Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[Duke]

I believe this is the exact mission you're referring to:

Early in the air campaign of Operation Desert Storm, the RAF must do a dangerous job. Panavia Tornado strike aircraft must maraud at low level through fierce Iraqi AAA and MANPAD fire to hit and disable Iraqi airfields. Given the most dangerous task of the campaign, losses are mounting.

I'll see if I can find any similar use of the Harrier.

To my knowledge, the airfield denial weapon I've talked about, the JP233, was not used operationally from the Harrier. I'm not even sure it was qualified for use on Harriers. We know it wasn't used in the Falklands, may not have been available at the time. The Sea Harriers/Harriers used against Stanley Airport were relatively ineffective in taking out runways. They knew this going in and that's why the Brits made the decision to resurrect what was left of their obsolescent Vulcan bomber force for the Black Buck raids.

I also forgot another common reason to fly low, especially low through valleys: to avoid enemy radar. (I think this is part of the plot of Top Gun Maverick )

That and flying nape-of-the-earth makes it difficult for ground based defenses to depress AAA and some SAM launcher low enough at longer ranges. Flying fast gives defenders less time to shoot when attackers get within range.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

If it would be just the jet that was moving this would certainly be true. However the clouds are also moving. Capturing the image in the short window of time when the clouds align to make the mountain look like a diamond shaped object AND also capturing the jet would require quite some luck. Not impossible but rather unlikely.

If it's a mountain peak (which I don't think it is), it could just be a lucky shot - they were actually photographing the jet and saw the "UFO" once the film was developed. (I can't recall off the top of my head if the story goes that they went back to the hotel and told anyone that night they'd seen a UFO, but in any case we have no witnesses that they did).

Regarding the "tree"...

- it exactly matches where we'd expect to see the point of the near arm of a 3D star. The "snow" would be variation in the glitter coating (per Wim van Utrecht's theory and photography experiments).

I'm debating whether to buy this and try my own experiment. It's the closest I've seen (at a reasonable size) to the Calvine star and comes in a few even larger sizes, but I think 20cm should work. My only hesitation is that I don't know if it was a gold or silver star used, which might affect how close I can get the image to look. I'll dig out my dad's old Minolta and head out to the local hills. Closer to Xmas I might find it in the shops to avoid shipping, but then we're less likely to have overcast days here in the s. hemisphere.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I'll dig out my dad's old Minolta and head out to the local hills.

That's the real trick, using an old film camera and seeing if you can reproduce something similar in camera. Even using a DSLR where one can mess with all the parameters, it just doesn't have that "grain" that old film did. And there is always the argument that it was digitally manipulated.

That argument would still apply even if you did it all on film, because once you upload it for others to see, it's now digital. Still, I went looking for old film SLRs when I was spending way too much time trying to show the photo could have been created in camera with models and/or glass. I found them to be surprisingly expensive, at least here in the States.

Good luck and keep us posted. There's also the thread on Calvine hoaxes:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596

 

[NorCal Dave]

Not trying to wake a 32 page zombie thread, but as we all know, old UFO stories never die, they just get recirculated. To wit, some yoakel on our local Rants and Raves Facebook page posted this:

It's obviously the artist recreation of the Calvine photo as commissioned by Nick Pope, though Jeff here has added our local topography to make it more authentic. Good Lord.

 

[John J.]

Jeff here has added our local topography to make it more authentic. Good Lord.

Good to know that there's a Harrier there to keep Oroville safe, even if it's of a type that was retired c. 30 years ago;
the long narrow nose, containing a Ferranti laser rangefinder IIRC, is unique to Harrier GR 3s only used by the UK's RAF.

The aircraft in the surviving Calvine photo is probably a Harrier (or meant to be a Harrier), but is too poorly resolved for mark / variant to be determined,

...unlike in the "recreation" of the photo. And of course in Jeff Scotts' unrelated sighting.

RAF Harrier GR3 in Belize. With long nose. Note the umbrella; this gave the UK Harriers an adverse weather strike capability.

We could club together and buy Jeff a gift to remind him of his amazing observation:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/334555376562

...or maybe not.

