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.