Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
If Pope is indeed Clarke's unnamed source who relayed the UFO desk guy's story (see my previous post), I'm very happy to call BS on the interview.
Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
If Pope is indeed Clarke's unnamed source who relayed the UFO desk guy's story (see my previous post), I'm very happy to call BS on the interview.
Yeah, that's the point. The area should have been crowded with potential witnesses, yet not a single person—except for the photographer—reported seeing a giant flying diamond that evening. And if it was a secret U.S. aircraft, it must have flown across Scotland that day. (I'm guessing it didn't teleport itself back to base.) Yet again, not a single person reported seeing such a craft—not near Calvine, nor anywhere else.
To me, this is the single most important reason why I believe the picture is a complete hoax, rather than a misinterpretation of some earthly craft.
It's also interesting that not a single identifiable object is visible in the picture—no trees (except for the blurry branch), no buildings, no mountains. We see a couple of fence posts, but there are plenty of fences in the world. If it's a hoax, this suggests to me that the photographer didn't want us to be able to identify where the picture was taken.
This is often overlooked when people speculate about how a potential hoax could have been created. ("Yeah, but how likely is it that someone would bring a large sheet of glass out on a hike…?" etc.) But honestly, for all we know, this picture could have been taken in someone's backyard—possibly even through a window. If that were the case, they wouldn't even need an extra sheet of glass.
John J.
Senior Member.
Not disagreeing with you Charlie, my point was that we don't know who spoke to the anonymous source (we're not told it was Matthew Illsley), in what circumstances, and if they made any attempt to verify the claimed background of the source.
Richard Clarke is no doubt a decent chap and is open about his work, and his interest in contemporary folklore, but his knowledge of the defence intelligence officer's claims is entirely from one unidentified person if I've understood correctly.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Not completely disagreeing, but...I look at this situation the other way around. While it seems, there were in fact low level training areas near Calvine, I doubt they're advertised or announced. Tow of the more famous current places to photograph military aircraft in action include the Mach Loop in Wales and Starwars/Rainbow Canyon in Southern California. While these are well known fly-by locations, it's still a matter of luck and persistence to get a shot:
https://worldwarwings.com/mach-loop-10-things-you-must-know/External Quote:
https://rove.me/to/death-valley/rainbow-canyon-flightsExternal Quote:
And these are premier fly-by locations. It seems the Calvine, or Scottish locations are more sporadic. So, getting a model together is the easy part. Locating fly-by locations and then staking them out waiting for just the right fly-by to show up in just the right alignment between the fence and trees is the hard part. Why go through all that to just hang up a Christmas decoration that one hastily scrounged up in August? IF the aircraft are real and on low level training runs, tracking down the site and catching some aircraft is different than someone in McMinnville just farting around in their yard with whatever is handy. (Reminds me, I need to book an RV/caravan site in McMinnville for this year's UFO shindig.) There's more planning involved I would think.
I agree with you that the diamond shape is not what we would expect, and a Christmas ornament can produce this shape. But the diamond shape is not all that unusual for the time, it could be part of the secret aircraft zeitgeist. In fact, IF the idea was more to fake a top-secret aircraft, and not a UFO, then it appears to have fooled Dr. Clarke, right?
It true that we have no idea where the picture was taken. It could have been in the Calvine area, but if it's a hoax, it could have been taken almost anywhere.
The most striking feature is the total lack of identifiable landmarks—no trees, mountains, or buildings. It seems to me that the hoaxer deliberately tried to make it impossible to identify the location. This suggests to me that the photo was taken in someone's backyard, which makes sense—it would be the perfect place to stage a hoax without being caught or disturbed. And if that's the case, it becomes even less likely that we're looking at a real aircraft.
The poor quality of the photograph makes several possibilities plausible—a real jet, a small model, or a silhouette painted on a sheet of glass. However, considering the challenge of timing a jet flying by at the right angle and the difficulty of capturing both a nearby UFO model and a distant plane without either being too out of focus, I definitely favor the hypothesis that what we're seeing is either a model plane or a painted silhouette.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Mach Loop may be the most famous, but there's low level training flights all over the place. I have often seen Wast Water in the Lake District being used, and Ullswater. On my walks in the Lake District the sound of low flying jets is pretty common. Same goes for Scotland, where Glencoe is often used.....and that's only 40 miles or so from Calvine. Here's an example from Glencoe...
Source: https://youtu.be/eHfdW_aduAI
Ann K
Senior Member.
