Calvine UFO - Possible Debunk
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- I think I might have cracked the Calvine UFO photo. I am not saying that I'm 100% convinced - but it's a possibility. I used raytracing to simulate how reflections work and this is what I came up with. Let's discuss!
This photo was highly analyzed by UK Ministry of Defense imagery experts (the best in the world) using a large print and a high powered imagery loupe. It was analyzed for scale, lighting, color, direction and texture. The best analysts in the world essentially validated it's authenticity including identifying the plane (a Harrier) in the photo. The resurface photo itself has been analyzed by Andrew Robinson, Senior Photography Lecturer at Sheffield Hallam stating " 'My conclusion is that the object is definitely in front of the camera, that is, it's not a fake produced in post-production, and its placement within the scene appears to be approximately halfway between the foreground fence and the plane in the background." The MOD actually went to so far as to prepare responses to the photo anticipating it's release which... never happened. This is a release of one small scale photograph that does not truly represent the full print capacity of the original negative and, it is confirmed by multiple sources that 5 other pictures existed. The British Ministry of Defense and the National Archives of the UK have admitted to have place the photos in storage with a release date of 2076. If the MOD had truly determined these were a flat out hoax or at all questionable in their authenticity, why do this? The reason given was "Privacy concerns" ???? Speculation still abounds on just what this is but, the one thing that is not a matter of speculation is that the photo is authentic, not a fabrication and nothing in it at all indicates a "reflection". Here is a picture of the very spot the pics were taken from here ... i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/08/12/18/61333227-11106737-image-a-13_1660325862961.jpg. Respect for the efforts to question this from an out of the box perspective but, it just doesn't hold up. What is in the photo is still inconclusive. Some believe it could actually be the best evidence of the fabled Aurora Aircraft program while others feel it is an extraterrestrial craft but the photo is real and not a hoax.
I see a rock in the water, and between the rock and the reservoir shoreline, a bird is flying by. Because of alien hopium, other people see something else. The camera is pointing downward toward the water, not up at the sky. If I'm wrong, then the aircraft was very crudely built (notice the rough jagged surface), the plane is oddly proportioned, and the sky, while cloudy or foggy, still allows a good view of the objects. Strange. Yes, the photograph is authentic. It is how the photograph has been popularly interpreted that is at issue. Or should be. The great Calvine UFO mystery is only a mystery because of foolish alien hopium.
@@jade59230 Your assumptions in your own analysis as well as that others propose are at least consistent although grossly abounding. No personal analysis was offered. No alien "hopium". Two possibilities among many were offered while yours was rejected out of qualified analysis. The MoD experts staked their experience stating "Confident the plane is a Harrier" (This from people that have seen and analyzed photos with aircraft that they are HIGHLY familiar with) Seeing a man in a rowboat is simply apophenia.
@@toddgab Did I say a man in a rowboat?.. I'm saying it's a bird. Don't try to straw man me.
Look at the what you think is a large aircraft, spaceship or airship. Do you see how crude looking it is? The bumpy jagged surface. Have you only looked at the altered images where everything is smoothed out, the bird was replaced by a jet plane and the entire landscape was rearranged?
The ufologists are interpreting the original photograph in fanciful way. Seeing what they believe, instead of believing what they see, and just accepting it. In this case, nothing at all unusual.
Have you noticed that the camera was pointed down at the water, not up at the sky? If you look closely at the bottom of the photo, you can see the ripples in the water of the shoreline. At that location, if the photographer was pointing his camera up, you would see much more of the tree, and no fence at the shoreline.
Argument From Authority
You keep citing various authorities, like that carries more weight when analyzing a single photograph. People in the military are just as fallible as anyone. The fact that they confused a bird with a plane is proof of that. They probably started out with the false assumption that it was sky they were looking at instead of water. That's what led to more false assumptions confusing a rock in the water with a big aircraft or airship, and then confusing a bird with a plane.
Assumptions are the mother of all... BTW, I'm sure not all "authorities" agree about what's going on in the great Calvine UFO photograph. Any and all authorities with a half a brain would agree with me, not the ufologists.
Just say "NO" to alien hopium.
