Fritzkquzerk
Senior Member
Yes! Take a photo of the diamond shaped things in the sky or suspended from trees around the town!
More seriously:
The possible location of the photo?
Can it be found?
Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
More seriously:
The possible location of the photo?
Can it be found?
John J.
Senior Member.
Have a great trip! I don't think I have any specific photo requests, though. I think finding the exact fence would be an impossible task, since we don't even know for sure whether the photo was taken in the Calvine area.
NoParty
Senior Member.
What someone should do, in Calvine, is set up a little 15 foot section of identical fence,
make a little photo set, complete with a line of magician's invisible thread already hanging down,
so tourists can quickly hook up whichever "UFO" they'd like for their custom photo:
Sure, you can do the no brainer "Calvine hoverin' diamond," or you could choose a classic hubcap saucer,
1940s-'60s gigantic cigar, Star Wars black triangle, engine-less white egg, or "Mothership" light fixture, etc.
Sky's the limit!
make a little photo set, complete with a line of magician's invisible thread already hanging down,
so tourists can quickly hook up whichever "UFO" they'd like for their custom photo:
Sure, you can do the no brainer "Calvine hoverin' diamond," or you could choose a classic hubcap saucer,
1940s-'60s gigantic cigar, Star Wars black triangle, engine-less white egg, or "Mothership" light fixture, etc.
Sky's the limit!
JMartJr
Senior Member.
A very marketable idea, could work at lmost any famous UFO picture site where there is any foreground lanscape... the McMinnville farm would be easy to make in miniature, for example. Perhaps you could franchise the idea!
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Och aye!
Source: https://x.com/giddierone/status/1558528461609861121?s=46
I'm sure the answer is burried deep in the various Calvine threads, but what are the best estimates fir the location?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I think we largely have, at the moment there is a little surge of chat about it, which I think is where we are unless new data emerges...
Fritzkquzerk
Senior Member
Which it won't.
Unless the hoaxers come forward?
Yeah, perhaps we'll get a confession one fine day. But unless the hoaxer still has the negatives or the small UFO prop, I'm quite sure the believers won't be convinced even by a detailed confession.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Any energy expended is more than replenished with the appropriate (anti-gravity) foodstuff…
Todd Feinman
Senior Member
Nice! All the Calvine speculation drove me to this, long ago. I've been losing weight since y'all stopped. It's my "Calvine 2Qt".
Last edited:
Well, Andrew Robinson is currently responding to some of my findings. Interestingly, he concludes that:
https://anthologycouk.substack.com/p/string-theory-tangled-up-in-calvine
Therefore, I'm planning on recreating the whole thing using an old Canon AV-1 fitted with an FD 50 mm lens and loaded with Kodak UltraMax 400. I will create a series of six consecutive negatives for him to comment on. And I will also create a B&W repro photo to "investigate".
Yeah, I know I shouldn't spend so much time on this, but I just can't let it go. To me, it's quite simple to create six rather convincing photographs. And if someone's claiming otherwise, I'm rather ruthless.
https://anthologycouk.substack.com/p/string-theory-tangled-up-in-calvine
But I'm sure he'll have some objections in his upcoming second post on the matter.External Quote:
Therefore, I'm planning on recreating the whole thing using an old Canon AV-1 fitted with an FD 50 mm lens and loaded with Kodak UltraMax 400. I will create a series of six consecutive negatives for him to comment on. And I will also create a B&W repro photo to "investigate".
Yeah, I know I shouldn't spend so much time on this, but I just can't let it go. To me, it's quite simple to create six rather convincing photographs. And if someone's claiming otherwise, I'm rather ruthless.
Last edited:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
You go!! I looked around for film cameras, but I was surprised at the amount of money people wanted for them. Didn't seem worth it.
Looking forward to your re-creations.
John J.
Senior Member.
Robinson's "STRING THEORY – Tangled up in Calvine (Part 1)" which you link to is an interesting read- thank you.
I was going to say Robinson quotes Zätterqvist's Reconstruction of the Calvine photo, February 2026, and reading through that was beginning to think that author's choice of a Dinky Hunter might have implied you (@Andreas) should have received an acknowledgement, but on paying attention realised why that might not have been required
A few things about Robinson's article,
Was the windspeed at the time of Utrecht's photos a coincidence, or deliberate?External Quote:
If the Calvine photo involves a model aircraft masquerading as a real one, it is a hoax.
