Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[Andreas]

I've never been fond of the idea that the "jet-looking blob" is actually a full-size Harrier. But in light of recent posts, let's assume it is. There are still some things that don't add up.

I tried to find a picture of a Harrier flying in the distance, but unsurprisingly, most photos online are close-ups rather than distant silhouettes. However, I found this one, taken at an air show in Cleveland in 2023.

It seems to show the Harrier at a similar angle to the "jet" in the Calvine photo. My concern has always been the left wing—why is it so bright? And why aren't the horizontal stabilizers visible? It almost looks like everything to the left of the fuselage is just missing from the picture.

Then there's the fact that the six alleged photos are said to show the Harrier moving from right to left while the "UFO" remains fixed in the same spot. Given the size of the "jet" in the one picture we have, it must have passed through the scene incredibly fast. Here's a video of a Harrier flying over an airshow for comparison:

Source: https://youtu.be/3nYXdVjPUG4


Obviously, we don't know the exact speed, heading, or other details, but one thing is clear—the "jet" would have passed the "UFO" extremely quickly. (And since it's banking in the picture, I don't think it's possible that's it's hovering slowly forward with the nozzles pointing downwards.) Quite the lucky shot then, managing to capture six photos with both in frame! Hope the photographer played the lottery that weekend.

 

[Mendel]

(2) If it were a real (terrestrial) item like a towed store, it would still make a striking photograph, but it's very unlikely that it could manage a rapid ascent into invisibility without much noise or some indication of exhaust (or the "tug" aircraft visibly preceding it).

as we know, witness claims of rapid acceleration sometimes translate to "I looked away for a second or two, and couldn't find it again afterwards".

 

[Don Kielty]

Yes, it would be quite a precarious task lugging around a framed sheet of glass in the Scottish mountains, especially on the way down. However it could have been photographed from inside a vehicle with the UAP/UFO stuck to the window.
My own thoughts are that the Calvine image is a photomontage with the diamond shape placed on the original jet photo and then rephotographed. It would be easy to replicate the position of the diamond in the other five photos (assuming they exist) with a sheet of taped down tracing paper.

 

[Ann K]

My concern has always been the left wing—why is it so bright?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/post-336652

 

[NorCal Dave]

Yes, it would be quite a precarious task lugging around a framed sheet of glass in the Scottish mountains, especially on the way down.

Not necessarily, I just used piece of unframed glass. It was likely bigger than it needed to be (~52mm x 25mm), but what I had laying around. While a bit cumbersome, it's not heavy and it's not something I had done a lot before. If I worked with it a bit more, especially with a tripod which was common for cameras, I probably could have worked out an easier way to do it. As it was, it wasn't too hard to do solo. If someone had a helper, it's even easier. And as we still don't really know where the photo was taken, other than Scotland somewhere, there may not have been much "lugging around" in the "mountains". This may be right off a road somewhere.

But I do agree, there is the possibility this is a composited photograph, regardless of what Robinson says.

The glass with a tiny aircraft drawn on it:

You can just make out my hand holding the glass in the top right:

 

[Andreas]

And as we still don't really know where the photo was taken, other than Scotland somewhere, there may not have been much "lugging around" in the "mountains".

Exactly. For all we know, this picture could have been taken in someone's backyard.

 

[jdog]

You can just make out my hand holding the glass in the top right:
View attachment 77706

That UFO gets around!

 

[Andreas]

I posted this in the reflection thread. Interestingly, when turned upside down, the "jet" looks strikingly similar to the silhouette of a large bird, like a heron. I have no idea what we're actually seeing here, but the "jet hypothesis" could very well be an example of pareidolia.

 

[Don Kielty]

Thanks for the reply NorCal Dave. I wasn't being entirely serious about lugging around a sheet of glass in the Scottish mountains but was referring to the "glass masking" movie technique photo in Z.W.Wolf's #1,343 post. Unfortunately I haven't got the hang of the quoting system yet and had to delete my first reply!
Excellent photo recreation btw!

