Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[NorCal Dave]

Perhaps you need to rethink the "island and reflection" theory. Occam's razor suggests that to be far more likely than secret and mysterious craft, or the sci-fi-like "anti-gravity" hypotheses.

I didn't think I was being that obtuse. At this point I would put the "anti-gravity" option WELL below the reflection one. As I've said in other threads, I'll buy it if someone comes out and says that's what they did or someone can find the place and get something similar in a picture. Doesn't need a plane and can have ripples, just something that shows here is where it happened.

My main negative with the reflection theory is the amount of composing that happened with the island/rock, fence, trees and a compliant aircraft. That, along with the existence of the other two similar photos of tress, aircraft and UFO and my own experiments showing something like the photo can be made in camera with simple techniques, has me leaning hoax at this point. Edit: I should note the reflection theory is also a hoax, assuming it was being passed off as a UFO/stealth craft. We're basically debating techniques for creating the hoax.

 

[Mauro]

My main negative with the reflection theory is the amount of composing that happened with the island/rock, fence, trees and a compliant aircraft.

The reflection hypothesis gets easier if the 'aircraft' interpretation of the smudge in the lower right of the picture is replaced by it being something else on the surface of the water (or sticking out of the water).

I 'romantically' like the reflection theory because the photo would then be quite an exceptional one, taken with the right weather and light conditions (and more) to create the illusion of being taken against the sky, a really cool shot! But at this point the 'staged' theory looks a lot more probable.

 

[JMartJr]

Thanks Duke!
Would your best guess be that the folks getting a UFO report like this at MoD would likely have been given that level of information, as it might be handy in evaluating UFO reports, or that they would likely not be read in on it, or option 3: who knows?

 

[Duke]

Thanks Duke!
Would your best guess be that the folks getting a UFO report like this at MoD would likely have been given that level of information, as it might be handy in evaluating UFO reports, or that they would likely not be read in on it, or option 3: who knows?

I asked Nick Pope that question, and he did a great job of avoiding giving me a straight answer.

 

[NorCal Dave]

This thread has been asleep for a bit while we awaited the article in Fortean Times by Dr. Clark that would explain his theory. As I noted on the Calvine hoax thread, that may have happened last month:

It's behind a paywall and I'm not sure it's Dr Clarks article just from the cover. It's not that a few quid is a lot to get a digital copy, but is it just going to be a more edited rehash of what's in Dr. Clark's various blog posts? If it's been out for a month now, there doesn't seem to be much buzz, is there?

I noticed something curious though while on Dr. Clark's blog. This is about a guy named Alex Birch, that claimed to have photographed UFOs with his Brownie box camera in 1962 at the age of 14. These photos supposedly puzzled both USAF and RAF personal:

Alex Birch whose photographs of UFOs puzzled experts on both sides of the Atlantic has released a film about his experiences – that he claims included meetings with the British royal family and a phone conversation with JFK.

His photos were examined by MoD officials and there was a bit of media hype that affected young Alex:

Shortly before the call Alex, then 14 years old, had travelled to London with his father where his black and white photograph and Box Brownie camera were examined by officials at the Air Ministry. A MoD file documenting the meeting was released at The National Archives in the 1990s.

After the media furore surrounding this photograph Alex faded from the public eye. But flying saucers, and UFOlogists, continued to haunt him. He was taunted at school and everywhere he went he was known as 'the lad who had photographed flying saucers.'

Here is his photo. UFOs with foreground foliage framing the scene:

Hmmm.

By 1972, he confessed that it was a hoax, which had fooled the MoD, done with paintings on glass:

So in 1972, when he was 24 years old, he contacted the Daily Express and confessed it was a hoax. He even appeared on TV with the pane of glass on which the 'saucers' had been painted. For ten years he had fooled his family, friends and even the Air Ministry who had them tagged as 'ice crystals'.

But wait, it was the confession of a hoax that was the real hoax, because that allowed him to get on with his life:

The ruse, for according to Alex it was a ruse, worked. Alex says he knew the photo was genuine but his manipulation of the media removed the heat; interest in him diminished and he was able to concentrate on building a career and supporting a family.