The hoaxers could choose a time (and possibly place) most convenient to them, they could wait until the wind wasn't an issue.
If the photo is a hoax, as Robinson is hypothesising, then there's no real reason to believe it was taken at the location, or the time, that the hoaxer(s) claimed.
The existence of kites, lighter-than-air craft and radio-controlled models is beyond doubt. Large-ish aircraft of a shape seen in the 1990 Calvine photo is not, and seems very unlikely. To be pedantic, the Calvine object is unlikely to be a blimp, which is a non-rigid airship (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blimp), something as angular as the Calvine object might require a rigid frame or skin.External Quote:
Craig Lindsay was not RAF personnel.External Quote:
Heroics & Ros made 1:300 scale white metal Hawker Hunters (and Harriers), they started up in business in 1973 (though I don't know when those planes joined their range). They sold mainly through mail order from modelling/ wargaming magazines, individual planes would've been cheaper than their 1:72 kit counterparts. I had a few of their models as a boy; it's fair to say some were recognisable representations more than accurate scale models. Purely speculation, but maybe this would make it harder to definitively identify the aircraft type in a blurry photo.External Quote:
From E-Bay https://www.ebay.ca/itm/176656811605
Somewhat under 2 inches/ 5 cm long, like the Dinky Hunter it might have been less prone to being disturbed by the wind than a larger, less dense plastic model, and it could be closer to the camera position on a shorter length of fishing line.
On a quick Google, some 1:100 construction kit Hunters are available but I don't know if they were in 1990. It's likely cheap generic small toy Hunters and Harriers existed just as toy planes of many sorts, of various degrees of accuracy, exist now.
Aircraft pedantry corner,
Talking about non-RAF/ RN/ USMC Harrier operators Robinson says
There were other non-RAF/ RN squadron service Harriers in other UK organisations.External Quote:
Though I think it's irrelevant (the photo is a hoax), small numbers of Harriers were operated by the Royal Aerospace Establishment (RAE) and the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE), post #547, Reflection in Water Hypothesis thread. The 1975 Harrier mentioned by Robinson would be a first generation machine, we know British Aerospace (BAE Systems from 2000) also owned al least one Harrier II for development and trial purposes. The ZH 653 machine pictured in post #547 was delivered in 1994 but it must be highly likely it was preceded by others in BAe ownership; Harrier II made its first flight in 1985 but entered RAF service in 1989. ZH 653 is a two-seat trainer variant, BAe would probably require at least one or two single seaters essentially identical to the main single-seat service variant for trials purposes.
Similarly, a (probably larger) number of Hunters continued with RAE, A&AEE and ETPS for various trials, research and specialist training purposes outside of RAF/ RN squadron use (post #655, Reflection in Water thread).
I think the date is questionable if we're talking about aircraft available for combat or front-line service in any role.External Quote:
Hunters serving as fighters (tasked with fighting other aircraft) left UK service in 1963 (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter).
They continued with modifications as ground attack aircraft, Hunter FGA9, until late 1971 (Royal Air Force Museum, Hunter FGA9, https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/collections/hawker-hunter-fga9/ ).
Both types were massively outclassed by their immediate successors (and by potential adversaries) at the times of their retirement.
2-seater Hunter trainers continued as advanced jet trainers but were replaced by Hawker Siddeley Hawks even in that support role from 1976.
Perhaps a few continued in that role as late as 1980? That could include basic weapons training. Edited to add: No. 58 Sqn served as a ground attack trainer squadron 1973-76; the superior SEPECAT Jaguar attack aircraft entering service from 1974 had their own 2-seat trainer variant.
We know Hunters served as Buccaneer crew trainers until (perhaps) 1994 but they probably weren't weapons trainers; they couldn't carry the specialised weaponry a Buccaneer would be expected to carry. The Royal Navy operated unarmed Hunters to simulate attacks on warships up to c. 1995. No RAF or RN Hunters ever carried guided air-to-air missiles or other guided munitions AFAIK (Hunters owned by some other nations were modified to do so).
Edited to add:
Yeah, managed to find 3 single-seat BAe-operated Harrier IIs, delivered April 85, July 85, March 86 respectively.
