Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[Duke]

Yes. But they couldn't choose the observer angle. The photo hoaxer can, so 2D would do.

I don't think so, but would be curious to hear the opinion of a professional military photo analyst.

Any thoughts on this @LilWabbit? I know you're not necessarily an analyst yourself, but you've demonstrated an understanding of intel and how it's used.

Addendum: The more I've thought about this, the more I question the comment about "choosing" the observers' viewing angle. I remember reading a book by a WW2 RAF Spitfire photo reconnaissance (PR) pilot who talked about how difficult it was to safely take his photographs. The Germans knew he had to fly a straight and level attitude at a specific altitude/airspeed (as a function of the lens/film in his camera), and he was limited to a specific route/time over target due to the position of the sun at any given time. So the guys on the ground may not have been able to "choose" the camera angle of the PR a/c, but they did know the limitations of cameras/film and the routes/altitude/attitude the pilots would have had to "choose" to get actionable photos. They wouldn't have had to choose the angle/perspective if they knew what it was going to be and spoof accordingly.

 

[Rory]

there is no reason that a craft in the air would be expected to look different in that respect from a fake model on a string.

I guess I was thinking model on a string would be about the same eye level - therefore no bottom - whereas craft 100 feet above would appear different.

But if as members seem to agree that isnt the case...well, I guess I'm not immediately getting my head around it. Or are we saying we can see the bottom but it's not apparent?

 

[Ann K]

I guess I was thinking model on a string would be about the same eye level - therefore no bottom - whereas craft 100 feet above would appear different.

But if as members seem to agree that isnt the case...well, I guess I'm not immediately getting my head around it. Or are we saying we can see the bottom but it's not apparent?

A model on a string could be at any height they choose. And something at the air could be at 100 feet above them, 100 feet above the surface of, say, a loch that's far below them, or (given the imprecision of an amateur's eyeballed height of a thing of unknown size at an unknown distance) almost any height at all. We can imagine anything at all about a blurry picture in the LIZ, but the fact remains that we don't really know much at all that we can be certain of.

 

[Domzh]

Not following you. There is no bottom of an inverted cone or pyramid except for where it comes to a point. There are sloping sides, but not a bottom.

View attachment 56012

well... how does it land if it would be pointed at the bottom....?

i dont know but a pyramide shaped bottom seems ridiculous to me, if this should be a real craft.

i mean it could be a small model with a pyramide bottom, im challenging more the "black tech craft" hypothesis. i actually believe it is a small model of whatever, on eye level close to the camera.

i cant see how this thing could have a flat bottom and actually be in the sky at some altitude

my point is, if this thing should be an actual black project craft, a pyramide shaped bottom is not very believable at all imo, at least it seams reasonable to rule a real manmade craft?

the story goes that this thing hovered for appx 10min, so i assume its level and we should see part of the bottom.

...or theres a 0.1% chance that it has a pointed bottom and or is tilted while hovering and elvis is the pilot

 

[NorCal Dave]

But if as members seem to agree that isnt the case...well, I guess I'm not immediately getting my head around it. Or are we saying we can see the bottom but it's not apparent?

Maybe something like this. I should do this in SketchUp, but I'm a bit slow at it. This is basically what we see in the photo:

The craft is almost perfectly symmetrical top to bottom, or evenly divided with a centerline. Darker on the bottom giving it depth. What would this shape look like in 3D, something like a pyramid fishing weight as discussed elsewhere. Here is a quick drawing of it where the dotted lines are the parts we can't see and then what it would look like head on:

Aside from the fact that there is no way that shape can "fly" (float, yes) how is it that in the Calvine photo it is perfectly aligned with the camera if it's in the air. It would have to be tilted (banking) at just the right angle to have the centerline appear dead center, right?

If it's flying/floating in the air above the photographer, then even if we don't see the "bottom" we would see the lower half as bigger than the top half, right?

