Calvine Photo Hoax Theories

[JMartJr]

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.

 

[jarlrmai]

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.

 

[NorCal Dave]

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.

 

[FDSaussure]

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.

 

[JMartJr]

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.

 

[Ann K]

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.

 

[FDSaussure]

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.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

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).

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.

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.

 

[Mendel]

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.

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.

 

[DavidB66]

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.

 

[Mendel]

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.

 

[Mendel]

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.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

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

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.

 

[Mendel]

Avoids distorting the plastic.

Charlie wrote it's card (cardboard?).

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Okay, it doesn't distort the card stock.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

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?

 

[Charlie Wiser]

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?

 

[Charlie Wiser]

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.

 

[FatPhil]

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.

 

[Scaramanga]

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.

 

[NorCal Dave]

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:

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

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:

But I was doing this in bright summer sunshine.

 

[JMartJr]

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...

 

[Mendel]

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.

 

[elvenwear]

Invisible thread

How would you know if it had been delivered?

 

[Andreas]

As several people have already done in this thread, I had to try recreating the picture using a sheet of glass. I decided to use a small sheet—something easy to bring on a "hike" and easily hidden in a backpack.

I find the glass sheet hypothesis interesting since it doesn't require any threads or wires, and the "UFO" is reportedly fixed in the same spot in the additional, yet unseen, photos. Wind also seems like a major issue when using models suspended from a fishing rod or a tree branch. I'm not saying that method is impossible, but a sheet of glass just seems far more convenient.

I created the "UFO" by cutting a 2x2-inch square from a sheet of copper and bending it into the desired shape. I then used a glue gun to attach it to the glass at an angle.

Below the UFO, I painted a small airplane. (I didn't prepare this in advance or try to imitate any existing plane—sorry about that.) In total, I spent less than half an hour on this project. I snapped a few pictures with my phone and was fairly satisfied with the result. Here are two of the photos—I converted them to black and white but didn't make any other edits.

I didn't use any advanced setup; instead, I simply held the sheet in one hand and snapped a few photos with my phone in the other.

Next, I used a better camera, which allowed for full control over the focus. This turned out to be quite useful. Once I had control, I found it surprisingly easy to set the focus somewhere in between all the objects in the scene, giving everything that slightly out-of-focus look. Here are two of the shots I took.

Still not a perfect match, but that's hardly surprising considering the Calvine photo we've all seen is an old analog photograph that has been developed, enlarged, scanned, and who knows what else.

One thing I'm fairly certain of is that if a potential hoaxer in the Calvine case used glass sheets, he would likely have used a small cardboard or plastic silhouette of a plane rather than painting it directly onto the glass. Otherwise, it would have been quite difficult to repaint it for each photo taken.

Considering the poor quality of the Calvine photo, I'm convinced it could have been created this way. My point is: if we can recreate the scene using cheap materials in less than an hour, then the entire Calvine case falls apart. It's just another picture—no different from those taken by Billy Meier and George Adamski.

 

[Scaramanga]

I created the "UFO" by cutting a 2x2-inch square from a sheet of copper and bending it into the desired shape. I then used a glue gun to attach it to the glass at an angle.

There is another method. Take a photo of some scenery, develop the film, and then stick a 'UFO' to the developed print and photograph that. I'm no great UFO artist....but here's a scene actually captured in 1971, with 'UFO' added. All of this took 5 minutes. If I'd devoted an hour or so...I could have blurred the UFO into the photo so it is less sharp...and so on.

The great thing about this method is that there will be 'no evidence of tampering with the negative' or any other adjustment or even CGI type effects...

Total materials required....a small piece of paper and some Blu Tack sticky stuff.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

There is another method. Take a photo of some scenery, develop the film, and then stick a 'UFO' to the developed print and photograph that. I'm no great UFO artist....but here's a scene actually captured in 1971, with 'UFO' added. All of this took 5 minutes. If I'd devoted an hour or so...I could have blurred the UFO into the photo so it is less sharp...and so on.

