The Calvine object – a secret US reconnaissance platform?

[Andreas]

I've recently been working on an article about the Calvine case together with a Swedish photo analyst, focusing on summarizing the known facts and examining the photograph itself. My conclusion is that it's likely a relatively simple hoax, probably involving small-scale models, and I'm open to the possibility that the exact method may never be fully resolved. We simply don't have enough data.

That said, we should keep general Calvine discussions and competing theories in their existing threads. What I'm specifically interested in here is the recurring suggestion that the object might have been a secret US reconnaissance platform.

One thing that stands out in this case—compared to many other "UFO reports"—is that relatively few people seem to favor an extraterrestrial explanation. Even within the "UFO community," there doesn't seem to be much consensus around that idea. Instead, the "black project" hypothesis comes up fairly often.

David Clarke has indicated that he leans in that direction, and he's not alone. I had an extended discussion with Nick Pope about the case, and he appeared broadly sympathetic to that interpretation as well (which is quite different from the position he took in Open Skies, Closed Minds). Shortly before his passing, he wrote to me: "I don't rule out the hoax theory altogether, but consider it a lower probability than you." In that context, he mentioned the alleged "Aurora program" and the 1989 North Sea triangular aircraft sighting as potentially relevant.

Personally, I find the secret-military explanation almost as problematic as an extraterrestrial one. While classified aircraft certainly exist, I'm not aware of any systems from around 1990 that match the reported behavior or appearance in the Calvine case—but I'm very open to being corrected on that point.

So I'm interested in input from people with knowledge of US (or NATO) aviation programs from the late 1980s/early 1990s: What kinds of platforms or technologies were actually in development at the time? Is there anything credible behind the "Aurora" story? (To me, it seems like a pure myth and nothing more.) Are there any known or plausible systems that could fit the Calvine description?

It's easy to claim that the object was probably "some kind of secret military craft," because that sounds more reasonable than suggesting a vehicle from Proxima Centauri—but it remains a sensational claim supported by very little evidence. Personally, I have dismissed the idea that this was some kind of experimental military craft. Have I overlooked anything? I'm curious to hear thoughts, especially from those familiar with the aerospace side.

 

[Ann K]

Personally, I have dismissed the idea that this was some kind of experimental military craft. Have I overlooked anything? I'm curious to hear thoughts, especially from those familiar with the aerospace side.

I have no such aerospace knowledge, but I'll point out that if something's secret, the USA has miles and miles of almost empty desert area (White Sands Missile Range alone is bigger than the state of Delaware) and I cannot imagine a developer jumping up in excitement and saying "I know! Let's test it in Scotland!"

 

[JMartJr]

Is there a thing like Google Trends that allows Boolean operators? It might be interesting to search for "calvine ufo" AND "alien" -- followed by a search for "calvine ufo" AND whatever a good generic term that would crop up to denote a black project (perhaps just "American" to catch any discussion of American black ops and American secret project and the like?) Or some other way to support that idea that there is more interest in Calvine as secret military project and comparatively less in Calvine as an alien spaceship. Not doubting your impression, but it might be as well to find if data supports the assertion?

 

[Mendel]

The more years pass without any similar technology coming to light, the less probable this hypothesis becomes.

Consider also this: there is a long road from fundamental science discoveries to working technology. Along this road, even if it was kept secret, the same fundamental discoveries would probably be made elsewhere.
But a craft that hovers with no visible means of support is fundamentally still impossible, therefore any technology that requires this science does not exist.

Ever since U2, it has been recognized that recon platforms should be high up, because that makes them harder to hit. (See e.g. the Chinese high altitude 'spy' balloon.) What we're seeing now in Ukraine are small, very mobile systems. They don't generally hover, because that makes them targets. It doesn't make any sense for a recon platform to have that capability to hover at low altitude.

I'll also second Ann's argument that it does not make any sense for the US to test secret aircraft in Scotland.
And it makes even less sense for it to be escorted by British aircraft.

 

[MapperGuy]

I have no such aerospace knowledge, but I'll point out that if something's secret, the USA has miles and miles of almost empty desert area (White Sands Missile Range alone is bigger than the state of Delaware) and I cannot imagine a developer jumping up in excitement and saying "I know! Let's test it in Scotland!"

Agreed.
The US would not test an experimental aircraft in Scotland.

However, if they had tested it at Area51 and it was successful, then Scotland might be the location for the next step.
Operational Test & Evaluation (OTE), where the aircraft is tested where it might be operationally used, under 'combat' conditions, trying to do what it would be expected to do on a regular basis.

But when you get to OTE the number of people involved grows, like some of the people at the operational base get to see it, pilots, ground crew, airbase operations people, etc. It can still be revealed only to a limited audience, but lots of other people at the base will be aware there is "Something Secret" present.

