Calvine Photo Hoax Theories

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.
Wasn't the claim that the fact that ZERO of the photos have been identified as "real UFOs," flying saucers or the like? (Nor is there any other proof that "real UFOs" exist.) Hoax pictures exist, as do pics that have been identified later as as balloons, butterflies, meteors. We know all those are possible. We do not know if a "real UFO" pic is possible, we don't know if "real UFOs" exist.

(And dang, we need a term that differentiates something that is unidentified from the purported explanations of the UFOlogists!)

Regarding the Calvin UFO picture, and the various things that UFO pictures have been identified as showing, it is not a star or Venus, it does not look like a butterfly, it does not look much like a balloon, etc. It does look like a hoax where a model was hung on a string. I don't math at the level some folks here do, but given all of that, I'm comfortable saying it is most likely a hoax (some other hoax techniques have also been proposed -- reflected something in water being among them, debate on how plausible that is is ongoing here. Those seem to me to be less likely than the simple "thing on a string," as requiring more in the way of effort or special circumstances. But whether they turn out to be "likelihood approaches zero," or "surprise, it turns out to be more likely than I think," that can't make the likelihood of hoax go down from where it was if just considering the thing on string hypothesis.)

I agree there are many cases that remain unresolved -- I'd divide those into "cases, if any, that would be hard or impossible to hoax," and "cases where a technique to hoax is easily demonstrable." The latter category may include all of the unidentified cases, people are clever and of course in the modern era any image can be created on the ol' computer. For anybody interested in whether any UFO pics/vids MIGHT be "real UFOs," all of the identified cases drop out, as should all that could be easily hoaxed since, you know, they could be easily hoaxed (you might lose some data disregarding those, but you avoid the danger of dragging in a bunch of spurious data). "Solved" cases remain of interest only as demonstrating how easily mundane phenomena can generate reports of inexplicable UFOs.

In the end, I'd argue photos are entering the category of witness testimony -- not reliable to reach any conclusions about much of anything. That leaves proving that alien spaceships account for some UFO cases in a very difficult situation -- about the only way to prove it now would be to acquire access to one, either through a shoot down or crash, or through the proverbial landing on the White House lawn. I wonder if that's why the Big UFO folks, who have made a business out of UFOs, are now so focused on disclosure and so wedded to the idea that the Government has captured UFOs -- as pics and vids become less compelling, with "flooding the zone" with fake pics accelerating, that becomes the last hill to stand on when claiming you are trying to reveal the truth to the world and prove "real UFOs" exist.
 
Pics 'can' be debunked which is why the big UFO names try to avoid attaching themselves to specific photos or videos too much in full public view, look what happened with Elizondo and the light fitting.
 
Pics 'can' be debunked which is why the big UFO names try to avoid attaching themselves to specific photos or videos too much in full public view, look what happened with Elizondo and the light fitting.

Maussan's Roswell mummy photo comes to mind. Several UFO people were embarrassed by that one. And Kean's Chilian UFO video didn't work out well for her. However, Maussan has carried on, Kean was seated right behind the witnesses at this week's hearings, and Elizondo is showing ceiling lamps as UFOs, so some learn or pay a price, some don't.

Might be an interesting thread, tracking some of the major UFO figures and how much the rely on stories and anecdotes vs photos. This week's big hearing "bombshell" was just a comically bad "report" with no evidence for any of it. But, as you have said before, it can't really be debunked definitively the way a photo might be. All we can do is point out the inconsistencies.
 
With regards to the "probability of a photo being a hoax" debate there's a simple way to avoid the "million AI pictures" prior issue by not using the number of photos as a measure. I think it makes more sense to look at the probability a given individual would perpetrate a hoax, or in other words what is the probability someone presents an image in good faith. That way it doesn't matter how prolific any individual hoaxer is.
 
I think it makes more sense to look at the probability a given individual would perpetrate a hoax, or in other words what is the probability someone presents an image in good faith. That way it doesn't matter how prolific any individual hoaxer is.
Interesting, can you go into some detail about how that might work? I'm also no clear if you are talking about determining whether THIS individual seems like a likely hoaxster, or whether people in general are likely to do so.
 
With regards to the "probability of a photo being a hoax" debate there's a simple way to avoid the "million AI pictures" prior issue by not using the number of photos as a measure. I think it makes more sense to look at the probability a given individual would perpetrate a hoax, or in other words what is the probability someone presents an image in good faith. That way it doesn't matter how prolific any individual hoaxer is.
That might well be even more complicated than just looking at the photo.

In the Calvine case, we don't have an interview with the person who took the photo (let's call that "-1" on the "is this person a hoaxer" scale), but we do know it was someone very young, perhaps still in his teens, so that could be a "+1".

I'd be tempted to give a much higher probability of a hoax if that person has submitted more than one report of a UFO/UAP. He might just be a person whose job or interests make him a sincere skywatcher ...or he might be a very credulous person ...or he might be someone desperate for attention ...or he might be someone with a YouTube channel to monetize.

Or he might be a credulous attention-seeking money-making skywatcher who actually sees something worth examining.
 
