Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

jarlrmai

Senior Member
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?
Sorry it stands for low information zone, where a lot of UFO evidence is.
 

Domzh

Active Member
From dr david clarks website:

In August 1990 the Scottish Daily Record in Glasgow were sent six colour slides showing a large diamond-shaped UFO that had been taken by two men walking near the A9 at Calvine in Perthshire.
source: https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/tag/condign-report/

I looked at the area around the A9 at Calvine for anything that would allow the reflection hypothesis:

6A9C475D-EB5F-432B-B5B8-6A45F4DA6E83.jpeg
I couldnt find anything like a lake that would allow for a still water reflection setup as hypothesized in this thread.

What I could find however is a trail, that is following the A9 and is known because it leads / follows the River Garry Waterfalls.

The trail often looks like this:
20B0F75D-00F6-4FA7-AB10-0A62F4984EBA.jpeg

The fencing looks pretty new. Given the steep drop off I think its fair to assume that they had some fencing also back then in some shape or form.

Maybe this is the reason for the fence in the photograph?

It seems to be a popular hike in Calvine, near the A9 and given the nature of the narrow trail this could explain the "leaned back" LOS:

5F0495D9-9C5E-4389-8BAC-F9DB5D6B5E0E.jpeg
 

Domzh

Active Member
The problem is, if it's a reflection it's a hoax, and if it's a hoax there's no reason to think it was taken in that area, or even in that country.

Full reflection hypothesis discussion here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/
Our baseline according to guidelines assumes the observer / witness is not lying.

If we assume hoax, we must provide evidence.

One of the recurring arguments for a hoax included the weird perspective of the fence, which indicated that the observer was "leaning back and down". Which seemed odd compared to just "looking up" or changing the position.

I provided an explanation why this perspective actually could be plausible and even supports the available information regarding the location the photograph was taken at.

Which assumes that the location information was correct and therefore rejects the reflection hypothesis, because there is no calm water source existent.

Therefore my post is in the right thread (but could also be crossposted in the reflection thread, correct).
 

Rory

Closed Account
Our baseline according to guidelines assumes the observer / witness is not lying.

I don't think there's any reason to assume that. The story is they saw a gigantic craft hovering above them and then it zoomed off vertically and disappeared. Surely the most logical assessment of that is that they made it up - as plenty of others have also done.

If we assume hoax, we must provide evidence.

I don't think so. It's okay to assume things - that's where theorising starts. Proof comes later.

Also, to refer back to your first point, by that logic it could just as easily be said "if we assume the observer/witness wasn't lying, we must provide evidence".

Which assumes that the location information was correct and therefore rejects the reflection hypothesis, because there is no calm water source existent.

I think the location information is more or less correct, though I'm not really basing it on evidence and it may turn out to be somewhere else. I also don't think the reflection hypothesis is very likely - model on a string much more likely in my opinion - but I wouldn't rule it out.

Still, even though I don't feel it's likely I also don't feel it's to conclude that the reflection theory can't be right because there isn't the right kind of water/rock in the vicinity of Calvine. That's based on the location being accurate. And there's nothing concrete to support that. Yet.

It's an argument that seems somewhat circular to me.
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
The fencing looks pretty new. Given the steep drop off I think its fair to assume that they had some fencing also back then in some shape or form.

Yes, but the fence in the Calvine photo sure seems to be barbed wire. If it were an old "safety rail" type fence to protect people from falling off the edge it doesn't make a lot of sense. Barb wire fencing can't holp back the weight of a person leaning on it, like the wooden one you show as currently at the site. It would just make sure one gets really cut up as they plunge over the edge.

Barb wire is specifically for livestock, so unless there were cattle out hiking to the falls it seems unlikely.
 

Domzh

Active Member
Barb wire is specifically for livestock, so unless there were cattle out hiking to the falls it seems unlikely.
Thats a very valid argument that needs to be addressed. Thank you for pointing it out.

Maybe in 1990 they didnt really care about hiker safety on that trail and were more concerned to keep something in or out.

There is indeed barbed wire in this area:

A6C86401-75A5-4BAA-A56B-63613BD58909.jpeg
 

Rory

Closed Account
not really:

Correct location information doesnt mean it was not a hoax. It does however reject the reflexion hoax hypothesis because there is no still water.

What I mean is it's based on the assumption that they weren't lying about the location. But if you're open to it being a hoax then you're open to them lying about the whole story, which includes the location. Which means the reflection theory is still be on the table.