And this would get more pronounced the higher in the air the craft is I'm thinking:

Now if it's a model, 2D or 3D and is close to the camera, it's not an issue:

Apologies for the crud drawings on a forum that has things like SitRec.

 

[NorCal Dave]

The possibility of the Calvine "craft" having been possibly 2D or flat has been mentioned. I find that less likely than a 3D model simply because I think military photo interpreters/analysts would spot that without too much difficulty.

A 3D model would be likely, but given the shape of the Calvine craft does it have to be? How does my model compare to the Calvine photo? Not the background or the plane, just the model.

 

[Rory]

Yours looks much more 3D than theirs!

And credit to you: I can't right now remember how you did it - painting/shading on flat wood? - but if you told me it was a 3D model with realistic depth I would believe it.

 

[Duke]

well... how does it land if it would be pointed at the bottom....?

If it's a real craft, a couple different options come to mind. The most obvious is it launches/alights vertically from/into a cradle of sorts. The US had a couple experimental VTOL aircraft without landing gear that did that. If they had to land elsewhere, they did the best they could, but it wouldn't have been easy. Of course they didn't look like the Calvine "craft," but the concept is the same.

We also saw lots of science fiction movies where saucer shaped craft lowered tripod landing gear. Remember the "Jupiter 2" from "Lost in Space"?

 

[Rory]

angle seems important

but I can't see how distance comes into play

Distance creates angle, no? As well as height, of course.

Though for the bottom seeing idea less distance/more height = bigger/better angle

 

[Duke]

A 3D model would be likely, but given the shape of the Calvine craft does it have to be? How does my model compare to the Calvine photo? Not the background or the plane, just the model.



View attachment 56033

View attachment 56034

The question is could a trained military photo analyst tell if the image was 2D/flat, not whether or how it compares to something we don't know.

 

[JMartJr]

Distance creates angle, no?

Something that is above your POV at 45 degrees and 8 feet away is not at a different angle than something that is above your POV at 45 degrees and 800 feet away.

I don't mean that to sound snarky, just trying to say it super-clearly as I suspect a failure of communication likely originates on my end! We may be talking about different concepts!

 

[Rory]

Something that is above your POV at 45 degrees and 8 feet away is not at a different angle than something that is above your POV at 45 degrees and 800 feet away.

Right.

But I guess what Dom is saying is that a large craft at the proposed height and distance ought to appear more 3D, and since we're beneath it that would include seeing the bottom.

And also that the model in a tree would be at less of an angle from the camera.

Not following you. There is no bottom of an inverted cone or pyramid except for where it comes to a point. There are sloping sides, but not a bottom.

View attachment 56012

I get what you're saying but I'm not sure a flat 2D drawing is the best illustration.

Maybe something similar in 3D?

 

[Domzh]

Something that is above your POV at 45 degrees and 8 feet away is not at a different angle than something that is above your POV at 45 degrees and 800 feet away.

I don't mean that to sound snarky, just trying to say it super-clearly as I suspect a failure of communication likely originates on my end! We may be talking about different concepts!

you are both right but are talking about different distances to the camera lense.

if something is close and level (small model on a string) to the camera its another angle than 15000 feet in the sky, although the close and level object could give the impression of being in the sky.

i guess thats the idea

 

[Domzh]

A 3D model would be likely, but given the shape of the Calvine craft does it have to be? How does my model compare to the Calvine photo? Not the background or the plane, just the model.



View attachment 56033

perfect example. easy to see what i mean.

try to see your 3d model as a hollow pyramid with a flat and open bottom.

the angle now is correct from our POV

if it should be a solid pyramid that is mirrored, then it wouldnt be level to the ground but flying exactly towards our LOS or otherwise the angles would be different.

on the calvine photo the flat bottom can be ruled out because the shadow is not matching.

this is how a flat bottom should and would look:

and viewed directly from the front and bottom:

 

[Rory]

if something is close and level (small model on a string) to the camera its another angle than 15000 feet in the sky,

15,000 feet isn't really applicable here though. Didn't they say it was like 150 feet above them (via Lindsay)? Or maybe that was someone else just guessing that?

on the calvine photo the flat bottom can be ruled out because the shadow is not matching.