It's obvious from that clip that wherever the photographers were standing and whatever they were looking at, the sound would have immediately told them that aircraft, perhaps a line of them, were in the vicinity. Their (reported) six photos may have been attempts to get a good plane picture (or reflection of one), and the one we're discussing here may simply have been the most successful.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
And here one has the real difference with the Calvine UFO, as with the Glencoe video it's possible to work out to within a few hundred metres exactly where the video was taken from.....which would be pretty much where the green 'Three Sisters Of Glencoe' icon is here....they're on quite a popular walking path up to the higher mountains....
JMartJr
Senior Member.
But IF it were a real secret aircraft being flown, they would have flown it more than the one time somebody happened to take these pictures.
Would they only test fly iton misty days, which would simulate remoteness? Would it not be simpler to go somewhere actually remote, and fly any day, misty or not?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I agree, but that would not mean a hoaxster who suddenly found themselves getting attention from the government instead of just the local newspaper might not feel a need to go into "over-explain everything" mode...
As seen in some of my previous posts, I've been experimenting with sheets of glass and small silhouettes. My first photos were taken during the day, but I decided to take a few more—this time just after sunset, when the surroundings are dark but the sky is still somewhat lit.
I haven't done any digital editing except for converting them to black and white, but I did experiment quite a bit with the camera settings.
The result turned out pretty well, with a nice grain and a "UFO" that blends naturally into the surroundings. And, this picture was actually taken through my kitchen window, with a cardboard "ufo" glued to the inside of the glass.
I haven't done any digital editing except for converting them to black and white, but I did experiment quite a bit with the camera settings.
The result turned out pretty well, with a nice grain and a "UFO" that blends naturally into the surroundings. And, this picture was actually taken through my kitchen window, with a cardboard "ufo" glued to the inside of the glass.
The other approach from the days of film -- and I recall there being some allusions to it earlier in the thread -- is to add the UFO in the darkroom while making the print. You can lay one or more additional negatives (or pieces of acetate) with the additional objects on an overexposed image on top of the original negative and print as desired. Or you expose for the background and then swap in your UFO and burn it in wherever you want it. You can even print the
This requires a little more familiarity with making prints, but it means you don't have to get the whole shot in the field, or even with your own negative.
Of course if there were negatives to go with the claim you'd be able to tell where in the process the image was manipulated, but the whole incident is lacking any provenance and Calvine seems to be deeply in the low-information zone.
This requires a little more familiarity with making prints, but it means you don't have to get the whole shot in the field, or even with your own negative.
Of course if there were negatives to go with the claim you'd be able to tell where in the process the image was manipulated, but the whole incident is lacking any provenance and Calvine seems to be deeply in the low-information zone.
True. There's no way to know what brilliant method our mystery hoaxer used—mainly because we have no idea who they are. Maybe they went with the classic cardboard cutout stuck to a window. Maybe they got fancy and worked some darkroom magic. Or perhaps they went full Hollywood, dangling tiny models from invisible threads.
But one thing's for sure—this photo isn't some mind-blowing proof of the unknown. It's just a blurry image that could have been cooked up with a little creativity and some spare time.
PublicStranger
Active Member
If you had the harrier in there this would honestly be a more convincing photograph than the original
Scaramanga
Senior Member
But there's absolutely nothing to explain. There's zero reason why anyone would need to 'explain' being out on the mountains with a camera. It's something people do every day of the year, especially in a scenic area like the Cairngorms. If anything is bizarre and inexplicable it is someone asking why a person would have a camera with them.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
For me....i think the biggest clue to what it actually is has been largely overlooked.
The 'UFO' not only doesn't look like any classic UFO, but also has bizarre markings that are not symmetric and which seem odd for a hoaxer to add. And it occurs to me ( and I'm not the first to notice this ) that the UFO looks like it is actually itself a landscape image of some sort, when you zoom in on it.
I can see ground, a horizon, clouds, some darker object ( maybe a building )....all of which suggest to me that the 'UFO' is actually part of another photo.
Here it is...close up.
And here is what I think. Look at how camera apertures can themselves be diamond shaped...
And there's our 'UFO'. Perhaps deliberately jammed, double exposure, which would explain why the UFO itself looks like scenery of some sort.
Mendel
Senior Member.
"Can we see the remainder of the roll of film?"
"Ummmmm......you see, it was like this: ..."
