Calvine Photo Hoax Theories

[JMartJr]

Kites get a mention (but @JMartJr isn't listed as a co-author ). Flares as well- long before the Phoenix lights.
...
(Not sure comets are often mistaken for UFOs). (Pages copied from pop-culture website We Are The Mutants, here https://wearethemutants.com/2018/07/17/usbornes-world-of-the-unknown-ufos-1977/; can't vouch for the rest of the site).

.

I am distressed that the linked scan of the book omits page 21 -- I am very curious as to how kite TAILS could create UFO reports.

The 2 of 800 count for kites generating UFO reports is, I think, much lower than we've had here, I attribute that to the rise of LEDs on kites for night flying. (But maybe it also hints at the utility of having a kite nut "on the staff.")

 

[John J.]

I am distressed that the linked scan of the book omits page 21 -- I am very curious as to how kite TAILS could create UFO reports.

It wasn't so much the kite tail creating UFO reports, more a kite tail "compromising" an attempt to make a fake UFO picture:

The rest of page 21 of the Usborne UFO book can be seen here, posted by @Giddierone
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/post-293829

For some reason I can't pin down the pic above looks subtly different; I guess these hoaxers get everywhere.

 

[JMartJr]

Not what I was expecting at all, even in the situation of not knowing what to expect. Thanks @John J. for pointing me towards it.

 

[NorCal Dave]

But that was my whole point. It's always possible that it is a hoax....but there is zero actual evidence that it is. I thus don't see how one can assign any weight to the probability.

I guess I wouldn't call it "zero actual evidence", rather it's circumstantial evidence, which for me does carry some weight. What that weight and probability is, I don't know. Several folks here like to use complex probability equations or Bayesian formulas and such, but I'm much to dumb for that. I just try to look at the evidence, like the photo, AND the context surrounding the evidence and see what makes sense.

If we can only say something is a "hoax" when we catch someone doing it or they confess how and where they did it and lacking that definitive evidence, we can't even say there is a probability it's a "hoax" seems a bit extreme.

What do we do with the Gulf Breeze photos in this situation? Contractor Ed Walters produced a number of UFO photos in and around the town of Gulf Breeze:

Beginning in November 1987, The Gulf Breeze Sentinel published a number of photos supplied to them by local contractor Ed Walters that were claimed to show a UFO.

He never admitted to hoaxing them and maintained they were real photos of real UFOs that followed him around. Now there is what I would call circumstantial evidence of hoaxing:

• The original photos were taken with a Polaroid instant camera. Fine for family photos and documenting things like jobsites, but not the best for capturing moving UFOs at night. When Walters upgrading his camera after taking a number of UFO photos, he did not get a much more sophisticated 35mm SLR type camera. Instead, he just got a newer Polaroid instant camera, which seems odd.
• It was later learned that prior to the UFO photos, Walters would often take "ghost" photos of his teenaged kids and their friends with his Polaroid. He had learned how to make double exposures with that type of camera.
• Despite all the fantastic photos Walter's provided, nobody else ever managed to get similar shots and rarely even saw anything at all like what Walters would photograph.
• After Walters sold his previous house, the new owners, while working in the attic, came upon a model very similar to some of the UFOs in Walter's photos:

• Reporter Craig Myers was able to make very good versions of Walters' photos using the model.

...reporter Craig Myers investigated Walters' claims a few years later, criticizing the Sentinel's coverage of the story as "uncritical" and "sensationalist". In 1990, after Walters and his family moved, the new owners of Walters' house discovered a styrofoam model UFO hidden in the attic. Myers was able to duplicate the object in the Walters photographs almost exactly using the model UFO found in the attic. Walters later claimed that the model UFO had been "planted" in the attic. [1][2]

www..wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Breeze_UFO_incident

Now what? Do we assign a weight to the probability that these photos are real UFOs and a weight that they are misidentified aircraft, and a weight that they are lit up kites/balloons and ZERO weight that they are hoaxes, because we can't conclusively prove they are?

Walters never admitted they were hoaxed and no one caught him making hoaxed UFO photos, so we assign NO weight to the probability that they were hoaxed?

That just seems a bit extreme to me.

Full multipage exhaustive history of the Gulf Breeze photos here:

https://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/Ed09.htm

 

[Ann K]

I

If we can only say something is a "hoax" when we catch someone doing it or they confess how and where they did it and lacking that definitive evidence, we can't even say there is a probability it's a "hoax" seems a bit extreme.