Interesting, can you go into some detail about how that might work? I'm also no clear if you are talking about determining whether THIS individual seems like a likely hoaxster, or whether people in general are likely to do so.
Yes I was speaking in general terms. I think Ann K is right in that in this specific case there's more information just looking at the photo as we don't particularly know much about who took the photo.

In general total reporters R = hoax reporters H + genuine reporters G (whether aliens or misidentification or unknown other)

I would argue that H and G are essentially statistically independent of each other. The magnitude of H will fluctuate and can be effected by cultural trends (like social media fads) and the ease of access to materials or technology needed for a hoax. The magnitude of G will be effected by the amount of stuff that looks weird or can be misidentified in the sky, levels access to technology to take photos at short notice, and of course the number of real aliens.

Pretty difficult to measure I suppose, but if you looked at a database of reported photos and ascertained which ones of those are confirmed, or highly probably hoaxes you could make an estimate as to what the average ratio between the sizes of H and G might be in terms of the number of distinct individual reporters over a given time period. My intuition is that G >> H by orders of magnitude and my prior for a photo being a hoax is pretty low actually. Looking for commonalities between how and what hoaxers present in their photos would also allow you to condition the probabilities for any individual photo.

In the Calvine case, ironically, I'm much more likely to think it's a hoax due to the presence of the plane in the photo. There's evidence that some part of the government was taking this siting seriously at least briefly, and if there really had been a military plane tracking this thing then they would already be aware of what had happened and it would be odd for them to be so confused at what had been reported. The fact that the recreations are convincing isn't in itself strong proof of it being a hoax but in conjunction with a confirmed case of a hoax using that method and presenting a very similar image that definitely changes my posterior.
 
While I realize making recreations of photos isn't convincing evidence for many that the original is a hoax, I've been wanting to recreate Calvine-as-a-Christmas-star-hoax for a while. Instead of buying a very expensive plastic glitter-coated star (even resisting when it was half price this week, due to the postage cost) I found this 28cm card one today for A$3.50 (doesn't have the bead, as it's a tree topper not a hanging ornament).

1733557896733.png


I've cut off the tree topper attachment and am trying to figure out how to hang it. Don't have invisible thread right now. Here's a preliminary pic showing how the shape appears like a diamond when photographed from the correct angle, so the forward facing arm can't be easily distinguished. This thing is already a little beaten up which distorts the clean lines.

1733557737631.png


I intend to find a suitable environment to photograph it against an overcast sky, probably with an old SLR camera, after I've figured out how to hang it (1) invisibly and (2) horizontally. Today there's a breeze and it's sunny, but it was still easy to capture several shots in a row at the correct angle. The last pic here is the "wrong" angle where the forward-facing arm doesn't align. There were supposedly 6 sequential Calvine shots and all of them presumably had the arm perfectly aligned. I think it's possible the star was fixed both horizontally and vertically with invisible wire.

Any suggestions for how to hang it are welcome. It's made from thick but soft card, easily pierce-able with a needle but I haven't been able to "stitch" the thread through it, nor do I have a needle long enough to pierce through the bottom. The glitter prevents sticky tape from sticking.

1733557805555.png
 
Here's a preliminary pic showing how the shape appears like a diamond when photographed from the correct angle, so the forward facing arm can't be easily distinguished.
1733557737631.png
It's surprising how the exact horizontal alignment of the camera destroys most visual cues as to the object's shape. Have an overcast day with no shadows, then that cue is gone as well.
In that context, it is remarkable that the Calvine photo exhibits precisely this alignment, when the camera would normally be expected to be below any hovering craft, and not horizontal with it.
 
In that context, it is remarkable that the Calvine photo exhibits precisely this alignment, when the camera would normally be expected to be below any hovering craft, and not horizontal with it.
I always thought the photo did show a viewpoint from slightly below, but it is difficult to tell because the midline of the object is partly obscured by blotches of some kind. Also there is a question whether the photo is zoomed and what effect that would have on the perspective. I don't recall if the photo 'expert' commented on zoom.
 
I always thought the photo did show a viewpoint from slightly below, but it is difficult to tell because the midline of the object is partly obscured by blotches of some kind. Also there is a question whether the photo is zoomed and what effect that would have on the perspective. I don't recall if the photo 'expert' commented on zoom.
Zoom does not change perspective at all.
Foreshortening is an optical illusion that happens because we think the objects in the picture are closer than they actually were.
 
Any suggestions for how to hang it are welcome. It's made from thick but soft card, easily pierce-able with a needle but I haven't been able to "stitch" the thread through it, nor do I have a needle long enough to pierce through the bottom. The glitter prevents sticky tape from sticking.
thread through the top corner for suspension, thread through the bottom corner with a small weight for balance. Use a shoemaker's curved needle to be able to pierce the top and come out the side.
 
To make a clean hole in such flimsy material... I'd use an electric drill with a very small bit. Easy to make holes on top and bottom. Avoids distorting the plastic.

Invisible thread

thread ..png


Just use one thread. The elaborate harness you have used would be necessary in an 8mm home movie format to prevent the classic Plan 9 From Outer Space type wobble. It doesn't matter if the flying saucer wobbles while taking a still photo.