They needed a story that would allow them to hide the part where they experimented with getting it right.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
OK, but would a person panicking a bit when suddenly the military is interested in their UFO that was only intended as a lark to fool the local paper think that through? Or MIGHT they start the equivalent of babbling and explaining stuff that did not need to be explained? That sounds at least possible, to me. Your mileage may vary.
Did the photographer develop the film himself, or was it done by the newspaper? As I remember from the days before digital photography, you typically sent your film cartridge away for development (unless you had your own darkroom). When it came back, the film was usually cut into segments, each containing six pictures.
It's reasonable to assume that the photographer handed over one such segment to the journalists, claiming those were the only six pictures showing the "UFO." If that's the case, then it's quite the coincidence that all six "UFO pictures" just happened to end up on a single segment of negatives.
It's definitely a possibility. But personally, I don't see any trees or other identifiable objects—just an insane amount of grain and possibly some scratches or stains. Double exposure is certainly possible, but I still favor the idea of cardboard cutouts on a piece of glass.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Camera-knowers -- can a double exposure of something over the sky make the area of sky darker? I would think that the only thing that can happen by adding more light on a second exposure would be to make the double-exposed UFO area lighter. But I admit to not possessing a lot of camera knowing.
Generally when you add more light, the lighter the image gets, not darker. (I am speaking of film)
However, neutral density filters can make things darker; these are used to photograph the sun directly - basically sunglasses for the camera..
- And also gradient filters of varying types, and 1/2 split filters too.
- If you want to make any type of bokeh, there's likely a filter out there for it. Check out split diopter and split kaleidoscope for examples.
And there's all sorts of minor effects that can be applied with developer chemicals in dark rooms as well. (over/under exposure, color shifts, etc.)
elvenwear
Senior Member.
Are you suggesting the diamond shape is created by cuts made by a blade or scissors? That is interesting. If a small diamond shaped piece of a photograph was placed on another photograph and photographed, you could easily end up with the image seen in the Calvine photo.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I don't think so, but I screwed that up in an earlier overthought out complicated post. We always have to remember positive produces negative and negative produces positive.
Very crudely, film is a clear piece of plastic covered in grains of light sensitive silver halide. The more light that hits the grains of silver halide, the more they react and basically stick to the film. During development, various chemicals react with the silver halide grains and "fix" the ones that reacted the most with light. The grains that did not react with light do not become fixed to the film.
So, when the film is washed off, what is left is a transparent piece where the silver grains that were exposed to the most light create an opaque area and the areas where silver grains were exposed to no light is completely clear. If the grains were exposed to some light, some grains remain creating a grey area. This is a negative image of the scene that was recorded. On the negative, any bright areas in the original scene, like the sun, would appear very dark and opaque on the negative and dark areas like shadows would appear light and transparent.
This is so the same process can be repeated on paper that has been treated with the same silver halide grains. Light is shined through the negative and the dark parts, like where the sun was, blocks light from hitting the grains on the paper. Likewise, the clear parts of the negative where shadows were, lets lots of light onto the grains on the paper. Same developing process takes place for the paper, and we end up with a positive print of the scene from a negative one.
To create a darker area in a double exposure, the area would have to be masked out to prevent light form hitting the film. The more light that hits the film, the darker it gets. But that means the positive print would be lighter. A dark area on a positive print would mean less or no light hitting the film inn that area. A double exposure would mean more light hitting the film.
In a double exposure, the idea is to keep part of the film from being exposed to light, while other parts are. One can place a black cutout or just uses a scene that has very deep shadows and take a photo. They leave the eposed film in the camera and add the other element. One can put a lit object, usually in front of a black background and align the object with the under or non-exposed areas of the film after the original photo is taken, then take another photo. The object then creates an image in the under exposed area, joining the object with the scene.
Obviously, Hollywood had very sophisticated ways of doing this, which I'm sure our resident film star @JMartJr knows all about, but amateurs can pull it off. The famous Gulf Breez photos are classic, if crude DIY double exposures. Ed Walter likely would go out with his Polaroid camera and take a photo, that is expose the film to light, of a night scene, with a dark or black sky. He then had a way to jam his camera, so the photo just taken would stay in the camera ready to be exposed again. As the dark night sky resulted in very little to no light hitting that area of the film, the silver grains were still able to react to light. So, he would then align his brightly lit model in a dark room and expose the film again, that is take another photo with the same piece of film.
