Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

Duke

Active Member
Someone i follow on Twitter by the name Larsen has emailed the 237 OCU about the possibility that the Harrier could be a Hawker Hunter. I asked what they wrote.
He copied their answer instead of forwarding the email ( affraid that ufologist would have someting in store for them ). So this is what they wrote :

"Many thanks for your email. I posted your details and pictures on our private Facebook group and had several replies.

All said how difficult it is to identify the background aircraft and they seem to be split whether it is a Hunter T7 or something else. A couple suggested it might be a Hawk, but I think the tail is the wrong shape. It certainly doesn’t look like a Harrier, or any other aircraft on the RAF’s strength at that time, so there is every possibility that it is a Hunter.

237 OCU at RAF Lossiemouth and FRADU at RNAS Yeovilton were the only units flying the Hunter at that time. Training flights in that part of Scotland would have been a daily occurrence by 237 OCU from Lossiemouth. However, only two of our members were still on 237 OCU by that time and neither recalls anything being mentioned about this. Even our two pilots and our ex-Operations Officer couldn’t be sure.

I’m afraid this is all a bit inconclusive, but the general consensus is that it looks more like a Hunter than anything else.

Sorry we haven’t been able to help, but we would be very interested if you managed to find anything out from other sources. "

Just trying to help out with some facts and yes of course i know this could be discussible if its real etc. But insomehow trust this but others could take this with a grain of salt ofcourse.
Response based on memories, not a records search. Also, did Larsen send his email as an informal request or an official FOIA inquiry?
 

Duke

Active Member
Not the Scots, but the Brits were developing/testing a new, advanced air defense radar system about this time. I remember reading about it in UK defense journals like Jane's and Air Forces Monthly. It was getting a lot of press.....until the Gulf War took center stage. Let me see if I can the name of it.
UKADGE--United Kingdom Air Defense Ground Environment.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
The ' science' I have referred to previously is the matching of photographic colour /print resolution etc of the original image taken ' back in circa 1913 with what was available.
An ' interpretation is of the colours of clothing / dirt / and other subtleties.
I don't think anyone is questioning your skill at photo colorization. But in the example, you know what to expect of the color of brick buildings and human skin and horses, and any misunderstanding about something like the color of clothing will not matter to, say, the descendants of the people in the photo.

With the photo we are discussing, you do not have any color example to go on, not for the sky, not for the plane, and most especially not for the object. The colors you choose can make an enormous difference in interpretation that may mislead rather than inform the viewer. We are better off with the monotone print we have.
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
I don't think anyone is questioning your skill at photo colorization. But in the example, you know what to expect of the color of brick buildings and human skin and horses, and any misunderstanding about something like the color of clothing will not matter to, say, the descendants of the people in the photo.

With the photo we are discussing, you do not have any color example to go on, not for the sky, not for the plane, and most especially not for the object. The colors you choose can make an enormous difference in interpretation that may mislead rather than inform the viewer. We are better off with the monotone print we have.
Sorry but there is colour in the Calvine photograph.
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
Nope, it was black and white film. There may be false color in the print that developed with age, but the film was black and white.
No it wasn't I'm afraid.
Firstly even if it is 'black and white' colour is by default the varying shades within.
To my understanding ( information is somewhat scattered ' the photo was taken on a 'film' that was a specialist grade of said for effect.

Information is there to be found but ideally we would ( because it is low resolution ) need the negative of the photographs.

The latter if ever found would ' possibly' end a thousand query's if it is processed by today's standards.
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
An interesting proposal to go along with a model Harrier - star decoration on a fishing line:

1661183569999.png

Which when viewed from the side looks like this:

1661183598857.png

Source: https://caravaca.blogspot.com/?fbclid=IwAR1TXA_GBh1GjvFhx8Bol2ZFVNyaxzBIqQurs4gDpJojeTm417y1J_hC0B4

(Original source appears to be Belgian skeptical UFO investigator Wim Van Utrecht in a mailing list run by Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos.)