We can dismiss the reflection theory. But I don't think there's any reason to dismiss it based on the lack of water at that location.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
What I mean is it's based on the assumption that they weren't lying about the location. But if you're open to it being a hoax then you're open to them lying about the whole story, which includes the location.
it kinda depends on what the "lost photographs" in the set show, as the reconstructions have them displaying quite a lot of landscape. if that's in the original photos, lying about the location would've exposed the hoax shortly after the newspaper with the story (that it was submitted to) would've been published. so it'd have been better to not lie about that, even if it's a hoax.

the problem is that the location description is quite fuzzy.
 

Domzh

Active Member
What I mean is it's based on the assumption that they weren't lying about the location. But if you're open to it being a hoax then you're open to them lying about the whole story, which includes the location.
thats kind of a slippery slope.

and i can tell you the flaw of your reasoning that I see.

I believe this reasoning is correct IF the claim made (location) is hard to falsify.

For example a picture that only shows a ufo against the sky without any terrain, structures etc. cant (easily) be matched with a location.

It makes sense in this case to assume a high probability of every information provided being lied about.

However, if the claim made can be falsified quite easily, then I would assign a lower probability to it being a lie.

In this case, I would guess, its fair to assume that the photographer wanted the picture to be published or investigated.

It would be reasonable for them to assume that they will be asked about the specific location details and everything would fall apart immediately if the scenery on the picture doesnt match the location.

This is why it doesnt has to be circular reasoning at all. I can absolutely accept some information (location) as probably true while assuming hoax or illusion.
 

Rory

Closed Account
You are correct. It was poorly phrased on my part. Exchange "assume" with "conclude".

Yes, well said. Thanks for clarifying. I would agree that it's wrong to conclude (with 100% certainty) that it's a hoax.

For example a picture that only shows a ufo against the sky without any terrain, structures etc. cant (easily) be matched with a location.

It makes sense in this case to assume a high probability of every information provided being lied about.

However, if the claim made can be falsified quite easily, then I would assign a lower probability to it being a lie.

I see what you're saying and it makes sense. For example, if the original photos actually had more landscape in them and the newspaper wanted to go with the story then maybe they would want to see the scene for themselves and it would need to match: that's a good point. Or even if the originals only showed the fence and branches it would still be fairly obvious if they didn't match.

Hadn't thought of that. So from that I'll change to either: a) the location as originally reported is probably right; b) they didn't think anyone would check on that or decided to chance it; or c) they didn't think that part through - with (a) being the more likely.

Assuming (a) then, yes, the reflection theory is dead in the water. Even if there was a rock and still water in that area it would look a bit silly if the photographers took the newspaper to the location and pointed up in the sky and the newspaper blokes noticed a rock that looked exactly like the supposed craft.
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
It would be reasonable for them to assume that they will be asked about the specific location details and everything would fall apart immediately if the scenery on the picture doesnt match the location.

Which I've always thought is a viable theory as to why the photos were never published. At least as viable as a D-notice. Maybe some reporter did talk the photographer(s) and concluded their story was sketchy enough that the paper never ran the photos and the negatives were eventually lost.
 

Domzh

Active Member
...and pointed up in the sky and the newspaper blokes noticed a rock that looked exactly like the supposed craft.
Thank you. I literally spit out my soup laughing. My mind creates way too vivid pictures for these kind of situations
 

Duke

Active Member
Our baseline according to guidelines assumes the observer / witness is not lying.
Witnesses, by their very nature, are not 100% accurate. If they are not purposely falsifying having seen some thing or event, shouldn't we assume they have as much chance being incorrect/inaccurate on both sides of any debunk theory? I note members here using witness statements to support a debunk hypothesis, but are quick to dismiss witness statements if they don't support the hypothesis du jour.

Case in point, I've seen posters here refer to the Calvine craft, if it existed, as being "anti-gravity." That apparently comes from the statement by the witnesses that it was seen to hover. We have no basis on which to believe that statement is accurate, anymore than we do a witness telling us a craft is going 5000 mph. Ironically there is even an active thread here discussing how something coming directly at you can be misjudged as being stationary.

As investigators we are trained that most witnesses are honest, but inaccurate. They believe what they think they saw and believe what they report.
 

Domzh

Active Member
Witnesses, by their very nature, are not 100% accurate. If they are not purposely falsifying having seen some thing or event, shouldn't we assume they have as much chance being incorrect/inaccurate on both sides of any debunk theory?
Yes, of course. Being incorrect is different to lying though. When I said "the baseline assumption should be the witness is not lying" then this doesnt mean that everything they say is also what really happened. It was their perceived reality.