The dark sky would now contain the brightly lit model, and the dark room would not bother the scene already on the film resulting in a UFO photo:
Here's my 0.5 cm cardboard Harrier zipping past a 4 cm cardboard UFO—proof that cereal boxes have a second life beyond breakfast! Unfortunately, it was snowing in Sweden today, so the background looks like absolute garbage. Note to self: UFO hoaxes are best staged in the summer.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Well ...those of us in the reflection-in-water camp noticed that months ago...
Scaramanga
Senior Member
No I'm suggesting it is an artefact of the camera aperture. There was never any UFO, or even model of a UFO, or reflection, or glass, or anything external. The entire 'UFO' is a camera issue. The UFO was not even originally a deliberate hoax on the day of the photographing.
I'm increasingly of the view that the Calvine UFO is the result of a camera defect. Here's my version of what happened...
1) The original intention was only to photograph the Harrier flying past....which they took a number of photos of.
2) There was no 'UFO' in the sky at the time....but, a camera or film defect added an odd diamond shape. Maybe a stuck aperture or something.
3) The 'UFO' only appears on the film after it is developed. Which may be weeks after the photos were taken, leading to the photographer having to try to remember the date...which they get wrong. Hence there being no record of Harriers 'that day'. As film in those days had no date/time stamp...we have no idea how long it was between photo being taken and the UFO claim being made.
4) When the film is finally developed, the photographer sees that the defect looks like there's a UFO...and then tries to persuade the papers that it is a 'real UFO'.
5) When the MOD start to show interest, the photographer is not really prepared to carry it all through as they know it is fake...and just 'disappears'...and has never since laid claim to the photographs.
I would class this under 'accidental hoax'.
Last edited:
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
I wrote to David Clarke and his photography expert Andrew Robinson last month with a link to my blog post about their involvement in the 3D star theory. Only Robinson replied. I was reminded that I said I'd write about his responses (two exchanges) so here goes. I've included some broader context regarding how Clarke (in particular) is currently presenting this Calvine UFO case.
My blog outlines why I don't believe Clarke is serious about the black project craft theory, including that in a recent article he removed the witness testimony that it shot up at high speed. I showed how he and Robinson misrepresent the 3D star theory with a strawman (presenting a ridiculous huge patterned paper lantern on a fishing rod at Calvine talks). For this and other reasons, I accused them of deflecting and deceiving, and concluded they probably actually believe it's a 3D star.
I found some of Robinson's responses to me contradictory and a bit bananas, but also illuminating. His quotes below are from personal correspondence, Feb 2025, unless otherwise sourced.
3D star theory
Regarding the demonstrations of the 3D star model that they used at talks, he took issue with my characterization by telling me these:
Given the laughing audience in that image, I can't take seriously Robinson's claim that they were accurately reproducing this hoax theory for the audience. Less confusing and deceptive would be to show only the photos by the theory's author, Wim van Utrecht. Or just, ya know, use a 3D glitter star.
Robinson:
...he believes a real craft (30m by his estimation) is most likely, and the 3D star theory creates more problems than it solves. In other words, he's on record implying that a giant magic diamond is the most likely explanation, a conclusion worthy of ridicule IMO.
I pointed out that the similarity in visual appearance to a 3D star is evidence, hence there is not "no evidence".
Copyright issues
Robinson (emphasis his):
The photo itself was copyrighted (presumably contemporaneously in 1990) to "Kevin Russell", so I've used Russell's name in a copyright notice in my article.
Andrew's odd response to this was that because nobody has found Russell, he and SHU own the copyright to the digital reproduction. (I disagree, see above.)
This copyright issue is more amusing to me than anything. Russell created the image, therefore owns the copyright. Lindsay took possession of MoD property and has no authority to donate it to a university or to request how reproductions be credited. Robinson has no valid claim to copyright.
Bad faith accusation
Robinson unsurprisingly took issue with my tone (I admitted "making fun" of what amounts to magical thinking) and denied he and Clarke were acting in bad faith:
My article presents two more pieces of evidence for Clarke's bad faith:
1. He said this about skeptics on the case:
Note, Clarke is generally a skeptic on other matters (and until he tracked down the photo, had concluded Calvine was a hoax), so he knows this statement is false. Skeptics start from a position of doubt, like any good scientist, and then look for evidence to support a hypothesis. They don't have the "perspective" that UFOs don't exist causing them to conclude the Calvine UFO is false.