For those into photography and lighting and making hoaxes... If this star model was suspended from either vertical or horizonal strings, would photographing it at 9PM and/or in mist reduce the chance the strings would show? (either because of lower light, or lack of sun glinting off the string)
 

john.phil

Member
An interesting proposal to go along with a model Harrier - star decoration on a fishing line:

1661183569999.png

Which when viewed from the side looks like this:

1661183598857.png

Source: https://caravaca.blogspot.com/?fbclid=IwAR1TXA_GBh1GjvFhx8Bol2ZFVNyaxzBIqQurs4gDpJojeTm417y1J_hC0B4

(Original source appears to be Belgian skeptical UFO investigator Wim Van Utrecht in a mailing list run by Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos.)

Definitely plausible, also given the number of posts pointing out the interior edges that are barely perceptible, before the star hypothesis came forward:

1661230029902.png
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I think the star on a string theory has promise. Perhaps a couple of things against it would be: a) how big would it have to be to match what we see? b) if small it would be really close and it certainly doesn't seem that way; c) how to reconcile it with the testimony of Stu Little? d) if the planes were indeed circling that's a massive spot of fortune for the hoaxers (unless models also).
 

Charlie Wiser

Active Member
Recreations from the photographer who says he saw all 6 negatives (duplicates of) in 1993. The second photo is the Calvine UFO photo, the others are his memory of the rest. He explains what he learned about the handling of the negatives and prints, and the hand-cranked camera (he was told it was a Canon AE1 Program), here. He says the physical Calvine photo with Lindsay must be an out-of-focus print, the negatives being much clearer.

On the assumption his story is true and his memory accurate - he says the UFO was in the same spot but the camera panned left to follow the jet (not really shown here, as he didn't change the fence & foliage) which appeared to be banking to circle the UFO. A second jet comes into frame in #4. (5 & 6 were the UFO by itself, not shown here.)

He looked at the duplicated negatives for 15 minutes using a handheld x20 magnifier. He described the UFO as metallic with seams extending horizontally from the left side but no rivet, definitely man-made. He was a UFO buff at this time. He thinks this is a secret stealth craft. On the show they debate whether such a craft would have an escort (drawing attention to it).

StuLittle Negatives.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
Could you kindly break that down, for me...?
Every shade of ' black and white ' is in essence a colour. A variation of colours to see the photograph.
At pixel level those pixels in actual fact represent a colour no matter how it is processed.

IF we have information on the ' target ' photo ( including shots taken in the exact spot afterwards / today / tomorrow / then we have the ' palette of colour /shades to work with to determine a more lifelike version / an enhanced version not eroding the details of the photo but painting ' above them ' using for example ' raster layers'.
 

Itsme

Active Member
Notice how the brightness of the 'star on a string' matches the brightness of the objects in the foreground (i.e. the objects that are as close to the camera as the star). At least it does in the first two pictures, which are the only ones with a reasonable contrast/brightness setting. The buildings in the background, however, have higher brightness as expected.
The object in the calvine photo has much higher brightness than the foreground objects which seems to indicate it is much further away, unless the object itself is very bright. But if the object itself is very bright the contrast between top and bottom would be higher (the top is illuminated by diffuse skylight while the bottom is not).
1661183598857~2.png
 

DavidB66

Senior Member
c) how to reconcile it with the testimony of Stu Little?
From your account, Stu Little seems plausible, but that would apply to every conman from the serpent in Eden onwards. Not saying he is a conman, just that plausibility is no guarantee of truth. Independent confirmation required.

Edit: incidentally, do we know if Stu Little is his real name? It sounded vaguely familiar, then I remembered there is a film called Stuart Little. The lead character of that name is apparently a mouse.
 
Last edited:

Darat

New Member
Seems as if this is going to go the way of all these types of things. The claim is now the photo we have today is not what they all looked at 30 years ago, what they saw 30 years ago had more detail, more information and so on.