One has to wonder how much media attention he was being subjected to 10 years on. Certainly not as much as he would get by claiming it was a hoax and explaining how it was done. More interestingly, Dr. Clarck notes that (bold by me):

But his interest in photography remained and over the years he became an accomplished practitioner, entering and wining numerous competitions.

All above External Content: https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2022/08...m-by-the-lad-who-photographed-flying-saucers/

Recall what Robinson said in his report about the Calvine photo (bold by me):

This would seem to suggest that the photographer was both interested and knowledgeable about photography as at this time the use of XP films was not common amongst popular and family photography, and loading a camera with such a film would be a proactive choice, especially as it was more expensive than standard colour negative film

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/analysis-redacted-v2-pdf.53447/

It just seems a strange coincident that there is someone who claimed at one point to photograph UFOs with foreground foliage in the UK, then explained how he hoaxed them, then went on to become an accomplished photographer that would have been around 40 when the Calvine photo of a UFO with foreground foliage was taken. There is nothing connecting his photos and the Calvine one, except for the basic set up of using the trees and such in the foreground to frame the UFOs and the apparent ability to fool a few MoD people. But curious.

 

[Mick West]

Here is his photo. UFOs with foreground foliage framing the scene:

Hmmm.

Seems ridiculous anyone would have been fooled by that, as it's a fixed focus camera, and the trees are in focus, so the UFOs have to be closer than the trees, and judging by the blur, a LOT closer.

Article:

It was published in the News of the World but dismissed by the Air Ministry as sunlight reflecting ice crystals in the smoky air. "This conclusion satisfied no one," Clarke writes in The UFO Files.

Source: https://www.sheffieldtribune.co.uk/p/a-ufo-hunter-at-sheffield-hallam

Because that's a ridiculous conclusion, unless about a different photo.

 

[Rory]

It just seems a strange coincidence that there is someone who claimed at one point to photograph UFOs with foreground foliage in the UK, then explained how he hoaxed them, then went on to become an accomplished photographer that would have been around 40 when the Calvine photo of a UFO with foreground foliage was taken.

Doesn't seem like a strange coincidence to me: seems much more likely that if there is a connection it was that some people in '94 took inspiration from this story. Though probably more likely than that is that they're two unconnected incidents and if it is a hoax achieved in a similar way the idea was arrived at independently or learned from somewhere/someone else.

Interesting story though.

 

[Ann K]

It just seems a strange coincident that there is someone who claimed at one point to photograph UFOs with foreground foliage in the UK, then explained how he hoaxed them, then went on to become an accomplished photographer that would have been around 40 when the Calvine photo of a UFO with foreground foliage was taken.

"With foreground foliage" is such a trivial and common thing in any sky photo that I don't think it adds anything at all to the "coincidence" aspect.

 

[Rory]

Here's another teenage boy in the north of England who claimed to have taken a photo of a UFO in 1954 (also written by Clarke):

http://magoniamagazine.blogspot.com/2013/12/darbishire.html

He also later told people it was a hoax and, like Birch, later still said he'd done that to get people off his back.

Probably quite a few of 'em out there.

 

[Domzh]

"With foreground foliage" is such a trivial and common thing in any sky photo that I don't think it adds anything at all to the "coincidence" aspect.

i would usually agree but if put into context it can seem weird. context being watching a supposedly alien spaceship and going for a snapshot. how likely is it that you care about picture composition at that point?

it doesnt has to mean anything and could just be a coincidence of course.

 

[Mendel]

i would usually agree but if put into context it can seem weird. context being watching a supposedly alien spaceship and going for a snapshot. how likely is it that you care about picture composition at that point?

it doesnt has to mean anything and could just be a coincidence of course.

yeah, in this photo specifically the framing comes at the expense of not having the UFOs in the center of the shot

it's as if the foliage was needed to convey a fake sense of scale

 

[Rory]

yeah, in this photo specifically the framing comes at the expense of not having the UFOs in the center of the shot

Bear in mind that it's supposedly a crop.

 

[Mendel]

Bear in mind that it's supposedly a crop.

The Alex Birch pic?
View attachment 55790

 

[Rory]

Ah no, thought you were talking about Calvine.

Explains why I was thinking, hm, but Calvine's pretty much bang in the centre.

