Calvine Photo Hoax Theories

[JMartJr]

It was thirty-six years ago. The world wasn't so paranoid as it is now.

1990 was the year before the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. The Baltic states were separating themselves from Soviet domination. Gulf War 1 kicked off. At least a little (maybe even justified) paranoia was probably hanging around... ^_^

And the supposition that it was a genuine craft of some sort would have been seen as ridiculous by anyone who read their description of the supposed capabilities of the object in flight, let alone the silly "extraterrestrial" connotations. The MOD consisted of serious people, not a group to fall for schoolboy pranks.

Absolutely agree on this.

 

[NorCal Dave]

he MOD consisted of serious people, not a group to fall for schoolboy pranks.

You mean, unlike our DoD, with "serious" people like Elizondo, Stratton, Stublebine, Channing, Grusch, Gallaudet, Barber and a host of others? I would assume the MoD has similar "serious" people. The late Nick Pope, a MoD civilian really created the modern myth of the Calvine photo.

 

[JMartJr]

You mean, unlike our DoD, with "serious" people like Elizondo, Stratton, Stublebine, Channing, Grusch, Gallaudet, Barber and a host of others?

Worth noting that:

The Department of Defense is responsible for providing the military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of our country. The major elements of these forces are the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, consisting of about 1.3 million men and women on active duty. They are backed, in case of emergency, by the 825,000 members of the Reserve and National Guard. In addition, there are about 600,000 civilian employees in the Defense Department.

Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/defense-department

Out of that pool of people, a handful of woo-enthusiasts does not seem surprising. Though smaller than the US DoD/DoW, the MoD in Britain is large enough that, statistically, you'd expect some there as well. That is not inconsistent with the view that these organizations are/were essentially made up of "serious people."

One could argue that, these days, this may be less true looking at information beyond how many UFO fans are working there. But current events can't have had much of an impact on whether MoD was well-constituted to spot silly hoaxes in 1990.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

But in more modern times, the Sunday NYT ran an article by David Segal flipping the story. Geller was a fun and uplifting maybe hoaxer, while Randi and the people calling Geller out were mean, nasty fun-suckers. Segal doesn't so much say whether Geller was a fraud, more that it doesn't matter:

Ah, the fundamentals of fascism: not telling people what to believe, but convincing them the truth is impossible to decipher so why bother trying.

 

[Eburacum]

Here's an interesting development;
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/fife/5055321/kirkcaldy-ufo-sighting/

A paranormal investigator is calling for a woman who reported a UFO above Kirkcaldy 34 years ago to come forward.
Straiph Wilson says the sighting on the A92, near Gallatown Roundabout, resembles a famous Perthshire case reported in the same month.
And he hopes to gather enough evidence to link the two incidents and unravel the mystery.

Straiph Wilson says the Kirkcaldy UFO sighting is strikingly similar to one in Calvine, Image: Mhairi Edwards/DC Thomson,
Straiph uncovered the Kirkcaldy case in the National Archives while researching the sighting at Calvine, near Pitlochry.
"The mysterious Fife case bears striking similarities, especially in shape," he says.
"The coincidental August 1990 date for both incidents prompted speculation about a potential link."

Details of Kirkcaldy UFO sighting
The woman, whose husband was a policeman, was on her way to hospital on August 26 when she saw something in the sky.
According to the archives, she described a very bright, diamond-shaped object, silent and hovering around 200 feet above ground.
The sighting lasted around three minutes before suddenly disappearing "as if someone had turned off a light".
It was 8.20pm and sky conditions were described as clear.
Straiph says the woman slowed down to observe the object before contacting her husband, and he enquired about other potential sightings.
Documents show there was later official involvement.
RAF Leuchars was informed and reported the incident to HQ Strike Command at RAF High Wycombe.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Here's an interesting development;
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/fife/5055321/kirkcaldy-ufo-sighting/

Diamond shaped flying objects are reported, whether they're real objects or not.
I don't get where the connection between these two cases might be.
If the Calvine photo is actually a hoax, then I cannot imagine any connection between this event and other diamond shaped perceived stuff in the sky.

 

[Mendel]

Diamond shaped flying objects are reported, whether they're real objects or not.

I think there's a special LIZ-equivalent for witnesses.
We know the ubiquitious "orb" that's basically a single light of indeterminate shape.

But if you watch a kite, and want to sell it as something exciting, add a little uncertainty and say you saw a "motionless diamond-shaped object". Don't say you saw a kite, everyone knows what that is, so it's not exciting.

"Straiph says the woman slowed down to observe the object before contacting her husband" indicates she looked away from the object and at her phone at least once; so "out like a light" might mean "I looked away for a moment and then couldn't find it again".

