Calvine Photo Hoax Theories

[Andreas]

Now, if you combined all sorts of hoaxes and hoaxsters into one pile, and THEN asked for a second choice of possible explanations, I guess "secret military test of something" would be a good candidate -- perhaps a drone balloon/dirigible or something. The objections to that are formidable, so I'd not think it likely at all, hoax remains the clear favorite, to my mind. But "secret military thing that didn't pan out or surface in the intervening years" seems much more likely than, say, aliens from Omicron Perseii 8.

I agree — but I didn't ask Clarke to give two possible explanations for the photo; I simply asked him what his thoughts were. And like you, I think the hoax theory is clearly the most plausible explanation, for many reasons.

That's why I find it particularly interesting that even Clarke considers a hoax to be a likely possibility. It's notable because that doesn't always come across in his interviews or blog posts. By focusing on 35-year-old recollections and highlighting Robinson's analysis that the photo most probably depicts something large in the sky, the overall impression many people get is that the hoax explanation has been "ruled out".

I'm not suggesting Clarke is being deliberately misleading — far from it. I actually find him honest and sincere, unlike many others in the UFO field. But I do think the way he presents the case could give the impression that the hoax explanation has been dismissed. And even though Clarke is an honest investigator, his presentation style may unintentionally support the narrative pushed by more dubious ET proponents.

As for the possibility that the photo shows some secret military craft or experimental equipment — well, yes, that's more likely than it being an alien spaceship, simply because we know the military exists, whereas we have no solid reason to believe Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials. But aside from that, both theories are just as unlikely. (The object doesn't resemble any known military aircraft, and the eyewitness testimony describes behavior — hovering silently for several minutes, then shooting off at high speed — that doesn't match any known human-made craft. Etc etc…)

In other words, if we assume it's a black project, we still have to assume the photographer lied about what he saw. (Let's say he took a photo of a military balloon and made up a story of it behaving like a "typical ufo".) But if he's lying, why trust any part of the story — especially when the photo itself could have been faked using simple materials and basic techniques?

To me, the "secret military craft" theory seems like a way to keep the story alive without sounding like a tinfoil-hat believer.

 

[Andreas]

I've been thinking about something else, and I'll soon try to run some experiments to test the idea. When I made my earlier reconstructions using a sheet of glass, I always used a slightly bent piece of metal as the "UFO," and of course, it was completely opaque. But now I think I may have overdone it.

Over time, I've started to suspect the hoaxer might have used a simple paper cutout as the "UFO." Why? Because of the lighting in the photo and the odd surface appearance of the object.

When you look at the photo, it's pretty clear that the fence is very dark, the branches are dark, and so is the object in the bottom left corner (which I think is a pine branch). Even the "jet" is fairly dark—except for the strange and mysterious "left wing." But the "UFO," on the other hand, appears relatively bright, making it stand out from the rest of the scene.

That doesn't really make sense if the UFO were a small opaque silhouette attached to a nearby sheet of glass. But what if it's simply a diamond shape cut from a sheet of paper? Suddenly, it makes more sense. A semi-transparent piece of paper would allow the bright sky to shine through. And that strange, almost camo-like surface pattern could be explained if the cutout was placed on the back of the glass instead of the front. (Or perhaps the pattern is just structure in the paper shining through, who knows?!)

I'm planning to recreate the scene using an old analog camera, a paper "UFO" glued to glass, and a moveable "jet" silhouette to simulate motion across multiple frames. Until then, here's a quick example of how a paper cutout can look against a bright sky.

The shape I used is obviously poor, and I used a digital camera, but you can still see some organic-looking surface textures on the "UFO." Interestingly, I cut my makeshift UFO with scissors, and you can notice some of the same asymmetrical, uneven edges that are also visible in the Calvine photo.

I'll try to fully recreate the scene using this technique and will post the results later.

 

[John J.]

Yes, I think you're right @Andreas.
Maybe Dr. David Clarke has more of an interest in stories about/ reports of 'paranormal' phenomena in themselves, and their role in belief and wider culture, than in identifying underlying causes of those stories (although he does do the latter, and his work re. the Calvine photo has provided most- almost all- of the leads we have today).