Agreed. But at the same time I don't think anyone's proposed that it did have a flat bottom.

We may be talking about different concepts!

Yes, I suspect several of us aren't quite on the same page here.

Probably don't matter though.

 

[Domzh]

15,000 feet isn't really applicable here though. Didn't they say it was like 150 feet above them (via Lindsay)? Or maybe that was someone else just guessing that?

i was just throwing in a number as an example, it wasnt a claim regarding the photograph

 

[Rory]

True. But it's good to use realistic numbers.

More realistic might be: model six to twenty feet away and two to ten feet above the camera; and craft a thousand to fifteen hundred feet away and a hundred to three hundred feet above the camera.

All very rough guesses and quite possibly totally wrong - but if somewhere near then the angles are in the same ballpark; or maybe even shallower on the 'craft'.

 

[Duke]

on the calvine photo the flat bottom can be ruled out because the shadow is not matching.

Why can't it be ruled out simply because its bottom clearly isn't flat? It doesn't look flat, not do I recall anyone remotely connected with the story having said/inferred/hinted it was flat. The term I recall used most frequently was "diamond shaped."

The Christmas star ornament posted a few months back bares a remarkable resemblance (at least to me) to the Calvine "craft," no flat bottom there either.

 

[Domzh]

Why can't it be ruled out simply because its bottom clearly isn't flat? It doesn't look flat, not do I recall anyone remotely connected with the story having said/inferred/hinted it was flat. The term I recall used most frequently was "diamond shaped."

The Christmas star ornament posted a few months back bares a remarkable resemblance (at least to me) to the Calvine "craft," no flat bottom there either.

it can be an actual physical object with a non flat bottom. im not even remotely arguing that.

my point is that i dont think its at all plausible to have a pyramid shaped bottom and be a real human made aircraft. possible is almost everything i guess but i would say the probability is extremely low from what i would conclude (for it to be a US black project aircraft).

maybe you know platforms that exist that use a distinctively pyramid shaped bottom.

but we keep playing opinion ping pong. you think it could be plausible, i dont. or maybe we have a misunderstanding and arguing different points.

 

[purpleivan]

I think that this is the kind of image that's being requested, which shows an object of similar shape to that in the Calvine photo, with the object above the position of the camera.

The camera setting used was for a 35mm lens and it's tilted up at an angle of 15 degrees.

The UFO is 15m long (left/right dimension) and 7.5m tall and wide (depth from camera) and is placed 100m from the camera and at a height (28m) that places it in the center of the view of the camera.

The foreground fence is 1m tall (the bottom of the posts are a little out of frame) and placed 2m apart. The center of the fence is 8m from the camera.

Here's a side view of the scene (the fence is hard to see due to being very thin from this angle, it's just above the center of the word "fence").

I think this demonstrates that if the object were to be hovering in a level orientation (relative to the ground) and is a significant distance above the camera, then it would not appear symetrical, top and bottom. Specifically the center line of it would be seen as two lines meeting at an angle and not a single straight one.

That being said, this all depends on the relative dimensions of the object. If it was much thinner (depth as seen from camera), e.g. 1m, then within the limitations of the photo (poor quality) then it's possible that the center line would appear straight.

Here's what it looks like when 1m wide (depth as seen from camera).

Note that in my render I've not attempted to match the apparent lighting in the photo, so parts of the UFO at different angles angles relative to each other may be more noticeably different in lighting than they would in the conditions the photo was taken in.