Seriously though, do you think Jeff knows you @NorCal Dave ? I'm wondering if you've mentioned Metabunk, and he's making an in-joke/ playing a practical joke?

 

[NorCal Dave]

Seriously though, do you think Jeff knows you @NorCal Dave ? I'm wondering if you've mentioned Metabunk, and he's making an in-joke/ playing a practical joke?

UPDATE. No, I don't know Jeff and I'm not very active on Facebook. My wife was perusing it last night when she saw his post and I immediately jumped on and pointed out what the photo was, where it was supposed to be and when it was taken. Sort of a "no way bro, WTF".

Turns out this is Jeff's schtick, I've just never seen his other ones including:

It would appear Jeff has Photoshop and some time on his hands. Anything Bigfoot around here is a given, but the Calvine UFO is a bit of a deep pull, I'll give him props for that one.

 

[FDSaussure]

I see no reason why the Cookie Monster wouldn't be enjoying a nice hike out on the Whiskey Flats?

 

[Slow Joe]

Isn't the Calvine UFO a reverse picture?

 

[NorCal Dave]

Isn't the Calvine UFO a reverse picture?

Meaning what?

 

[Ann K]

Isn't the Calvine UFO a reverse picture?

I think there was some question (don't know where, in these thousands of posts) that the negative might have been reversed, but that was either disproven or considered irrelevant. I'm not sure that makes any difference to the discussion. But if it's upside down (which I'm fairly sure is not the case), it gives rise to other interpretations.

 

[Slow Joe]

I think there was some question (don't know where, in these thousands of posts) that the negative might have been reversed, but that was either disproven or considered irrelevant. I'm not sure that makes any difference to the discussion. But if it's upside down (which I'm fairly sure is not the case), it gives rise to other interpretations.

Yes. I meant upside down, as in a picture of the reflection on a lake, with the UFO being an outcrop in the water, and the Harrier just happening to fly by.
The light on the Harrier points to sunlight reflecting out of the belly of the plane, pointing to the picture being a water reflection.

 

[Mendel]

Yes. I meant upside down, as in a picture of the reflection on a lake, with the UFO being an outcrop in the water, and the Harrier just happening to fly by.
The light on the Harrier points to sunlight reflecting out of the belly of the plane, pointing to the picture being a water reflection.

See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/

 

[Jack Mallory]

You'll have to forgive me for not going through all 32 pages of this thread, but if the supposed exact location is still up for debate, James Fox claims to have located the specific tree the photographer was standing under at the time the pic was taken.
Starting @42:40 of his latest film The Program, he devotes a significant segment of the film to the Calvine incident. @45:08 they zero-in on what they believe to be the precise spot.YMMV.

"With the help of Calvine resident Giles Stevens [sp?], we were able to find the probable location of the encounter. The two witnesses most likely hid under this tree." [Screen grab. No audio. No further location information is provided in the film.]

(I understand if the full link below needs to be deleted.)

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/IYQDTzMV5Le8

 

[Ann K]

Yes. I meant upside down, as in a picture of the reflection on a lake, with the UFO being an outcrop in the water, and the Harrier just happening to fly by.
The light on the Harrier points to sunlight reflecting out of the belly of the plane, pointing to the picture being a water reflection.

But the "UFO" is very distinctly lighter on the top, as the photo orientation is shown. Whether it is an islet (as I have always thought) or whether it is an object, it would not be darker on the top as it would look if you flipped it upside down. Planes can bank; the UFO, however, looks straight.

 

[Ann K]

James Fox claims to have located the specific tree the photographer was standing under at the time the pic was taken.

Thirty-four years later? Is this going to be a magic tree that is frozen in time, and has neither grown nor shed any branches over that span of years?

 

[Jack Mallory]

Thirty-four years later? Is this going to be a magic tree that is frozen in time, and has neither grown nor shed any branches over that span of years?

Eh, details schmetails. If it's hard scientific proof that you want then I'd have to refer you to the very end of the film when (during the credits) an ex-fighter pilot named Col. Fred Claussen reccounts his own UAP encounter from 1980 when flying over the north sea. Should you doubt this man's firsthand account, his tale is accompanied by graphic contributions from what I assume to be two famed crayon artists Alexa and Oli. It's hard to argue with details like this. Their stunning work can also be seen on refrigerator doors around the world. But I digress...