More of a 'Fortean' approach, as demonstrated in the magazine Fortean Times, to which Clarke has contributed;
Wikipedia:

The identification of correct original sources by contributors is a defining feature of the magazine, as it was for Charles Fort himself. However, the "objective reality" of these reports is not as important. The magazine "maintains a position of benevolent scepticism towards both the orthodox and the unorthodox" and "toes no party line". The range of subject matter is extremely broad...

(See also the Fortean Times blog).

-Just my subjective impression, and if I'm wide of the mark then apologies to Dr Clarke who seems a thoroughly decent chap.

 

[Slow Joe]

I still think the water reflection theory explains the photo best.

 

[Mendel]

I still think the water reflection theory explains the photo best.

Whis why it has its own thread, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/ .
This is the photo hoax thread.

 

[JMartJr]

Whis why it has its own thread, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/ .
This is the photo hoax thread.

I'd say there is some overlap, as clever exploitation (or generation) of an unusual reflection could be one way to perpetrate a photo hoax, or be one component of a more elaborate one (eg: hanging a model plane in the field of view that contained a serendipitously-noticed UFO-looking rock-and-reflection to make it even more UFO-y.)

 

[Giddierone]

what if it's simply a diamond shape cut from a sheet of paper?

I found you could reproduce the diamond shape with just a square of paper folded across the the diagonal centre. When held at the right angle it's the same shape as the Calvine thing, [over in the Reflection Hyp thread #921].

 

[NorCal Dave]

If found you could reproduce the diamond shape with just a square of paper folded in the centre. When held at the right angle it's the same shape as the Calvine thing, [over in the Reflection Hyp thread #921].

All the way back in post #81, I fooled around with some folded paper.

 

[Andreas]

I still think the water reflection theory explains the photo best.

All things considered, I personally find the reflection hypothesis less convincing than a straightforward hoax using models or cardboard cutouts. Experience tells us that most UFO hoaxes before the Photoshop era were orchestrated using physical models or tricks involving glass.

That said, I don't think it's all that important to prove exactly how the Calvine photo was created. It's enough to be able to recreate the (alleged) six photos using materials and equipment that would have been easily available in 1990. If that can be done, then the surviving photo loses its value as evidence of anything extraordinary.

Most UFO enthusiasts demand that skeptics "prove" the photo is fake and aren't satisfied with "just" a plausible explanation. But is that even possible without the photographer coming forward?

If the photo shows a reflection in water, then proving it is probably impossible. Even identifying the exact location where the photo was taken wouldn't be enough—the small stone or piece of driftwood may no longer be there, and the tree may be unrecognizable.

If it's a hoax involving a sheet of glass and cardboard silhouettes, again, it's impossible to prove definitively. You can recreate the scene and get a nearly identical result, but that's still not conclusive proof that the Calvine photo was made that way.

As I see it, the only scenario where the photo could be definitively explained is if the "UFO" is a small object—like a model or Christmas ornament—suspended from a fishing line. If someone were to find an identical object used in the hoax, it might finally allow for a definitive explanation.

Personally, I lean toward this being a hoax created using a sheet of glass with a strange cardboard silhouette attached to it. (It's even possible that a car window was used!) And if that's the case, then all we can do is offer a plausible explanation for the photo. That's what I'm trying to do. I'm sure few ET enthusiasts will be satisfied with that—but for me, it's enough.

 

[John J.]

Over time, I've started to suspect the hoaxer might have used a simple paper cutout as the "UFO."

All the way back in post #81, I fooled around with some folded paper.

The ETI have considered this possibility. Part of a Debunking Humor post, April 19.

 

[Giddierone]

All the way back in post #81, I fooled around with some folded paper.

Folded paper? Luxury! The best we could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth...

Spoiler

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE&ab_channel=TheFullMontyPython

 

[John J.]

As I see it, the only scenario where the photo could be definitively explained is if the "UFO" is a small object—like a model or Christmas ornament—suspended from a fishing line. If someone were to find an identical object used in the hoax, it might finally allow for a definitive explanation.

Maybe, I'm not sure.
I've always felt that the Christmas tree star used by Wim van Utrecht was a convincing candidate.

(Wim van Utrecht's image originally posted by Mick West here).

I'd guess there are lots of factories turning out broadly similar items, so differences in exact angles/ proportions might not be unexpected. The "peak" (topmost bit) of the Calvine star (if that's what it is) might have been damaged in the process of attaching fishing line/ conjuror's thread.