The great thing about this method is that there will be 'no evidence of tampering with the negative' or any other adjustment or even CGI type effects...

Total materials required....a small piece of paper and some Blu Tack sticky stuff.

View attachment 77999

That method could not fool even an advanced amateur photographer. There would be a discontinuity in the grain. Not in the grain of the negative, but between the print and the grain of image pasted onto the print.

I'll explain. When making a print using an enlarger, any serious photographer uses an instrument variously called a grain focuser, a grain focus, a grain magnifier...

The enlarger projects a negative image onto the surface of the paper. The enlarger has an adjustable focus, just as the camera does. You can eyeball the focus of the negative image and get the image into acceptable focus.

But if you are advanced beyond beginner status, you don't focus the image, you focus the grain of the negative. The grain magnifier shows an enlarged image of the grain and you put that in best focus.

After any serious amount of darkroom work you become attuned to the look of the grain. You develop an "eye" for it the way a musician develops an "ear."

Through a jeweler's loop, the pasted on image would jump out at anyone with any kind of an eye.

You could also see that the print was from a second generation negative which would arouse suspicion.

You would probably also see problems with contrast, brightness, the direction of lighting...

It just wouldn't look right.


Unless very carefully done, the white edges of the pasted on image would be visible. You'd have to color the edges with a dark grey marker or retouching dyes.




Back in the old days, there were guys with such a developed eye that they could tell what brand of lens was in use when a photograph was taken. Nikon versus Canon for example. Two quality brands. I never developed an eye at that level...

 

[Scaramanga]

That method could not fool even an advanced amateur photographer. There would be a discontinuity in the grain. Not in the grain of the negative, but between the print and the grain of image pasted onto the print.

The new image has a totally new grain of its own. In fact....my image is a photo of a scan ( done on a printer ) of the original 4 inch by 4 inch photograph...which I then displayed on a 4K screen and photographed the screen. There's highly unlikely to be any of the original grain left at all.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The new image has a totally new grain of its own. In fact....my image is a photo of a scan ( done on a printer ) of the original 4 inch by 4 inch photograph...which I then displayed on a 4K screen and photographed the screen. There's highly unlikely to be any of the original grain left at all.

Not going to argue this point.

 

[Andreas]

I thought a lot about this while trying to recreate the photo using a sheet of glass. It's a simple solution, but the hoaxer would need a loose sheet of glass, take it outside, and either mount it onto something or have an accomplice hold it.

That's why I couldn't help but speculate that the hoaxer might have simply placed the silhouettes on a window. It's an easy method requiring minimal preparation, and he could have stayed inside with a beer in hand, pulling off the hoax without any prying eyes watching.

I'm not saying this is what happened, but the lack of context in and around the Calvine photo makes even such speculations possible. We know from experience that windows have been used many times in the history of UFO hoax photography.

To test this hypothesis, I took this photo through one of my kitchen windows. It works just as well as when I used a loose sheet of glass outdoors. (The cardboard "ufo" is attached to the inside of the window.)

I also noticed something else. I took this picture just after sunset, when the surroundings were dark but the sky was still somewhat lit. I haven't done any digital editing except for converting it to black and white, but I did experiment quite a bit with the camera settings.

The result turned out pretty well, with a nice grain and a "UFO" that blends naturally into the surroundings.

 

[Andreas]

I thought of something else while experimenting with cardboard silhouettes on a sheet of glass. One issue I encountered was keeping the glass steady in front of the camera. With an accomplice holding the glass, it's definitely possible, but a challenge when taking multiple photos in a row is ensuring the "UFO" stays in the same position, preventing it from shifting between shots.