@@jade59230 Please educate yourself and look at the actual resurfaced photo. This object is not a bird or a natural formation. It was witnessed by credible obverses who described the object as large silent and solid - standing still and then ascending at a rapid speed. Nick Pope and the MOD took, and still takes, this case very seriously. We don't know exactly what this was, but no...this wasn't a rock reflection, pond reflection or bird. 🙄
T Gabhart well summated. Absolutely incredible what the two simple ingredients of fear and sheer ignorance can cook up. One usually propels the other for the purpose of comfort and need to be heard, even if what is being said is pure dreck.
Why would the ministry of defence classify photos of a rock for 50 years?
Well, that's the Ministry of Defense and I guess they routinely classify their documents. Anyway, the photo is declassified now (only the names of the people involved is still classified), and you can see there is nothing extraordinary about it.
@@MrAlsachtiThe six original photos aren't, and have never been, declassified. They're still very much under lock and key at the MOD.
The photo shown in this video was lucky/coincidentally kept by an RAF press officer who was the go-between for the newspaper (Daily Record) and the MOD back in 1990, when the incident happened. Also worth noting that this isn't one of the original photos, it's merely a photocopy of one of the original photos.
Can you say, how big the time frame would be for take such a picture, assuming the plane does fly at "normal" speed? I guess very short. This bothers me most.
And in this bit of time you must arrange the picture and press the trigger in the right moment. The report say six 6 pictures were taken. Maybe they were lucky to get the plane on at least one picture. But if there were several, the theory becomes unlikely imo. We need full disclosure of all pictures...
It’s an island reflecting in water, a Scottish loch if I remember, and the smaller object is a man in a row boat. Again reflected in the water
If it is a nearby rock then it should look as dark as the fences and tree, but instead it appears hazy, that may be an indication that the object is actually very far away.
Maybe youre right. But some things dont come togehter: if you did such a picture for hoax, then you to want raise attention. Otherwise it makes no sense. But none of the two chefs ever speak to puplic, they might even get vanished. Further, why should the MoD hide those pictures until 2076 if they were not convinced about there is something to hide.
The MoD is not hiding any picture until 2076. Only the names of the people involved (the photographers) are being withheld. This is standard procedure (according to the UK national archives website : "It is usual for material exempt under section 40(2) to be closed for the lifetime of the subject, which is assumed to be 100 years from subject’s date of birth.")
So the UFO was just a stone in a pond...unknown floating object ?
I think it was just a rock in a pond.
@@Ruan3D once you see it you cant unsee it, spent a lot of time on the water and this is water
@@Melunkale76 And the supposed plane is a bird. Or a plane shaped like a bird. It is a bird. A rock in a reservoir, the shoreline below, tree limbs above, and flying by in between is a bird. This Calvine UFO hoopla is alien hopium at its worst.
The light flips on your model doesnt add up
Always windy highland and no water movement, leaves or midges seems to rule this hypothesis out.
I'm not saying this proves it, but if your theory is it's always windy in the Highlands therefore you can't have still water, well, you're wrong. Firstly the Highlands is a bit of a crap term, the council area is much smaller but this location is Perth & Kinross, it's the absolute border of the Highlands. This particular location also happens to sit bang in the middle of Killan to the south and Aviemore to the north. It's a very protected 'low' channel which doesn't actually get much wind. Right now for example there's far more wind in Birmingham in the English midlands than Pitlochry / Calvine. It also is much milder climate like you'd get on the East coast of Scotland, not the north west Highlands with the gulf stream.
@@CagedPaps Often a bit windy then? Also suspicious there are no Tesco bags or tinnys.
@@badhairday_247 I'd go more with rarely. To put it into perspective as I write this, it's windier in central London, even if we round up and say Calvine is 8 knots, Bristol to pick a random place is currently 14kts.
Indeed when I observed the pic, it looks like an paper object water refraction. Now has more sense it's refracted by a mirror, because has not waves. Thanks.
You seem to be missing one thing as you invert the image to create the object the aircraft too would now become inverted, in the photograph it is clearly flying tail up. Sorry.
Hey - no everything will be the right way up. Everything in a reflection will be upside down, so if you turn the camera or photo around, then everything will be the right way up. Reflections can't have certain things right way up and other things upside down. Have a look again ;)
@@Ruan3D that's very handy for you.