 

[Mendel]

Addendum: The more I've thought about this, the more I question the comment about "choosing" the observers' viewing angle. I remember reading a book by a WW2 RAF Spitfire photo reconnaissance (PR) pilot who talked about how difficult it was to safely take his photographs. The Germans knew he had to fly a straight and level attitude at a specific altitude/airspeed (as a function of the lens/film in his camera), and he was limited to a specific route/time over target due to the position of the sun at any given time. So the guys on the ground may not have been able to "choose" the camera angle of the PR a/c, but they did know the limitations of cameras/film and the routes/altitude/attitude the pilots would have had to "choose" to get actionable photos. They wouldn't have had to choose the angle/perspective if they knew what it was going to be and spoof accordingly.

if you have aerial photography like this, it's easy to take overlapping segments and create a stereo view that exposes true 3D:

What's more, the report that it was hovering and then suddenly shot up would be designed to explain why there's only ever a single perspective on the object in all six photos, if it's a hoax.

well... how does it land if it would be pointed at the bottom....?

How does this land, it's round at the bottom:

 

[Mendel]

I think that this is the kind of image that's being requested, which shows an object of similar shape to that in the Calvine photo, with the object above the position of the camera.

The camera setting used was for a 35mm lens and it's tilted up at an angle of 15 degrees.

Specifically the center line of it would be seen as two lines meeting at an angle and not a single straight one.

that's the diamond version of my double cone sketch:

The curvature of the base line provides perspective information.
View attachment 56014

For the Jagoslaw pictures, that line is slightly (and differently!) curved in each picture, for Calvine it is straight.

The side line of the diamond being angled up indicates a view from below, while the straight line in the Calvine photograph indicates a level-ish side-on view. (Unless we want to assume the hull is shaped to produce an optical illusion, and the photographer just so happens to watch from the one angle that makes it work.)

 

[FatPhil]

The question is could a trained military photo analyst tell if the image was 2D/flat, not whether or how it compares to something we don't know.

There are two distinct questions - could an analyst tell if the object was 2D from *a single image*, and could an analyst tell that from *multiple* images. The latter is way easier than the former, as we've evolved with 2 eyes and can perceive depth even when the images are taken only inches apart. With one image, there generally isn't enough information to disprove a claim either way. There are many examples of deliberately misleading pavement art, typically with lots of foreshortening (thus making the inter-eye distance very little help) I'm s sure they must be familiar. You need a second point of view in order to know you've not been fooled.

 

[Mendel]

There are many examples of deliberately misleading pavement art, typically with lots of foreshortening (thus making the inter-eye distance very little help) I'm sure they must be familiar.

(source: https://joehill-art.com/pages/3d-pavement-art )

Spoiler: '3D' billboards on youtube

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cbc5wELb93o

 

[Domzh]

guys... while talking about "angles"... i remember reading somewhere that these guys might were fishing?

if they were fishing, this could also explain the camera, to make pictures of their catch of the day.

what if the staged picture was a very spontaneous idea?

the little knob on the right that seems so weird... imo its a connection for fishing line, which again should be invisible on film.

these are so called sinkers:

 

[Mendel]

these are so called sinkers

previously discussed in the hoax thread, starting from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/post-279575

 

[Domzh]

now if thats not proof then i dont know what is...

 

[Mendel]

now if thats not proof then i dont know what is...

View attachment 56064

unidentified fishing object?

 

[Duke]

There are two distinct questions - could an analyst tell if the object was 2D from *a single image*, and could an analyst tell that from *multiple* images. The latter is way easier than the former, as we've evolved with 2 eyes and can perceive depth even when the images are taken only inches apart. With one image, there generally isn't enough information to disprove a claim either way. There are many examples of deliberately misleading pavement art, typically with lots of foreshortening (thus making the inter-eye distance very little help) I'm s sure they must be familiar. You need a second point of view in order to know you've not been fooled.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-283528

Yes, I made the same point when comparing the Calvine photo v. the Jaroslaw photos.

 

[Domzh]

I think that this is the kind of image that's being requested, which shows an object of similar shape to that in the Calvine photo, with the object above the position of the camera.