 

[Andreas]

Maybe, I'm not sure.
I've always felt that the Christmas tree star used by Wim van Utrecht was a convincing candidate.

Yeah, it's really difficult. If it's a Christmas ornament, then we'd need to find the exact model that was used—which is probably impossible. It's likely we'll never be able to prove that the photo is a fake, but creating plausible recreations is enough to dismiss it as evidence of anything extraordinary. Wim van Utrecht did a great job, no doubt, but personally I don't think it's a 3D object at all. There are a lot of signs suggesting it's a flat object. Could it be a star-shaped ornament? Maybe—but I just don't see any indicators of that in the flat-looking silhouette shown in the photo. The lighting conditions suggest to me that the object is semi-opaque—something like a sheet of paper.

 

[JMartJr]

It's likely we'll never be able to prove that the photo is a fake, but creating plausible recreations is enough to dismiss it as evidence of anything extraordinary.

Agreed. This is a indistinct photo with a backstory that does not really add up, no first-person report of what supposedly happened, with an anonymous photographer, missing claimed additional photos claimed... this is just not good evidence of anything. It would have very limited value as evidence of "mysterious UFOs" even if it was not fakable by several possible methods...

 

[Andreas]

Agreed. This is a indistinct photo with a backstory that does not really add up, no first-person report of what supposedly happened, with an anonymous photographer, missing claimed additional photos claimed... this is just not good evidence of anything. It would have very limited value as evidence of "mysterious UFOs" even if it was not fakable by several possible methods...

Yes, exactly. And we actually know very little about what was originally claimed by the "witness" back in 1990. Aside from the brief summary in the handwritten note released by the MoD, most of what we have today is based on old recollections and speculation. The poor-quality photo doesn't help the case's credibility either. If anything, Clarke's discovery of Lindsay's old print only made an already weak case even weaker.

Until then, people like Nick Pope spoke about the missing photographs as though they were definitive proof of extraordinary craft flying through British airspace—claiming they showed clear details of the "fuselage" and other incredible features of the "mysterious craft." But once the photo reemerged, it became yet another example of how something can grow from nothing into supposed conclusive evidence in the mind of an ET enthusiast.

In reality, the object in the blurry photo could be almost anything—even something like this:

Of course, I have no reason at all to believe we're actually looking at a spearhead glued to a sheet of glass. But we do know spearheads exist—unlike strange anti-gravity craft zipping off into space. So even a spearhead is, in my opinion, a far more plausible explanation than some large, mysterious object piloted by Klaatu or one of his friends.

In other words, we'll probably never be able to fully explain how the Calvine photo was created. Still, I'll be doing some more experiments to recreate it using a flat paper cutout attached to the back of a sheet of glass. Not because it's necessary to debunk the Calvine case—the case is already too weak to serve as proof of anything extraordinary—but simply because it's fun.

 

[Andreas]

I've now done some initial experiments using a semi-transparent "UFO" cut from paper and a tiny jet model carved from a piece of plastic, both attached to a sheet of glass. Below is one of the photos I took, shown alongside the Calvine photo.

This was just a quick experiment—hastily put together and missing elements like the fence, tree branches, and other details seen in the original image. More importantly, I used a digital camera for convenience. I plan to use an analog camera later on to better capture the grain and overall feel of the original. That said, I still think the results are promising.

As I suspected, the light from the cloudy sky made the texture of the paper show through as an organic, almost camouflage-like pattern. Since the "UFO" is a 2D cutout, I had to manually create the dark "shadow" in the bottom half. There are several ways to do this, but I chose to use two layers of paper in the lower portion of the shape. This created a shadow that appears soft and natural—more like what you'd expect from a 3D object.

As for the "jet," I decided to go with a small 3D model instead of a 2D silhouette. The only reason for this choice is the claim that there were five additional photos showing the jet moving across the scene. If a 2D silhouette had been used, the jet would look identical in every frame despite its new position—something the MoD would likely have caught immediately. But with a miniature model, it's possible to slightly change the jet's angle in each shot, making the sequence much more convincing.