I regret that I inadvertently gave you a view. A still pond in the Scottish Highlands is far more preposterous than a UFO.
Lol
Since you processed a rendered image (with a very good fit, congrats!), can you say on which distance you placed the plane?
When you flip the picture around, you're actually not including the fence that would still be at the bottom of the photo, though. The Full Photo shows the fence running from left to right.
@@petersmith2522 Exactly. It actually gives the viewer a feeling of an optical illusion of it possibly being in a pond without the full photo showing the fence running from left to right. Showing the viewer exactly what's top and what's bottom in the photograph. This video has the fence line cropped out of it.
@@petersmith2522 Yeah man, it's a really weird photograph, now matter how you look at it, that's for sure.
Why does the fence have to be behind the water/reflection instead of the reflection/water being behind the fence?
Since this is a real rendered image, can you say on which distance you placed the plane?
No, is just a printed paped mirrored, but the plane is real, you got it? Someone wait for a plane and took the shot to feel more realistic.
@@joseluispaternina no, I was talking about the simulation the guy here is showing
Nick Pope had a large full colour photo on his office wall. I doubt he would not have been able to spot a rock.
go to Truthseekers channel and learn the truth kid.
Fox Mulder had a large full colour photo on his office wall. I doubt he would not have been able to spot a hubcap.
FAKE .. pull up the image & zoom in around the jet, there is a CLEAR, perfectly shaped rectangle of pixalating around it. There is also a faint hint of it around the object. Copy & Paste.
The only way to prove this theory is to actually test it in real life
Also wouldn’t the other plane be distorted?
Yeah this is exactly what it is and people just don’t want to accept it
This theory borders on absurd, because there were credible eyewitnesses involved who reported seeing an object and it ascended upwards at a high rate of speed. In addition, the pictured object is of a symmetrical structure that does not rule out a natural object or reflection of said object, but highly unlikely given the sharp defined angles.
And they said it was humming. Light reflecting doesn’t hum.
Oh, the eyewitnesses are "credible"? I did not know that. Then, I am totally convinced. If they are credible, they couldn't possibly have lied. Who needs a photo? Or any evidence for that matter? The testimony of a credible eyewitness is all I need. Extraordinary claims only require credible witnesses.
Totally beyonds words. One of the easiest debunks I've seen. The only easier UFO debunk in my memory was one I was involved with. Years ago, hanging around with a fellow physics grad student, someone shows us a photo of outdoors, a house, trees, nothing unusual, but a fuzzy gray oval in the sky. Film defect? Out of focus. We didn't know enough about f-stops and so forth, left the issue hanging open. But the next photograph... the guy's dog indoors, on the kitchen floor - the exact same fuzzy gray oval! Dust on the lens.
This is not the original photo, it’s a digital reconstruction that was done for a documentary. Why are you being dishonest?
The photo at the end of my animation is actually the original photo - the digital version looks very different. I'm only showing how they took this photo of a "UFO" which is actually just a rock sticking out of a pond of murky water. So easy to replicate this.
ua-cam.com/video/lxgGEds0Ipk/v-deo.html
Original or digital reconstruction?
Nice try, but no cigar.
smoking is bad for yoo
Definitely a stone in a puddle or pond
Imagine reaching this far for a photo that MI5 wanted classified for 75 years and still
technically is classified AND not being able to figure out that it is in fact a reflection in a pond. The top brass we have to offer in protecting our country and they couldn’t figure out a reflection in a pond…..
Isn't that kinda like a mix between an appeal to authority and an argument from incredulity?
"Wow guys, the BIG GUYS wouldn't behave this way, so this can't be the explanation".
You can't imagine how the authorities or the experts would miss something, and therefore you throw away the possibility.
Isn't that what kept the Chilean UFO an UFO until the internet could touch it?
People discarded things based on the pilot's report, and then planes were ruled out because no one thought that could be the explanation.
Then it releases to the internet, and a plane it was.
@@zee_space_wolfy other than the fact that the exact location is known now and is currently being investigated by Disclosure Team in an attempt to recreate the photo. Guess what. No water nearby, ponds, rivers, lakes etc. So yeah, the debunking is debunked.
@@DeanoSauruzRex I don't really feel like "hey guys we found no water now after so many decades, must have been something anomalous in the sky" is a good argument.