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I think there's a special LIZ-equivalent for witnesses.
We know the ubiquitious "orb" that's basically a single light of indeterminate shape.

But if you watch a kite, and want to sell it as something exciting, add a little uncertainty and say you saw a "motionless diamond-shaped object". Don't say you saw a kite, everyone knows what that is, so it's not exciting.

"Straiph says the woman slowed down to observe the object before contacting her husband" indicates she looked away from the object and at her phone at least once; so "out like a light" might mean "I looked away for a moment and then couldn't find it again".

3 minutes, if true, it's a pretty long time to observe an object.
Can't imagine anything that took me more than a few seconds before I could identify it as something that I know of.
Just a thought.
Also, are kites becoming rarer? I've seen like a total of two or three in my whole life.
I've seen some photos online of "3d kites" that could be mistaken for something else, still nothing similar to the shapes described or the Calvine photo.

Edit:
I'm not infallible.
There was a time I genuinely could not identify this weird planet thing in the sky, moving like a plane but silent.
It was many years ago before I knew about how the ISS actually looks with the naked eye.
That's about the only time I didn't know what I was looking at, but my description was pretty accurate. I did not see a weird object, just a white/yellowish dot moving in a straight line.
I guess the whole "ISS sighting" lasted about 1 minute.

 

[Ann K]

exciting.

"Straiph says the woman slowed down to observe the object before contacting her husband" indicates she looked away from the object and at her phone at least once; so "out like a light" might mean "I looked away for a moment and then couldn't find it again".

Cell phone usage was quite low in 1990. "Contacted her husband" might mean "got where I was going and phoned him from there". But if she was driving, it's to be hoped that she occasionally looked at the ROAD.

 

[Eburacum]

Kirkcaldy is much more densely populated than Calvine, so you would expect other witnesses.

The coincidence of an August 1990 date is intriguing, though. The Daily Record never published the Calvine photos, but maybe someone at the newspaper sparked a rumour, leading to copycat reports.

 

[John J.]

Kirkcaldy is much more densely populated than Calvine, so you would expect other witnesses.

Totally agree. Current population just over 50,000, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkcaldy

There might be a number of people out and about at 20:20 on an August evening in good weather.
A very bright diamond at 200 ft. / 61 metres for 3 minutes might be noticed by others.
We also have the old problem of how the witness estimated altitude of an unfamiliar object (whose dimensions she could not know).

Straiph Wilson says the sighting on the A92, near Gallatown Roundabout, resembles a famous Perthshire case reported in the same month.

Not really here nor there, but in the Courier article Straiph is quoted as saying

I would like to speak to the police officer's wife or anyone else who saw the same thing.

I thought this was odd phrasing, why not "the witness?" This is 2026.
The fact that her husband was a policeman is completely immaterial. Uncharitably, maybe this is an appeal to authority or claimed "trained observer" status by marriage. More likely just an awkward choice of words I guess.

 

[Ann K]

There might be a number of people out and about at 20:20 on an August evening in good weather.

The sun doesn't set in mid-August in Kirkcaldy until at least an hour past that time. The report said "the sky was clear", so yes, there were probably other people around, but I see no mention of her having done what I would have done, buttonhole strangers to say "Do you see that thing?".

One contraindication to that assumption of other viewers is that, as in many towns at the time, the local shops might all have been closed by five or six pm.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

The sun doesn't set in mid-August in Kirkcaldy until at least an hour past that time. The report said "the sky was clear", so yes, there were probably other people around, but I see no mention of her having done what I would have done, buttonhole strangers to say "Do you see that thing?".

One contraindication to that assumption of other viewers is that, as in many towns at the time, the local shops might all have been closed by five or six pm.

Do we know the exact place where she saw the thing?
Like was her home in a densely populated neighborhood?

 

[John J.]

Do we know the exact place where she saw the thing?

I don't think so, other than she was "...on the A92, near Gallatown roundabout", but that roundabout isn't on the A92; it's about 700m to the south of the A92's Redhouse roundabout, along Rosslyn Street.
She was driving,

Straiph says the woman slowed down to observe the object ...

Earlier I thought she was effectively in, or very near to, Kirkcaldy, but that's probably wrong, so perhaps less chance of other casual observers.
If the A92 bit is correct, it seems likely she was closer to the Redhouse roundabout than Gallatown. Maybe she didn't know the name of the A92 roundabout (or maybe it wasn't there in 1990).

She was "...on her way to hospital", but we don't know which hospital. She might have been driving southward on the A92 from the direction of Glenrothes toward Kirkcaldy, which has the largest hospital in the area (Victoria Hospital) in which case the Gallatown roundabout would have been a major junction on her route. Or she might have been driving north along the A92 to visit the community hospital in Glenrothes.