Regarding Calvine, I'm still leaning toward the "accidental hoax" scenario, where a legitimate photo was taken and the photographer said "Hah, this one looks like a UFO". The hoax part was after the fact, in the interpretation only.

 

[JMartJr]

Regarding Calvine, I'm still leaning toward the "accidental hoax" scenario, where a legitimate photo was taken and the photographer said "Hah, this one looks like a UFO". The hoax part was after the fact, in the interpretation only.

Plausible, but my "spider sense" are screaming "thing dangling on a string" when I look at it, so if you like we can have a friendly wager about that! I suspect we'll neither of us ever have to pay off, as I suspect we will never get the information to settle it definitively.
And yeas to all, I know my "spider sense" is not admissible as evidence! ^_^

 

[Mendel]

and...this is actually Aisla Craig, an island just off the Mull Of Kintyre in Scotland.....

you'll be wanting to post this over in https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/

 

[NorCal Dave]

I was always puzzled by the white bit on the left hand side of the Calvine UFO. A little stretching and editing and...this is actually Aisla Craig, an island just off the Mull Of Kintyre in Scotland.....

( EDIT ... I just noticed that the A77 road that looks out over Aisla Crag has fencing near the B734 that looks identical to the fencing in the Calvine photo )


View attachment 73063

So, you're saying it's a hoax!

 

[John J.]

I was always puzzled by the white bit on the left hand side of the Calvine UFO. A little stretching and editing and...this is actually Aisla Craig, an island just off the Mull Of Kintyre in Scotland.....

Er, but that's not a reflection, you've rotated the top half of the image 180 degrees!

Here's a "reflection":

 

[Scaramanga]

So, you're saying it's a hoax!

I'm just saying one can come up with anything. There simply isn't enough info ( as with the Turkish UFO ) to decide.

 

[Scaramanga]

that's not a reflection

We don't know that the UFO is a reflection. I've 'edited' the photo to darken the base and to hide any hint of a reflection...hence why it is round the other way at the bottom.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'm just saying one can come up with anything. There simply isn't enough info ( as with the Turkish UFO ) to decide.

That's fine, but it doesn't really answer the question I posed, and you quoted. Given the permeameters you seem to think we should work under, in the Gulf Breeze case is weight given to the photos being real off world UFOs while zero weight is giving to the possibility of a hoax?

If I understand you correctly, you seem to say that if we cannot PROVE a hoax 100%, we can't even give the possibility any weight. That is, we can't even consider it seriously. Right?

 

[Ann K]

A little stretching and editing and...this is actually Aisla Craig,

You mean a LOT of stretching! (...and I was born within sight of Ailsa Craig). I think we can eliminate any editing capabilities that are easy now but didn't exist back when the photo was taken, can't we?

Fun fact: Ailsa Craig has had only one basic industry: it's made of a very fine-grained granite of which the finest curling stones are made.

 

[Scaramanga]

If I understand you correctly, you seem to say that if we cannot PROVE a hoax 100%, we can't even give the possibility any weight. That is, we can't even consider it seriously. Right?

No....I'm objecting to 'it could be a hoax' being turned into 'it probably is a hoax'. In the absence of any evidence, any 'weight' you assign to it is totally subjective. There has to at least be some evidence ( as there was in the Gulf Breeze case ) of a hoax. One ought to be able to say how it is a hoax and how it was done.

 

[Mendel]

One ought to be able to say how it is a hoax and how it was done.

Either a Christmas tree ornament and a Harrier model hung from a tree branch and photographed, or just the ornament and waited for a jet to pass (in an exercise area).

Wim van Utrecht updated his Christmas ornament recreation, PDF attached.

Is it proof? No.
Is it the most likely explanation? Yes.

 

[Scaramanga]

Is it the most likely explanation? Yes.

By what actual criteria ? I mean, sure it is 'easier' to make an image from an Xmas star, etc than it is for aliens from Zeta Reticuli to get here....but then if 'easier' is a valid criteria it is easier for Stanley Kubrick to make a few models than for men to actually go to the Moon and you hand a point to the Moon landing conspiracists.

Note : I'm not objecting to the proposition of hoax, or indeed any other prosaic explanation. What I have trouble with is the somewhat subjective use of 'most likely' that I see time and again.

 

[Mauro]

By what actual criteria ? I mean, sure it is 'easier' to make an image from an Xmas star, etc than it is for aliens from Zeta Reticuli to get here....but then if 'easier' is a valid criteria it is easier for Stanley Kubrick to make a few models than for men to actually go to the Moon and you hand a point to the Moon landing conspiracists.