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned STEALTH. The first generation stealthy aircraft were very angular, so the radar returns would only be received in a few directions. The Calvine thing is very angular, so might be stealthy to some extent. Not sure how much investigation of stealth was going on at the time, mostly the air forces were concentrating on Speed and More Speed or altitude. Which is where the SR-71 came from.

 

[Andreas]

I have no such aerospace knowledge, but I'll point out that if something's secret, the USA has miles and miles of almost empty desert area (White Sands Missile Range alone is bigger than the state of Delaware) and I cannot imagine a developer jumping up in excitement and saying "I know! Let's test it in Scotland!"

I'll also second Ann's argument that it does not make any sense for the US to test secret aircraft in Scotland.
And it makes even less sense for it to be escorted by British aircraft.

I totally agree. But some people (with lively imaginations) seem to believe it was some kind of (almost) operational craft, beyond the stage of night flights over White Sands—and that makes it even less plausible, in my opinion. An early-stage prototype could have been abandoned and never come to public attention, but a highly advanced, fully developed craft should have been used in war zones, and its technology should have spilled over into other projects, perhaps even civilian ones.

Still, Pope suggested to me that it could have been a secret craft flown from Boscombe Down. But if we are to accept such an explanation, we must also accept that the craft was secret enough to remain classified 36 years later, yet was still being flown in daylight over populated areas. We must also accept that no one else has ever managed to capture a single photograph of this mysterious craft—no one except some random Scottish hiker. And to me, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Andreas]

Not sure how much investigation of stealth was going on at the time, mostly the air forces were concentrating on Speed and More Speed or altitude. Which is where the SR-71 came from.

Well, the F-117 was indeed operational at the time; it had even been used in combat. The B-2 first flew in 1989, so quite a lot of research into stealth technology was underway at the time. However, these projects are now well documented. Most have long since been retired and are publicly displayed in museums. I do leave room for the possibility that the object was some kind of balloon or blimp, perhaps constructed to test radar technology in connection with the development of stealth aircraft. But even so, the whole backstory must still be completely fabricated, since such a balloon would hardly zip off at great speed. There is also the issue that no one else has ever reported seeing such a balloon or blimp over Scotland—or anywhere else, for that matter.

 

[John J.]

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned STEALTH.

There are several references to stealth aircraft, including F-117, B-2, prototype Have Blue and Hopeless Diamond (a non-flying model for radar tests) in the Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo thread, and discussion about the likelihood of the US testing a stealth (or other high-value experimental) aircraft at that location.

If the feature in the Calvine photo(s) is an aircraft, and the accompanying witness report is reliable, we have to accept that someone knew how to build silent (or very quiet) aircraft, of substantial size, capable of hovering and rapid acceleration to a high speed, in 1990.
This is problematic, as no-one seems to have deployed such technology in the past 35 years, and it is hard to imagine how such aims could be met with our current level of technology.

I'm not aware of any jet aircraft or helicopters that are truly quiet (outside of fiction, e.g. the Blue Thunder helicopter's "whisper mode").

 

[john.phil]

Is there anything credible behind the "Aurora" story? (To me, it seems like a pure myth and nothing more.)

"Aurora" was the code name for the B-2 bomber competition funding.

Ben Rich, a former director of Lockheed's Skunk Works, wrote about it in his book "Skunk works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed", page 309:

The funding for the competition came out of a secret stash in the Air Force budget. A young colonel working in the Air Force "black program" office at the Pentagon, named 'Buz' Carpenter, arbitrarily assigned the funding the code name Aurora. Somehow this name leaked out during congressional appropriations hearings, the media picked up the Aurora item in the budget, and the rumor surfaced that it was a top secret project assigned to the Skunk Works — to build America's first hypersonic airplane. That story persists to this day even though Aurora was the code name for the B-2 competition funding. Although I expect few in the media to believe me, there is no code name for the hypersonic plane, because it simply does not exist.

The closest aircraft to the "Aurora" myth at the time was the X-30 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_X-30), but the code name was "Copper Canyon", not "Aurora". The Soviet response to the programme was the Tupolev Tu-2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-2000).

Around-the-clock, high resolution multispectral satellite coverage eliminated the need for the SR-71 Blackbird (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird) and its potential successors; therefore, claims that a hypersonic aircraft codenamed "Aurora" exists are unjustified.

 

[Andreas]

I'm not aware of any jet aircraft or helicopters that are truly quiet (outside of fiction, e.g. the Blue Thunder helicopter's "whisper mode").

To be fair, we don't really know anything for certain about what the "witness" claimed regarding the sound it made. Nick Pope wrote about a "low humming sound" in Open Skies, Closed Minds, but I think he based his understanding of the case solely on the same documents we have access to today. In those documents, nothing is mentioned about any sound, and the description was likely added for dramatic effect in the book.