Glenrothes (including Pitteuchar, Newcastle etc.) had a population approx. 38,000 in 2020, 48.000 including adjacent built-up areas (2025).

Maybe a small object at lowish altitude between Kirkcaldy and Glenrothes (which includes Pitteuchar, Woodside etc.) wouldn't be widely seen by people in those towns.
But if the object was stationary (it's described as hovering) and very bright, visible for 3 minutes or so, it might be surprising that it wasn't seen by other drivers.

Maybe the article in The Courier will help some remember

 

[Eburacum]

Another factor is that the Calvine object was not particularly bright, nor reflective.

 

[Andreas]

Here's an interesting development;
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/fife/5055321/kirkcaldy-ufo-sighting/

The article is already two years old, so it doesn't seem to have led to anything. Perhaps the witness is no longer alive, which is a common problem when investigating old UFO cases. To me, it mostly feels like Wilson was just looking for attention. I honestly don't understand why there would be any connection between the two cases. If large diamond-shaped objects had been flying over populated areas of Scotland, I'm pretty sure more people would have seen them.

 

[NoParty]

Here's an interesting development;
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/fife/5055321/kirkcaldy-ufo-sighting/

All over the internet, Straiph Wilson is an artist, specializing in ceramics.

But for this one Saturday (8/10/24), he wore the impressive title of "Paranormal investigator."

(I'm guessing my many hours on Metabunk--on this topic--over-qualify me for "paranormal investigator," then)

 

[Ann K]

All over the internet, Straiph Wilson is an artist, specializing in ceramics.

But for this one Saturday (8/10/24), he wore the impressive title of "Paranormal investigator."

(I'm guessing my many hours on Metabunk--on this topic--over-qualify me for "paranormal investigator," then)

The matter being discussed by a "paranormal investigator" turns the narrative into an assumption that what was seen (or claimed to be seen) must necessarily be "paranormal".

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

(I'm guessing my many hours on Metabunk--on this topic--over-qualify me for "paranormal investigator," then)

Yeah pretty much.
Skeptics really research claims of the paranormal, so in a certain way it makes sense.

 

[Andreas]

Finally, my analog recreation of the Calvine photo is ready, and I have finished my report. I've attached it as a PDF.

The unedited high-resolution scans of the negatives can be downloaded here.

I used a Canon AV-1 35 mm SLR camera fitted with a 50 mm lens and loaded with Kodak Ultramax 400 film.

The experiment resulted in several chronological sequences of six photographic negatives depicting the diamond-shaped object remaining stationary above the scene while the model aircraft progressively moved across the frame beneath it. In this respect, the experiment successfully reproduced the desired sequence of movement.

A complete roll of 36 exposures was used during the experiment, allowing different camera positions and focal distances to be tested. Significantly, all 36 exposures produced usable photographs in which the intended forced-perspective effect was maintained. No extensive process of trial and error was therefore required to obtain a convincing sequence. Within the conditions of the experiment, this indicates that producing the required combination of forced perspective and apparent movement was relatively straightforward and could be repeated across multiple consecutive exposures.

Following development, the negatives were printed as 10 × 15 cm photographic prints. The negatives were also professionally scanned at a resolution of 5409 × 3649 pixels. These high-resolution scans formed the primary material for the subsequent examination and analysis of the photographs.

I summarized the experiment as follows in my report (attached as a PDF to this post):

In summary, the experiment demonstrates that an analogue sequence of consecutive 35 mm negatives reproducing the basic apparent movement proposed for the Calvine photographs can be produced using small models and comparatively simple equipment. It also demonstrates that 0.2 mm transparent fishing lines can become effectively invisible when photographed against a bright, overcast sky, even when positioned relatively close to the camera. The failure to detect such lines in a photograph therefore does not, in itself, establish that they were absent from the photographed scene.

These findings do not demonstrate that the Calvine photographs were produced using suspended models, nor do they establish the circumstances under which the original photographs were taken. They do, however, address a narrower question that can be tested experimentally. Under the conditions examined here, a model-based reconstruction using forced perspective, horizontal fishing lines, and conventional 35 mm photographic equipment was technically feasible and capable of producing a sequence with several of the principal visual characteristics attributed to the original Calvine photographs. Consequently, the use of small suspended models remains compatible with the photographic evidence considered in this experiment and cannot be excluded solely on the grounds that such a sequence would have been too difficult to produce or that supporting lines should necessarily have been visible.