2. Clarke tweeted this on a thread about Calvine, responding to the reflection theory:
It goes without saying that nobody has ever claimed all three theories are simultaneously true. His tweet is a bad-faith attempt to ridicule the skeptical angle.
My blog outlines why I don't believe Clarke is serious about the black project craft theory, including that in a recent article he removed the witness testimony that it shot up at high speed. I showed how he and Robinson misrepresent the 3D star theory with a strawman (presenting a ridiculous huge patterned paper lantern on a fishing rod at Calvine talks). For this and other reasons, I accused them of deflecting and deceiving, and concluded they probably actually believe it's a 3D star.
I found some of Robinson's responses to me contradictory and a bit bananas, but also illuminating. His quotes below are from personal correspondence, Feb 2025, unless otherwise sourced.
3D star theory
Regarding the demonstrations of the 3D star model that they used at talks, he took issue with my characterization by telling me these:
I reminded him of the caption on Clarke's image: "In 2023 we tried to reproduce the hoax in the presence of a live studio audience". [Source: Clarke, Jun 7, 2024 (Substack)]External Quote:
Given the laughing audience in that image, I can't take seriously Robinson's claim that they were accurately reproducing this hoax theory for the audience. Less confusing and deceptive would be to show only the photos by the theory's author, Wim van Utrecht. Or just, ya know, use a 3D glitter star.
Robinson:
Given Robinson has previously said:External Quote:
[Source: quoted by Clarke, Jun 7, 2024 (Substack)]External Quote:
...he believes a real craft (30m by his estimation) is most likely, and the 3D star theory creates more problems than it solves. In other words, he's on record implying that a giant magic diamond is the most likely explanation, a conclusion worthy of ridicule IMO.
I pointed out that the similarity in visual appearance to a 3D star is evidence, hence there is not "no evidence".
Copyright issues
Robinson (emphasis his):
He described the Calvine image as "owned by Sheffield Hallam University" (Lindsay donated it) and further clarified:External Quote:
I'm not a copyright expert but my understanding is that digitally reproducing a copyrighted image doesn't transfer the copyright to you, and stealing a photo from the office (as Lindsay did) does not transfer the copyright to the *thief. I disputed his claim that his and SHU's copyright was being infringed (and implicitly, that Lindsay's request to credit SHU be honored).External Quote:
The photo itself was copyrighted (presumably contemporaneously in 1990) to "Kevin Russell", so I've used Russell's name in a copyright notice in my article.
Andrew's odd response to this was that because nobody has found Russell, he and SHU own the copyright to the digital reproduction. (I disagree, see above.)
*No shade on Lindsay, I don't care that he did it.External Quote:
This copyright issue is more amusing to me than anything. Russell created the image, therefore owns the copyright. Lindsay took possession of MoD property and has no authority to donate it to a university or to request how reproductions be credited. Robinson has no valid claim to copyright.
Bad faith accusation
Robinson unsurprisingly took issue with my tone (I admitted "making fun" of what amounts to magical thinking) and denied he and Clarke were acting in bad faith:
Omitting the witness testimony that the craft defied gravity, and presenting a strawman recreation intended to ridicule a hoax theory, are examples of deception and bad faith IMO.External Quote:
My article presents two more pieces of evidence for Clarke's bad faith:
1. He said this about skeptics on the case:
[Source: Clarke, Mar 12, 2023, Substack]External Quote:
Note, Clarke is generally a skeptic on other matters (and until he tracked down the photo, had concluded Calvine was a hoax), so he knows this statement is false. Skeptics start from a position of doubt, like any good scientist, and then look for evidence to support a hypothesis. They don't have the "perspective" that UFOs don't exist causing them to conclude the Calvine UFO is false.
2. Clarke tweeted this on a thread about Calvine, responding to the reflection theory:
Source: X, Dec 31, 2024External Quote:
It goes without saying that nobody has ever claimed all three theories are simultaneously true. His tweet is a bad-faith attempt to ridicule the skeptical angle.
Last edited:
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
The biggest challenge wasn't the cutout itself but the focus. It was pretty tricky to spot the tiny aircraft through the camera. But if I had spent a bit more time on it (and if the freaking snow had stopped), the result would probably have been much better.
Here are the cardboard cutouts I used. I glued the "UFO" to my kitchen window with a glue gun and stuck the jet in place by simply licking it. When damp, it could be easily moved around and positioned wherever I wanted. (Not very glamorous, but definitely the simplest method…)
Mendel
Senior Member.