 

[Jack Mallory]

I'll be honest, I've never invested much energy in the Calvine affair because, at a glance, I've just never found the photo to be all that compelling. Whatever the object is, it just seems very imprecise to me. You want me to believe that's some sort of a space craft from an advanced alien civilization and not the leftovers from a grade-school art class? Then the burden's on whoever supports that hypothesis. We humble 21st century humans still have some idea as to what hi-tech engineering is capable of, and we need look no further than CERN, NASA, SPACEX, Lockheed, or even your local consumer electronic gadget shop as a reference point. But the Calvine object doesn't fit anywhere in that spectrum. It looks shoddy and unimpressive when viewed on its own, and that's reason enough to dismiss it as far as I'm concerned.

Add to that a surrounding narrative that's even foggier and loaded with cloak and dagger MIB nonsense, and it just doesn't rise to anything above a scripted X-Files episode in my book. Supposed co-worker Richard Grieve (as seen in The Program) seems like he's trying way too hard to convince the audience of some deeper conspiracy, but as always, the claims are backed up by absolutely nothing. If this is the "UFO case of the century" or if the image represents the "photograph of the century" (both claims made by Fox) then we are truly in a sad state of affairs.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Add to that a surrounding narrative that's even foggier and loaded with cloak and dagger MIB nonsense, and it just doesn't rise to anything above a scripted X-Files episode in my book. Supposed co-worker Richard Grieve (as seen in The Program) seems like he's trying way too hard to convince the audience of some deeper conspiracy, but as always, the claims are backed up by absolutely nothing. If this is the "UFO case of the century" or if the image represents the "photograph of the century" (both claims made by Fox) then we are truly in a sad state of affairs.

So, this is in Fox's new film? Hopefully it's on YouTube at some point, because I'm not going to pay for it, but I might be forced into giving him a "view", just to see what nonsense there is.

Grieve's interview with Dr. David Clark from back in May/June is discussed starting at post #1,140 of this thread. It didn't line up with the original supposed hotel or positions of the supposed witness, Grieve having them as porters at Fisher's Hotel as opposed to chefs at the Pitlochry Hotel. But this guy is supposedly recounting a sinister MiB like 5-10 minute encounter from 30+ years ago and remembers it because the witnesses had been blabbing about photographing a UFO to him and presumably everyone else in which ever hotel this happened at. Something for which Clark has never found any evidence.

More importatnly, Grieve reported to Clark that after being questioned/harassed by the Royal Navy Officers (not specifically MiBs, but fulfilling that role in the narrative), they supposedly told the lads what they saw was from "the Americans":

Whatever it was they knew, they were not meant to see it. They never really talked about it but one of them said: 'It was the Americans.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-men-silence-colleague-reveals-happened.html

This seems to confirm Clark's, misguided to me, insistence that the photo is of a secret US stealth aircraft. That is, Grieve is confirming Clark's theory that it's a terrestrial aircraft and NOT a UFO.

The idea that even IF the lads managed a photo(s) of a secret US aircraft and IF officers from the Royal Navy or MiBs came along to harass or threaten them, the notion that the officers would also enlighten the witnesses to the fact what they saw was in fact a secret American craft is ridiculous. But IF Grieve is now saying UFO in Fox's film, it would show he bends his story to his listener. UFO for Fox and "American" for Clark, telling each what they want to hear.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Supposed co-worker Richard Grieve (as seen in The Program) seems like he's trying way too hard to convince the audience of some deeper conspiracy, but as always, the claims are backed up by absolutely nothing.

I don't find Grieve to be at all credible, and his hyperbolic comments about the photographers' lives afterwards (backed up by the narrator) make little sense:

Narrator: [according to Grieve] the two witnesses started to drink heavily, missed shifts, slept in their cars at work, and after 4 weeks they vanished without a trace.

Grieve: Chefs don't just disappear out of the kitchen for 34 years and not have no other job, d'ya hear what I'm saying? You just don't fuck off and not work ever again. Where are they?