I personally asked him about any inside knowledge he might have had regarding the case, and his response was quite telling: "I don't believe I have any specific Calvine-related information that isn't available in the public domain—though I can't be certain, of course." In other words, we don't know whether it was said to make any sound or not.

That said, I don't think it ultimately matters, since the described behavior still doesn't match any known military technology. If the Americans had drones in 1990 capable of performing these kinds of maneuvers, why would they still be using Reapers and other much more primitive designs today? Nah, it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Andreas]

"Aurora" was the code name for the B-2 bomber competition funding.

Thanks—yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And no matter what, no such aircraft would be found hovering at low altitude over Scotland. That's simply not how these planes are designed to operate. When some people claim it's some secret reconnaissance platform, it may sound reasonable at first. But what they really mean is that it's some kind of reverse-engineered alien saucer, like the ones Lazar rambles about…

 

[Mendel]

That said, I don't think it ultimately matters, since the described behavior still doesn't match any known military technology. If the Americans had drones in 1990 capable of performing these kinds of maneuvers, why would they still be using Reapers and other much more primitive designs today? Nah, it doesn't make sense to me.

The best US effort at that time was the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter, and that program was axed in 2004 when it became clear drones could do a better job.

If that had been clear in 1990, the Comanche program wouldn't have survived that long.

 

[NorCal Dave]

To be fair, we don't really know anything for certain about what the "witness" claimed regarding the sound it made. Nick Pope wrote about a "low humming sound" in Open Skies, Closed Minds, but I think he based his understanding of the case solely on the same documents we have access to today. In those documents, nothing is mentioned about any sound, and the description was likely added for dramatic effect in the book.

I personally asked him about any inside knowledge he might have had regarding the case, and his response was quite telling: "I don't believe I have any specific Calvine-related information that isn't available in the public domain—though I can't be certain, of course." In other words, we don't know whether it was said to make any sound or not.

That said, I don't think it ultimately matters, since the described behavior still doesn't match any known military technology. If the Americans had drones in 1990 capable of performing these kinds of maneuvers, why would they still be using Reapers and other much more primitive designs today? Nah, it doesn't make sense to me.

Not ripping on Pope (RIP), but he was what, a mid-level bureaucrat in the '90s? How many mid-level bureaucrats have recently passed away? Who's heard of any of them, besides Pope? He was a nobody who rode the UFO scene the 2nd half of his life with books, and appearances. My Facebook page was inundated with memorials for him, and I don't follow any UFO pages. I always found his response to Clarke uncovering one of the photos interesting, if nonchalant. He had hyped it as one of the best UFO and commissioned a somewhat fanciful recreation, but when the real thing showed up and was less than compelling, he kinda shrugged. In the end, he didn't know anymore than we do.

As for the witnesses, I've never understood how anyone can give much credence to their claims. According to Lindsay, he spoke to 1 person by phone, once. He wasn't even face to face and can't really know who he was talking to. There are hints that some other MoD people MAY have spoken to the witnesses, but it's unclear. AFAIK, the local newspaper had no record of interviewing the witness, though they may have. The witness name on the photo has led nowhere. There is no record of the supposed 2nd witness, aside from the story told to Lindsay.

The only possible scenario I can see where the craft was some kind of US technology, would involve a lot of confusion or deliberate misstatements by the witnesses. That is, they saw and photographed some sort of stealth-like project, which still flew like all other known stealth craft by conventional means and either they thought it hovered or concocted a story that it hovered.

As @Mendel pointed out, even if it was some sort of secret craft, it has antecedents that likely date back to the '70s. So called "breakthrough technology" is largely a myth that gets tossed around in UFO circles to excuse the lack of antecedents we would expect for "exotic" aircraft.

In addition, if it was a secret aircraft that had been deployed, hence it showing up in Scotland, it would be known, if not then, certainly by now. The history of secret aircraft confirms this. The U2 was developed in secret, but once deployed, it's hard to hide it. Its missions were secret, but the US listed it as a NASA high altitude research plane. The Johnson administration spilled the beans on the A12/SR71 soon after it went operational. Same with the B2 and F117. People are going to see these things. Not so with the Calvine craft.

It appears Clarke has either gone down the path of media interest with his secret aircraft theory, or he's been convinced by some of his anonymous sources. His on the record sources say it was a hoax.

 

[Andreas]

Not ripping on Pope (RIP), but he was what, a mid-level bureaucrat in the '90s?

To be fair, Pope did have some interesting insider knowledge about Sec(AS)2a. The problem has always been twofold: Nick was a true believer known to exaggerate, and he didn't start working at the desk until 1991. Still, his claims about the case long formed the basis of public understanding. I had a long conversation with him about the case shortly before he passed away, as I wanted to clarify a few things. It became clear that he didn't actually have any inside information about the Calvine photos. When believers quote Pope, this is important to keep in mind.