30 years is a long time for human memory to remain at all accurate especially when tales have been told and retold.

As ever we are left with a blurry, low information photo that can't be trusted to represent anything accurately. We are left with nothing to debunk.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Every shade of ' black and white ' is in essence a colour. A variation of colours to see the photograph.
At pixel level those pixels in actual fact represent a colour no matter how it is processed.

IF we have information on the ' target ' photo ( including shots taken in the exact spot afterwards / today / tomorrow / then we have the ' palette of colour /shades to work with to determine a more lifelike version / an enhanced version not eroding the details of the photo but painting ' above them ' using for example ' raster layers'.
1661243902945.png

These 2 squares are colour in reality, are they the same colour or different? Which colours are they?
 
D

Deleted member 17800

Guest
1661243902945.png

These 2 squares are colour in reality, are they the same colour or different? Which colours are they?
With respect you seem to be arguing with me for the sake of arguing.
I have been restoring to museum grade photographs for over 35 years.
Being pedantic with word play to somehow perpetuate to belittle against an understanding of photographic restorative knowledge will drop you no measure nor applause from me.
A grey pixel has a thousand varients.
Are each pixel variants the same colour? No obviously they're not therefore I reiterate and conclude that my previous retort and previous examples of which are many are based on actually ' doing it'.

I joined this site because it is fascinating and likewise I agree with Mr West on debunking nonsense.

However you seem to be repetitive in order for what I do not know.
Many things I am hoping to learn via different measures and that is one reason of many I contribute to this site in order to add to that measure.

I have explained countless times offering numerous proposals that over the years I have done. I have walked the walk and still do daily.

It is not for myself to elevate you to whatever understanding of what it is that I do.
I can no more it appears make you understand than I can bag and tag my atheism.

For anyones information that has been following my daily comments this is the finished ( almost ) restoration.

Akin to what could be done with the Calvine ufo.

Thank you for reading. I will take a few days away for I think perhaps I need to.
 

Attachments

  • restoration original..jpg
    restoration original..jpg
    356.8 KB · Views: 21
  • done watermark.jpg
    done watermark.jpg
    373.5 KB · Views: 23

jarlrmai

Senior Member
With respect you seem to be arguing with me for the sake of arguing.
I have been restoring to museum grade photographs for over 35 years.
Being pedantic with word play to somehow perpetuate to belittle against an understanding of photographic restorative knowledge will drop you no measure nor applause from me.
A grey pixel has a thousand varients.
Are each pixel variants the same colour? No obviously they're not therefore I reiterate and conclude that my previous retort and previous examples of which are many are based on actually ' doing it'.

I joined this site because it is fascinating and likewise I agree with Mr West on debunking nonsense.

However you seem to be repetitive in order for what I do not know.
Many things I am hoping to learn via different measures and that is one reason of many I contribute to this site in order to add to that measure.

I have explained countless times offering numerous proposals that over the years I have done. I have walked the walk and still do daily.

It is not for myself to elevate you to whatever understanding of what it is that I do.
I can no more it appears make you understand than I can bag and tag my atheism.

For anyones information that has been following my daily comments this is the finished ( almost ) restoration.

Akin to what could be done with the Calvine ufo.

Thank you for reading. I will take a few days away for I think perhaps I need to.
I am sorry that you feel that way, but this forum is about what we can do to get accurate information, it's a question I have asked for detail on from you, how can the colours be accurate?

I am a photographer, I shoot digital and colour so I don't know much about film etc. Everywhere I read about restoration and colourisation I see it is a skilled endeavour no doubt, but it is an artistic endeavour, it involves the creative interpretation of the scene and an artistic choices, it seems knowing the the type of film and processing used can be helpful as well as using known reference points. But ultimately there will be choices made about what colour something is and they could be wrong, the image may look wonderful and evoke memories for people of times past. But it is not guaranteed to be accurate and that is not really it's goal.