Source: The Program (2024) at 54:23

These lads were said to be working a holiday job. Why would their co-worker think he'd be able to track their future jobs after they left? How does he know - and how did Fox verify (given they're anonymous) - that they vanished without a trace and didn't ever work again? This is a ridiculous claim to include in the film. (All over spooky music, of course.)

 

[Ann K]

Grieve having them as porters at Fisher's Hotel as opposed to chefs at the Pitlochry Hotel

If I recall correctly they were said to have worked at a hotel in Pitlochry, not at "the Pitlochry hotel". Plus they were a couple of English lads, only up in Scotland to work the summer season.

 

[Jack Mallory]

So, this is in Fox's new film? Hopefully it's on YouTube at some point, because I'm not going to pay for it, but I might be forced into giving him a "view", just to see what nonsense there is.

My man, it's available right now, in full, for free in my post just above in #1,253 (Bitchute link).

 

[Jack Mallory]

Curious similarities in imagery.

Source: https://x.com/mrjeffknox/status/1873124027541406044

 

[NorCal Dave]

Curious similarities in imagery.

Source: https://x.com/mrjeffknox/status/1873124027541406044

Yeah, this was noted back in post #581 by long time UFO debunker @Robert Sheaffer, so only 681 post ago . In the Calvine Hoax Theory thread I compared those with Calvine and some homemade attempts at recreations:

There is also this one that seems to match the others. It was definitely what we would call a meme today, or it's the same person doing them:

My man, it's available right now, in full, for free in my post just above in #1,253 (Bitchute link).

Guess I have no excuse now!

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Curious similarities in imagery.

Source: https://x.com/mrjeffknox/status/1873124027541406044

Chief Calvine investigator David Clarke noted the Calvine photo may have been an homage to the Puerto Rican hoax - back in 2021, before his team found the MoD press officer who'd kept the original photo for 30 years. Once he had the original photo, he lost all his skepticism for some reason.


Source: https://x.com/shuclarke/status/1425853596881625088

 

[NorCal Dave]

Once he had the original photo, he lost all his skepticism for some reason.

That's the real mystery here for me. What got Clark to go along with this being an as yet unclassified, secret US aircraft operating over Scottland? It seems once his colleague and fellow Sheffield University professor, Robinson declared the photo was not manipulated and the object had to be out past the trees, he just found a way to explain it as real. It's as if the whole secret aircraft theory is based upon the location of the object, something Robinson can't really determine in a 2D image:

And in the online Q&A video, Robinson backpedaled on a number of his claims about the photo he presented in the original analysis, including the grain and type of film used, meaning his assertion that the photo was not manipulated, is not quite arcuate.

The backstory as related by Linsday is either a hoax, an accurate description of an anti-gravity craft or a misinterpretation of something like a radar reflector. Regardless of which one, it's still just Linsday's 30 recollection of a 5-10 minute phone conversation with a person he never met.

Once Clark went down the secret aircraft road, he found an anonymous source to back the theory up, but little else. Even knowing who the supposed photographer was, has led to a dead end. There's never been any hint of a realistic aircraft that fits the description or photo in the ensuing 30 years.

 

[JMartJr]

There's never been any hint of a realistic aircraft that fits the description or photo in the ensuing 30 years.

Let's just repeat that for emphasis. 30 years is a LONG time at the cutting edge of evolving tech. As an example, the SR-71 was cutting edge aerospace tech in the 1960s, and were retired for the final time in the 1990s and began to appear in museums of aviation history.

The first flight of an SR-71 took place on Dec. 22, 1964, and the first SR-71 to enter service was delivered to the 4200th (later 9th) Strategic Reconnaissance Wing at Beale Air Force Base, Calif., in January 1966. The U.S. Air Force retired its fleet of SR-71s on Jan. 26, 1990, because of a decreasing defense budget and high costs of operation.
...
On March 21, 1968, in the aircraft on display, Maj. (later Gen.) Jerome F. O'Malley and Maj. Edward D. Payne made the first operational SR-71 sortie. ... The aircraft was flown to the museum in March 1990.