ZD318, text reads "Operated by BAe Warton Trials Flight", Airhistory.net website https://www.airhistory.net/photo/513738/ZD318
ZD319, "Operated by BAe Warton Trials Flight", https://www.airhistory.net/photo/329151/ZD319
ZD320, "Cumbria, Low Flying Area 17. Operated by BAE Trials Fleet based at Warton. MBDA Brimstone handling trials." https://www.airhistory.net/photo/260930/ZD320. Has clear "BAE Systems" markings (service aircraft don't).
None have RAF or FAA squadron markings. All photographed years after delivery, meaning they were operated by BAe/ BAE Systems (not the RAF or RN) for some years. Again, probably an irrelevance and I suspect if the plane in the Calvine photo is/ is meant to be a Harrier, it's a GR3, not a Harrier II. Still, fun for conspiracy theorists.
Delivery dates from SCRIBD webpage "Harrier Production Records UK", https://www.***scribd.com/doc/118731880/HAR-PROD
(cut and paste, delete asterisks if interested- couldn't find another way to prevent a segment of that document being unnecessarily displayed).
Under "operator" most aircraft listed have "RAF", a smaller number "RN". The 3 aircraft above are all listed "MOD (PE) / BAe Dunsfold".
There may be one or two others, I haven't checked exhaustively.
There's a small number of other planes listed (including first gen. Harriers) that were delivered (or transferred from frontline service) to other agencies (the Defence Research Agency and one of its successors, Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation; A&AEE).
Last edited:
Haha, yeah, it was me who wrote the article and the paper. I was asked to write about my theories for a Swedish UFO magazine, and it ended up being quite a long article. Obviously, I was prepared for some criticism from readers, since this case is something of a darling within the UFO community. Apparently, Robinson decided to respond with a series of blog posts. To me, that's a good thing, since it means he has to argue for some of the claims he's made over the years. And I'm glad he seems to be leaving open the possibility that it could be a hoax created using models.I was going to say Robinson quotes Zätterqvist's Reconstruction of the Calvine photo, February 2026, and reading through that was beginning to think that author's choice of a Dinky Hunter might have implied you (@Andreas) should have received an acknowledgement, but on paying attention realised why that might not have been required
Exactly! Most people are approaching this from the wrong direction. The same can be said of Robinson's discussion of the possibility that the photos were taken by someone visiting the Glasgow kite festival that same weekend. He concludes:
https://anthologycouk.substack.com/p/string-theory-tangled-up-in-calvine
But this is a rather strange claim, since we don't actually know where the photos were taken. We have the word of an anonymous claimant, but nothing else. For all we know, the photos could have been taken close to Glasgow. I'm not saying it's a kite, and the kite festival is probably just a coincidence, but the distance between Glasgow and Calvine is completely irrelevant.External Quote:
Yes, indeed. When David Clarke & co. say it could be some kind of US military platform, it sounds very much like a classic ad hoc hypothesis—one invented to provide an explanation interesting enough not to be a complete disappointment, while still sounding more reasonable than a spaceship from Saturn's largest moon.
But the fact remains that such claims need to be supported by evidence for the existence of diamond-shaped military craft capable of hovering and then zipping off vertically. Otherwise, one might just as well claim that the diamond is a Chinese fishing trawler.
Thanks for the info. This is really interesting. And I'm sure there were other die-cast models as well. The Hunter was indeed a rather iconic aircraft. Perhaps there were some collectible Blue Diamonds models/toys available too, though I haven't checked.
Agreed. I don't really think it matters whether it's a Hunter or a Harrier. If it's a hoax orchestrated using models suspended on strings, just about any type of aircraft would have been available at a hobby shop.
But if it is indeed a Hunter rather than a Harrier, this could indicate that the initial MoD investigation was conducted rather hastily by people who simply didn't find the photographs interesting enough to spend much time on. And frankly, it wasn't the MoD's job to debunk UFO reports.
John J.
Senior Member.
Genuinely thought you were referring to the Calvine "diamond", and was sort of thinking, mmm, doesn't look very blue...
...but something gradually surfaced from memory. I'd almost forgotten that there was a Blue Diamonds aerobatics team.
Matchbox plastic kit; this model website lists it as coming out in 1983 https://www.scalemates.com/kits/matchbox-pk-117-hawker-hunter-t-mk7-f-mk6--175351 (though it's essentially a 1976 kit with different decals and paint guide). Wouldn't be surprised if there were older Blue Diamond toys/ mementos kicking around, just as there's Red Arrows stuff now , not just from the usual model kit producers.
I guess if we could find an inflatable Blue Diamond, on a calm day it only needs a tether to a weight on the ground. Positioning probs solved!