Here's a side view of the scene (the fence is hard to see due to being very thin from this angle, it's just above the center of the word "fence").
View attachment 56044

I think this demonstrates that if the object were to be hovering in a level orientation (relative to the ground) and is a significant distance above the camera, then it would not appear symetrical, top and bottom. Specifically the center line of it would be seen as two lines meeting at an angle and not a single straight one.

what a legend you are! thats exactly what i tried to explain, thank you for the mockups.

i just cant see how this could be a min. 20m wide object at the estimated altitude of the harrier.

a small model (2D on glass or 3D on a string) makes much more sense.

 

[Rory]

I think that this is the kind of image that's being requested, which shows an object of similar shape to that in the Calvine photo, with the object above the position of the camera.

The UFO is 15m long (left/right dimension) and 7.5m tall and wide (depth from camera) and is placed 100m from the camera and at a height (28m) that places it in the center of the view of the camera.

Yep, that's exactly it - many thanks for that.

So I would say that does support Dom's proposal that because we're not really seeing the bottom - ie, the centre-line is horizontal - then it's further weight to it not being a large 3D object some height and distance above the camera.

Those dimensions in feet, by the way, for those of us who are more used to old school measurements: 49' long; 25' tall and wide; 330' from and 92' above the camera.

I do recall that Pope has written it was estimated by "MoD boffins" to be both "nearly 100 feet in diameter" (30 metres) and also "around 25 metres (over 80 feet)".

He also said it was "hovering maybe 200 feet above the ground". But where he got that from I'm not sure.

Would it be possible to change the dimensions to say 25 metres length and 7.3 metres high please @purpleivan?

Also, from Andrew Robinson's analysis, based on standard barbed wire barbs being spaced at 10cm intervals, he calculated the fence posts to be 1.7m apart (not that that would make much difference I guess).

Question then is: with a reasonable craft width, how low would it need to be for the centre-line to appear horizontal?

 

[Duke]

my point is that i dont think its at all plausible to have a pyramid shaped bottom and be a real human made aircraft. possible is almost everything i guess but i would say the probability is extremely low from what i would conclude (for it to be a US black project aircraft).

What aspect(s) of aircraft design/operability is it that you believe cannot be plausible solely as a function of the shape of the Calvine "craft?" Aerodynamics? Structural? Stability? Controlability? Maintainability? Supportability? If it's not humanly plausible, there has to be a reason(s) within the realm of aerospace engineering as we know/practice it.

I'm not trying to pigeon hole you here @Domzh, but as an aerospace engineer with over thirty years experience I'm trying to understand what is it about a "pyramid shaped bottom" in and of itself that makes such a design concept implausible. I see design challenges with that shape, but I'm not sure I'd call them insurmountable.

 

[DavidB66]

I just re-found Pope saying: "they saw a large diamond shaped object hovering maybe 200 feet above the ground". But where he got that I'm not sure.

I'm not sure either. But if we take Robinson's median estimate of about 9 meters for the 'height' of the object (i.e. the distance between its top and bottom, not its altitude) we can use this as a measuring stick for its distance above eye level, taking that to be about the level of the top of the fence. Using a ruler I measure this distance as about 9x the 'height' of the object, giving an altitude above eye level of about 81 meters or 266 feet. People who can count pixels may get a better measure.

If we also know the distance of the object from the camera, we can calculate the tangent and therefore the angle of the object above eye level. For example with a distance of 2660 feet (which is conveniently close to half-a-mile), we get a tangent of 0.1 and an angle of about 5.7 degrees. I'm pretty sure that this would make a noticeable difference to the perspective view of a solid object, but I don't know how to simulate it.

Unfortunately, I don't think Robinson gives an explicit estimate for the distance of the object. But the distance of the Harrier could be calculated* using the known length of a Harrier and the distance between fence barbs (discussed at length by Robinson) as benchmarks. I haven't attempted this. Someone may already have done it, but if so I don't recall it.
*edit: I'm not sure if this requires some assumption about the fov of the camera. Cropping of the image might also mess things up.

 

[Ann K]

Question then is: with a reasonable craft width, how low would it need to be for the centre-line to appear horizontal?