Source: https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/V...heets/Display/Article/198054/lockheed-sr-71a/

In the same time frame, this plane went from cutting edge to a popular museum relic of the cold war. But the aircraft that might have generated the Calvine sighting/image remains completely unknown... hasn't become obsolete and handed off to museums after 30 years of advancing technology.

Or, the image was not of a secret aircraft.

 

[Mendel]

Chief Calvine investigator David Clarke noted the Calvine photo may have been an homage to the Puerto Rican hoax - back in 2021, before his team found the MoD press officer who'd kept the original photo for 30 years. Once he had the original photo, he lost all his skepticism for some reason.

so he talked to Nick Pope?
I'd bet I know who converted him.

 

[John J.]

so he talked to Nick Pope?
I'd bet I know who converted him.

I've an inkling (no proof) that Nick Pope might have conversed with David Clarke (see a bit further down), but I'm not sure Prof. Clarke needs any converting- I don't know if he's more "believer" or "sceptic" in private, but he enjoys a good yarn, the contemporary folklore : media interface is very much his thing.

David William Clarke (born 1967) is an investigative journalist, reader and lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University, England. He has a lifelong interest in folklore, Fortean phenomena and extraordinary personal experiences. He is frequently consulted by the national and international media on contemporary legend and UFOs...

Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Clarke_(journalist)

Debunking the stories he gets involved in might be a bit of "biting the hand that feeds you".

David's Substack entry for 07 June 2024, has this snippet,

But I was informed by a former defence intelligence official that further inquiries revealed the two jets were US and UK aircraft that were 'escorting the object'.

-which of course implies both nations' forces had a fair idea of what was going on, despite the UK MoD claiming there were no Harrier flights in the area that day (IIRC). And if in some sense true, it implies a planned operation- I love Harriers but most would be a poor choice for an air defence intercept of an unidentified aircraft, being subsonic ground attack machines; only the small number of Sea Harriers had a decent air-to-air capability but they too were subsonic and they tended to live on the RN's Invincible class mini-carriers or at an airbase in SW England (RNAS Yeovilton). However, Harriers have the ability to fly arbitrarily slowly and hover, which might make them a useful "chase plane" for an experimental aircraft that could do the same... To be honest, though, I'm deeply sceptical about all of this.

Maybe the "former defence intelligence official" David Clarke talked to about this was Nick Pope?

Clarke continues,

Several RAF and MoD personnel have contacted us to say they saw the photograph/s during the 1990s or were involved in the analysis of the images. Their impression was the image was undoubtedly genuine and it showed either the F117A Stealth fighter or a secret prototype operated by the US or UK.

Whatever Clarke's views, he stretches credulity to breaking point here. The object in the Calvine photo is very clearly not an F117A. It just isn't; surely he can see that? Equally, anyone telling him it's an F-117A undermines their own credibility.

And if, as Clarke was advised by a "former defence intelligence official" there were US and UK chase planes, and the object was "...a secret prototype operated by the US or UK", both nations would know what the object was: So why would RAF / MoD personnel need to analyse the photos taken by chance by a seasonal worker?

Doctor Clarke is interested in the cultural significance and media uptake of strange stories, and of their relationship to folklore.
But perpetuating that folklore, or narratives about "anomalous phenomenon" in some sections of the media, might not be useful in determining the objective truth about an event.

 

[Eburacum]

Here's an image taken by my wife a few days ago; much of the country was covered in fog, but from Sutton Bank (289 metres) we could see Hood Hill (252 metres) quite clearly.

Although it was an impressive sight, I don't think I'd mistake if for an aircraft of any description.

 

[Scaramanga]

You'll have to forgive me for not going through all 32 pages of this thread, but if the supposed exact location is still up for debate, James Fox claims to have located the specific tree the photographer was standing under at the time the pic was taken.
Starting @42:40 of his latest film The Program, he devotes a significant segment of the film to the Calvine incident. @45:08 they zero-in on what they believe to be the precise spot.YMMV.