I note members here using witness statements to support a debunk hypothesis, but are quick to dismiss witness statements if they don't support the hypothesis du jour.
This would be biased indeed. I dont know if there is a specific case you are talking about?

Its really a matter of plausibility.

Lets take "pheonix lights" for example. If there really are 100s of witnesses saying they could see the dark triangle flying above them and it covered the sky, then this should be taken seriously.

It wouldnt be reasonable to pick the one witness claiming he clearly saw three chinese lanterns and dispute everything else. You could take it as a hint to form a hypothesis but the single witness alone wouldnt be enough, given that every other variable is equal (same place, same time, etc).

Or lets take the Fravor encounter for example. If he said the tic tac was hovering and Dietrich said it was flying in a straight line then you could conclude (assuming both are not lying) that the tic tac was flying and Fravor perceived it as hovering from
his POV.

Its also easier to explain differences in perceived movement, distance and size than sound (there was a massive explosion).

We go off topic though ;-)
 

Duke

Active Member
Yes, of course. Being incorrect is different to lying though. When I said "the baseline assumption should be the witness is not lying" then this doesnt mean that everything they say is also what really happened. It was their perceived reality.
We agree. My point was coming into any investigation with a preconceived notion that a witness is lying/hoaxing is bound to impact both how the investigation is conducted and the conclusion. In the Calvine case, the preconceived notion is it has to be a hoax and most posts here are based on that belief. I was trained to look at and follow evidence with an open mind, make no preconceived conclusions and assume nothing. At the end of the day, it's entirely possible, and acceptable, to conduct a thorough investigation and admit you don't know.

It also perplexes me how members here can accuse others of lying/hoaxing without violating the site's rules about not being rude and showing respect, but that's probably better discussed elsewhere.
This would be biased indeed. I dont know if there is a specific case you are talking about?

Its really a matter of plausibility.

Lets take "pheonix lights" for example. If there really are 100s of witnesses saying they could see the dark triangle flying above them and it covered the sky, then this should be taken seriously.

It wouldnt be reasonable to pick the one witness claiming he clearly saw three chinese lanterns and dispute everything else. You could take it as a hint to form a hypothesis but the single witness alone wouldnt be enough, given that every other variable is equal (same place, same time, etc).

Or lets take the Fravor encounter for example. If he said the tic tac was hovering and Dietrich said it was flying in a straight line then you could conclude (assuming both are not lying) that the tic tac was flying and Fravor perceived it as hovering from
his POV.

Its also easier to explain differences in perceived movement, distance and size than sound (there was a massive explosion).

We go off topic though ;-)
I understand all that and agree with your points. My comments were directed specifically at Calvine and cherry picking witness statements to support pet theories, in particular accepting the witnesses were correct in saying the "object" was hovering. If they were wrong, as you theorize Cmdr Fravor was incorrect about the account of his TicTac hovering as a function of perspective, then things change. Doesn't mean either the Calvine witnesses or Cmdr Fravor saw a craft from another planet/time/realm, but it does show how making unfounded suppositions based on unsubstantiated claims can drive unsupportable conclusions.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
I couldnt find anything like a lake that would allow for a still water reflection setup as hypothesized in this thread.
There's a statement that they were "near Calvine", but that statement is from the recipient of the photos rather than the photographers. If I recall, the story is that they were returning to Calvine after work in Pitlochry, and there are a good many suitable places with still water closer to Pitlochry, even if we accept "along the A9" as fact.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
We have no basis on which to believe that statement is accurate, anymore than we do a witness telling us a craft is going 5000 mph
Other than it is a bit easier to estimate a speed of zero fairly accurately than it is to recognize what a 5000 mph object looks like. You can he fooled, by perspective and such with an object moving toward you and the like, but at least looking at a stationary object is within pretty much everybody's experience.
 

Duke

Active Member
Other than it is a bit easier to estimate a speed of zero fairly accurately than it is to recognize what a 5000 mph object looks like. You can he fooled, by perspective and such with an object moving toward you and the like, but at least looking at a stationary object is within pretty much everybody's experience.
And they can still be wrong, like Cmdr Fravor apparently.
 

