UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[DaveC426913]

No that's how you anslyze a photo!

What really happened in Calvine? The mystery behind the best UFO picture ever seen

In August 1990, two hikers sent photos of a strange diamond-shaped aircraft to the press – but the story never appeared. Was it a prank, a hoax, an optical illusion or something else entirely?

www.theguardian.com

The Calvine Incident in Scotland, 1990.

The updated PDF is a fascinating analysis of the photograph. It is a rare case of a UAP photo that has sufficient known objects (inlcduing a Hawker Harrier buzzing it) both in front of and behind the UAP that detailed analysis can be performed on the geometry of the scene.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://shura.shu.ac.uk/34877/1/Robinson-PhotographicAnalysisVersion5%28VoR%29.pdf

 

[DaveC426913]

What's really interesting about the Calvine incident is the amount of information available in the photograph to be analyzed. They have gone to great lengths to determine:
- that the photo is authentic
- that the image - inasmuch as they can determine - is a true and accurate representation of what was in front of the camera lens when it was taken (IOW, if it is a hoax, it is by placing something in front of camera, not by manipulating the image)
- that the object must have been between 30 and 40 metres across*

* they go into great depth as to how they are able to determine this



What cannot be verified from the photo is the eyewitness account that the object hovered there for several minutes before taking off straight up.

The great tragedy here is that there was allegedly not one but six pictures taken. They were all submitted to a local paper and on to the Ministry of Defense, somehow, all but one of those pictures have gone missing.


Damn. Just reread the article:

"The officer told Clarke that the photographs caused a stink around the ministry and that they knew what the object was: an experimental craft belonging to the US."
...
"...the photographs were taken two days after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, which may explain why the military was testing advanced aircraft."

 

[James R]

In the analysis, the author assumes that the UFO must be further away from the camera than the fence.

I am wondering if there's any obvious inconsistency with the idea that the UFO could be closer to the camera - perhaps a balloon or a folder paper object suspended by a thin wire (like fishing line, perhaps) from a tree branch that is out of frame at the top of the photo - or possibly even from the branch that is visible in the top of the photo.

 

[DaveC426913]

In the analysis, the author assumes that the UFO must be further away from the camera than the fence.

I am wondering if there's any obvious inconsistency with the idea that the UFO could be closer to the camera - perhaps a balloon or a folder paper object suspended by a thin wire (like fishing line, perhaps) from a tree branch that is out of frame at the top of the photo - or possibly even from the branch that is visible in the top of the photo.

They didn't assume its distance; they did analyze the possibility that it was closer, and (provisionally) ruled it out.

The evidence was in the depth-of-field. IIRC, they observed the focus of the fence near the centre and near the edge of the frame to conclude that the more in-focus range was beyond the fence, not in front of it. And then noted that the object is the most in-focus thing in the frame.

Here's one comment:

"The sharpest point in the image is the unidentified object in the sky with both foreground and background details appearing out of focus in comparison."

So, the fence is out of focus as is the jet (on top of motion blur).

Ah. I see what you're saying. Fence and jet being out-of-focus could mean they are both beyond the field of focus, not necessarily on either side of the field of focus (i.e. one closer, one farther).

Let me revisit this in the morning. There may be other mitigating factors.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry. Here is a clean URL to the report: https://shura.shu.ac.uk/32102/

 

[DaveC426913]

I just emailed this to Andrew Robinson the Reviewer named in the rport:


Hi. I'm trying not to disturb you; you must get a thousand emails about this. I'll get straight to the point if you're amenable.

A bunch of us are discussing the Calvine Incident on a science forum and we are super-impressed with the diligence and care that went into its analysis. My question is about the report entitled Photographic analysis of the 10x8” print of Calvine UFO photograph donated by Craig Lindsey and currently held in special collections at Sheffield Hallam University [Version 4 - 2022] which I found here:

Photographic analysis of the 10x8” print of Calvine UFO photograph donated by Craig Lindsey and currently held in special collections at Sheffield Hallam University [Version 4 - 2022] - Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive

shura.shu.ac.uk

I am a skeptic, but it's a compelling incident because of the rare wealth of information in the photograph itself - notably, known objects in both foreground and background putting some good constraints on the object's size and distance.