"With the help of Calvine resident Giles Stevens [sp?], we were able to find the probable location of the encounter. The two witnesses most likely hid under this tree." [Screen grab. No audio. No further location information is provided in the film.]

View attachment 75316

(I understand if the full link below needs to be deleted.)

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/IYQDTzMV5Le8

Well, I watched all the James Fox 'The Program' documentary, and just like all his other documentaries there is nothing new and it's just a re-hash of stuff most people already know.

That has tended to be the trend in recent decades. I can recall documentaries in the 70s to 90s that at least provided new data and new cases. But lately its all just one big hall of mirrors with everyone quoting everyone else....and the endless and annoying ' I can't tell you any more, as its classified'. Not one of the alleged witnesses or whistleblowers ever explains how these programs can be illegal...yet they stand by the legality of this or that NDA.

 

[MapperGuy]

Well, I watched all the James Fox 'The Program' documentary, and just like all his other documentaries there is nothing new and it's just a re-hash of stuff most people already know.

That has tended to be the trend in recent decades. I can recall documentaries in the 70s to 90s that at least provided new data and new cases. But lately its all just one big hall of mirrors with everyone quoting everyone else....and the endless and annoying ' I can't tell you any more, as its classified'. Not one of the alleged witnesses or whistleblowers ever explains how these programs can be illegal...yet they stand by the legality of this or that NDA.

Thank you Scaramanga for watching the whole video. So the rest of us don't have too.

I do have a commentary on the section starting at 45:00 of the video about the Calvine photos.

At 45:50 they show a view of people sitting under a tree, the one they believe the Calvine photographs may have been taken under. In front of those people is a barbed wire fence. I would assume they wish to suggest this is where the photos were taken from and this is the direction the witnesses were looking when they took them. At no point do they show the view from this point looking in the direction they imply the witnesses were looking.

Why not? When there is an old photo looking in that direction with a UFO in it my first impulse would be to take a photo that should shows the same view, but without the UFO. There is a barbed-wire fence in original photo, there is a barbed-wire fence visible in the video. It may not be the same fence, it could have been replaced, but the new fence would probably be the same height as the old (to keep in the same animals the old one was keeping in). The current fence thus provides a level line to see in your new photos that should approximate the fence shown in the old photo. In the lower left of the old photo there are what appear to be ground features, a ridge line or forest maybe, that should still be there in your new photos.

If they tried to prove this is the photo location they apparently failed, or they would have shown us. The easiest explanation is that the view from their proposed location does not show, in any direction, features that readily match what little can be seen in the original photos.

This portion of the video is more than just talking heads, they did go and try to visit the scene of the events, that's nice. But a successful match of this site and the original photos would have made this an important video.

 

[captancourgette]

(not sure if I should bump this thread, where it fits better or the more recent one, more fitting here I think)

But I see The Guardian have an article about the photo today
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...mystery-behind-the-best-ufo-picture-ever-seen

To the hikers, he says: "It is the 35th anniversary of what has been described as the best UFO photo ever taken. Now is the time to come forward and tell us what really happened."

 

[jackfrostvc]

A couple of interesting things printed in that article @captancourgette posted

This is attributed to Craig Lindsay - press officer at the RAF who got a photo from the Daily Record. Here he is referring to the 5 other photos of the Calvine object that haven't been released:

"The ministry's staff placed the other photographs on a windowsill. The snaps showed the Harrier jet moving from the right side of the frame to the left, while the diamond didn't move an inch."

I wonder how this matches up with the theories in this thread. ie if it's a reflection of something in water. Then the object representing the aircraft must be movable? Not sure

There is also below which is attributed to Sean Kirkpatrick:

"It's a reflection in the lake and the photo has been doctored," Kirkpatrick says. "It's been analysed multiple times. If you look carefully towards the right side and in the raw [uncompressed] image, the top and bottom are reflections of each other."

Has anyone got the raw image and can point out which area exactly is a reflection as he suggests?

 

[Ann K]

"The ministry's staff placed the other photographs on a windowsill. The snaps showed the Harrier jet moving from the right side of the frame to the left, while the diamond didn't move an inch."

We had also discussed the custom that pilots had, of a group going out together to practice low-level flight, so it's possible it wasn't the same plane but one of a series.