The Calvine photo appears to have been taken from a relatively low position. If a sheet of glass was used as part of a hoax, this low angle would have been helpful, as the glass could simply be placed directly on the ground, possibly held in place by some wooden slabs or by simply leaning it against a tree. I'm picturing a setup something like this:

This could also explain why we see the profile of the "UFO" even though, if it were a large craft in the sky, the viewing angle suggests we should see more of the underside than the top.

With a setup like this, a single person could have pulled off the hoax without needing an accomplice.

 

[Giddierone]

The Calvine photo appears to have been taken from a relatively low position. If a sheet of glass was used as part of a hoax, this low angle would have been helpful, as the glass could simply be placed directly on the ground, possibly held in place by some wooden slabs or by simply leaning it against a tree.

If it's a hoax why not combine the reflection off water (which easily reproduces the strange low angle position without the need for the photographer to actually be in that position) with some other technique to create the objects—like a thing on glass, or hanging object etc? The possible combinations seem endless.

 

[Andreas]

If it's a hoax why not combine the reflection off water (which easily reproduces the strange low angle position without the need for the photographer to actually be in that position) with some other technique to create the objects—like a thing on glass, or hanging object etc?

Yes, that's definitely a possibility, although I don't think a combination of different techniques is the most likely explanation. It could very well be a reflection in water, but if that's the case, I believe the entire scene was something the photographer "accidentally" captured. The sheet of glass hypothesis, on the other hand, would suggest a carefully planned hoax.

 

[Andreas]

great thing about this method is that there will be 'no evidence of tampering with the negative' or any other adjustment or even CGI type effects...

Total materials required....a small piece of paper and some Blu Tack sticky stuff.

I tend to agree with you. While experimenting with small cardboard silhouettes on glass, I became convinced that the Calvine photo could definitely have been created this way. However, I couldn't shake the feeling that it would require quite a bit of effort—as well as a good dose of luck—to produce six sequential negatives using this technique. The same applies to a hoax involving small hanging models. This made me wonder: could it simply be a case of old-school photo manipulation?

I reached out to Björn Axel Johansson, an honorary member of the Swedish Association of Professional Photographers. He has overseen the association's historical photo archive and has served as a photographic advisor for the Royal Palace in Stockholm and the Swedish Technical Museum. He is likely one of the most knowledgeable people in Sweden when it comes to traditional photography. More importantly, he has no involvement in the UFO scene—neither as a believer nor as a skeptic. Like most people, I don't think he cares about the subject at all.

He was kind enough to share his thoughts on the Calvine photo. Naturally, he didn't have much to say about the scene itself—it is what it is. However, he did think the smaller object was likely an actual Harrier or a similar jet. In his view, the plane appears as one would expect in a distant photo taken by an amateur.

I asked him to give his opinion on the Calvine photo based on his lifelong experience working with photographs, and he shared this insight:

"To me, the 'object' appears too sharp and distinct compared to the plane, the barbed wire, and the tree branches. It gives the impression of a quick snapshot taken by an amateur—someone who randomly took a picture as the plane passed by, and that photograph later became the basis for a manipulated scene. The neutral sky made the process easy, while the presence of the plane gave the image an air of authenticity. In my opinion, it is an 'enhanced' photograph. Edited, altered, or even falsified photographs are nothing new. As early as the 1850s, people began 'cutting and pasting' in paper prints, then taking a reproduction photo and presenting it as an authentic image."

In other words, based on his extensive experience with vintage photography, his best guess is that the image is a post-production hoax—altering a mundane photo of a passing jet. The neutral sky would have made it easy to hide any edges, and differences in grain pattern would have largely disappeared when the reproduction photos were taken.

I decided to test this theory using really primitive methods. Unfortunately, I didn't have an old photo of a passing jet, so a vintage photo of a Swedish landscape had to do.

I started by cropping the scene to create the composition I wanted, leaving me with some spare pieces.

The next step was to cut a diamond-shaped "UFO" from the parts of the picture that had been cut off. Then, I simply placed the "UFO" where I wanted it, and voilà—suddenly, I had a diamond-shaped UFO hovering over rural Sweden.