In a nutshell: the distance estimations are based on the depth-of-field, noting that "The sharpest point in the image is the unidentified object in the sky with both foreground and background details appearing out of focus in comparison.".

This would certainly be consistent with a mid-range depth of field. That puts the object in focus, while the fence is too close to be in-focus and the jet is too far to be in-focus - as in the diagram's Scenario A.

But it also seems consistent with a short-range depth-of-field - this puts the object close the camera and in-focus, while BOTH the fence AND the jet are beyond the depth-of-field. In thi case the object is small and nearby, perhaps akin to a scrap of folded notebook paper, a mere dozen feet in front of the lens - as in the diagram's Scenario B.




I cant find anything elsewhere in the report that constrains the object to being beyond the fence. Was it just an assumption that the object in the picture is situated beyond the fence, and not in front of it?


Thank you for your consideration, and any light you might be able to shed on the matter.


Dave Collins

 

[Pinball1970]

This on a science site today

What would actual scientific study of UAPs look like?

For those who missed the memo, UFOs (unidentified flying objects) are now called UAPs (unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena). The term UFO became so closely tied to alien spacecraft and fantastical abduction stories that people dismissed the idea, making any serious discussion difficult...

phys.org

 

[DaveC426913]

I just emailed this to Andrew Robinson the Reviewer named in the rport:

And his response! Within just a few hours!

"Hi Dave

Thanks for your email – I am happy to discuss the Calvine photograph and unlike Dr Clarke I am not currently being inundated with emails!

You have identified an aspect of my analysis that I intend to return to as it is something that has drawn comment and critique from some quarters.

The difficulty we have is that the only existing Calvine image (what I call the ‘Lindsay’ print) is cropped copy print -probably made from a copy negative produced on Black and White film but printed on colour RA4 paper - and we don’t have access to either an original negative or print, or for that matter the negative this copy print was made from. The grain on the Lindsay print is slightly blurred which suggests to me it was slightly out of focus in the enlarger or when rephotographed. This means that everything in the image (even that which might have been sharp in the original) is slightly out of focus making judgements on focus difficult. The blur on the plane does appear to be movement blur which could also be mixed with focus blur which again makes this difficult to use as an indicator of camera focus.

My reading of the relative focus in the image led me to suggest that the unidentified object was in the middle distance however I accepted and still accept that if this is a hoax then the most likely explanation is that it is a model in the foreground. If this were the case however, I would expect the tree leaves/branches to be sharper, and the far background that can just be seen beyond the fence to be considerably more out of focus than the fence itself which doesn’t seem to be the case. Again, not knowing the focal length of the lens this is again hard to determine with any accuracy. Most cameras (both SLRs and Compact) at the time came fitted with 50mm (or on some compacts 35mm) prime lenses and certainly the fall off of focus on a 50mm lens is quite rapid (but again we don’t know what aperture was used and DoF is dependent on aperture, so this is impossible to judge). It should also be remembered that we don’t actually know where the photograph was taken (although the spot identified on An Teampan is a good match) so again we don’t know distances between fence and background in the photo (and some people have challenged my reading of the background features…). As with everything to do with the Calvine image there are so many unknowns…!

Ultimately then I feel its hard to determine the location of the unknown object with any great certainty and my suggestion of it being in the middle distance (somewhere between the fence in the foreground and the hills in the far background) was, I felt, the most likely explanation.

The fact that multiple reliable witnesses have described there being 6 similar images in sequence on a single strip of film supports this interpretation. If the object was a hanging model in the foreground it would be hard to achieve a believable sequence of 6 images – Wim van Utrecht states that when he tried to reproduce this using a hanging Christmas decoration in December 2022/January 2023 it took 23 attempts to get 2 believable images. The method you suggest (a card cutout on glass or Perspex close to the camera) has clearly been used to produce other UFO photos, especially in the 1950s and 60s, and I have experimented with this method myself. This would make a continuous sequence of images achievable but I’m not sure that in this case the DoF would produce what we see in the photo. The focus should progressively fall off with blur increasing with distance from the camera and I don’t find the relative focus of the trees, fence, and background matches what we would expect if this were the case.