It's a reflection in the lake and the photo has been doctored," Kirkpatrick says. "It's been analysed multiple times. If you look carefully towards the right side and in the raw [uncompressed] image, the top and bottom are reflections of each other."

I think Kirkpatrick is assuming digital photo-faking techniques which were not available at that date for film photography.

 

[Trailblazer]

You'll have to forgive me for not going through all 32 pages of this thread, but if the supposed exact location is still up for debate, James Fox claims to have located the specific tree the photographer was standing under at the time the pic was taken.
Starting @42:40 of his latest film The Program, he devotes a significant segment of the film to the Calvine incident. @45:08 they zero-in on what they believe to be the precise spot.YMMV.

"With the help of Calvine resident Giles Stevens [sp?], we were able to find the probable location of the encounter. The two witnesses most likely hid under this tree." [Screen grab. No audio. No further location information is provided in the film.]

View attachment 75316

(I understand if the full link below needs to be deleted.)

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/IYQDTzMV5Le8

Regarding the possible locations.

1) An Teampan - this is the location in this reconstruction.
The video linked there has been deleted on copyright grounds.
However the screengrab is enough to find the location.

This view is looking east from An Teampan, as can be confirmed by comparing to the scenery in this image taken just down the hill from there:

(That photo was taken in 2011 and some of the forestry has been cleared since then.)

The clump of trees shown in the screengrab is An Teampan itself:

Again compare to this image.

The view in the screengrab is looking to the northwest with the main road visible in the valley - comparison image, taken from further south so the trees appear more to the right.

Google Maps 3D view - An Teampan is the clump of trees visible in the foreground.

2) General Wade's Military Road - this is the location used to produce the reconstructions for the Channel 5 programme.


From the Robinson analysis:

Google Maps 3D view corresponding to top right photo, which is looking south from the military road.

The mock-up UFO picture was made using a photo taken from a bit further west. There are some matching landscape features here but the "UFO" photo must have been taken from a bit further down the hill. Again the forestry has changed somewhat.

Google Maps shows a match with the cleared forestry edge on the left:

Map from Robinson's analysis. I agree with the locations but don't think either is necessarily a match. The An Teampan looks a better bet - being about 420m above sea level there is more chance of having the distant landscape below fence level. The Military Road location looks all wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

But a successful match of this site and the original photos would have made this an important video.

Those trees are on An Teampan. I've looked for as many photos as I can find taken from there and can't see a match as such. But...

Here's a photo posted on Andrew Robinson's Substack, which is claimed to (perhaps) be under the same trees that we see in the top of the photo:

Google Maps shows that this is looking south-southeast from An Teampan.

There are enough similarities in the skyline there to be somewhat intriguing.

Do we have any Scottish members who fancy a hike?

Edit: I see there was a site visit video posted in post 838 in this thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-278622

However it doesn't try to recreate the photo and it also doesn't show the view in the southerly direction, only towards the east.

 

[Minus0]

Do we have any Scottish members who fancy a hike?

@Scaramanga regularly hikes in Scotland I believe

 

[Scaramanga]

Do we have any Scottish members who fancy a hike?

I've hiked much of Scotland...though more so the Lake District.

Incidentally, a thought occurs to me. We really don't know if the Harrier is closer than the UFO or further away. As it appears the Harrier is banking towards us, if it is this side of the UFO then it has been making a close approach and is now banking away. But on the other hand, if it is further away than the UFO then it is basically circling around the UFO...and that also means the UFO is closer and actually smaller than first impressions might give.

If the Harrier is actually twice as far away as the UFO, then with the Harrier being 45 feet the UFO would ( at half the distance but 4 times the width ) be around 90 feet in width. If the Harrier is even further away, then the UFO could be even smaller.

My point being that rather than the UFO being some massive 1000 foot wide behemoth that it appears to be....it could be as small as 40-50 feet. That's well within the size of an experimental blimp....or a balloon....

 

[Trailblazer]

I've hiked much of Scotland...though more so the Lake District.