I carved my miniature from a piece of plastic, though a potential hoaxer could easily have used a toy jet from a cereal box or vending machine. I placed the jet on the back of the glass, positioning it to show both wings. Naturally, some sort of adhesive was needed to hold it in place. I think this could explain why the left wing in the Calvine photo looks like a blurry dot—it may be an effect caused by glue or some kind of transparent mounting.

It's relatively easy to move the miniature jet around between shots. I did some quick mock-ups with my model, and then I photoshopped them into the Calvine scene. Using a small 3D object, it's possible to create something like the rumored sequence of photos (especially considering that the image we have is said to be the "best" of the bunch—suggesting the others might have been blurry or out of focus).

To me, it seems entirely plausible that the Calvine photo could have been created this way. Of course, it's impossible to prove that it was—but it's a scenario that, in my opinion, deserves serious consideration. The overall problem with my photo is that it's a bit too sharp, revealing a bit too much details of the miniature "jet". But an analog camera would probably solve this.

 

[Giddierone]

Nice @Andreas. It's funny the things that come up when searching online. I googled "Harrier Jet Cereal box" and came across this humorous story about a court case.

In 1996, PepsiCo began a promotional loyalty program in which customers could earn Pepsi Points which could be traded for physical items. A television commercial for the loyalty program displayed the commercial's protagonist flying to school in a McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II vertical take off jet aircraft, valued at $37.4 million at the time, which could be redeemed for 7,000,000 Pepsi Points. The plaintiff, John Leonard, discovered these could be directly purchased from Pepsi at 10¢ per point. Leonard delivered a check for $700,008.50 to PepsiCo, attempting to purchase the jet.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

 

[Andreas]

Nice @Andreas. It's funny the things that come up when searching online. I googled "Harrier Jet Cereal box" and came across this humorous story about a court case.

In 1996, PepsiCo began a promotional loyalty program in which customers could earn Pepsi Points which could be traded for physical items. A television commercial for the loyalty program displayed the commercial's protagonist flying to school in a McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II vertical take off jet aircraft, valued at $37.4 million at the time, which could be redeemed for 7,000,000 Pepsi Points. The plaintiff, John Leonard, discovered these could be directly purchased from Pepsi at 10¢ per point. Leonard delivered a check for $700,008.50 to PepsiCo, attempting to purchase the jet.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

An absolutely crazy story indeed!

I was thinking of something like this:
https://www.ghqmodels.com/products/hawker-hunter

I'm sure this exact model wasn't available in 1990, but something similar probably was. And I'm leaning toward it being a Hunter rather than a Harrier.

 

[John J.]

I'm sure this exact model wasn't available in 1990, but something similar probably was. And I'm leaning toward it being a Hunter rather than a Harrier.

Heroics and Ros made 1/300 white metal Harriers in the 1980s, somewhat to my surprise the company's still around (I've just found they make a model Hunter too). Roughly 2"/50mm IIRC
https://www.heroicsandros.co.uk/shop/Aircraft-c4297071
[I've just cheated and looked up Harrier length; 14.27m = 47mm at 1/300 scale. Hunter slightly shorter, 13.98m].

Several scale model plastic kit manufacturers (e.g. Revell, Airfix) made1/72 Harriers, I remember Matchbox (probably others) made a Hunter. A 1/72 Harrier = just under 20cm/ 8 inches.

 

[Andreas]

Heroics and Ros made 1/300 white metal Harriers in the 1980s, somewhat to my surprise the company's still around (I've just found they make a model Hunter too). Roughly 2"/50mm IIRC [I've just cheated and looked up Harrier length; 14.4m = 48mm at 1/300 scale].
https://www.heroicsandros.co.uk/shop/Aircraft-c4297071

Several scale model plastic kit manufacturers (e.g. Revell, Airfix) made1/72 Harriers, I remember Matchbox (probably others) made a Hunter.

True! Several manufacturers made micro-sized jets at the time. Micro Machines offered several different versions as well. It wouldn't be surprising if a potential hoaxer found a miniature jet in a local toy store and decided to stage a hoax.

 

[MapperGuy]

Heroics and Ros made 1/300 white metal Harriers in the 1980s, somewhat to my surprise the company's still around (I've just found they make a model Hunter too). Roughly 2"/50mm IIRC
https://www.heroicsandros.co.uk/shop/Aircraft-c4297071
[I've just cheated and looked up Harrier length; 14.27m = 47mm at 1/300 scale. Hunter slightly shorter, 13.98m].