Here we have an object that some claim is an totally unknown to humanity object, there are no reference points for it, any choice you make is an assumption about it.

In your example the horses tack is brown, which makes sense leather is often brown we've all seen horses with tack and its often brown. But the shop sign background is purple, why did yo make it purple? Did you find a historical reference for the sign in a book, that detailed the colour used or perhaps the sign exists still today and you used a reference photo? Or did you choose a colour that matched the monochrome shade that seemed to fit the scene?
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Recreations from the photographer who says he saw all 6 negatives (duplicates of) in 1993. The second photo is the Calvine UFO photo, the others are his memory of the rest. He explains what he learned about the handling of the negatives and prints, and the hand-cranked camera (he was told it was a Canon AE1 Program), here. He says the physical Calvine photo with Lindsay must be an out-of-focus print, the negatives being much clearer.

On the assumption his story is true and his memory accurate - he says the UFO was in the same spot but the camera panned left to follow the jet (not really shown here, as he didn't change the fence & foliage) which appeared to be banking to circle the UFO. A second jet comes into frame in #4. (5 & 6 were the UFO by itself, not shown here.)

He looked at the duplicated negatives for 15 minutes using a handheld x20 magnifier. He described the UFO as metallic with seams extending horizontally from the left side but no rivet, definitely man-made. He was a UFO buff at this time. He thinks this is a secret stealth craft. On the show they debate whether such a craft would have an escort (drawing attention to it).

StuLittle Negatives.jpg
Why would the camera be panning to watch a plane when there's a UFO to look at? Sounds as if the photographer didn't see anything remarkable about the object.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
From your account, Stu Little seems plausible, but that would apply to every conman from the serpent in Eden onwards.

I'm not sure about that - it's probably some sort of "appeal to something or other" - since I find that I generally see through the conmen I encounter in my life pretty much immediately. Though, to be fair, when I met The Serpent he had me going for a while. ;)

Do we know if Stu Little is his real name? It sounded vaguely familiar, then I remembered there is a film called Stuart Little. The lead character of that name is apparently a mouse.

I met another Stuart Little once. Must have been a weird (awful?) feeling when they first came across the poster.

As ever we are left with a blurry, low information photo that can't be trusted to represent anything accurately. We are left with nothing to debunk.

And the good news is: you don't have to. Just wait and see what happens, whether the photographer or other witness are found or come forward, whether any other pics or significant new information comes out. There's no hurry - and plenty of other things to debunk in the meantime.

These 2 squares are colour in reality, are they the same colour or different? Which colours are they?

I think that's a point well made (for the curious, the top square is across-the-board between 55 and 62 in RGB and the bottom one 57 to 61, so I'm guessing impossible to tell what colours they actually are).

Still, as a fan of colourisation (every since watching Laurel and Hardy's Way Out West thirty years ago) I'd like to see a nice version of the Calvine photo with a bit of blue in the sky. And I think in this case there is something to go by if we assume that the photographers were looking away from any sunset colours and used, say, the Linlithgow skies (among others) I posted as a basis. I wasn't convinced by the pink one, but the blue/grey ones seemed all right to me.

With respect you seem to be arguing with me for the sake of arguing.

I understand where you're coming from Chelle, and also understand why being challenged on this doesn't feel so good and may seem mistaken and lacking comprehension.

On the other hand, it's kind of the rigorous nature on metabunk, where everything that is presented is challenged and tested until it's proven as, if not true, then acceptable. Kind of like science really, where the first thing the good scientist does is try to disprove their own hypothesis or find the flaws in their experiments and conclusions.

Definitely tough at times. But in the end what we're left with, ideally, is solid ground to stand on.

Why would the camera be panning to watch a plane when there's a UFO to look at? Sounds as if the photographer didn't see anything remarkable about the object.