But, would it really be 'easier' to fake the whole Apollo program than actually go to the Moon? I very much doubt it: one not only had to fake the Moon landing films, but also build actual Saturn V's and launch them (launches were personally witnessed by innumerable persons), build actual capsules and have them reentry, splash down and be recovered, fake all the documentation (ie., the drawings and program of the Apollo and LEM computers, which are all available and do indeed work as intended), fake the physical evidence (ie. the recovered capsules, the lunar rocks, the Earth infrastructure), have hundreds/thousands of people involved in the conspiracy and do everything so well not to show any discrepancies from what is expected from actual Moon landings. This is very much different than faking the Calvine photo, where the only requirements are one person, a camera and a little set-up.

If all we had from the Apollo program was just a single picture, showing a fuzzy 'something' on a Moon-looking landscape then yeah, the hoax (or a misinterpreted real picture) hypothesis would be the most probable, just as it is for Calvine. But we don't, and the sheer mass of data we have about Apollo makes the hoax hypothesis untenable, contrary to Calvine.

 

[JMartJr]

here....but then if 'easier' is a valid criteria it is easier for Stanley Kubrick to make a few models than for men to actually go to the Moon and you hand a point to the Moon landing conspiracists.

I take your point, but would argue with the example you chose. It would be impossible for Kubrick to have created the footage that was taken during Apollo using then-existing technology. Going to the moon was very very difficult. But
doing something that is very very difficult is a whole lot easier than doing something that is impossible!

Further discussion of that could take place in an appropriate thread, if it has not already.

 

[jarlrmai]

2001 was filmed before the Apollo 11 mission.

My grandfather was a matte painter and my aunt a model maker and they both worked on the moon scenes for that movie.

 

[Mendel]

By what actual criteria ? I mean, sure it is 'easier' to make an image from an Xmas star, etc than it is for aliens from Zeta Reticuli to get here....

Statistics.
If you take a bunch of identified photos from UFO reports, then the incidence of hoax photos is much higher than the incidence of genuine UFOs. So if you see a photo that could be either, experience tells us which one is more likely.

(And that's before we even get Bayesian and consider prior probabilities.)

How many humans are on Earth, and how many have created UFO hoaxes?
How many NHIs are in the galaxy, and how many have visited us?

And that is before considering the imbalance in your criteria.
You said, "One ought to be able to say how it is a hoax and how it was done."
But do you also say, one ought to be able to say how it is a spacecraft and how it got here? Because that's much harder to answer satisfactorily than the hoax idea.

So if you weigh these alternatives against each other applying the same criteria, then it's much more likely it's a hoax.

(And that's even before considering that the idea that it's real requires a conspiracy theory because of the jet fighter—it needs a cover-up, or it won't work. Another low-probability condition!)

 

[Jack Mallory]

2001 was filmed before the Apollo 11 mission.

My grandfather was a matte painter and my aunt a model maker and they both worked on the moon scenes for that movie.

When you say "that movie," do you mean 2001 or... Apollo 11?

 

[Jack Mallory]

But, would it really be 'easier' to fake the whole Apollo program than actually go to the Moon?

At the risk of derailing this thread into an Apollo thread (and there's just too many of those for me to know where best to post this), the one factor that doesn't get mentioned enough when countering the conspiracies is a very simple one: If, by the skin of their teeth, NASA had orchestrated the greatest deception in modern history, why in the world would they ever risk doing it six more times (five of which were successful)? It's insane to even think they would.

The exponential increase in risk of being found out, of making a grave mistake along the way, or of failing to silence any one of the subsequent 15 astronauts that completed the five successful missions (10 of them making it to the moon's service) would be so monumental as to render the very idea preposterous beyond words. Not only would it necessitate and nearly-unimaginable level of psychopathy to even entertain such ambitions, the odds against them pulling it off a half-dozen times without even a hint of betrayal are "astronomical" (pun intended).

 

[FatPhil]

At the risk of derailing this thread into an Apollo thread (and there's just too many of those for me to know where best to post this), the one factor that doesn't get mentioned enough when countering the conspiracies is a very simple one: If, by the skin of their teeth, NASA had orchestrated the greatest deception in modern history, why in the world would they ever risk doing it six more times (five of which were successful)? It's insane to even think they would.

The exponential increase in risk of being found out, of making a grave mistake along the way, or of failing to silence any one of the subsequent 15 astronauts that completed the five successful missions (10 of them making it to the moon's service) would be so monumental as to render the very idea preposterous beyond words. Not only would it necessitate and nearly-unimaginable level of psychopathy to even entertain such ambitions, the odds against them pulling it off a half-dozen times without even a hint of betrayal are "astronomical" (pun intended).