 

[Duke]

Here's another teenage boy in the north of England who claimed to have taken a photo of a UFO in 1954 (also written by Clarke):

http://magoniamagazine.blogspot.com/2013/12/darbishire.html

He also later told people it was a hoax and, like Birch, later still said he'd done that to get people off his back.

Probably quite a few of 'em out there.

Yep. A point I made a while back in offering a possible explanation as to why the Calvine photographer did/has not come forward. Over the years, UFO witnesses who honestly reported what they honestly saw have had lives ruined, losing reputations, jobs, marriages, etc., in the process.

Here's a well know occurrence of this happening to a police officer in my home state of Ohio.

Article

Quintanilla took these as signs Spaur was having a mental breakdown. "It has been my experience in cases like this, that the longer publicity drags it out, the worse the principal witness gets hurt," he recalled. "This is exactly what happened to Dale Spaur. A few months after his encounter with the UFO, his life was a disaster. Dale Spaur would never be the same man again. He lost his job, his family, his friends, and he found very little respect among his neighbors."

Source: https://medium.com/the-portager/seeing-a-ufo-ruined-dale-spaurs-life-f86bab152368


"Quintanilla" was (then) USAF Major Hector Quintanilla, the last head of Project Bluebook. I knew this officer, I went to college with his partner's daughter and talked with him on a number of different occasions.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Bear in mind that it's supposedly a crop.

I figure your talking about the Calvine photo. Robinson mentions minimal cropping:

35mm film has a ratio of 3:2 while 10x8" paper has a ratio of 5:4 thus in order to print a 35mm image on a sheet of 10x8" photo paper without boarders a proportion of the sides of the image would have to be cropped. It should be assumed that this image has been cropped in this manner when printed.

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/analysis-redacted-v2-pdf.53447/

The major cropping claim is from Stu Little correct? This would be a nearly 30 recollection of the 15 minutes he spent with the small negatives, I think. I'll go back and listen through his talk again to be clear.

Because that's a ridiculous conclusion, unless about a different photo.

Well giving some of the UAP Task Force conclusions, maybe not. But, yes not to get too deep into the Birch story, Clark was clearer about the MoD using ice crystals story as a polite send off. From Magonia Magazine in 2001:

Reading the Air Ministry file on the Birch case, preserved at the Public Record Office, it becomes clear that White and Bardsley did not believe the boy's story but could not say so publically. In an internal memo dated September 24, 1962, released in 1993 under the '30 year rule', Bardsley writes to a colleague in S6: "…it is a relatively simple task to reproduce an identical photograph to the one we were shown… the sequence of exposures on the two strips of negatives we saw do not exactly fit the boy's story." Bardslev summed up his exasperation: "…perhaps this brief outline of these doubts will assist you in deciding what on earth you can write to Mr Birch." (38)

After much deliberation, S6 decided on a classic fudge. In a letter sent to Mr Birch senior, and subsequently released by the family to the Press, the Ministry suggested the objects shown in the photograph were "ice particles in the atmosphere" an explanation that was rejected by just about everyone including the editor of Flying Saucer Review, Charles Bowen, who questioned whether the Air Ministry really believed their own explanation, which of course they didn't!

http://magoniamagazine.blogspot.com/2013/12/ufo-hoaxing-part-two-story-of-alex-birch.html

 

[NorCal Dave]

@DavidB66 mentioned on the Calvine Hoax Theory thread that he has the Fortean Times issue with Clark's story and will be reading it. I'm replying to him here on this thread as the article is about the overall photo and not just about it being hoaxed.

I imagine most of it is stuff available on Clark's blog and talked about here on the main Calvine photo thread. The interesting thing will be his conclusions and how he justifies them. He's already let on that he thinks it's a US black ops secret aircraft, like Aurora or the Black Manta.

I don't see how any of the conjecture about the hypothetical Aurora goes along with the story of the photo. Remember, in the story, the craft floats silently for a bit before zipping straight up and away. The Aurora was supposed to be a Super/Hyper sonic reconnaissance plane to replace the SR71. In all the speculation about it, it still "flies" like any other plane just really fast.

