising. And don't be fooled by the apparent cloud cover; at that latitude twilight lingers for hours, and clouds lit from beneath can make the sky much brighter than it would be if it were cloudless. That part of their story seems plausible to me.