The MoD saw all 6 negatives, made big enlargements of the best image, and analysed it in detail. They did not dismiss it as a hoax and produced measurements of its size that suggested it was a craft in the middle distance rather than a model close to the camera. I realise that people might not believe the MoD reports and suspect a conspiracy however at the time the reports were produced, they were for internal use with no knowledge that details would ever be released to the public. It is such a shame that Lindsay’s original report with the details of the witness’s claims along with the original analysis of the six images undertaken by JARIC is missing from the MoD files. These were almost certainly removed from the files and placed outside the reach of Freedom of Information requests (or destroyed) some time in late 1991 or early 1992 following the image being shared with the US DoD and the embarrassing misunderstanding that followed.

As I mentioned I wish to spend more time exploring this question by undertaking tests with a 35mm camera and 50mm lens to test DoF in a similar situation when time allows.

In the meantime, I’d be interested to hear any further thoughts you might have and any experiments you or your group might undertake. I continue to have an open mind regarding this.

(ps. there is a more up to date version of my report here - Version 5 https://shura.shu.ac.uk/34877/ )

Best Wishes"

 

[DaveC426913]

Returning to James R 's comment:

In the analysis, the author assumes that the UFO must be further away from the camera than the fence.

I am wondering if there's any obvious inconsistency with the idea that the UFO could be closer to the camera - perhaps a balloon or a folder paper object suspended by a thin wire (like fishing line, perhaps) from a tree branch that is out of frame at the top of the photo - or possibly even from the branch that is visible in the top of the photo.

Robinson addresses this:

My reading of the relative focus in the image led me to suggest that the unidentified object was in the middle distance however I accepted and still accept that if this is a hoax then the most likely explanation is that it is a model in the foreground. If this were the case however, I would expect the tree leaves/branches to be sharper, and the far background that can just be seen beyond the fence to be considerably more out of focus than the fence itself which doesn’t seem to be the case.

As a photographer, I see his point. The nature of depth-of-field is tricky, and it's hard to describe without some diagrams and samples. But essentially: the amount of blurriness should be at least loosely proportional to distance, meaning that the fence might be only a little out of focus, but the landscape in the distance should be much, much more out of focus - the jet ought to be little more than a blob.

This is not what we see in the picture, which makes it inconsistent with a foregroud object. I can't say it categorically rules it out, but you'd need to do some fancy footwork to show a foreground object fits.

Robinson goes on to say this:

The MoD saw all 6 negatives, made big enlargements of the best image, and analysed it in detail. They did not dismiss it as a hoax and produced measurements of its size that suggested it was a craft in the middle distance

So that sheds some light on when in the process those estimations were made: they were made with all six images available, not just the one that survived.

He also describes how difficult it might have been to produce two - let alone six - convincing photos of a foreground object hoaxed to look like a midground object:

If the object was a hanging model in the foreground it would be hard to achieve a believable sequence of 6 images – Wim van Utrecht states that when he tried to reproduce this using a hanging Christmas decoration in December 2022/January 2023 it took 23 attempts to get 2 believable images.

Finally, Robinson does not seem to be as over-worked or as inundated with crank messages as I thought, and indeed is amenable to further discussion with us. An incredible opportunity! I thought I'd open it up to a crowd-sourced message in response. Anything you think we should ask him?

 

[DaveC426913]

I have found an error.

"The plane shows both slight focus blur and lateral movement blur suggesting it was moving from left to right across the image when photographed."

Nope:

 

[James R]

Robinson's arguments for it not being a foreground object make sense.

It's a pity we don't have the other 5 images.

 

[DaveC426913]

Robinson's arguments for it not being a foreground object make sense.

It's a pity we don't have the other 5 images.

Indeed. But it makes me think that they are so similar that virtually no new information is to be gleaned from them. That's what I'm telling myself.

 

[froze]

It has been determined that the photo in question is highly likely to be a fake, here is why.

The photo was taken about 35 years ago when color film was what people used 99.99% of the time, but this particular day, but this particular photographer he was just happening to be using IIlford XP1 B&W 35mm film. It just so happens that this particular film is extremely forgiving when it comes to double exposures. Read this article on this film: https://www.lomography.com/magazine/165395-rare-expired-ilford-xp1-400

Another point to note here is that 35mm film is actually in a 3:2 ratio, the Calvine photo is NOT in this ratio. This means what was sent in a raw image format that was cropped.