No transcript available for that video (yet?) and I can't remember where this was talked about, but my impression from memory is that there was a slight movement in the photographer's position, meaning that the alignment and position of the trees/bush/fence was slightly (but not significantly) different.

I'd have to double check to confirm though.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Recreations from the photographer who says he saw all 6 negatives (duplicates of) in 1993. The second photo is the Calvine UFO photo, the others are his memory of the rest. He explains what he learned about the handling of the negatives and prints, and the hand-cranked camera (he was told it was a Canon AE1 Program), here. He says the physical Calvine photo with Lindsay must be an out-of-focus print, the negatives being much clearer.

On the assumption his story is true and his memory accurate - he says the UFO was in the same spot but the camera panned left to follow the jet (not really shown here, as he didn't change the fence & foliage) which appeared to be banking to circle the UFO. A second jet comes into frame in #4. (5 & 6 were the UFO by itself, not shown here.)

He looked at the duplicated negatives for 15 minutes using a handheld x20 magnifier. He described the UFO as metallic with seams extending horizontally from the left side but no rivet, definitely man-made. He was a UFO buff at this time. He thinks this is a secret stealth craft. On the show they debate whether such a craft would have an escort (drawing attention to it).

StuLittle Negatives.jpg
From a vantage point 30+ years in the future, can we comfortably rule out the idea that it was a test of a secret aircraft?
Assuming those recreations of the full series of pics are even broadly accurate, supporting accounts of "hovering," and
Recalling reported witness accounts of the classic UFO sudden acceleration upwards, and
Looking at the size of the object (if it is assumed the planes are flying around it, we're looking at a 100-200 foot {30-60 meters} long aircraft depending on exactly what craft the planes are, and how close they are to being the same distance as the object.)

...then, we have a craft with Harrier like hovering/vertical flying capabilities roughly twice the length of the largest known jet of that type, the Dornier Do 31 (see below). This, 30 years ago, being well enough along in testing to be deployed to fly over populated countryside in Scotland (I have no idea of the countryside directly under the object when photographed would have been populated, but it had to get to and from the spot where it posed for these pictures, and Scotland is no Nevada desert when it comes to population density) and no hint of it down to the present day.

I'm comfortable excluding this possibility from my own thinking on the case, but am open to being talked out of it if somebody thinks I am wrong.

Info on Do31:
General characteristics

  • Crew: Two
  • Capacity: 36 troops or 24 casualty stretchers and 3,500 kg (7,715 lb) useful load
  • Length: 20.53 m (67 ft 4 in)
  • Wingspan: 18 m (59 ft 3 in)
  • Height: 8.53 m (28 ft 0 in)
  • Wing area: 57 m2 (613.56 sq ft)
  • Gross weight: 22,453 kg (49,500 lb) (VTOL)
  • Max takeoff weight: 27,422 kg (60,500 lb)
  • Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce Pegasus BE.53/2 turbofan, 68.95 kN (15,500 lbf) thrust each
  • Powerplant: 8 × Rolls-Royce RB162-4D Vertically mounted turbojet lift engines, 19.57 kN (4,400 lbf) thrust each
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_31#Specifications_(Do_31E)

Dornier_Do_31_in_1968.jpg
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
I think that's a point well made (for the curious, the top square is across-the-board between 55 and 62 in RGB and the bottom one 57 to 61, so I'm guessing impossible to tell what colours they actually are).

Still, as a fan of colourisation (every since watching Laurel and Hardy's Way Out West thirty years ago) I'd like to see a nice version of the Calvine photo with a bit of blue in the sky. And I think in this case there is something to go by if we assume that the photographers were looking away from any sunset colours and used, say, the Linlithgow skies (among others) I posted as a basis. I wasn't convinced by the pink one, but the blue/grey ones seemed all right to me.

For the even more curious:

1661262835395.png

Anyway, one of the other issues with artistic renditions is they tend to pop up out of context in other places as "the REAL Calvine photo" it's already happened with the recreation Pope had done.
 