Last edited:
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Clarke is a very competent researcher, but his hypotheses are sometimes well beyond the realms of reasonable technology. Claims of unfeasibly advanced blimp technology (and 1950s radar spoofing) are not consistent with the actual, historical way aerial technology has progressed.
We now have extraordinary aircraft like the unmanned Ghost Bat which were pipe dreams in 1990, but no floating military platforms (which would be an easy target for anti-aircraft weapons).
We now have extraordinary aircraft like the unmanned Ghost Bat which were pipe dreams in 1990, but no floating military platforms (which would be an easy target for anti-aircraft weapons).
JMartJr
Senior Member.
If it is, it is almost certainly not a kite in normal kite flight -- you could get the shape with a fighter kite edge-on, as discussed somewhere above or in one of the other threads, but that flat horizontal position would not be one a fighter (or most any kite) could sustain for long. Kites, with a few exceptions which are not shaped like the Calvine UFO, are generally at least a bit "nose up." * A fighter DOES change attitude when maneuvering, and any kite might go horizontal if the wind dies or turbulence hits or it stalls -- but in such case it is unstable and will not hold position long enough for the purported series of photos to be taken. If it IS a kite, it is most likely dangling from a string in the same fashion a Christmas star ornament, fishing sinker or other model UFO might have been. With even more tendency to get shoved around by passing wind, but see below...
Nor would something(s) stuck on a pane of glass!
But it should be possible to stabilize "things on a string" by the addition of another string or two to act as guy wires, or by just choosing a spot sheltered from the wind, or waiting for a moment between gusts, or shooting early in the day before the wind builds, or (as has been mentioned) shooting at some other time and place. Relying on a hoaxster's information seems a bit silly -- definitionally, they are not being truthful!
*Just before hitting "Post Reply," a kite that might be that shape and fly horizontally occurred to me -- the rotor kite. I do not think it was in fact a rotor kite:
Source: https://youtu.be/-CLin0gpQHk?t=3
It would not be impossible to get a picture of it with your jet or jet model, it would be tricky to get several in a row (of course, we have not seen the claimed other pics!) And of course it too could be hung FROM a string rather than being flown on one for the pictures...
Agreed. I'm quite sure it's not a kite in flight. IF it's a kite, than it's probably suspended by wire. I'm thinking something like this:
But again, I don't find this very likely, just a possibility.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Yes! I've been saying that all along. IF the photo is a hoax, then it's likely the origin story is as well. Once the copy showed up and Robinson declared it not a hoax, Clarke & Co, took the story at face value.
The whole notion that this photograph was produced somewhere near Calvine on the date specified by 2 "lads" who worked at a hotel after a shift, is just a story. IIRC, Lindsay spoke to 1 guy on the phone, not in person. Maybe someone from the London office spoke to someone via phone as well, or the notes are just based on Lindsay's phone call. Some have hinted at someone going up to Calvine and speaking to the witness, but aside from the conspiratorial MiB story from a suspect witness 30 years later, there doesn't seem to be much corroboration of a visit by MoD personal. The details of the sighting and the photograph's origins seem to rest entirely on 1 or 2 phone calls. As such, they didn't really know who they were talking to, just a voice on the other end of the phone claiming to be someone in particular.
I'll have to finish reading Robinson's blog, time permitting.
John J.
Senior Member.
I think we can rule out this part of the story, unless further convincing corroborative evidence emerges. I strongly suspect this will not happen.
The UK Ministry of Defence took no measures to prevent the Daily Record from running the story, and part of the archived documentation shows that it suggested "lines to be taken" by a defence minister should the story be published and he was asked about it.
Although it is not clear what happened to the original photos and negatives, it seems there was an intent to return them to the Daily Record.
The Daily Star story "'My two pals mysteriously vanished after taking UFO picture 34 years ago'" covers the MiB-style claim,
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/my-two-pals-mysteriously-vanished-32987199, 08 June 2024, Liam Gilliver.
I don't know how reliable the story might be, the Star is a stablemate of The Daily Mail, but it might be fair to say it is taken less seriously. In recent years it has not been known for the quality or accuracy of its journalism, Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Star_(United_Kingdom)
The story appears to be based on the Daily Mail story "Two British friends took this UFO picture then vanished after a visit from sinister men in dark suits. Breaking his silence after 34 years, their old colleague now reveals what happened and says: 'They were not meant to see it'",
07 June 2024, updated 14 January 2026 (link) but it's behind a subscription wall.
The author is Dr. David Clarke.