 

[JMartJr]

I just used piece of unframed glass

Can you clarify how you got the UFO in focus and the "plane" not? Apologies if that is upstream somewhere and I'm missing it...

 

[NorCal Dave]

Excellent photo recreation btw!

The actual cropped B&W finished photos are over in the Calvin Hoax theories thread, link below.

Can you clarify how you got the UFO in focus and the "plane" not? Apologies if that is upstream somewhere and I'm missing it...

If I remember, it was very difficult with an iPhone, as the camera wants to handle the focusing for you. The model UFO is hanging from the tree a little further away, while the glass with jet is only as far as my arm could reach in front of the iPhone, that's why the drawing of the jet is so small. The drawing itself is a bit smudged to help with the "distant aircraft out of focus" vibe.

Post #90 has the explanation for the larger model I used and post #118 has the smaller model, which is the one in the above post. From this thread:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-photo-hoax-theories.12596/page-3

 

[deirdre]

I wasn't being entirely serious about lugging around a sheet of glass

plexiglass is lighter.

 

[JMartJr]

plexiglass is lighter.

Some string is lighter still... and fits in your pocket!

 

[John J.]

My concern has always been the left wing—why is it so bright? And why aren't the horizontal stabilizers visible?

I'm not at all convinced it's a real plane. But the Calvine photo "jet", whatever it is, is poorly resolved and part of a rather grainy photo.
Zooming in on it doesn't necessarily make what is being depicted more identifiable, just as zooming in on an image made of pixels on a 1980s computer display might make working out what is being depicted more difficult.
(IMO. I know very little about photography, and obviously there are situations where "zooming in" on a high-resolution image gives us more visible detail. But I'm not sure this is one of them.)

The Vu-Foils taken by the MoD, while of even worse image quality, strangely don't have the same "wash out" of the port wing

-Wikipedia, "Calvine UFO", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvine_UFO

People photographing planes at an airshow are focusing on the plane, which is being flown with the intent of maximising its visibility to spectators, usually in bright daylight (not dusk) and good weather. Spectators either see the plane take off or (often) are cued by a PA system about where the aircraft will appear.

As already mentioned, the Harrier wings have marked anhedral,
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-276767,
and the horizontal tailplanes have as well- I think they're in the same plane as the wings (no pun intended).

Planes can show a surprising amount of reflected glare; there are several examples on this site of people misinterpreting perfectly normal scheduled flights as "orbs"/ UFOs. Where the wings/ flight surfaces are at different angles, the amount of reflected light can vary a lot, as in the Colorado Phoenix, thread here,

-almost certainly a plane, photographed not long before sunset. The glare from the fuselage aft of the wings is caused by, but does not conform with, the shape of the fuselage; wing and tailplane right of fuselage are hardly visible.

Even if the photo was taken near Calvine at the specified time and date, we have very little information about lighting conditions: It was approximately 21:00, so 20 minutes before sunset.
The note (I think written by Lindsay), from The National Archives DEFE 24/1940/1 (posted here https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-276585),

Main cloud base 25,000 ft dropping down to 15,000 ft during showers. ...Occaissional showers

...so depending on the time/ cloud altitude, there might have been diffuse sunlight or patches of direct sunlight through cloud, or some reflected sunlight from the cloud base, maybe some direct sunlight nearer sunset- we just don't know.

Then there's the fact that the six alleged photos are said to show the Harrier moving from right to left while the "UFO" remains fixed in the same spot. Given the size of the "jet" in the one picture we have, it must have passed through the scene incredibly fast.

If the jet is a real aircraft, it probably safe to say it flew from right to left because its nose is on the left.

We don't know (IIRC) if the jet appeared in all 6 photos.

From the archived MoD file (Lindsay's cover letter?- or a summary of it) ref. as above:

During sighting RAF aircraft, believed to be a Harrier, made a number of low level passes for 5 to 6 minutes before dissapearing off.