Below are two six-shot sequences showing the jet moving between shots. On the left are the uncropped versions, and on the right are versions cropped horizontally, as Lindsay's copy was. These are obviously low-resolution versions. Full-resolution scans can be found at the link above.

 

[Andreas]

A quick question: Would anyone be interested in trying to detect the fishing lines in this photo?

I haven't been able to detect any trace of them, using different methods. There's two horizontal lines holding the diamond and one line holding the jet.

I'm not sure if Metabunk is decreasing the resolution when I'm uploading it, but the unedited scan of the negative can be found here.

 

[Mendel]

The overcast weather is ideal to hide the lines. Fishing line shows up most clearly when it reflects the sun.

 

[jon_eir]

I'm not an expert but I used photoshop manually and chatgpt and found nothing
I experienced some circular pareidolia in the right dark cloud patch when I was expecting to see the line exit while playing with contrast after gray scaling.

i did the following

• Grayscale conversion — removed colour information.
• Inverted grayscale — reversed light/dark values.
• Full-range contrast stretch — expanded the grayscale tonal range.
• Strong contrast (2×) — more aggressive global contrast.
• Red channel extraction — examined only the red information.
• Green channel extraction — examined only the green information.
• Blue channel extraction — examined only the blue information.
• Unsharp Mask — mild fine-detail/local-contrast sharpening.
• High-pass / local-background subtraction — suppressed broad detail and emphasized fine detail.
• Generic edge detection — extracted abrupt pixel changes.
• Difference of Gaussians (DoG) — compared 1 px and 3 px blur scales to isolate fine structures.
• CLAHE local contrast enhancement — independently increased contrast in small regions.
• Gamma adjustment (0.55) — expanded darker and mid-tone information.
• Colour-difference enhancement — examined chromatic differences between RGB channels rather than brightness alone.
• Canny edge detection — more selective edge extraction.
• Multi-scale thin-detail enhancement — local-background subtraction using several small scales (0.7, 1.2, 2.0 and 3.0 px).
• Matched thin-line filtering — searched for approximately 1–4 px-wide line-like structures over 18 orientations.
• Strong-candidate extraction — retained approximately the strongest 1% of Step 17 responses.
• Continuity/alignment analysis — probabilistic Hough analysis of those candidate regions; it generated 403 possible straight alignments.
• Candidate overlay — placed all 403 Step-19 candidates over the untouched original for your visual inspection.
• 2-D FFT/frequency-domain analysis — examined directional spatial-frequency structure rather than ordinary visible edges.

The image download came in at 2048 × 1381 or about 350 dpi-the report says scans are done about 900 dpi which is probably over kill. The 35mm film was used to make 10cm x 15cm photos and those were scanned at 5409 x 3649/900dpi. I'm not familiar with analog photography. Have you displayed a scan of the film I may have missed in the report as well?Just to clear all the up a little for me maybe?

great work in investigation a premise

 

[JMartJr]

I cannot find it, to the extent that I wondered if it was running off in some unexpected direction!

Couldn't find it looking elsewhere either.

 

[MonkeeSage]

I cannot find it, to the extent that I wondered if it was running off in some unexpected direction!

Couldn't find it looking elsewhere either.

I was messing around with levels and various filters on the image and I thought I could vaguely make out a line going from the tail of the craft at an angle down to the right, but when I checked the setup shown in the PDF the line should have been going up and right, so I think it was just noise that happened to be arranged in a way to kind of look like a line. I wouldn't even have thought it was a line unless specifically looking and that was all I could find.

 

[Andreas]

Thanks a lot for your efforts, @jon_eir, @JMartJr & @MonkeeSage. I couldn't find any trace of the lines either, even though I knew exactly where to look. And I think that's interesting, since it's often claimed that the MoD would have spotted any lines when examining the negatives back in 1990.

But considering the overcast weather and the lack of any background landscape, I don't think that's necessarily the case. The lines I used were 0.2 mm nylon fishing lines placed 3.7 meters from the camera, and to me, they appear to be completely invisible on the negatives. The lines run roughly like this:

I made digital scans of the negatives, and that's obviously not the same technique JARIC used in 1990. But if the lines didn't show up on the negatives, they wouldn't necessarily have shown up during the MoD investigation either. At the very least, they would have been extremely difficult to detect, and I really don't think the MoD spent that much time looking for them.

One thing is worth noting: the setup is perfect for a UFO hoax for several reasons. The overcast sky is ideal for hiding fishing lines. The lack of any background landscape doesn't just make it virtually impossible to identify the spot where the photo was taken; it's also ideal for using forced perspective to make something small and close to the camera appear large and distant.