The claimant, Richard Grieve, is said to be 55 years old (in June 2024) so would've been 21 or 22 at the time of the sighting.
(my bold), so there were other witnesses to this incident. But no names are provided. Maybe Grieve gave additional names to Clarke? It seems the sort of thing it would be relevant to ask after. But as far as we know no-one has corroborated Grieve's account.External Quote:
Grieve doesn't remember the names of the men, yet the incident and its consequences were clearly memorable:
So after this memorable MiB incident, the two claimed witnesses continued working at the same place as Grieve (or at least were known to be working at the hotel by Grieve) for some months, Grieve noticed behavioral changes, one had been "outgoing and larger than life" but Grieve can't remember their names. Not even first names. This isn't impossible, but it seems improbable.External Quote:
Why the "MiB" would choose to travel to Pitlochry but then approach the (claimed) witnesses while they were with colleagues -witnesses- isn't explained. It's almost laughably film noir, why not a more discrete meeting? Two black-clad figures in a dark car waiting outside the hotel on the off-chance that the claimed Calvine witnesses would pop outside for a cigarette (by chance on the side of the hotel visible from the road or wherever the car was) doesn't exactly scream professionalism or a sensible use of time.
Grieve doesn't mention the accents of the MiB, so presumably they weren't Americans.External Quote:
Meaning that they must have told the Calvine photographers that there was some connection to the US. They went there to "silence" the witnesses, but volunteered additional information.
I don't think the story is at all convincing.
Last edited:
Well, I spoke to David Clarke about this, and he agreed to share some of his source material with me, which he claims indicates that MoD personnel travelled to Pitlochry to interview the witnesses. However, I had to promise Clarke that I wouldn't share the information with anyone. I'm guessing he wants to write something about it in the future and turn it into some kind of exclusive story.
But what I can say is that it's very much a "trust me, bro" story. It's based on decades-old recollections from people who can't prove a single word of what they're saying.
Did the MoD send personnel to interview the witnesses? Personally, I highly doubt it. I really don't think the MoD cared that much about the case. At least, the declassified documents indicate that the investigation into the matter was just as superficial as usual when it came to similar UFO hoaxes.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
From Robinson's expert photographic analysis:
He doesn't even consider the UFO is a small, close object. That's quite some hole he now has to dig his way out of, if he's going to consider Utrech's ideas.
I really wish David Clarke had sent the photos to an independent analyst, not his colleague.
He bases this on comparison with the (known) fence size and the (presumed) life-size jet size, and calculates the UFO's size at distances of 33% to 66% between fence and jet. These distances are a completely unfounded assumption. Because the UFO "appears" to be closer to the jet than to the fence, he takes the upper estimates and concludes it's 30-40m +/- 10%.External Quote:
He doesn't even consider the UFO is a small, close object. That's quite some hole he now has to dig his way out of, if he's going to consider Utrech's ideas.
I really wish David Clarke had sent the photos to an independent analyst, not his colleague.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Somewhere back in these 48 pages, we also have Robinson changing his mind from his original report. The first report noted the very fine grain of the film, something that seems strange since it's almost certainly a news room copy, a B&W photo of a color photo. A picture of a picture. Having concluded the grain was very fine, he suggested the photo had been shot on an Ilford B&W specialty film, despite all the MoD notes claiming the photos were in color. I don't know about the UK or OZ, but stateside someone using special B&W film in 1990, at least suggests the possibility of a home darkroom set-up. Someplace any number of compositing tricks could have taken place.
Then, in the long-winded YouTube presentation, Robinson decided the grain wasn't all that fine after all, and concluded a standard B&W film had been used. Again, contrary to the MoD notes. Not until his blog response does he ever seem to contemplate this is a photo of a photo. A quickly made copy. Or that any type of hoax could have been perpetrated. Forced perspective scenes, which produce similar photos and this one likely is, have been around almost as long as photography.
The whole thing was very odd. He seems to have spent a lot of time looking at the grain, and little scratches, without stepping back and just looking at the scene. It's easily reproduced in camera with some models or cutouts, something that never occurred to Robinson, or if it did, he quickly dismissed it.
I've always found his report really strange in that regard. Considering whether the whole thing could be small models close to the camera should obviously be one of the first possibilities to consider. We know that most old-school UFO hoaxes were created that way.