As for the witnesses, I've never understood how anyone can give much credence to their claims. According to Lindsay, he spoke to 1 person by phone, once.

The story about the phone call is indeed confusing. When exactly was it made, and why? Was it before or after the MoD conducted its brief investigation into the photographs? Lindsay was a civil servant—a press officer who acted as an intermediary when the photo was handed over. In both the handwritten memo and the Loose Minute, the account remains extremely brief, as if the entire story is based on what the reporter told Lindsay during the initial contact.

The only possible scenario I can see where the craft was some kind of US technology, would involve a lot of confusion or deliberate misstatements by the witnesses.

Yeah, and this seems rather improbable to me. If someone were lucky enough to capture not just one but six photographs of a top-secret black project—something genuinely strange and mysterious—why invent a bogus story around it? The photos themselves would be remarkable enough. The only explanation I can imagine is that the object wasn't amazing at all, but nothing more than a mundane balloon or radar reflector, appearing strange from that particular angle. But to me, a pure hoax still seems much more probable.

It appears Clarke has either gone down the path of media interest with his secret aircraft theory, or he's been convinced by some of his anonymous sources. His on the record sources say it was a hoax.

I asked Clarke about this a couple of months ago, explaining that I just didn't buy that hypothesis. He gave the following response:

"I have spoken to the Defence Intelligence/DI55 officer who says he conducted the investigation at the time and was directly involved in the analysis of the photos at the time… My contact is 100% certain a) the photos are not hoaxed and b) the 'object' was identified by MoD as a secret US reconnaissance platform that was operating with 2 escort aircraft over Scotland… I can't prove what this person told me and due to the nature of his employment I cannot name him as he is concerned about the Official Secrets Act."

In other words, this is just like the "whistleblower" circus in the US. Someone told someone something, but there's no evidence to back the claims, and the original sources are anonymous.

 

[Mendel]

Yeah, and this seems rather improbable to me. If someone were lucky enough to capture not just one but six photographs of a top-secret black project—something genuinely strange and mysterious—why invent a bogus story around it? The photos themselves would be remarkable enough.

Also, one would expect the official interaction to be going differently.
It's been a while, but I think we discussed that the newspaper would ask the MoD if it's ok to run the pictures, or whether that's classified. Since the RAF escorting the UFO is part of the lore, the RAF should have responded "that is indeed classified, please destroy the pictures". But they did not do that.
We also have the brief for the secretary of defense, and it doesn't say "someone photographed a US black project that we were guarding", it says "not one of ours".

So you'd have to assume some very secretive conspiracy, and that doesn't jibe with testing the craft out in the open near the A9. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[jackfrostvc]

@Andreas There is a of speculation as to what the Aurora was.

Starting with it's Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft) to more fanciful stuff you can find by searching r/UFOs sub reddit.

As to what it was:

Could it have been a balloon like say: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-276467 maybe , but I doubt it.

Could it have been a secret craft, also doubt that. The hand written report below says it was large, hovered , then zipped off vertically at high speed. Doubt we have anything like that in reality. Plus if military jets were flying around it, unless it was super loud, I dont think if it were real that they could say what sound it made. Would have been drowned out by the military jets unless it was super loud. If the story was true, not saying it is.
Hand written Calvine report: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-276585

Could it have been objects or cutouts on a pane of glass as some hoaxes I believe have been photoed , possible.
Maybe there is something to the reflection theory spoken at length about on this forum.

But , given the location of the object under a tree. It seems very likely IMO this was hoaxed like a number of other cases are suspected of being hoaxed. ie models hung under a tree. They could have been tossed in the air, but more likely hung with magicians invisible thread or similar. Take for example the case of Amaury Rivera's UFO pics from 1988 (just 2 years before the Calvine pic). Particularly this pic , https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-338302 which looks eerily similar to the Cavine pic taken 2 years later . Apparently this researcher Mr Soza , looked into his claims and thought it was a hoax done by hanging models under the tree. Supposedly a pic was meant to be taken in a field but instead Soza claimed he found the tree in the pic out front of Rivera's house . You can read Soza's claims about Rivera's pic(s) here - just use google to translate the page into english: https://ojo-critico.blogspot.com/2006/12/el-caso-amaury-rivera.html

 

[Ann K]

Yeah, and this seems rather improbable to me. If someone were lucky enough to capture not just one but six photographs of a top-secret black project—something genuinely strange and mysterious—why invent a bogus story around it? The photos themselves would be remarkable enough. The only explanation I can imagine is that the object wasn't amazing at all, but nothing more than a mundane balloon or radar reflector, appearing strange from that particular angle. But to me, a pure hoax still seems much more probable.

I'll be the "stuck record" here; I still think it's a tiny islet and its reflection, not an "object" in the sky at all.