Recreations from the photographer who says he saw all 6 negatives (duplicates of) in 1993. The second photo is the Calvine UFO photo, the others are his memory of the rest. He explains what he learned about the handling of the negatives and prints, and the hand-cranked camera (he was told it was a Canon AE1 Program), here. He says the physical Calvine photo with Lindsay must be an out-of-focus print, the negatives being much clearer.

On the assumption his story is true and his memory accurate - he says the UFO was in the same spot but the camera panned left to follow the jet (not really shown here, as he didn't change the fence & foliage) which appeared to be banking to circle the UFO. A second jet comes into frame in #4. (5 & 6 were the UFO by itself, not shown here.)

He looked at the duplicated negatives for 15 minutes using a handheld x20 magnifier. He described the UFO as metallic with seams extending horizontally from the left side but no rivet, definitely man-made. He was a UFO buff at this time. He thinks this is a secret stealth craft. On the show they debate whether such a craft would have an escort (drawing attention to it).

StuLittle Negatives.jpg

Assuming it's true fact Clarke's account that one of the jet fighters circled around the UFO, these recreations from the photographer makes me wonder whether it was rather the second airplane that "circled" around the UFO. Weird behavior, BTW, as one would then also assume that its supposed radar reflector didn't work as it was supposed to for a military stealth aircraft. Also weird what @Duke wisely points out - how come the Americans chose just a Scottish territory for a black project aircraft flight test?

It strikes me that account about the airplane's maneuvers towards the UFO is untrue. And four images above just reinforced this impression to me.
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
From a vantage point 30+ years in the future, can we comfortably rule out the idea that it was a test of a secret aircraft?
Assuming those recreations of the full series of pics are even broadly accurate, supporting accounts of "hovering," and
Recalling reported witness accounts of the classic UFO sudden acceleration upwards, and
Looking at the size of the object (if it is assumed the planes are flying around it, we're looking at a 100-200 foot {30-60 meters} long aircraft depending on exactly what craft the planes are, and how close they are to being the same distance as the object.)

...then, we have a craft with Harrier like hovering/vertical flying capabilities roughly twice the length of the largest known jet of that type, the Dornier Do 31 (see below). This, 30 years ago, being well enough along in testing to be deployed to fly over populated countryside in Scotland (I have no idea of the countryside directly under the object when photographed would have been populated, but it had to get to and from the spot where it posed for these pictures, and Scotland is no Nevada desert when it comes to population density) and no hint of it down to the present day.

I'm comfortable excluding this possibility from my own thinking on the case, but am open to being talked out of it if somebody thinks I am wrong.

Info on Do31:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_31#Specifications_(Do_31E)

Dornier_Do_31_in_1968.jpg
My honest opinion is that if it is some actual secret military thing, then it's a balloon/airship created to test the effectiveness of the F117 type shape/material for RADAR stealth or to test the effectiveness of current RADAR systems against such a shape.

Like a scaled up version of the Have Blue demonstrator target I posted a few days ago.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But the shop sign background is purple, why did yo make it purple?
its probably more of an indigo. or a deep blue. her colors are all exceptionally bright at this stage of the colorization.
i "see" the sign as a deep (navyish) blue and i see the A.Morris in the sign above the Soap sign as red letters. although i have no idea why i'm saying that. i guess the sign could be red like a coca-cola sign.

(the coat colors i dont agree with, but that's me)
f3e0ab2fda50c41b7e3d5ec715693a12.jpg


it kinda reads blue in this advert too. to me anyway.
1661263163180.png


ultimately i agree with you though, that artistic colorization does not help us at all with the Calvine ufo.
 
My honest opinion is that if it is some actual secret military thing, then it's a balloon/airship created to test the effectiveness of the F117 type shape/material for RADAR stealth or to test the effectiveness of current RADAR systems against such a shape.