Aurora

was a rumored mid-1980s American reconnaissance aircraft. There is no substantial evidence that it was ever built or flown and it has been termed a myth.[1][2]

The U.S. government has consistently denied such an aircraft was ever built. Aviation and space reference site Aerospaceweb.org concluded, "The evidence supporting the Aurora is circumstantial or pure conjecture, there is little reason to contradict the government's position."[1]

Former Skunk Works director Ben Rich confirmed that "Aurora" was simply a myth in Skunk Works (1994), a book detailing his days as the director. Rich wrote that a colonel working in the Pentagon arbitrarily assigned the name "Aurora" to the funding for the B-2 bomber design competition and somehow the name was leaked to the media.[3]

In 2006, veteran black project watcher and aviation writer Bill Sweetman said, "Does Aurora exist? Years of pursuit have led me to believe that, yes, Aurora is most likely in active development, spurred on by recent advances that have allowed technology to catch up with the ambition that launched the program a generation ago."[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)

A footnote from the above wiki article leads to this 2002 piece, originaly in The Press and Journal Aberdeen, which mentions the use of Scotland and the North Sea as a test area for the Aurora, but aside from some reporters from newspapers and Janes, it's all from anonymous "experts":

Experts claim experimental and prototype Aurora aircraft are using Scotland, the skies above the North Sea and the wilderness areas of far-Northern Europe as their testing ground.

Experts claim the Aurora has probably flown out of RAF Machrihanish airfield in Argyll while hi-tech tracking equipment at Benbecula, RAE West Freugh in Galloway and Fylingdales monitor its progress.

There have been reports of unidentified night-time aircraft noises from Machrihanish for a number of years.

But with the Kintyre base now downgraded to a care and maintenance position, experts are puzzled about the location of the Aurora's new European test base.

An interesting claim from this same article is that Aurora may include multiple craft:

Based on more than 60 eye-witness reports there appears to be at least three distinct types of vehicle:

One is a "triangular-shaped quiet aircraft" observed with a fleet of Stealth fighters several times between 1989 and 1995. This may be a demonstrator or prototype of the much vaunted McDonnell Douglas A-12.

Another is a high speed aeroplane characterised by a very loud, deep rumbling roar, reminiscent of heavy-lift space rockets. In flight it makes a pulsing sound and leaves a segmented vapour trail.

The final contender is a high altitude jet that crosses the night sky at extremely high speed and at altitudes in excess of 50,000 feet. It is usually observed as single bright light but no engine noise or sonic boom is heard.

Observations are augmented by many reports of low-pitched, rumbling sonic booms.

Claims have surfaced that booms from Aurora test flights are responsible for sudden avalanches in Norway and an earthquake in the Netherlands as well as unexplained radar blips, eerie noises and isolated UFO sightings in Scotland.

https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2002/04/27889.html

Note they all seem to make noise, to the point of causing avalanches and earthquakes. Except for the one at 50,000' that is just a silently bright light and sounds a lot like a satellite passing over. None of this, if at all real, sounds like the description of the Calvine craft.

Which brings us to the Black Manta. I did find this on Clark's blog under Part 5:

A document from the MoD's defence intelligence UFO files, released under the FOIA 2018, highlights a media report from November 1992 that claims 'the latest American "spy" aircraft, the Northrop TR 3A Black Manta [has been] operational during Desert Storm 'on reconnaissance missions for the F-117As' [Stealth fighters].

The report says only a selected number of congressmen are aware of its existence and 'according to a handful of individuals who have actually seen this "invisible" aircraft, its shape is a perfect triangle and is virtually noiseless, both, at low and high altitudes'.

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/

The hyperlink just takes one to Clark's article about the overall 2018 FOIA dump, nothing about the Manta or whatever media report is being referenced, although the idea of the TR3 helping F117s in Desert Storm seems to come from a Popular Mechanics article from 1991 linked to below.