And I totally agree. The comparison between the size of the fence and the size of a Harrier jet is irrelevant when trying to establish the size of the diamond, since we don't know whether we're looking at a real aircraft, nor do we know where the diamond is located relative to this potential aircraft. This is one of the biggest issues I have with his photo analysis
Interestingly, in his latest blog post, he claims:
https://anthologycouk.substack.com/p/string-theory-tangled-up-in-calvine-073
I don't really follow him here, but it seems like he is open to the possibility that it's a model. He notes that I proposed that it's a small model close to the camera. But obviously, I wasn't the first to suggest this, and anyone investigating the case should take this possibility into consideration before speculating about huge anomalous craft flying in the distance.External Quote:
And I don't really understand what he's proposing when he says that "it could still be a model of some sort," even if it's 20–40 meters in length. That sounds like a rather unlikely scenario.
But at the same time, he does say:
https://anthologycouk.substack.com/p/string-theory-tangled-up-in-calvine-073
External Quote:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Given the lack of information in this case, that may be forgivable. To my eye it looks like a classic thing-on-a-string UFO hoax. But I can't prove it, I'd have to allow for the possibility that it was big and far away. I don't think it was, and unless they can prove that it was it is not very useful as evidence of a big unknown UFO flying about, but I can't prove that it wasn't.
Fritzkquzerk
Senior Member
Also, if it were real, big and far away in the sky, doesn't mean it was necessarily alien or groundbreaking secret tech.
We have no reason to prove such a thing. I can't prove that the object was a small model, and I have never claimed that I could. What I can demonstrate is that the photograph can be reproduced using a small suspended model, with the resulting image displaying the same basic characteristics that have often been interpreted as evidence for a large, distant object.
Robinson has argued that I failed to prove that the original photograph was created using the technique I proposed. But that is a rather strange criticism, since I have never claimed to have proved how the original photograph was made. Demonstrating that a proposed method is capable of producing the observed result is not the same thing as claiming to have established, beyond doubt, that this was the method actually used.
More importantly, the burden of proof should not be reversed here. If the Calvine photograph is presented as evidence for a large, distant and genuinely anomalous craft, then there needs to be positive evidence that the object actually was large and distant. The fact that nobody can prove it was a small model does not constitute such evidence.
This is where I think the discussion often becomes rather asymmetrical. Speculation about exotic aircraft, Aurora, alien craft, extraordinary propulsion systems and even time travel is entertained despite the lack of conclusive evidence for any of those explanations. Yet as soon as someone proposes the much more mundane possibility of a small suspended model, the standard suddenly becomes: "Prove that this is exactly how the photograph was made."
I can't prove that it was a model. But neither can anyone prove that it was a large craft hundreds of metres away. What I can do is show that a small-model explanation is physically possible and capable of producing a photograph like the one we have. That matters, because once a straightforward conventional explanation can account for the photographic evidence, the photograph itself cannot be treated as compelling evidence for the extraordinary alternative without additional evidence establishing the object's actual size, distance and nature.
Todd Feinman
Senior Member
Occam's katana, then? It's funny; we run into many of the same problems with experimental archaeology and reenactment. Just because you can make a simulacrum of something seen in ancient depictions, it doesn't mean that's how it was done. It's a bummer.
Last edited:
Well, it's not exactly the same thing, since recreating UFO photos is about testing whether a mundane explanation is possible. It's not really an attempt to prove exactly what happened. But when someone claims that an amateur photographer back in 1990 couldn't have hoaxed a sequence of six photos showing a hovering diamond-shaped object and a small jet moving between shots, then we can tell them otherwise. And we can use these practical experiments as proof.
Fritzkquzerk
Senior Member
To be fair, we don't have "absolute certainty" of the Calvine UFO being a hoax than we have of how most ancient enough structures were built.
We just need to demonstrate that a photo of something in the sky or anything appearing to be in the sky doesn't prove alien life.
What exactly is the thing in the Calvine photo, we cannot absolutely know for certain.
In fact, the hoax hypothesis is just a hypothesis, but with Ockham's Nodachi we can cut the line between "extraordinary" explanations and prosaic ones.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Reproducing something using an ancient technique or tools may not prove that's how it was actually done, but the point is to show it could be done. The UFOlogist and the Alternative History crowd both use what I would call the "argument from impossibility" to invoke exotic explanations. That photo could not have been hoaxed. These pre-dynastic vases could not have been made with ancient tools. Copper can't cut granite. Therefore aliens or an lost high-tech society explanation is offered. Exotic explanations having been offered, with no real evidence other than the "argument from impossibility", the burden of proof is shifted to anyone that doubts the exotic.