That picture was taken from another picture done about 5 years before, and double exposed to fit the scene, here is a link to that pic.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1425853596881625088

Plus the missing pics supposedly whisked away by the government never happened. According to the available Freedom Of Information Request, the non-release order is purely relating to the individuals who took the photo and relates in no way to the images themselves!

Here is a video showing how the process was done to form the image:

I'm not saying that there isn't intelligent life somewhere in the heavens, but what we have so far is NO solid evidence that we have been visited by those life forms ever. Now there are some odd things happening with cave paintings of aircraft, but they look like aircraft we have today, so what does that mean? Were the cave paintings done much later than we thought, or by chance, which is very possible, the past 230 years of flight might not be the first time in the Earths history that humans could fly. I said 230 years because in 1783 balloon flight came about, then about 123 years ago powered flight came into being. Even Leonardo Davinci had a design for a glider, and his aid built it and tried to fly but crashed to his death. But when you consider the engineering complication of the pyramids and other such structures, I believe there was probably a group of people who figured out how to fly. Someone once said, it is more complicated to make a sailing ship then it is to make a flying airplane!

But the odds of some life form to find a way to travel the stars and to find a needle in a haystack of another planet with life, are astronomically against it, then they would never be able to return home because their planet has ceased to exist. The other issue, if a super intelligent race was able to get to Earth with extremely profound technology, and only to crash here, is hysterical to even consider that. We went to the moon without any aid of computers and never crashed on the moon, somehow we're to believe that highly intelligent race crashed on earth after spending who knows how many years traveling, and who knows at what speed using technology that we have zero clues about, and survived the journey, while getting lucky to find us.

UFO sightings and beliefs is the same as BigFoot and the Moth Man.

By the way, if a couple of girls ages 16 to 9 years of age, way back in 1917 could take pictures of "Fairies" then it pretty darn easy for modern technology to fake pictures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

 

[DaveC426913]

It has been determined

By who? That sounds pretty authoritative.

The photo was taken about 35 years ago when color film was what people used 99.99% of the time, but this particular day, but this particular photographer he was just happening to be using IIlford XP1 B&W 35mm film.

The actual film used is not conclusively known. It could have been Ilford FP4 or Kodak Plus-X or Ilford XP-1.

Ilford XP-1 B&W film was sold from 1981 till 1993 - three years after the Calvine incident. Kodak Plus-X was still being sold and shot on as late as 2011 - two decades after the Calvine Incident.

It just so happens that this particular film is extremely forgiving when it comes to double exposures

They went to great lengths to check the authenticity of the image (did you read the report?). They went right down to the grain look for any inconstistencies and they found no evidence whatsoever. The report is pretty conclusive that the photo is a genuine representation of what was in front of the camera that day.

"As far as can be determined the image itself is a genuine photograph of a scene before the camera and if any manipulation or construction took place, this was something occurring in the scene rather than in camera or in post-production. No evidence of any such manipulation before the camera can be found. "
"The film grain distribution suggests that no negative or print based manipulation of the image has taken place and that the image is a genuine representation of a scene in front of the camera. "

"The grain around the unidentified object in the centre of the image shows no break, distortion or unevenness and is continuous across the object boundaries. There is no evidence from the grain distribution around the object that the image has being collaged or constructed. The grain is continuous, in size, texture and density across the whole image suggesting that the image itself (both negative and print) has not been manipulated. The grain present here is consistent with this being a genuine recording of a scene in front of the camera. "

Another point to note here is that 35mm film is actually in a 3:2 ratio, the Calvine photo is NOT in this ratio. This means what was sent in a raw image format that was cropped.

The aspect ratio of the photo and the negative is known and addressed. It does not, in itself, indicate any fakery; its just part of the (known) provenance of the picture.

That picture was taken from another picture done about 5 years before, and double exposed to fit the scene, here is a link to that pic

How do you know this? Or is that speculation?