Several scale model plastic kit manufacturers (e.g. Revell, Airfix) made1/72 Harriers, I remember Matchbox (probably others) made a Hunter. A 1/72 Harrier = just under 20cm/ 8 inches.

Just about every plane type ever used by some military has probably been available in 1/72 scale at some time. I recall building a 1/72 scale Hawker Hunter about six decades ago (long lost now of course.) People looking to fake UFO pictures would not have much trouble finding scale models of planes appropriate for an era to use.

 

[Andreas]

Just about every plane type ever used by some military has probably been available in 1/72 scale at some time. I recall building a 1/72 scale Hawker Hunter about six decades ago (long lost now of course.) People looking to fake UFO pictures would not have much trouble finding scale models of planes appropriate for an era to use.

In this case I think we need something way smaller than that, probably about 5-10 mm. But there were still several options available in 1990.

 

[JMartJr]

Harrier jet by Micro Maxchines:

Micro Machines are a line of toys originally made by Galoob (now part of Hasbro) from 1987 and throughout the 1990s. Micro Machines are tiny scale component style "playsets" and vehicles that are slightly larger than N scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Machines

I see a couple of "liveries" for a Micro Machines Harrier, I have no idea how early in their run of toys they made a Harrier at all, yet. It would need a little work with an X-Acto or the like before it would match the picture we have. If it needn't be a toy Harrier, they made a lot of planes... for example...

 

[Andreas]

Harrier jet by Micro Maxchines:
View attachment 82302

Micro Machines are a line of toys originally made by Galoob (now part of Hasbro) from 1987 and throughout the 1990s. Micro Machines are tiny scale component style "playsets" and vehicles that are slightly larger than N scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Machines

I see a couple of "liveries" for a Micro Machines Harrier, I have no idea how early in their run of toys they made a Harrier at all, yet. It would need a little work with an X-Acto or the like before it would match the picture we have. If it needn't be a toy Harrier, they made a lot of planes... for example...

Yeah, there are almost limitless possibilities. It could be a model of just about any mid-century jet with swept-back wings. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a toy—it could be something like this:

 

[Arch Stanton]

Kind of looks like it could be a fishing weight.

 

[Andreas]

Kind of looks like it could be a fishing weight.

That's not a bad guess! And if that's the case, the white "spots" could be some kind of adhesive used to attach the weight to a sheet of glass.

The object does appear somewhat asymmetrical though, and the edges seem a bit rough and irregular. But that could very well be an illusion caused by the object being out of focus, the coarse grain pattern, and not least the fact that the photo probably is a repro photo.

 

[John J.]

It might be a fishing weight or spinner, they come in a large range of shapes and sizes.
But unless we find one that looks very similar to the object in the photo, there's no particular reason to think that it is a fishing weight.

Looking at the picture in @Andreas' post above (# 506), I don't know if the two black circles had some sort of cueing effect on me, but there appear to be two concentric rings, well, ellipses, roughly centred on a point just below the dark feature right of centre along the diamond's horizontal axis:

I'm not sure that it's pareidolia on my part.
The vertical axis of the ellipse(s)- if they are actually there!- is actually canted over a little, maybe 30 degrees or so (approx. parallel with a clock hand at 1 o'clock).

Much less confidently, I wondered if I could see some radial "spokes", and toyed with the idea it might be TIE Fighter inspired,

but I think this is me seeing patterns amidst visual clutter.
Doesn't really match with an actual TIE Fighter.

 

[JMartJr]

the white "spots" could be some kind of adhesive used to attach the weight to a sheet of glass.

I can't visualize how that would work. Laying aside that if one were suspending a fishing weight a string would seem easier than gluing it to a pane of glass (as they are designed to be connected to string), the two white points would be on non-parallel surfaces of the weight with a convex point between them (red dots in image below.) I can't see how you'd get both points in contact with the glass!

 

[Andreas]

Looking at the picture in @Andreas' post above (# 506), I don't know if the two black circles had some sort of cueing effect on me, but there appear to be two concentric rings, well, ellipses, roughly centred on a point just below the dark feature right of centre along the diamond's horizontal axis:


I'm not sure that it's pareidolia on my part.
The vertical axis of the ellipse(s)- if they are actually there!- is actually canted over a little, maybe 30 degrees or so (approx. parallel with a clock hand at 1 o'clock).