Eye level, of course, if the center line is a straight line. (Plus or minus a little bit that would be accounted for by the blurriness of the photo.)

 

[Rory]

Unfortunately, I don't think Robinson gives an explicit estimate for the distance of the object.

Right. He does estimates based on varying distances between the fence and the plane:

I guess the problem is there's no real way to know how far the fence is from the camera. Though I suppose we could make some reasonable estimates.

 

[Domzh]

What aspect(s) of aircraft design/operability is it that you believe cannot be plausible solely as a function of the shape of the Calvine "craft?" Aerodynamics? Structural? Stability? Controlability? Maintainability? Supportability? If it's not humanly plausible, there has to be a reason(s) within the realm of aerospace engineering as we know/practice it.

I'm not trying to pigeon hole you here @Domzh, but as an aerospace engineer with over thirty years experience I'm trying to understand what is it about a "pyramid shaped bottom" in and of itself that makes such a design concept implausible. I see design challenges with that shape, but I'm not sure I'd call them insurmountable.

a pyramid bottom strikes me personally as a shitty and unlikely design for several reasons:

a) visibility. stealth / spy planes are designed to almost disappear in the sky. not only for radar but also the human eye. this is the exact opposite design

b) aerodynamics. assuming it has to follow our known physics, this design choice makes zero sense. not being as streamlined as possible, means it has to consume more fuel, consuming more fuel means less range

c) landing. given a pyramid bottom, means the landing gear must extend and cover a lot of distance, both horizontally and vertically to reach over the pointed middle part. this seams to be a rather fragile and or heavy (to counter it) landing gear construction. this becomes more ridiculous the larger the craft becomes.

d) form follows function. what is the function of a pyramid bottom design? so far i can only see negatives. the fact that we dont see this design anywhere else (tech usually has similar existent design as a predecessor) suggests further that it is less likely. even the silly avrocar flying saucer from the 50s had a more reasonable design.

these are my thoughts as a non-aerospace engineer. im an economist, so all i have is somewhat critical thinking and wondering about the "why".

maybe you as an expert in this field (no sarcasm intended) have come around similar designs in military application. no comic book and movie examples of course and after the invention of the f-117 and B-2.

you said there are some vtol jets that have a landing structure or something like that, could you provide an example?

i mean this shitty design from the 50s had a cart that had to carry it and it was launched vertically. pilots had to land it back on its tail. a pyramid has a pointed base, no matter if you orient it horizontally or vertically (assuming it didnt hover for 10min in a 45 degree position).

maybe you can explain the "why" for such a design choice?

maybe its also a boat, like these amphibian cars except it can also fly?

maybe thats how it has to look to create anti gravity fields? (russels tea pot reddit style discussion in this case).

(this shouldnt sound condescending or rhetorical by the way, im a non native english speaker and unfortunately am not as eloquent as i would like to be ;-) )

 

[NorCal Dave]

I see design challenges with that shape, but I'm not sure I'd call them insurmountable.

I am NOT an aerospace engineer, but even to my mind the problem with any of the proposed shapes, such as the diamond or pyramid or whatever it is we're seeing in the photo, is a complete lack of lift, right? There is no wing or surface to use the Bernoulli effect and generate lift. If that's the case, I would think that leaves us with 3 options:

1. Lighter than air. It's a balloon, blimp or other floating craft. They can ascend, but I'm not sure how fast. More importantly, what's the point? Is it a target or radar reflector/test bed. If so, why would it still be classified and unheard of 30 years on.

2. Thrust. It uses jets engines or internal fans or both with enough thrust to vertically lift the craft and hold it in position. Sort of like a Harrier or, I just learned, some F35s.