Domzh

Active Member
There's a statement that they were "near Calvine", but that statement is from the recipient of the photos rather than the photographers. If I recall, the story is that they were returning to Calvine after work in Pitlochry, and there are a good many suitable places with still water closer to Pitlochry, even if we accept "along the A9" as fact.
This honestly doesnt seem very plausible to me at first sight for the following reasons:

1) Afaik they were always talking about hikers equipped with a camera for bird watching

2) Pitlochry to Calvine is a march of roughly 4 hours, which seems pretty odd for coming home from work. They could have taken a car but then again why "hikers"?

3) iirc they were both chefs, which makes it even less compelling, assuming they were working at a restaurant and were returning home from work. i dont know the opening times of the supposed restaurant but even if they were finish working as early as 20:00 then this would mean they were coming home at midnight, wandering through complete darkness?

In case we have different sources claiming a different story (which is likely) we should compare the most trustworthy ones. I go digging...

2644DDE2-0C74-4644-8FE4-8656F0FC1B6D.jpeg
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
1) Afaik they were always talking about hikers equipped with a camera for bird watching
I was thinking they were on bicycles, but as this discussion has been split up into so many sub-threads, I can't find that info and don't know if I just supposed it. What seems clear is that they worked in Pitlochry but were staying in Calvine, and the distance between them is a long walk no matter whether they were taking photos or not. If they were young kids with a summer job, it's highly unlikely that they had a car, but bicycles would not have been an unusual means of travel, especially in that place at that time.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
My point was coming into any investigation with a preconceived notion that a witness is lying/hoaxing is bound to impact both how the investigation is conducted and the conclusion. In the Calvine case, the preconceived notion is it has to be a hoax and most posts here are based on that belief.
I don't think that is actually a preconceived notion: it's a notion that gains weight when you look at the evidence.

Hoaxing is a fact of UFO analysis: it happens. Politeness comes into play more strongly when we have a conversation with the actual observer.
 

Rory

Closed Account
It also perplexes me how members here can accuse others of lying/hoaxing without violating the site's rules about not being rude and showing respect, but that's probably better discussed elsewhere.

That's an interesting point and is probably worth a discussion at some time. I think as far as this thread goes there have been suggestions of hoaxing rather than accusations (unless I don't remember them). Suggestions seems okay - especially since it's the most likely possibility.

There's a statement that they were "near Calvine", but that statement is from the recipient of the photos rather than the photographers.

This statement:

Screen Shot 2022-11-06 at 18.04.08.png

Which raises the question of whether it was close to Calvine (as assumed) or whether it was actually 20 miles north of Pitlochry (Calvine is only 12.5 miles from Pitlochry).

Afaik they were always talking about hikers equipped with a camera for bird watching

I don't think the bird watching is confirmed and there are other suggestions as to what they were doing and why they had a camera.

Also, "hikers" may not be quite the right word: just two blokes going for a normal walk is probably more like it.

Pitlochry to Calvine is a march of roughly 4 hours, which seems pretty odd for coming home from work.
I was thinking they were on bicycles

Lindsay says they had a car and drove.

What seems clear is that they worked in Pitlochry but were staying in Calvine

I don't remember reading anywhere that they were staying in Calvine. Are you sure about that?

iirc they were both chefs

Clarke said chefs; Lindsay said kitchen workers mainly washing dishes. Both agree they were working in a hotel in Pitlochry.
 
Last edited:

Duke

Active Member
Politeness comes into play more strongly when we have a conversation with the actual observer.
Interesting. This contradicts a warning I was given here by a moderator.

"Do not be impolite to anyone on or off the forum."
 

captancourgette

Active Member
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?
The next post mentions it
Low Information Zone.
i.e. Even though this is one of the clearer photos, its still crap quality, I mean people are debating if its a plane or a person in a boat


heres another photo with a plane ~ the same size, the difference is I betcha someone can tell me the model of plane
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
As a bird photographer with a £4000 modern camera and a £5000 modern 500mm telephoto prime lens with extender the idea of anyone in any seriousness going on a walk for bird photographing on a dull evening with a wider angle 90's era film camera with black and white film seems fairly dubious.

Sure maybe a complete novice with no experience or understanding.
 

Domzh

Active Member
As a bird photographer with a £4000 modern camera and a £5000 modern 500mm telephoto prime lens with extender the idea of anyone in any seriousness going on a walk for bird photographing on a dull evening with a wider angle 90's era film camera with black and white film seems fairly dubious.

Sure maybe a complete novice with no experience or understanding.
are the accessories used and price confirmed? if yes then this would seem a bit odd and definitely unexpected for a 20ish kitchen worker but not impossible.
(wealthy parents, generous friends, borrowed, disciplined with finances, etc)

hearsay: apparently you have light up until midnight in this area during summer

a quick check (link to a weather website) showed that in august '90 the sun is starting to go down at 21:30.
 