Just because this or that team fails to figure it out doesn't mean it was anything anomalous. If anyone makes the extraordinary claim that it was, then they have the burden of proof.
Water is more likely to me, even if it was just a little ephemeral pond after rain. To "debunk" that you would have to prove that at no point any bodies of water have ever formed around that region ever in the past decades.
Debunking not debunked.
@@zee_space_wolfy So, why do you believe water is more likely? Seeing as the “reflection” has also been shown to not be accurate by various attempts from people across the Internet (YT to Reddit).
It feels to me that you don’t want to believe the possibility that something that we are not privy to was sighted and exists.
@@DeanoSauruzRex If we are talking about anomalous objects flying in the sky, or even worse that another species has been visiting Earth but for some reason decides to play boogieman, then sorry, the burden of proof is on whoever is making extraordinary claims.
To my eyes this has the looks of a water reflection to me. I've seen enough scenic pictures of mountains on the other side of a lake to know that this looks okay.
I''m not sure how people are ruling that out because to be honest I never heard of this photo before this video, but going by this photo alone I don't see how it being a reflection in water would be more extraordinary than the alternatives.
Whether or not I don't want to believe X or Y doesn't matter. Science and the search for truth isn't about wanting to believe or wanting to not believe. Occam's razor applies.
It’s a great hoax. Weird how no one else saw it.
The render is VERY close to the real image, but I find it hard to believe that is was a 3D render.
Especially, because the image is around fifty years old, maybe it was made with practical effects.
Hey, no I'm not saying the original photo was a 3D render. It's 100% a real photo - I'm just trying to show how it could have been created using a small puddle of water, and a sharp looking rock. I'm making use of raytracing so it's simulating how reflections and real light works. It's just a possibility...
@@Ruan3D Oh, sorry! I thought you were saying that the image was a 3D render (But it could be a possibility, like you said). And I have one question. Was the rendered image a reflection from the puddle? And if so, how did you do it?
again, why water and not a mirror?@@Ruan3D
i would say you solved that.
Of course it's a fake photo.
It's always that way.
A kite.
That is definitely real seen this type of ufo before,it stopped so fast and just floated for a couple second ,it was so chrome, it took of super fast
ah huh right
@@archaicrevivalsYTchannel I saw what I saw if ur blind ur asleep ur asleep
@@juanjlopezj6698, you should listen to yourself. That is the universe speaking. Wake up Juan.
@@archaicrevivalsYTchannel all the things they show us in our faces are real all the movies they tell is in our face we're just to ignorant people like you are so close minded
@@juanjlopezj6698, geez, it's all coming out isn't it. You'll get there. i'll help you. Telling lies is a sin.
What people are calling a plane is a bird.
Look at the proportions of the wings compared to the body, and notice the bend in the wings.
The bird is tilted, making its normally flat looking tail feathers look like a vertical stabilizer.
It's a geezer in a rowing boat, the 'tail wing' has been added using 'spotting' dye. The photograph is a double exposure, the overlay is the zoom in of a rock in a Scottish Loch.
Before throwing out pure speculation, you should actually read up on the history of this photo. This photo was highly analyzed by UK Ministry of Defense imagery experts (the best in the world) using a large print and a high powered imagery loupe. It was analyzed for scale, lighting, color, direction and texture. The best analysts in the world essentially validated it's authenticity including identifying the plane in the photo. I'm sorry, what were your qualifications again?
@@DomFurlong The British Ministry of Defense imagery experts certified the plan as authentically a Harrier. This corridor in which the photo was taken is a common corridor for Harrier flights to and from the nearby airbase which, you would know if you actually read up on the incident. They further verified the validity of the photo as being unaltered and that the scale, lighting and imagery grain were all consistent with each other.
@@toddgab I am very well versed on the incident Thank you, your information is incorrect I'm afraid, nobody has confirmed the photograph is unadulterated, ask David Clarke, he is more versed on this than anyone.
@@DomFurlong LMAO that's interesting since David Clarke is simply an investigative journalist lecturer at Sheffield Hallam and not a distinguished fellow of photography at Sheffield Hallam like his comrade Andrew Robinson is and who has verified that it is unaltered. So, I believe you have mistaken the hierarchy of professional credentials that count when analyzing imagery.