Much less confidently, I wondered if I could see some radial "spokes", and toyed with the idea it might be TIE Fighter inspired,

but I think this is me seeing patterns amidst visual clutter.
Doesn't really match with an actual TIE

Yeah, it's a bit risky to try and find patterns in such a grainy picture. It's tempting—especially when trying to identify a mundane, everyday object that could potentially have been used to stage the scene—but it can also be quite misleading. I think we can be fairly confident that the two white areas and the dark spot might actually in some way or another be part of the object itself.

But the rest is impossible to draw any certain conclusions from. The faint elliptical shape around the dark spot looks more like an artifact, possibly caused during film processing, or maybe something on the surface of the photo itself. I'm leaning toward the ring being an imprint on Lindsay's photo—possibly left by a loupe pressed against it, or even someone pointing at the "UFO" with a pen. (It does resemble a hand-drawn circle.)

Without examining the original photo, it's almost impossible to tell the difference. And then there's the added issue that this is probably a repro photo.

To me, the most interesting part is the lack of shadows or reflections. This suggests a fairly flat object—far from the diamond-shaped UFO imagined by the online UFO community. It doesn't behave like a metallic object either, but rather something with a matte surface, like cardboard or paper.

When increasing the contrast, it becomes clear that even though the bottom half is generally darker, there are brighter areas there as well. This opens up to the possibility that the so-called shadow is actually part of the structure of a semi-transparent material—or simply a printed pattern on a piece of paper.

And the white spots don't seem to be affected by the "shadow" over the bottom half of the diamond. They're located around the "waist" of the object, stretching both upward and downward, yet the white area below the waist is just as bright as the area above. It's impossible to prove, but to me, this strongly suggests a 2D object. The camo-like effect covering the surface can be recreated by gluing a paper silhouette to the back of a sheet of glass instead of the front. My own "paper UFO" displays similarly strange patterns and lines, even though no pattern was drawn on it—it's just the paper's texture and the effect of the glass.

In other words: my main hypothesis is that the object is a flat piece of paper, cut into a diamond shape. Perhaps the hoaxer was inspired by the triangular craft of the Belgian UFO wave and opted for a geometric form. After all, it's easier to cut out a diamond than a flying saucer. Unless "Russell" is identified, we'll probably never know.

 

[JMartJr]

One thing that has always made me less accepting of the "glue stuff to a sheet of glass" hypothesis is the awkwardness of transporting a sheet of glass to the hoax site. This largely stems from subconsciously accepting that the site is somewhat remote, I suspect, but that claim need not be taken seriously if the rest of the story is a hoax!

Re-looking at the original pic, I'm now wondering if we're looking out the side window of a parked car along the side of the road somewhere? I see nothing that would tend to confirm that, but then I see nothing to refute it, either -- and at least it explains how a sheet of glass could be transported handily for the hoax, without the risk of breakage or of being noticed as one carts a pane of glass through the wild Scottish moors!

 

[Andreas]

I can't visualize how that would work.

No, you're obviously right. The shape is far from ideal if the intention was to fasten such an object to a sheet of glass. If it's a solid object, then I'd guess something flatter was used—perhaps something like this:

But again, if I had to bet on it, I'd put my money on this being a simple paper cutout placed on the back of a sheet of glass, attached using two small dots of glue. With this technique, you get a semi-transparent shape that appears brighter than the other artifacts in the scene. It would also explain the strange pattern, as well as how the hoaxer was able to keep the "UFO" in the same position across the alleged additional five photographs.

 

[Andreas]

Re-looking at the original pic, I'm now wondering if we're looking out the side window of a parked car along the side of the road somewhere?

Yes! I've been thinking the exact same thing. It's easy to forget that we don't actually know where or when the photo was taken. If it's a hoax, then there's no reason to believe the rest of the story either. In other words, it could very well have been taken through a car window—or even from inside someone's home. I tried recreating the scene using my kitchen window, and it worked out perfectly fine.