Last edited:

Domzh

Active Member
my biggest problem with the photograph and why it seems so weird to me is that we look "exactly" 90 degrees on the side of the supposed craft.

at least thats my impression. i think the location is correct and its not a reflection but i do think its staged, just because of the perfect angle (in my opinion, how i perceive it).

they said it was stationary and hovered for over 10 minutes. so i guess its fair to assume it was oriented parallel to the ground? if looked at it from below and from distance, shouldnt we see more of the bottom and less of the top and not an almost perfect symmetrical shape?

example 90 degree viewing angle, no depth
7422CED0-8B30-4B88-892B-52050D92FB4B.jpeg

viewed from below and offset, with level orientation (maybe its banking but you get the idea)
EE82E364-D3AF-41A3-A839-894AD4F2449E.jpeg
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Interesting. This contradicts a warning I was given here by a moderator.

"Do not be impolite to anyone on or off the forum."
it varies a bit by topic and thread subject. Hoaxing UFO photos is a fairly well known and popular pasttime, so i personally don't think throwing hoax into the mix of explanations is that unreasonable.

esp with that "clear" a photo, and if you throw into a story "it hovered for 10 minutes"... but we have a pic of something that likely cannot hover AND one (or a pair) of RAF planes allegedly right there in the area (ie. other people who would have seen something SO big that it can travel towards you -giving the allusion of hovering-and stay the same size for 10 minutes). lack of exact location etc.

I see UFOs like ghosts. people often fake ghost photos too. it's a popular pasttime to fake ghost pics. but still half or more ghost photos are just mistaken identity. Anyway, i personally don't feel its rude to say "he could have faked the ghost photo by doing x, y or z".
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
are the accessories used and price confirmed? if yes then this would seem a bit odd and definitely unexpected for a 20ish kitchen worker but not impossible.
(wealthy parents, generous friends, borrowed, disciplined with finances, etc)
@jarlrmai did not claim that the Calvine photographer had access to that kind of equipment.

It's also possible that their trip to the countryside served a photographic purpose not fit for newspaper consumption. It doesn't really help us with respect to determining what the photograph shows.
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
are the accessories used and price confirmed? if yes then this would seem a bit odd and definitely unexpected for a 20ish kitchen worker but not impossible.
(wealthy parents, generous friends, borrowed, disciplined with finances, etc)

hearsay: apparently you have light up until midnight in this area during summer

a quick check (link to a weather website) showed that in august '90 the sun is starting to go down at 21:30.

Using film is so sub par for bird photography you have be very dedicated to it to make it a real hobby.

I tried to find out more about the state of bird photography in the era, but it's hard you would need to talk to a 90s era bird photographer.

My point is really that the bird photography thing is used as an explanation as to why they had a camera, but it seems a bit forced and wrong, its like an unnecessary detail that was not thought through. Like if they had just said he was an amateur photographer then it would not have raised my interest, but the added detail makes it seem a little less likely.

Kind of like if you used an medical excuse to avoid something but you over did the details and they didn't make sense to a doctor. Rather than just saying I am ill.

Of course there a number of reasons it could be perfectly valid its just seems a bit off.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
the idea of anyone in any seriousness going on a walk for bird photographing on a dull evening with a wider angle 90's era film camera with black and white film seems fairly dubious.
They were teenagers. It's hardly likely they were sophisticated bird photographers, so their equipment and lack of expertise are unsurprising. And don't be fooled by the apparent cloud cover; at that latitude twilight lingers for hours, and clouds lit from beneath can make the sky much brighter than it would be if it were cloudless. That part of their story seems plausible to me.
 

Domzh

Active Member
at that latitude twilight lingers for hours, and clouds lit from beneath can make the sky much brighter
traveling iceland multiple times, i can confirm that in the northern hemisphere it can easily look like early afternoon during the early part of dawn. it really takes ages until it starts getting dark. scotland is right below iceland so i would expect a similar experience.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
They were teenagers. It's hardly likely they were sophisticated bird photographers, so their equipment and lack of expertise are unsurprising. And don't be fooled by the apparent cloud cover; at that latitude twilight lingers for hours, and clouds lit from beneath can make the sky much brighter than it would be if it were cloudless. That part of their story seems plausible to me.
I feel saying 'bird photography' for the reason they had a camera feels more like an excuse than a reason.

Yeah they could have just been naïve but it still feels more like an excuse.
 
Top