Even on Wikipedia, the TR3 Black Manta is just a sub section of Black Triangle UFOs

The Northrop TR-3A Black Manta is a speculative surveillance aircraft purported to belong to the United States Air Force and to have been developed under a black project. It was said to be a subsonic stealth spy plane with a flying wing design. It was alleged to have been used in the Gulf War to provide laser designation for Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk bombers, for targeting to use with laser-guided bombs. There is little evidence to support the TR-3's existence; however it is possible that black triangle UFO reports associated with Black Manta could be a technology demonstrator for a potential new-generation tactical reconnaissance aircraft, and/or that TR-3 refers to a Technical Refresh of an existing programme.[19][20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_triangle_(UFO)

Footnote 20 in the above article leads to this disscussion of the Manta:

Many sources suggested the existence of a subsonic stealthy recconnaissance aircraft, which is reportedly designated the TR-3A, although its actual designation and mission remain unclear.<1> Recently, it has been posited that the aircraft was designed to collect and transmit near-real-time digital photo information directly to F-117As for immediate tactical applications. The TR-3A reportedly has a range of more than 5,000 kilometers and the ability to operate at both low and high altitudes.<2>

The aircraft has been reportedly observed flying with KC-135 aerial tankers, F- 117 stealth fighters and T-38 aircraft. Its engines are said to run more quietly than the muffled General Electric F-404 powerplants on the Stealth fighter, which may explain how an aircraft of this type could elude detection for some time. Because of their vantage point, ground observations were unable to determine whether any vertical control surfaces jut from the aircraft's back.<3>

Apart from press reports, there is essentially no open-source information supporting the existence of such an aircraft. Indeed, what evidence does exist would tend to support the contrary proposition, that there is no such program.

During 1991 Lockheed made a major effort to convince the Congress to support a billion dollar program to build an additional 24 F-117A aircraft, and to purchase equipment that would enable the F-117A to perform reconnaissance missions.

The operational characteristics of the proposed reconnaissance version of the F- 117 are virtually identical to those that have been suggested for the TR-3A. Unavoidably, this episode raises questions about the plausibility of the existence of the TR-3A.

It is very difficult to understand how Lockheed could engage in a very public controversy involving the Air Force, and Sam Nunn, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, regarding production of a reconnaissance version of the F- 117A, if the company were already involved in the production of a virtually identical aircraft, the TR-3A.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/tr3a.htm

What I get from this, is a stealth aircraft. Not a silently hovering "anti-gravity craft". Assuming it even existed.

Much of the above article is lifted it would from this one in PM as this seems to be the major source for the TR3. Don't have time to read all of it at the moment, but this all strikes me as a lot of 25-30 old speculation which does not appeared to have advanced much in that time period. The best info we have on Aurora and Black Manta is kinda dated.

https://ayuba.fr/pdf/pope1991.pdf
EDIT: word usage

 

[Duke]

Dave....A good rundown of the various classified "suspects" for the Calvine photos, but I can say for a fact neither the TR-3A nor the Aurora existed as manned USAF aircraft. That's not to say there weren't some interesting things flying around in that time period, particularly at night in the southwestern US.

Not to rehash what's been said here before, but the fact this sighting occurred a few days after the Iraqis invaded Kuwait (and were feared to be headed for Saudi Arabia) is to me no coincidence. The impact of an Iraqi takeover of the oil fields of both nations would have had catastrophic effects around the world.

The West would have pulled out all the stops to get a clear picture of what they were dealing with and how long they'd have to react/respond. If the US would have had an advanced classified ISR platform, even if only in developmental testing, I think it would have been used.
I had/have no knowledge of such a craft, but it could have been unmanned and/or belonged to the USN or one of the three letter agencies.

There was also the advanced, diamond shaped craft written about in AW&ST in Dec 1990 (see link below). The illustration shown isn't a perfect match, but it is an artist's conception, not a photo. I have no idea what it is/was, but if AW&ST published the story, I believe it.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-277694

 

[DavidB66]

...mentioned on the Calvine Hoax Theory thread that he has the Fortean Times issue with Clark's story and will be reading it. I'm replying to him here on this thread as the article is about the overall photo and not just about it being hoaxed

I have now read the article and will do a note on the key points - so far as they are new - in a day or two. It will be quite a short note as there is not much new. As expected, Clarke focuses on 'secret US stealth tech' as the main suspect, and mentions the alleged Aurora and Black Manta projects, but he doesn't address the obvious issues that (a) they probably never existed in physical form, and (b), as described, they don't much resemble the appearance and alleged behaviour of the Calvine object. Clarke pours cold water on the 'reflection' hoax theory, but deals rather weakly with the 'model on a string' theory. Rather disingenuously, IMO, he doesn't mention that two senior MoD people concluded at the time that it was a hoax.