Well if you have any plans to be in the Pitlochry area it would be great to see if the photo could be recreated looking south from An Teampan. (The Gaelic pronunciation on that YouTube video made my teeth hurt!)

The shape of the skyline and nearby ridges does seem intriguingly similar to the photo, and the fence is on high ground.

 

[PublicStranger]

May have been posted before but an interesting read of a substack from a person called 'Andrew Robertson'.

https://anthologycouk.substack.com/...-mountaintop?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Is the Calvine UFO actually a Mountaintop with Cairn, Small Loch and Tower Ruins?

I was recently interviewed by a journalist from the Scottish Newspaper The Courier who contacted me asking for comment on suggestions made by James Easton, the founder and moderator of the FaceBook Group 'The UFO Research List', regarding the Calvine UFO. The journalist informed me that Easton had recently shared 'enhanced images' of the Calvine UFO which he suggested might actually show a distant peak, with landscape features, above a cloud inversion.

I was directed to a Facebook post on the 'Pitlochry Now' group where Easton suggests that "the original photograph, when enhanced, depicts what would appear to be a mountain top landscape" and that this landscape "resembles… a local mountain top, with cairn, photographed above mist and seemingly visible are both a small loch and tower ruins".

Indeed, the image does appear to show textures and landforms within the familiar outline of the Calvine UFO shape however the texture, shape and forms present in this version do not exist in the original.

I have produced adjusted versions of the Calvine UFO photograph from the highest resolution scans available in order to extract as much detail of the UFO surface as possible (see above). Altering the contrast and density of the diamond shaped UFO can reveal further textual detail and applying filters highlights this texture in different ways, but unfortunately this is of little help in identifying what this object might be. The additional detail present in these variants also reveals none of the shapes and textures seen in Easton's image: there is no cairn, lock or ruined tower visible.

So how might these features come to be present in this image when they are not in the original? The explanation would seem to be that Easton has not used a copy of original Calvine image for his analysis but rather a version of the image similar if not identical to that posted on Twitter by Fernando Jimenez on the 13th​ August 2022 shortly after the Calvine photograph was first published.

The side by side comparison below reveals how closely the image Easton has shared matches the image posted by Jimenez in 2022 suggesting this is the source.

Jimenez's images are taken from what he describes as an 'upscaled' version of a copy of the original image which he includes in another post and suggests that the textures present "look like some kind of build up on the hull... like the underwater side of a rusty boat". The four different versions of the upscaled Calvine image shared by Jimenez would seem to modified or altered in some way. The image could have been sharpened, cleaned or enhanced using AI, or perhaps a digital filter has been applied. Whatever the explanation, as can be seen below, the textures visible in the upscaled image do not appear on the original (I have reached out to Jimenez asking how the image was produced and will update this post if I hear back).

Easton himself states in another post that he is "concerned that enlarging a relatively poor-quality image, could be deceptive" and may this indeed explain the textures present.

Easton also notes that the UFO he suggests might be a mountain top, appears to have been "photographed above mist". Here he is resurrecting an earlier suggestion which has become part of the mythology surrounding the Calvine Sighting – that suggestion we are actually seeing a distant mountaintop emerging from a sea of mist due to a cloud inversion.

This explanation has attracted a great deal of attention online, gained numerous supporters, and has been referenced in newspaper stories about the sighting (see here). However, there are many reasons why a cloud inversion could not explain the image. Most importantly, if we were to look eastwards from the presumed location of the sighting at An Teampan towards the peak suggested by Easton, Ben Vrackie some 9.8 miles away, we would see Tulach Hill directly in our line of sight. If An Teampan at 420m was above the clouds, then Tulach Hill at 470m, lying approximately halfway between our position and Ben Vrackie, would be visible too (for a more detailed discussion of the cloud inversion theory see here).

In conclusion, this would appear to be another Calvine red herring. It is imposible for a cloud inversion to explain the image while the shapes and forms on the surface of the Calvine UFO in the copy of the image shared by Easton would seem to originate from an 'upscaled' modified version of the image, posted by Fernando Jimenez in August 2022, rather than the original print. Unfortuantely there is no mountaintop, loch or ruined tower present however appealing this explanation might be.