Someone's not seen /Capricorn One/ (1977).

 

[Mendel]

Someone's not seen /Capricorn One/ (1977).

Article:

Peter Hyams began thinking about a film of a space hoax while working on broadcasts of the Apollo missions for CBS. He later reflected regarding the Apollo 11 Moon landing, "There was one event of really enormous importance that had almost no witnesses. And the only verification we have ... came from a TV camera."

He later elaborated:

Whenever there was something on the news about a [space flight], they would cut to a studio in St. Louis where there was a simulation of what was going on. I grew up in the generation where my parents basically believed if it was in the newspaper it was true. That turned out to be bullshit. My generation was brought up to believe television was true, and that was bullshit too. So I was watching these simulations and I wondered what would happen if someone faked a whole story.​

Hyams later joked, "O. J. Simpson was in it, and Robert Blake was in Busting [Hyams' first feature]. I've said many times: Some people have AFI Lifetime Achievement awards; some people have multiple Oscars; my bit of trivia is that I've made films with two leading men who were subsequently tried for the first-degree murder of their wives."

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One

 

[FatPhil]

At the risk of derailing this thread into an Apollo thread (and there's just too many of those for me to know where best to post this), the one factor that doesn't get mentioned enough when countering the conspiracies is a very simple one: If, by the skin of their teeth, NASA had orchestrated the greatest deception in modern history, why in the world would they ever risk doing it six more times (five of which were successful)? It's insane to even think they would.

The exponential increase in risk of being found out, of making a grave mistake along the way, or of failing to silence any one of the subsequent 15 astronauts that completed the five successful missions (10 of them making it to the moon's service) would be so monumental as to render the very idea preposterous beyond words. Not only would it necessitate and nearly-unimaginable level of psychopathy to even entertain such ambitions, the odds against them pulling it off a half-dozen times without even a hint of betrayal are "astronomical" (pun intended).

I must have been asleep when I posted earlier - this is clearly the payload I should have delivered:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

 

[Ravi]

Someone's not seen /Capricorn One/ (1977).

I have never watched that one. I will tonight!

 

[NorCal Dave]

Someone's not seen /Capricorn One/ (1977).

I remember that one. The Juice's acting career actually began before his NFL one and continued on afterwards. Who doesn't like Nordburg in The Naked Gun?

 

[Scaramanga]

(And that's before we even get Bayesian and consider prior probabilities.)

Which are entirely subjective in terms of priors. Bayesian is a case of ' if you assume X....then Y'. But you have to make the assumptions in the first place.

A Bayesian analysis of sprites prior to them being filmed in 1989 would have concluded they were due to 'tired pilots', 'optical illusions', and so on. People's prior beliefs. No-one took sprites seriously prior to 1989...even though they had been reported for decades.

No-one took meteorites....the absurdity of stones falling from the sky....seriously prior to the 1800s. Only illiterate peasants see stones falling from the sky. Never mind if they have seen it with their own eyes. Once again, all entirely subjective priors.

I'd emphasise, this is not a hill I particularly wish to die on. I think UFOs are largely nonsense. I fully understand the points being made. I just feel the expression 'most likely' is tossed about a little too readily and expressed in a more definitive context and form than it ought to be. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Mendel]

No-one took meteorites....the absurdity of stones falling from the sky....seriously prior to the 1800s.

Chladni's book came out in 1794.

And thanks for addressing the one point I had not made, ignoring those that I did.

 

[Mendel]

No-one took sprites seriously prior to 1989..

and this one's also false

Article:

Nobel laureate C. T. R. Wilson had suggested in 1925, on theoretical grounds, that electrical breakdown could occur in the upper atmosphere, and in 1956 he witnessed what possibly could have been a sprite.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning)#History

 

[Scaramanga]

And thanks for addressing the one point I had not made, ignoring those that I did.

I made some perfectly valid points...and there's a lot more I could have made. It was, for example, originally considered impossible that gamma ray bursts could come from anywhere other than our own galaxy, as if they were at billions of light years that would defy known physics. The scientists who believed they were far away were in the minority.

Ideas for continental drift were largely ignored until evidence from the mid Atlantic showed magnetic anomalies that could only be explained via drift. Science is full of such examples.

Back in the 1700s....'Phlogiston' was the 'most likely' explanation for combustion of materials. Prior to the Michelson-Morely, the 'ether' was the 'most likely' explanation for a medium that carries light. The list of science getting it wrong is a very long one.