For stability, use a single long thread that stretches from the tree limb, through the star, and down to the ground. Tie the thread at both ends - top and bottom. Tie it to the tree limb and to the ground, stretched pretty taut.
 
Last edited:
Just use one thread. The elaborate harness you have used would be necessary in an 8mm home movie format to prevent the classic Plan 9 From Outer Space type wobble. It doesn't matter if the flying saucer wobbles while taking a still photo.

Yeah the harness was just because right now I have no way of either punching a hole from top to bottom or taking a stitch through the top.

For stability, use a single long thread that stretches from the tree limb, through the star, and down to the ground. Tie the thread at both ends - top and bottom. Tie it to the tree limb and to the ground, stretched pretty taut.

How do I stop it sliding down?
 
thread through the top corner for suspension, thread through the bottom corner with a small weight for balance. Use a shoemaker's curved needle to be able to pierce the top and come out the side.

I'm sure I (or maybe in my parents' house) used to have a curved needle. I bent a regular one but so far haven't been able to effectively use it, even with pliers.

Not sure what you mean by top corner and bottom corner, and then top and side. Also - where does the weight go and how will it not show?
 
To make a clean hole in such flimsy material... I'd use an electric drill with a very small bit. Easy to make holes on top and bottom. Avoids distorting the plastic.

Invisible thread

View attachment 74131

Reviews on this say it's invisible but breaks easily, even while lifting one playing card. My star weighs 60g (over 2oz) so I may have to try something like invisible sewing thread or fishing line maybe.
 
Reviews on this say it's invisible but breaks easily, even while lifting one playing card. My star weighs 60g (over 2oz) so I may have to try something like invisible sewing thread or fishing line maybe.
Try a fishing tackle store and see if they have any transparent fishing lines - those are designed for tensile strength - something like a 0.06mm line should be able to hold several kilos. It probably wouldn't need to be completely transparent, because a relatively bright sky behind almost any fine wire would bleach out the wire itself, and you can aid that with just a little defocus.
 
I agree there are many cases that remain unresolved -- I'd divide those into "cases, if any, that would be hard or impossible to hoax," and "cases where a technique to hoax is easily demonstrable." The latter category may include all of the unidentified cases, people are clever and of course in the modern era any image can be created on the ol' computer. For anybody interested in whether any UFO pics/vids MIGHT be "real UFOs," all of the identified cases drop out, as should all that could be easily hoaxed since, you know, they could be easily hoaxed (you might lose some data disregarding those, but you avoid the danger of dragging in a bunch of spurious data). "Solved" cases remain of interest only as demonstrating how easily mundane phenomena can generate reports of inexplicable UFOs.

With something like the Manchester airport 'UFO' photos we can know that we are dealing with something roughly balloon sized and at ground level. The problem with Calvine is that no amount of speculation can determine whether the object really is in the sky or not. It is similar to the infamous McMinnville case.

The problem with the hoax explanation is that anything could be a hoax. Elsewhere on the forum I posted a capture of ball lightning, which I know is genuine but it also wouldn't be that hard to hoax. If you used a 'most photos of ball lightning are hoaxes therefore that is the most likely explanation' criteria then no photo of ball lightning would pass muster.

That is why I find 'most likely' type arguments dubious. They definitely have their place, and the Manchester airport UFO is 'most likely' a balloon....but that is because balloon is exactly what it looks like. But I do think that 'most likely' can also get thrown about a little too casually....especially as us skeptics don't like anything to remain unexplained. Personally I think there are some case ( Calvine, the Turkey UFO, and a few others ) where the very lack of information produces 1000 varied explanations rather than just admitting that 'we don't know'.

I'm fine with just saying 'I don't know'. There's more than enough UFOs debunked over the years that we don't need a 100% debunk rate to make the skeptic case.
 
Reviews on this say it's invisible but breaks easily, even while lifting one playing card. My star weighs 60g (over 2oz) so I may have to try something like invisible sewing thread or fishing line maybe.

Like fatphil said above, look for some fishing line. Flourocarbon in 2lb. test should be hair like:

1733590633071.png


Even better might be some 6x or 7x tippet line used in flyfishing:

1733591319963.png


This is super fine. I was using 4lb Flouro when I tried it and the vertical line was invisible, but the horizontal line that kept the model from spinning in the wind can just be seen:

1733591655726.png


But I was doing this in bright summer sunshine.
 
I'd make a three-line loop tho cradle it. Avoid having to poke holes. U realize that description may not make sense, when I get home I'll sketch it...
 
I'm sure I (or maybe in my parents' house) used to have a curved needle. I bent a regular one but so far haven't been able to effectively use it, even with pliers.

Not sure what you mean by top corner and bottom corner, and then top and side. Also - where does the weight go and how will it not show?
I thought you could suspend the weight from the bottom with another invisible thread, if needed.
The "side" would just be one of the faces.

However, you could glue the thread halfway up the needle, stick the needle through the hole and then some, and then pull taut, which works if you can get the needle to be horizontal and wedge itself inside. In that case, no side hole is needed.
 
Back
Top