 

[Arch Stanton]

That's not a bad guess! And if that's the case, the white "spots" could be some kind of adhesive used to attach the weight to a sheet of glass.View attachment 82348
The object does appear somewhat asymmetrical though, and the edges seem a bit rough and irregular. But that could very well be an illusion caused by the object being out of focus, the coarse grain pattern, and not least the fact that the photo probably is a repro photo.

A friend of mine makes his own weights by melting lead, pouring them into a mold and then dumping them on the ground once they cool off a bit. There are some impurities in them that may explain the different colors in the weights. I don't know where he got the molds from but they look really old. I just thought that anyone could make their own with any kind of mold. The 'tail' of the object on the far right side reminded me of the loops at the ends of a fishing weight to tie any line thru to attach the weight. Also those ends are easily bent. You could bend the other loop on the left side off of the weight with minimal effort. Anyway, glad ya'll looked at them and commented. That was my 1st post here and I'm happy I could add something to the discussion.

 

[Andreas]

A friend of mine makes his own weights by melting lead, pouring them into a mold and then dumping them on the ground once they cool off a bit. There are some impurities in them that may explain the different colors in the weights. I don't know where he got the molds from but they look really old. I just thought that anyone could make their own with any kind of mold. The 'tail' of the object on the far right side reminded me of the loops at the ends of a fishing weight to tie any line thru to attach the weight. Also those ends are easily bent. You could bend the other loop on the left side off of the weight with minimal effort. Anyway, glad ya'll looked at them and commented. That was my 1st post here and I'm happy I could add something to the discussion.

You're absolutely right! And this is the problem when trying to identify the object—it could be, as you say, some kind of custom-made weight, it can also be a paper cut-out, or simply a random piece of junk the hoaxer had lying around. If that's the case, then it's probably impossible to find a match.

 

[Ann K]

And this is the problem when trying to identify the object—it could be, as you say, some kind of custom-made weight, it can also be a paper cut-out, or simply a random piece of junk the hoaxer had lying around. If that's the case, then it's probably impossible to find a match.

True ...but if I wanted to glue something to a window, I'd be unlikely to choose an object made of lead.

 

[JMartJr]

True ...but if I wanted to glue something to a window, I'd be unlikely to choose an object made of lead.

But if I wanted something to hang on a string and not be blown around much by the breeze, lead might be a good choice.

 

[Andreas]

True ...but if I wanted to glue something to a window, I'd be unlikely to choose an object made of lead.

Well, a metal object on a sheet of glass isn't the most likely explanation to me, but I do think it's a possibility. Two small dots of super glue would be more than enough to keep it in place. It all depends on how elaborate the hoax was. Personally, I think the most plausible hypothesis is a small cardboard or paper silhouette. But if that's the case, it's hard to understand why the prankster chose such a strange shape. In a way, it's easier to imagine someone finding a funky-looking piece of metal and deciding to use it to stage a UFO prank.

 

[Andreas]

But if I wanted something to hang on a string and not be blown around much by the breeze, lead might be a good choice.

That's a possibility. I still prefer the glass hypothesis, mainly because it would be difficult to keep a dangling piece of metal steady and level—especially outdoors, with the wind to consider.

 

[JMartJr]

That's a possibility. I still prefer the glass hypothesis, mainly because it would be difficult to keep a dangling piece of metal steady and level—especially outdoors, with the wind to consider.

Of course some days aren't windy -- and on windy days, some spots are in the "wind shadow" of upwind obstructions.

The number of of existing UFO pictures created by "a thing on a string" indicates that it is not an insurmountable challenge -- in my childhood, I did one (well, two, we snapped two pics) of a classic flying saucer made from the lid of a tin can taped to a string slung over a telephone line by an old abandoned shack. (Now that I think of it, it looked a bit like the McMinnville UFO pics, especially the one without the visible "antenna.") Dad sent them to the Air Force!

Recall that you do not need to KEEP the UFO on a string steady and level, even if you want a steady and level UFO in your pic, it just needs to be steady and level intermittently long enough to snap a picture. Also, in this case, recall that we do not know what the purported other pictures looked like, nor if there were intervening discarded shots that had visible strings (or reflection on the glass, if that was the method used) or motion blur from the wind hitting it.

 

[John J.]

...it would be difficult to keep a dangling piece of metal steady and level—especially outdoors, with the wind to consider.