Even a cursory glance at the two of them side-side-side indicates that it was not a simple double-exposure.

here is a link to that pic

I did not find a lot of information about the Puerto Rico 1988 incident.

Every link seemed to come back to Reddit and, for some reason, Redditt is misbehaving for me. One link led me to a site with a malware alert.

And I'd like to find something more informative than a tweet.

Here is a video showing how the process was done to form the image:

OK, now I'm confused. Is that video suggesting that the UFO was lifted from the image itself, and is part of the top of mountain?

Because that seems a mutually exclusive theory with a duplication of the Puerto Rico photo.
So which is it? Is this a 'hedge your bets' thing?

Again, the report looked at the grain of the image in great detail and is as sure as can be that there has been no out-of-camera trickery. Really, you should read the report.

... what we have so far is NO solid evidence that we have been visited by those life forms ever.

You'll get no disagreement here. But that's a red herring. We are simply examining an incident and a photo.

By the way, if a couple of girls ages 16 to 9 years of age, way back in 1917 could take pictures of "Fairies" then it pretty darn easy for modern technology to fake pictures.

I am pretty sure no one here doubts that pictures can and are faked. The analysis, however, went to great lengths to rule that out.

 

[froze]

By who? That sounds pretty authoritative.


Ilford XP-1 B&W film was sold from 1981 till 1993 - three years after the Calvine incident. That means people were still buying and shooting on XP-1 in 1990.


They went to great lengths to check the authenticity of the image (did you read the report?). They went right down to the grain look for any inconstistencies and they found no evidence whatsoever. The report is pretty conclusive that the photo is a genuine representation of what was in front of the camera that day.


The aspect ratio of the photo and the negative is known and addressed. It does not, in itself, indicate any fakery; its just part of the (known) provenance of the picture.


How do you know this? Or is that speculation?

Even a cursory glance at the two of them side-side-side indicates that it was not a simple double-exposure.
View attachment 6526




I did not find a lot of information about the Puerto Rico 1988 incident.

Every link seemed to come back to Reddit and, for some reason, Redditt is misbehaving for me. One link led me to a site with a malware alert.

And I'd like to find something more informative than a tweet.



You'll get no disagreement here. But that's a red herring. We are simply examining an incident and a photo.


I am pretty sure no one here doubts that pictures can and are faked. The analysis, however, went to great lengths to rule that out.

The Calvin incident was filmed in 1990

Your arguments are baseless, only the figment of your imagination keeps the myth alive for you because you refuse to see the facts because you want to believe in a myth so strongly you can see nothing else. You can research the incident on the internet yourself.

 

[DaveC426913]

The Calvin incident was filmed in 1990

Yes.

Was that in doubt? I referenced it several times.

Your arguments are baseless, only the figment of your imagination keeps the myth alive for you because you refuse to see the facts because you want to believe in a myth so strongly you can see nothing else.

You misunderstand.

I am a skeptic. I have been shooting down these terrible fake photos - right in this thread - since the year you joined. Go look back in this thread and you'll see I have been very vocal that - like you - I do not believe we have any evidence of UAPs, and I have gone into quite a bit of analysis to show this. So I am in full agreement with you, in principle.

I just happen to have posted this one as interesting, in that it is not immediately obvious what it is. I am in the process of analyzing it to poke holes in it. It's one of the very few that's taken longer than about twelve minutes to poke holes in.

But the crux of being a good skeptic is to not bring my preconceptions to the table. I am looking at this Calvine Incident with as objective analysis as a person can manage.

Nowhere have I suggested, or implied that I think this is some green-eyed alien greebly. (I'm sure it is not.) I never made any speculations as to its origin. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. Please, double-check your facts before lashing out.

You can research the incident on the internet yourself.

Ironic, since I have done more and better research than you have.

Tweets are unreliable. I did ask for some better source. I did point out that all I found so far were Redditt posts and one site with Malware.


The tweet you've introduced is pretty full of holes. I am simply analyzing it - just like any other report.

Bad debunkers hurt the cause of the skeptical community. As skeptics, we have to be held to a higher standard than believers - who are emotional and irrational.

Frankly, it alarms and disappoints me that you would be so quick to lash out with an emotional (and misguided) knee-jerk response without thoughtfully reading first. You and I are on the same page - and you didn't even realize it.