Like a scaled up version of the Have Blue demonstrator target I posted a few days ago.


It actually makes sense if the Brits indeed had the most advanced radar technology around that time. And, as it turned out, having chosen that supposedly highly populated Scottish territory for their test of that secret aircraft didn't really caused public curiosity or furor around the world back then anyway.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I'm comfortable excluding this possibility from my own thinking on the case, but am open to being talked out of it if somebody thinks I am wrong.

I guess the first stumbling block would be: how do you get that plane to look like the object in the photo?

Anyway, one of the other issues with artistic renditions is they tend to pop up out of context in other places as "the REAL Calvine photo" it's already happened with the recreation Pope had done.

That's a good point. But I think we're already at the point where we're little Dutch Boys holding a postcard picture of a dam against the incoming 100 foot tsunami of mis/disinformation and genuine mistakes. So one more little drop (ie, artist's rendition) isn't going to hurt.

Assuming it's true fact Clarke's account that one of the jet fighters circled around the UFO

Not Clarke's account, the MoD incident report.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
And, as it turned out, having chosen that supposedly highly populated Scottish territory for their test of that secret aircraft didn't really caused public curiosity or furor around the world back then anyway.
But would ahve been very likely to if, say, lots of people took photos, or it crashed into a hotel. Seems an odd risk to take when the world is full of empty spaces, several of which are already in use as aircraft test ranges.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
its probably more of an indigo. or a deep blue. her colors are all exceptionally bright at this stage of the colorization.
i "see" the sign as a deep (navyish) blue and i see the A.Morris in the sign above the Soap sign as red letters. although i have no idea why i'm saying that. i guess the sign could be red like a coca-cola sign.

(the coat colors i dont agree with, but that's me)
f3e0ab2fda50c41b7e3d5ec715693a12.jpg


it kinda reads blue in this advert too. to me anyway.
1661263163180.png


ultimately i agree with you though, that artistic colorization does not help us at all with the Calvine ufo.
I googled "vintage billboard queen soap" and got this. Date not given. I'll note that in the days of black and white photos in my youth, red always appeared to be black or nearly so.A63DEC65-1973-4BBD-9EE2-A99598057CB0.jpeg
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I did that also but I wasn't sure Oakley's queen soap was the same as the queen soap in the pics.
98% sure it's not. Oakleys all specifically say Oakley's. and there are lots of aussie adverts in print for Queen soap but none of them say Oakley's.
 

Duke

Active Member
Also weird what @Duke wisely points out - how come the Americans chose just a Scottish territory for a black project aircraft flight test?
To be fair, it was not Duke who made this observation. I didn't make it because I know such things are not as uncommon as the uninitiated might think. Foreign militaries routinely participate in multinational training exercises and test programs, particularly when dissimilar systems are employed, with friendly nations around the world. Some, like Red Flag, are large and get a lot of press. Most are much smaller and receive no press and/or are classified.

I'll also point out classified a/c do occasionally fly in broad daylight over areas where they can, and are, seen. Sometimes it's done purposely, others it's not. We seldom worried about it either way since most people don't look up, many who do don't pay any attention, and and the world in general seldom believes the relatively few who do see/report seeing strange things in the sky. I understand there are even websites and forums dedicated strictly to pooh poohing such reported sightings.

If Calvine was a real (vice spoof/hoax) incident, my gut feel is the craft photographed was an unmanned, classified ISR US vehicle either involved in dissimilar training/testing with the Brits, and/or being forward deployed to observe the build up of Iraqi forces in their run up to their invasion of Kuwait. I think it's likely the vehicle experienced technical difficulties and an in-flight emergency was declared. There being no crew aboard the vehicle, the a/c seen in the photo would have been sent to CAP the emergency, visually inspect the vehicle, and report back on the effect of corrective actions being undertaken. Can't prove it, but call it an educated guess.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I did that also but I wasn't sure Oakley's queen soap was the same as the queen soap in the pics.
there is a second sign next to it that kinda looks like the same color..but i cant make out what it could possibly say.
f4502a05735528c125a906bcf8c28bcf.jpg
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
my gut feel is the craft photographed was an unmanned, classified ISR US vehicle
That hovers, silently, before shooting up into the sky? That's the accompanying story that goes with the photo and it seems to be the one Clark is pushing. I've never been in the military or delt with black ops type stuff. I'm a bit of a dullard, but that sounds an awful lot like an anti-gravity craft, right?