The final step was to create a "repro photo". If done the old-fashioned way, this method would have resulted in a series of negatives that appear genuine, with little difference in grain pattern. And just as the MoD concluded, the negatives themselves would show no signs of tampering. When developed, you'd be left with something like this:

For my quick test, I used a digital camera and spent almost no time on it, so the result obviously lacks the grain present in analog photographs. It would be really interesting if someone with access to traditional photographic and reproduction equipment tried to recreate the Calvine photo using this technique.

Why is it tempting to think someone might have used this primitive method? Well, the "UFO" does resemble a landscape itself—something proponents of the reflection hypothesis have pointed out. This technique could effectively hide signs of manipulation (especially since the "UFO" and the background originally came from the same image), and it would result in a chronological set of negatives. Also, if the "UFO" looked the same in all six pictures (we don't know for certain, but it has been claimed), the same cutout could have been used, requiring minimal effort from the hoaxer.

 

[Andreas]

You could also see that the print was from a second generation negative which would arouse suspicion.

But according to the timeline—and in line with Robinson's conclusions in his analysis—the Calvine photo provided to Lindsay was likely a repro, created from a paper print. This is because Allan most likely made a copy for Lindsay from a paper print, not from the original negatives, as they had not yet been handed over. If any manipulation had taken place, I'm sure it would be impossible to detect from the 35-year-old repro photo that Robinson had to examine.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I'm not up on the soap opera side. No one examined the original prints way back when?

 

[deirdre]

not from the original negatives, as they had not yet been handed over.

that's not what lindsay said in his 30 years later interview.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'm not up on the soap opera side. No one examined the original prints way back when?

Yeah, it's all a bit confusing. How this single photo came to be is still vague. The MoD records, handwritten and typed, both say color. This photo is apparently a B&W print made on color paper.

Linsday's claim, after 30+ years, is that the Daily Record received the photo(s) and called him at the RAF station for a comment. He asked for a photo to make a comment on, and the Daily Record sent him a copy, presumably the one we're all looking at, the next day.

When the Daily Record received the negatives is unclear and so it's unclear what was used to create the photo we see now. It seems that the Daily Record did send the photos and the negatives to the MoD in London, so they had some sort of negatives at some point.

Linsday took the photo he was given by the Daily Record and made a paper copy of it so as to send the paper copy via old school fax machine, the photographic paper not fitting in the fax machine very well.

The photo we see is one of these:

• A B&W copy, or photo of a photo, made from a color photo the Daily Record had received and sent to Linsday.
• A B&W copy made from the original color negatives, if that's even possible.
• A B&W print made from original B&W negatives, assuming the MoD records are incorrect.
• A B&W copy of some sort of B&W original photo, again assuming the MoD records are incorrect.

Regardless, Linsday kept the photo and Robinson inspected it recently. It appears the MoD inspected the photos and negatives sent to them by the Daily Record and then sent them back.

The more important question from me to you, giving your experience in old school film photography involves the possibility of composited images either in a darkroom setting, assuming the original photo is from B&W negatives, or just the simple concept of combining elements in a photo of a photo.

If one where to start with a photo of the Scottish countryside, then using glass and/or cutouts of a Harrier and the UFO, could one combine these into a new photo like we see and get the grain to match up enough to appear to be an in camera shot?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Linsday took the photo he was given by the Daily Record and made a paper copy of it so as to send the paper copy via old school fax machine, the photographic paper not fitting in the fax machine very well.

Paper copy? What does that mean? A photocopy/Xerox type thing?

Are we sure that the thing he holds in his hand... is a photographic print.? Not a Xerox?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

A B&W copy made from the original color negatives, if that's even possible.

But both MoD documents state there were 6 COLOR negatives/photos, so we have a discrepancy.

The MoD records just say "color" but don't identify the film type by name?