Did a hypothetical hoaxer know all this? I don't think that's necessarily the case. The only reason we're still talking about the case is that the photo is difficult to debunk. I think it may simply have been a lucky shot. Most hoaxes are terribly bad—not even worth the effort of debunking. But once in a while, a hoaxer gets lucky.

To me, if the Calvine photos were created using models, the basic setup and execution could have been pulled off by a teenager with very little knowledge of photography.

 

[Andreas]

Have you displayed a scan of the film I may have missed in the report as well?Just to clear all the up a little for me maybe?

The scans available for download here should be 5409×3649/900 dpi. Those are the best scans I was able to order from my photo lab. If the lines are possible to spot at all, I think they really should show up at that resolution. But the film grain makes it very tricky, and a 0.2 mm line at a distance of 3.7 meters is really thin. I think the main thing that might have given the lines away would have been reflections off the nylon. But the sky was overcast on the day I took the photos, which helped a lot.

I was messing around with levels and various filters on the image and I thought I could vaguely make out a line going from the tail of the craft at an angle down to the right, but when I checked the setup shown in the PDF the line should have been going up and right, so I think it was just noise that happened to be arranged in a way to kind of look like a line. I wouldn't even have thought it was a line unless specifically looking and that was all I could find.

Yeah, that's the risk when you're trying to find something in an image. I've spent hours and hours looking at the Calvine photo, sometimes convincing myself that I can see things that obviously aren't actually there.

 

[Andreas]

Here's a crop from another of the photos I took, and it's a bit interesting since we can see both the model jet and the metal support used to secure the line. This photo is also darker because I experimented with different camera settings. But even here, I don't think we can spot the line. It runs almost completely straight from the nose of the plane to the metal support. There's a lot of grain and there are plenty of small flaws that can result in pareidolia, but nothing really lines up with where the actual line are supposed to be.

 

[jon_eir]

The scans available for download here should be 5409×3649/900 dpi. Those are the best scans I was able to order from my photo lab. If the lines are possible to spot at all, I think they really should show up at that resolution. But the film grain makes it very tricky, and a 0.2 mm line at a distance of 3.7 meters is really thin. I think the main thing that might have given the lines away would have been reflections off the nylon. But the sky was overcast on the day I took the photos, which helped a lot.

something is up with your scan files and they are getting compressed somewhere along the way- where they emailed to you from the photo lab? From that link, the file 1-1.jpeg is showing at 2048 × 1381 pixels for me. I would expext a 10cm x 15cm scanned at 5409 × 3649 to be about

• Uncompressed 24-bit RGB: ~59 MB
• TIFF, lossless compression: commonly ~25–50 MB
• High-quality JPEG: typically 8–20 MB
• Moderately compressed JPEG: roughly 3–8 MB

for example the negative png in the same upload is 15.73 MB

Have someone else check all that. I also think i understand where the limits are in scanning photo etcs so its not a criticism and likely further scans will be to limited to the aprox 300dpi they were printed at. I give that feedback just if your trying to be as robust and accurate as possible.

If you where asking what I would I like? I would like a 600/900 dpi scan of the negatives in uncompressed 24-bit RGB and a Tiff files scans at the same rate. I not big not on film and negative scanning so how that actually works idk-but the MoD reviewed the film in person, those are the scan rates I think is fair to achieve and dispense online

edit: typos again

 

[Mendel]

The scans available for download here should be 5409×3649/900 dpi. Those are the best scans I was able to order from my photo lab. If the lines are possible to spot at all, I think they really should show up at that resolution. But the film grain makes it very tricky, and a 0.2 mm line at a distance of 3.7 meters is really thin. I think the main thing that might have given the lines away would have been reflections off the nylon. But the sky was overcast on the day I took the photos, which helped a lot.

0.2 mm at 3.7 m distance subtend an angle of 0.003⁰.

Or to put it another way, the relation is 1:18500, so if you can see 3.7 m vertically at that distance, you'd need a resolution of about 18500 pixels vertically for the line to be 1 pixel thick. But you only have 3649 pixels, i.e. 1 pixel/mm, which makes the line ⅕ of a mm thick: impossible to see on a similar-colored background. If your scan exposes the film grain, the line is just not there.

If there was a sunlight reflection on the line, then you'd get the "stars at night" effect, where a tiny part of a pixel being very bright lights the whole pixel up; but there was no direct sunlight.

 

[Andreas]

something is up with your scan files and they are getting compressed somewhere along the way- where they emailed to you from the photo lab?

Strange. When I look at them, they're all 5409 × 3649. Really strange. You are downloading them, not just looking at the preview, right?

I have them on Google Drive too. Perhaps you could try downloading them from there instead?