It's supposedly 60-100' long and maintains itself in the air with no visible means of lift, like wings or rotors. It has no visible means of thrust, like a rocket engine. That leaves hot air/hydrogen/helium balloon thing of some kind, or anti-gravity, unless I'm missing something. And if the US had harnessed anti-gravity back in the '80s, why are we farting around with Space X 40 years later? I'm not getting it.

Lastly, let's all look at the picture again. According to Robinson, there was minimal cropping done when printed, just a little off the sides to make the image on the 35mm negative fit the paper.

Giving that, this picture is extremely composed. The craft is in the center, the fence and trees intrude just enough to frame the scene. I'm thinking this was composed on a tripod until it was what we see.

It does not look like something a chef/cook/birder that was hiding in fear took as he popped up to snap a few quick photos from his hiding place.
1661273273337.png
 

Duke

Active Member
That hovers, silently, before shooting up into the sky? That's the accompanying story that goes with the photo and it seems to be the one Clark is pushing. I've never been in the military or delt with black ops type stuff. I'm a bit of a dullard, but that sounds an awful lot like an anti-gravity craft, right?

It's supposedly 60-100' long and maintains itself in the air with no visible means of lift, like wings or rotors. It has no visible means of thrust, like a rocket engine. That leaves hot air/hydrogen/helium balloon thing of some kind, or anti-gravity, unless I'm missing something. And if the US had harnessed anti-gravity back in the '80s, why are we farting around with Space X 40 years later? I'm not getting it.
20220815_131508.jpg20220815_131550.jpg
From AW&ST in the Dec 24 1990 issue. Size and shape are about right, no wings or rotors shown or mentioned. Anti-gravity? To my knowledge that technology doesn't exist, except in science fiction.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
Lastly, let's all look at the picture again. According to Robinson, there was minimal cropping done when printed, just a little off the sides to make the image on the 35mm negative fit the paper.

Giving that, this picture is extremely composed. The craft is in the center, the fence and trees intrude just enough to frame the scene. It does not look like something a chef/cook/birder that was hiding in fear took as he popped up to snap a few quick photos from his hiding place.

Little seems very confident that the image we have here is itself cropped, to focus on the craft, and that there was more countryside, more tree, more fence and more bush in the original.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-277625
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.

Can diffs be done between the best resolution versions of those frames? Has the plantlife moved at all between shots (I think there was a weather forecast elsethread showing some wind that day)? Suspiciously-low diffs might hint towards re-use, and thus compositing, and so merit more thorough analysis, even if just to reject that possibility.

This is where close-up, zoomed-in experience of film grain could come in very handy. I can only approach things from an information-theoretic/DSP/statistical background - the variance of the noise should be double that of the originals in the difference. Deviation from that by pure chance would be unlikely. (Technically, we could simplify things by just calculating the individual variances and covariance for various different regions, but I suspect paintshop doesn't have such a function.)
 
If Calvine was a real (vice spoof/hoax) incident, my gut feel is the craft photographed was an unmanned, classified ISR US vehicle either involved in dissimilar training/testing with the Brits, and/or being forward deployed to observe the build up of Iraqi forces in their run up to their invasion of Kuwait.

Interesting point, which leads me to think its two alleged "air maneuvers" (hovering for 10 mins. and shooting up in the sky at a high velocity) were definitely made up for some reason.
 
Top