 

[NorCal Dave]

There was also the advanced, diamond shaped craft written about in AW&ST in Dec 1990 (see link below). The illustration shown isn't a perfect match, but it is an artist's conception, not a photo. I have no idea what it is/was, but if AW&ST published the story, I believe it.

This is the artist's concept from the December 1990 AW&ST:

It appears to have been sort of reused or copied for the Popular Mechanics article a year later:

In fact it seems much of the PM article is a combination of unnamed witnesses near Edwards AFB and references from AW&ST. As for the witness testimony, the PM article seems to combine their own reports with that of AW&ST to arrive at the conclusion that Aurora was based at Edwards and Nellis Air Range:

But there is no real agreement on what these people are seeing with the sightings falling into 3 catagories:

Personally, I'd like to see the 800' boomerang aircraft doing circus-pony maneuvers at an air show some day.

Much of the claims in the PM article reference back to AW&ST:

Including possibly, the idea that the TR3B or Black Manta, was used in Desert Storm. It's a little unclear, but it's something that puts the secret craft heading across the Atlantic in the proper time frame:

https://ayuba.fr/pdf/pope1991.pdf

What's interesting is that nearly all the references I've found so far about the Aurora and TR3, aside from articles that are just about tracking DoD Black budget items, often come back to this PM article. And it appears a lot of what's in the PM article comes from AW&ST. Maybe because PM is available online, at least in PDF for this one, and AW&ST doesn't seem to be, the story stops at PM. Be fun to get a copy(s) of the AW&ST issues that PM is referencing and see where AW&ST is getting their info. Maybe it's the copy @Duke has.

Bottom line here, is that practically nothing described and discussed in relation to Auroa and Black Manta, match the supposed photographers story about the Calvine craft.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I have now read the article and will do a note on the key points - so far as they are new - in a day or two. It will be quite a short note as there is not much new. As expected, Clarke focuses on 'secret US stealth tech' as the main suspect, and mentions the alleged Aurora and Black Manta projects, but he doesn't address the obvious issues that (a) they probably never existed in physical form, and (b), as described, they don't much resemble the appearance and alleged behaviour of the Calvine object. Clarke pours cold water on the 'reflection' hoax theory, but deals rather weakly with the 'model on a string' theory. Rather disingenuously, IMO, he doesn't mention that two senior MoD people concluded at the time that it was a hoax.

Thanks DavidB66, I cross posted with you it looks like. Waiting to see what you have.

 

[Duke]

The TR-3A is a Piper Cub compared to its bigger brother, the TR-3B Astra. It's an anti-gravity Alien Reproduction Vehicle (ARV) built using reverse engineered alien technology. It's part of the secret space program.

Video Liner Notes

The legendary TR3B is said to be the very first Alien Reproduction Vehicle that the military built secretly for space exploration. History of triangular UFO sightings and top secret military air craft is discussed by the best and brightest in the research field of UFOs and spooky military air craft. Tyler Glockner of Secureteam10 YouTube fame discusses the long history of military involvement building triangular aircraft and mysterious sightings from around the world. Richard Dolan discusses the facts of space secrecy and the likelihood of a secret space program run by many United States defense and intelligence agencies. Jim Goodall discusses the credible history of spooky classified airplanes and possible non human UFO sightings. Alara gives her testimony on her incredible TR3B sighting. Jeremy Rys discusses the history of the fabled TR3B and the man that first discussed it's origins Edgar Fouche. Dr. Jack Kasher discusses UFOs seen from NASA Space mission STS-48 and how it seems that Earth is at war with something in space. This TR3B documentary is the next in line of a series about TR3B sightings and UFOs in outer space starring Tyler Glockner.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/s...tr3b/8d6kgwxn5sr3?activetab=pivot:overviewtab

 

[NorCal Dave]

It's part of the secret space program.