The shape of the aperture can be seen as bokeh around a strong pinpoint light source. It never shows up inadvertantly as a dark spot on the image, that's just not possible.
(And that's "physically impossible", i.e. much stronger than the grounds on which you labeled discussing the reflection theory a waste of time.)
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yeah, they're breaking copyright; you're not.
The original photographer has the right to license reproductions, so they basically made an unlicensed reproduction that is only legal if it falls under a copyright law exemption. And obviously the original photographer has the right to be credited for their work.
And I've never heard of an act of mechanical reproduction establishing joint copyright—it's not transformative.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
What's not possible ? I didn't give a specific cause.
I think the two gentlemen, Clarke and Robinson, make the same mistakes as most "believers" in the Calvine case. The involvement of the MoD and the sudden appearance of a mysterious photo create a false sense of credibility for an otherwise shaky story.
The fact that the MoD investigated the case back in the day doesn't necessarily make it any more credible. But as soon as someone who used to work for the government speaks up, people tend to assume, *"Well, there must be something to this story."* And now that Clarke and Robinson have strongly tied themselves to it, it would probably be quite disappointing for them if the photo turned out to be a cheap fake and the entire story a complete fabrication.
When investigating, I think they're simply too biased. Are they being deliberately deceptive? Maybe. But sometimes, a little wishful thinking and belief are all it takes to lose sight of the bigger picture.
Yeah, I mean, nothing Robinson says about copyright makes sense. I'm more familiar with EU copyright laws, but according to the British Press Photographers' Association, it's actually quite simple.
https://thebppa.com/content/uploads/abcd_uk_copyright.pdf
In other words, the copyright belongs to Russell and him alone. However, since his true identity is unknown, the photo remains protected by copyright until 2060.
Robinson seems to believe that because the photographer is unknown, the copyright of the scanned version belongs to Lindsay (or possibly Clarke who made the scan). But this is definitely not the case. Here's what the Intellectual Property Office has to say about it:
"Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright? Simply creating a copy of an image won't result in a new copyright in the new item. However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to optimise detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases. However, according to established case law, the courts have said that copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author's own 'intellectual creation'. Given this criterion, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as 'original'. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work."
As I understand it, "with permission of Craig Lindsay/Sheffield Hallam University" should never be used when publishing the Calvine photo. In fact, Lindsay's claim of copyright ownership might even be illegal.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Have to say...skeptics are just like anyone else. They have their pet theories and are just as prone to defend them in the face of counter-evidence as are believers. Nobody likes being wrong.
The labelling of either tends to be a means of side-lining the actual debate of the issues in question.
It is also possible to be both, as I am what would be considered a believer due to my own personal experiences,. However that doesn't mean I'm not a sceptic in terms of my own experiences and all others but yes, regarding your point there are believers on both sides of the fence with sceptics starting in the middle.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Something pretty darned similar is possible:
From Mick's posts here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wvny-abc22-transparent-flying-saucer-on-weather-camera-%E2%80%94-dark-bokeh.12529/External Quote:
Is this a case of "dark bokeh"? I'd never really thought about such a thing before, but of course, it's quite possible. Like here:
I put a fleck of electrical tape on the window then took photos with different focus settings using a triangular aperture. When focussed up close, we see the familiar bokeh effect in the background. But with the background in focus, the fleck becomes a "dark bokeh".
Interestingly it needs to be underexposed to really show up.
I have no idea if that's about as dark as it can get, if so it does not seem a good candidate for the Calvine UFO, to me.
Mendel
Senior Member.
That's a piece of tape on the window, as discussed in the hoax thread.
These are obviously possible, if you have a window, which is hard to come by inadvertantly in the Cairngorns (also discussed in the hoax thread).
Bokeh, as the term is used on Metabunk, describes how an out-of-focus pinpoint light acquires the shape of the aperture.
Obviously out-of-focus pinpoints of dark do the same, but since darkness does not expose film, we can't see them.
There is no "dark bokeh" as a camera artifact.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Would a bug flying by at around the same distance not produce a similar effect? I don't see how the window is a necessity.That said, I still wouldn't think this works, unless it an produce a more solid-looking darker artifact.
Similar threads
Trending content
-
-
-
-
Thread 'Explained: Spiralling trails over Croatia (contrails from TV relay plane)'- Trailblazer
Replies: 3 -