There are disbelievers who are just as closed-minded as believers. Neither type is suited to objective analysis.

Anyway, let us know if you have any constructive analysis of the incident itself. Address the argument, not the arguer.

 

[TheVat]

We went to the moon without any aid of computers and never crashed on the moon,

Of course the Apollo missions used computers. The AGC. You can look it up.

 

[James R]

froze:

Welcome back to sciforums. It's a been a long time since you last posted here.

It has been determined that the photo in question is highly likely to be a fake, here is why.

Who made the determination? Do you have a link or an explanation of what was done to make the determination?

The photo was taken about 35 years ago when color film was what people used 99.99% of the time, but this particular day, but this particular photographer he was just happening to be using IIlford XP1 B&W 35mm film. It just so happens that this particular film is extremely forgiving when it comes to double exposures.

Are you telling us that the photograph has been determined to be a double exposure? Can you point us towards the analysis that show us that?

Another point to note here is that 35mm film is actually in a 3:2 ratio, the Calvine photo is NOT in this ratio. This means what was sent in a raw image format that was cropped.

There is no dispute that the photo we have available has been cropped.

Is there evidence that the original showed signs of fakery, then? How do you know?

Plus the missing pics supposedly whisked away by the government never happened. According to the available Freedom Of Information Request, the non-release order is purely relating to the individuals who took the photo and relates in no way to the images themselves!

That's interesting. Is this documented somewhere on the internet? Got a link?

I'm not saying that there isn't intelligent life somewhere in the heavens, but what we have so far is NO solid evidence that we have been visited by those life forms ever.

I agree with you about that. So does DaveC. It might be worth working out who you're talking to before you go off half cocked. What do you think?

UFO sightings and beliefs is the same as BigFoot and the Moth Man.

There certainly are similarities, in communities of believers in alien spaceships and the like.

Unfortunately, it is insufficient to draw the conclusion from this that, therefore, all UFO sightings are fakes - or even that they are misindentifications. Each case must be assessed on its own merits, even if your suspicion going into the investigation is that the little green man hypothesis probably won't pan out this time around.

By the way, if a couple of girls ages 16 to 9 years of age, way back in 1917 could take pictures of "Fairies" then it pretty darn easy for modern technology to fake pictures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

This is also not in dispute here.

 

[James R]

Of course the Apollo missions used computers. The AGC. You can look it up.

The onboard computers on the Apollo missions had very limited memory and computational speed - far inferior to what a good scientific calculator can do today for a cost of about US$30.

But the programmers crammed a lot into the hardware they had to work with. Certainly, the missions would have been difficult, if not impossible, without the computers.

 

[froze]

I gave the FACTS, and you all dispute them, this is not a science forum, it's a forum for things like Big Foot, little green men, Mothman, fairies, superstitions, etc, that are all myths. These myths all stem from the same aspect of the human psyche: the desire for and fascination with an 'other'. The idea of a wild, man-like 'other' creature co-existing with us but just beyond our understanding is heavily rooted in mythology.

Bigfoot for example, is the modern American manifestation of a human-wide cultural concept, not a zoological reality, it embodies other less romantic but no less enduring American traits, like gullibility and a hunger for attention, and that's why there are so many fake videos. That can example can be applied to UFOs, little green men, etc.

I know for a fact what happened at Roswell New Mexico, why do I know what happened is fact? Because I had some family that lived there back when the event occurred! It was NOT an UFO, it was an American spy balloon sent to take pictures over Russia sensitive nuclear testing sites, and on the return trip it was suppose to drop a film cannister onto a designated drop zone in White Sands Missile Test Range but it never did because of a storm in the region that blew it off course and crashed about 50 miles East from the Test Range, and 75 miles North West of Roswell My relatives knew the farmer, and were one of the many townsfolk who opened alien gift shops! That's one of the reasons I don't believe in UFOs, along with what I mentioned in my first and second paragraph, and due to all evidence is aways later found out to be faked.

I'm not going to come here any more, because I thought this site would have rational discussions, but that's not the case, so I simply wish not to waste my time with such nonsense, which should be a huge sigh of relief for all of you.


Good bye