Yeah, I'm not paying 5 bucks for this. I watched the trailer and that was good enough. Pretty sure Duke isn't buying it either:

 

[Giddierone]

View attachment 53721

Is the 'fence post' seen here a type of temporary 'fence pin' like this.....?

https://www.cmt.co.uk/fencing-pins
View attachment 53720

I think that would be an out-of-place object in remote countryside. Unlikely to be taken there for that purpose - unless the photo is actually taken near a road. Most likely it would have to be taken there via quad bike or by foot. Old fences like that are typically constructed with support-post, wire-tensioner, support post, and made from timber, with each horizontal wire stapled to the post. Fence pins like above typically support the top wire only or are threaded through mesh netting or chicken-wire.

It would also seem like a strange way to temporarily fix a fence in a remote area. I'd say it's more likely a fallen branch from the tree caught on the fence or some other piece of debris.

For example I took this recently in the Scottish Borders.

 

[Domzh]

By sheer accident I stumbled across a very similar photograph from my home country 1976.

The photographer is called Billy Meier and according to him, hes the sole contact person the aliens have decided to talk with.

It shows some woodwork in front of the camera, the ufo and an intercepting military airplane (the Swiss military had no knowledge when asked about it. Obviously a cover up).

Hes super lucky and could actually catch more ufos on camera.

What I found the most interesting is not the flying saucer itself but how an allegedly super advanced species, that cracked the code to defy physics by leveraging super complicated and hidden quantum (uuh "quantum"...) effects, couldnt get their parking sensors to work properly and is flying into every tree available:

He was also able to sneak his camera to a secret meeting where the alien "Alena" revealed herself to him in her fancy emergency heat foil i mean quantum space suit. She even showed him her laser blaster...

Alena even allowed him to play around with it, which is when he accidentally released a shot and burned a whole into a tree:

Ladies and gentlemen, at this point I guess the evidence is just overwhelmingly compelling.

 

[Mendel]

She even showed him her laser blaster...

Alena even allowed him to play around with it, which is when he accidentally released a shot and burned a whole into a tree

That's how you know it's alien! If it was human, it'd probably have a gun sight and some sort of safety.

 

[NorCal Dave]

By sheer accident I stumbled across a very similar photograph from my home country 1976.

The photographer is called Billy Meier and according to him, hes the sole contact person the aliens have decided to talk with.

I feel really dumb now, as I've heard of Billy Meier and his fantastic stories along with his photos, but don't remember actually seeing them. If he was making photos of UFOs with military jets and a bit of foreground detail it pushes this "meme" back to at least 1976. Around 14 years before Calvine.

"With foreground foliage" is such a trivial and common thing in any sky photo that I don't think it adds anything at all to the "coincidence" aspect.

I'm thinking about it this way. We have this growing collection of UFO photos that all have some sort of tree or bush or fence in the foreground. Because it just happens to be there? I would argue, no, it's there on purpose to aid in the illusion. If someone is using models or paintings on glass, they're going to be small and close to the camera. To help counter this, there is something in the foreground that says "I'm here, behind this fence and tree and out beyond this tree is a large UFO flying in the sky.

Here's another teenage boy in the north of England who claimed to have taken a photo of a UFO in 1954 (also written by Clarke):

Yes, his photos were supposedly stolen years ago, so all that's left is copies of copies. Nevertheless, they still attempt to use foreground stuff for scale:

Maybe not so much a coincident, rather a technique. There is evidence that Meier's photos are faked as well as the Puerto Rico photo. We have Birch explaining how he faked his, before recanting, same with Darbishire. It just looks like the Calvine photo fits right in here, though it is the most carefully composed I would argue.

 

[Ann K]

@NorCal Dave
On the other hand, there's a regrettable habit of people taking videos without any foreground images, which means that showing a moving object against a blank sky makes it extra difficult for anyone to judge things like angular momentum. If a person wanted to fake an image, a lack of other picture elements would work best, I think.

 

[NorCal Dave]

@NorCal Dave
On the other hand, there's a regrettable habit of people taking videos without any foreground images, which means that showing a moving object against a blank sky makes it extra difficult for anyone to judge things like angular momentum. If a person wanted to fake an image, a lack of other picture elements would work best, I think.

Agreed.

But, in these cases we're not talking video or even camera phones, these are all old school film cameras. One only had 24-36 shots on a roll of film, no video capability and no ability to review what had just been photographed. Remember back, we had to think at least a little about what we would take a picture of. Even more so if one is attempting a hoax.