The insistence that ancients could not produce granite vases with ancient tools is the proof of a lost high-tech civilization. Or that a photo of a UFO could not have been hoaxed is proof of aliens visitation.
When someone does show how a photo can be easily hoaxed, or that copper tools can produce granite vases, the proponents of exotic explanations often fall back on the argument that just because it could be done that way, doesn't mean it was. This is often mixed with complaints about demonstrations not being EXACTLY like the original. Both of which miss the point. Once it's shown an exotic explanations aren't necessarily needed, they should move to the bottom of the list or be removed completely.
There is no need to speculate about a still secret anti-gravity US aircraft operating over Scottland 30 years ago when the only proof for such a craft is a photo that can be easily reproduced with cardboard cutouts. Likewise, there is no need to speculate on the existence of complex multi-axis CNC machines, and the computers to run them, and the industrial complex to power them, for the creation of granite vases, when it is shown a copper hand drill and some sand can reproduce said vase.
I know I'm talking about what is normally called the "argument from incredulity", where someone proposes an ancient high-tech civilization, because they can't understand how a copper tool can create a granite vase. I think of the "argument from impossibility" as the follow on, once someone has been shown their incredulity was misplaced. Having been shown a copper hand drill can in fact cut granite with the use of sand, they still claim it can't, or not well enough or too slowly or any other excuse. Or, having been shown a UFO photo is easy to reproduce, they claim the reproduction isn't exact enough.
Todd Feinman
Senior Member
I agree with most of that. The folks who claim ancient aliens made everything are pretty relentless. I don't know why aliens would make stone buildings and vessels for people. It's just as amazing that ancient people made that stuff! Certainly worth trying to reproduce what might very well be a hoax photograph. You have to invoke Occam's Razor though, in some cases where there isn't enough evidence. Special effects are a thing, as we know, and it's possible to create convincing material, but it still might not be accurate at the end of the day.
Yes indeed! And this is so frustrating. Creating an absolutely perfect recreation is often close to impossible and, frankly, rather pointless. Details will differ: the Sun might be in a slightly different position, the camera might be different, and the setup might vary slightly. Creating a perfect replica of a photograph is close to impossible.
But that's not the point of the experiment. The important thing in the Calvine case is to show that, using forced perspective, it's possible to create a scene in which small models in the foreground appear to be large, distant objects. One can demonstrate why the scene in the photograph is well suited to such a hoax, why it's relatively easy to hide a fishing line against a cloudy sky, and so on. Whether the result looks exactly like Lindsay's old, blurry copy is beside the point.
I'm glad Andrew Robinson didn't use these kinds of arguments. Instead, he concludes:
https://anthologycouk.substack.com/p/string-theory-tangled-up-in-calvine
In other words, he's open to the model-on-a-string hypothesis. But Robinson wants proof that the photograph was created this way, and I can't give him that. An old, blurry reproduction of a photograph simply doesn't provide enough information to explain the case conclusively.External Quote:
Personally, I obviously believe it's a deliberate hoax rather than a misinterpretation or an accidental snapshot of a mundane mountaintop. And I definitely don't believe it's some kind of US anti-gravity craft. But it doesn't really matter what I believe. The important point is simply that the photographs could have been faked relatively easily.
If we had access to the original six negatives, I'm sure we would have been able to debunk the whole thing in a matter of days. It's a bummer that we don't, but obviously, that's one of the reasons we're still talking about the case. Missing originals, a blurry reproduction teasing our imagination, and a witness who can't be found — those are the ingredients for a successful UFO mystery.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Personally, I still believe it's a tiny islet reflected in a loch, the "hoax" part being the story concocted after they looked at the photos that were taken to show reflections of planes going past. I mean, the thing looks like it actually has twigs and grass and rocks on it, and the reflection shows similar light and dark patches. (And no, I'm not going to explain reflections again to people who don't, or refuse to, understand the optics of reflections. This is me being rude to certain members whose names I have deliberately forgotten.) References were made to photos, plural, but it would appear that this was thought to be the best one (in regard to the image of the plane).
Similar threads