All of which shows how subjective Bayesian priors for unknown phenomenon actually are.

I certainly think it is possible the Calvine photo may be a hoax. But I really don't think anyone can put a figure on how 'likely' that is. I think the real issue is that we may never know, and people don't like to never know so they file the incident under some subjective 'most likely' and move on.

 

[Mendel]

I made some perfectly valid points...

My complaint is that these points did not address the post you replied to.
You failed to address any of the points in the post you replied to.
And 2 of these "perfectly valid" points had factual errors.

All of which shows how subjective Bayesian priors for unknown phenomenon actually are.

I. explicitly. did. not. include. Bayesian. priors. in. my. argument.

Addendum:
This is about the statement

The Calvine photo is most likely a hoax.​

This is not an absolute statement, and it is supported by statistical evidence. See my post above for details.

 

[Scaramanga]

My complaint is that these points did not address the post you replied to.
You failed to address any of the points in the post you replied to.
And 2 of these "perfectly valid" points had factual errors.

I. explicitly. did. not. include. Bayesian. priors. in. my. argument.

OK....give me an exact figure for just HOW likely it is that the Calvine UFO is a hoax. Seeing as you insist on going down that path I want some figures. 'More' likely...maybe...but MOST likely....where's your figures ? You cannot say 'most' likely without actual figures....that is all I am saying. I don't know why this still needs arguing several dozen posts later.

 

[Mendel]

You cannot say 'most' likely without actual figures...

number of photos with actual identified UFOs on them: 0

 

[Scaramanga]

number of photos with actual identified UFOs on them: 0

So if I use AI to churn out 30 million hoax UFO photos....does that make it more or less likely that the Calvine photo is a hoax ?

 

[Mendel]

So if I use AI to churn out 30 million hoax UFO photos....does that make it more or less likely that the Calvine photo is a hoax ?

Making more hoax photos doesn't change anything. Having a genuine identified UFO photo would.

And you're right, hoaxes are becoming more likely to be AI-generated.

 

[Ann K]

The Calvine photo is most likely a hoax.

I agree that there is a hoax ...but I do not think the photograph was a hoax, just the interpretation of it. If we are talking about "most likely", isn't that the explanation for (by far) the greatest number of photos claimed to be UFOs? Light in the sky, Starlink gleam, balloon, kite, bug on lens... almost all of them are real photos, just misinterpreted.

 

[FatPhil]

I made some perfectly valid points...and there's a lot more I could have made. It was, for example, originally considered impossible that gamma ray bursts could come from anywhere other than our own galaxy, as if they were at billions of light years that would defy known physics. The scientists who believed they were far away were in the minority.

OK, gonna need a citation for that. This is the "originally" for GRBs:

OBSERVATIONS OF GAMMA-RAY BURSTS OF COSMIC ORIGIN
Ray W. Klebesadel, Ian B. Strong, and Roy A. Olson
...

A source at a distance of 1 Mpc would need to emit ~10^46 ergs in
the form of electromagnetic radiation between 0.2 and 1.5 MeV in order to produce
the level of response observed here. Since this represents only a small fraction
(<10^-3) of the energy usually associated with supernovae, the energy observed
is not inconsistent with a supernova as a source.

-- https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1973ApJ...182L..85K

If Klebesadel et al. are including the idea of sources at a distance of 1Mpc in the discussion when analysing the Vela data, then clearly they're not ruling out extra-galactic sources as a possibility. (Some may even have presumed that as soon as they got to the word "cosmic" in the title.)

 

[Mendel]

I agree that there is a hoax ...but I do not think the photograph was a hoax, just the interpretation of it. If we are talking about "most likely", isn't that the explanation for (by far) the greatest number of photos claimed to be UFOs? Light in the sky, Starlink gleam, balloon, kite, bug on lens... almost all of them are real photos, just misinterpreted.

I define a hoax photo as a picture where the creator knows what it shows, but they or someone down the line misrepresent it.
I don't think anyone could take the Calvine photo (several shots of it, allegedly) and not know what it is.

The "light in the sky" pictures are genuinely unidentified to the photographer.

 

[Scaramanga]

Making more hoax photos doesn't change anything.

But that was my point. If the argument is that the sheer number of photos vs the number shown to be genuine is what makes hoax 'most likely'...then an increase in the number of photos ought to increase the likelihood of hoax. But that argument clearly would not make sense as why would me even having 100 billion hoax photos stashed away in any way affect the intrinsic nature of the Calvine photo itself.

Thus the sheer number of photos doesn't affect anything. But...that number is precisely what is being used to determine likelihood !