Videos of a light against a blank sky are just that, but everybody has video camera in their pocket these days. And most of them are dismissed as, "a light in the sky". If one is making a hoax, context is important.

I just think the Calvine photo fits into a zeitgeist if you will, of hoaxed photos. More so than it being some '70s-'80s era anti gravity stealth aricraft nobody can prove the existence of.

 

[Domzh]

@Ann K I also think the foreground is used to enhance the perception of the ufo appearing within the sky, ruling out the use of small scale models.

Many of these photographs just look off in context of someone taking a snapshot as proof of a sighting.

I would honestly expect the ufo to be in the middle of the picture and not on the edge of a composition following the 1/3 to 2/3 rule.

Looking at the calvine one, the ufo actually is PERFECTLY in the center. But the whole composition still just feels off. I realize that this is not a usable argument at all.

With one of these old cameras, without a preview screen, its almost too perfectly centered.

Do we know what type of camera was used?

Edit:

This one is probably the most naturally looking composition wise imo

 

[Rory]

Do we know what type of camera was used?

Stu Little said a Canon AE-1 Program but I guess nobody knows for sure.

 

[FatPhil]

What I found the most interesting is not the flying saucer itself but how an allegedly super advanced species, that cracked the code to defy physics by leveraging super complicated and hidden quantum (uuh "quantum"...) effects, couldnt get their parking sensors to work properly and is flying into every tree available:

Channelling Dr. Becky?
"An astrophysicist reacts to THE ORVILLE | S2E14 The Road Not Taken"
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Mltr1_Z_8

(Yes, sorry mods, I accept this is OT - doffs forelock and tugs hat.)

 

[Mendel]

How are there over #911 posts on this photo now

 

[jarlrmai]

How are there over #911 posts on this photo now

The photo has been one the most enduring missing artifacts of UFO mythos, so it appearing is a "big event."

IIRC it was supposed to a clear, colour photo of a UFO. Turns out it's still in the LIZ.

 

[Ann K]

How are there over #911 posts on this photo now

And nearly 600 on the other satellite threads on the subject. Maybe the lack of a consensus is evidence of that infamous low information zone in which it resides.

 

[Rory]

Probably my fault. It came out right about the time I achieved a major life goal and therefore I had a massive hole to fill. Even though I'd never heard of it before I went a bit overboard on it and all the various bits of info and stories floating around.

If it been a month before or a month after we'd have about a quarter of the posts.

 

[Ann K]

Probably my fault. It came out right about the time I achieved a major life goal and therefore I had a massive hole to fill. Even though I'd never heard of it before I went a bit overboard on it and all the various bits of info and stories floating around.

If it been a month before or a month after we'd have about a quarter of the posts.

Congratulations on your award / promotion / advanced degree / home purchase / marriage / new puppy / book publication / weight loss / hair transplant / ambassadorship / yacht...

 

[NorCal Dave]

Probably my fault

I think you did a great job organizing this thread. I've used your summery multiple times. And I don't think this is anywhere near the amount of 9/11 posts.

It is a lot of posts for one photograph, but I know I find it fun and interesting. It's also one picture that creates a lot of tangential discussions about photography, hoaxes, Scotland, similar photos, stealth aircraft and on and on. Most of which is releavent in some way.

I'd still like to see it solved somehow. Next time I'm in an antique/second hand store looking for Mid Century barware, I'll have to start looking for an old film camera. And then film. And an old Illford home developing kit. And maybe some old darkroom equipment...or maybe somebody will happen upon that reflective rock in a pond by a fence.

 

[Mendel]

Next time I'm in an antique/second hand store looking for Mid Century barware, I'll have to start looking for an old film camera. And then film. And an old Illford home developing kit. And maybe some old darkroom equipment...

Your career as UFO hoaxer is taking shape!

(take some good Bigfoot pictures while you're at it!)

 

[Domzh]

IIRC it was supposed to a clear, colour photo of a UFO. Turns out it's still in the LIZ.

So theres either a colored photo of the calvine UFO inside a very weird and allegedly very well known woman called Elizabeth or LIZ is an abbreviation or acronym of something else.

Could you help me out here?