The F135-PW-600 variant for the F-35B incorporates the Shaft-Driven Lift Fan (SDLF) to allow STOVL operations. Designed by Lockheed Martin and developed by Rolls-Royce, the SDLF, also known as the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem, consists of the lift fan, drive shaft, two roll posts, and a "three-bearing swivel module" (3BSM). The thrust vectoring 3BSM nozzle allows the main engine exhaust to be deflected downward at the tail of the aircraft and is moved by a "fueldraulic" actuator that uses pressurized fuel as the working fluid.[191][192][193] Unlike the Harrier's Pegasus engine that entirely uses direct engine thrust for lift, the F-35B's system augments the swivel nozzle's thrust with the lift fan; the fan is powered by the low-pressure turbine through a drive shaft when engaged with a clutch and placed near the front of the aircraft to provide a counterbalancing thrust.[194][195][196] Roll control during slow flight is achieved by diverting unheated engine bypass air through wing-mounted thrust nozzles called roll posts.[197][198]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

Here is a cool video of an F35 coming into hover. What one will notice, unlike the description of the Calvine craft, is it's far from silent:

Source: https://youtu.be/F8X4J0DCyEc?t=31


There doesn't seem to be any intake/output openings visible on the craft either. So, it's using a silent ductless thrust system for lift?

3. Other. Anything could go here like anti-gravity or any other completely unknown technology for heavier than air flight that has no known antecedents.

Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[DavidB66]

I guess the problem is there's no real way to know how far the fence is from the camera. Though I suppose we could make some reasonable estimates.

I didn't really think my previous comment through. I had a gut feeling that knowing the actual size of the fence divisions and the Harrier, one could somehow work out the distances to the fence and the Harrier without further information. That was wrong. My afterthought was that you could do it if you also know the field of view of the camera, assuming the available photo is not cropped. (Robinson thinks it is cropped for technical reasons, but in a known proportion which can be allowed for). Unfortunately we don't know the fov. Robinson does discuss the focal length of the cameras likely to have been used, from which the fov can be deduced, but his discussion leaves a wide range of possibilities open.

It is probably better, and simpler, to make a range of estimates for the distance to the fence based on clues in the photo itself. The camera can't be very close to the fence, because if it were we would not see so much of it. (There is no suggestion that a wide-angle lens was used, so the camera cannot show more than one would see with the naked eye from the same viewpoint.) A reasonable lower limit for the distance would be the length of fence visible in the photo, which is about 6 meters (taking about 2 meters as the distance between fence posts). But neither can the camera be very far from the fence, if Robinson is right in assessing that the camera is tilted slightly upwards, otherwise the fence would not be in shot at all. (Unless the photographer is actually at a lower level than the fence, so that an upward shot could still take in the fence.) Maybe a range of distances from 6 to 12 meters?

 

[Domzh]

issue is that we dont have a confirmed camera model and setup and that the image is most likely cropped.

it could be quite close but also quite far

 

[Giddierone]

1. Is it simply an unusual photo of two birds?

Perhaps a grouse in flight and a smaller bird, something like a sparrow? Birds take all sorts of strange shapes during flight some of which look like airplanes or diamond shaped spacecraft.

Why do I say this?

• There's no evidence the smaller object is a jet. (why does anyone accept that it is a jet?).
• The photographer's were bird spotters and presumably also photography enthusiasts. (birds can look really weird https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ou-photographs-flight-paths-birds-in-pictures).
• We don't have details about the camera, camera settings, the type of film used or the negative.
• No one has come forward.

2. So, is it just a tall-tale that grew out of an odd chance photo that looked like a manufactured object, perhaps to tease the local newspaper like the famous Sturgeon Hoax photo of the Loch Ness Monster. And because of military paranoia and face-saving, and UFO enthusiast's need to believe, has run and run?

A somewhat jet-like sparrow...

Source:https://www.alamy.com/stock-image-g...f73a293f85d70a8719db13a7c51e358a&searchtype=0
Grouse in flight (with annotation)

A somewhat UFO like moment for this bird...(annotated with the Calvin objects placed in)

Nearby places where people can stay before going out shooting birds for the day.

Source: https://countrysportscotland.com/where-to-stay/