The "Loose Minute" from D/Sec(AS)12/2, 14 September 1990 says

They show a large stationary, diamond-shaped object past which, it appears, a small jet aircraft is flying.

I feel "...it appears..." is a qualifier.

David Clarke's blog, https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/; though basically re-hashing the same sources:

During the sighting both also saw what they believed was a RAF Harrier jump jet make [a] number of low-level passes. During this time a series of six colour photographs were taken by the informant and '1 unidentified other [person]'.

I'd sort of assumed that the claim was that the pictures were taken during one pass of the (claimed) jet, but I can't find evidence that this was the claim of the original (claimed!) witnesses.

And automatic feed cameras were a thing. Not sure how many exposures per second they could manage, but think of the "clicks" in the intro to Duran Duran's "Girls On Film" .

 

[FatPhil]

And automatic feed cameras were a thing. Not sure how many exposures per second they could manage, but think of the "clicks" in the intro to Duran Duran's "Girls On Film" .

That's a blast from the past! Sounds like the speed of an MF:

In 1973, Canon introduced the Motor Drive MF, which was divided into two parts: a drive unit which attached to the bottom of the body, and a battery grip.[7]: 81 The Motor Drive MF had its batteries (10 AAs) in a vertical grip that normally mounted to the front of the camera, where it could be gripped by the photographer's right hand, but could be detached and connected via the coiled "Connecting Cord for Grip MF" for remote operation. It had a maximum rate of 3.5 frame/sec

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_F-1
But we're in the pro cam realm here, not the expected kit for randos who have to walk home at night.

This is the rate you'd expect from amateur gear, 2 fps:

https://www.photo-manuals.com/manual/canon/accessories/power-winder-a/download

 

[Chundered]

Considering the question of the identity of the plane and the original MOD response to questions about Harriers Matthew Illsley, in his capacity as a research assistant for Dr David Clarke, has previously stated the following.

https://www.fourfax.co.uk/09/history/scotland-1990

I am writing to you to ask if you can help me find any information regarding No. 4 Squadron's activities in Scotland during August 1990.

I understand that at that time the squadron was based at Gutersloh in Germany and commanded by Malcolm White. However, I have been told that up to 4 of the planes and crews flew low level training missions in Scotland in August of that year.

However, the National Archives states that 4 Harriers flew low-level training missions in Scotland in August of that year.

It would be useful if the material found in the National Archives was shared but maybe there is a reason it hasn't, I'll see if I can contact him.

 

[Giddierone]

Not sure if the accompanying story to the Amaury Rivera Toro photo [see post #1,169 labeled Puerto Rico 1988] has been included yet, so here it is.

Highlights Include a grey alien running alongside a moving car, an alien abduction then the UFO sighting and taking of the photos.

Puerto Rico 1988

When I arrived on the island I was amazed by its beauty. After being there a few days my grandmother
recuperated and I was able to make my brief visit a real vacation. Upon returning to New York City I
found myself constantly thinking about Puerto Rico. Something was pulling me - drawing me in like a
magnet. I phoned my aunt out in P.R. and expressed to her my feelings. I told her that I wanted to come
out and live on the island. She reminded me that the employment situation on the island was pitiful.
Without knowing why I lifted my roots. I either sold, or gave away, everything that I owned and headed
towards the island. Even though it was the birth place of my parents I really didn't know P.R. I was like
a stranger in my own land. Even its roads were unfamiliar to me.
One of my cousins had heard over the radio about a job opening at a local night club. The waiters job
suited me perfectly. I landed the job and bought myself an old jalopy of a car as a means of
transportation to and from my new job.
Everything went fine until the night before Mother's Day. A few days before this event, the same cousin
who had helped me obtain my job; called me up to ask a favor of me. She asked me to please
photograph one of her favorite musical groups, which was going to be appearing at the night club
where I was working.
The night before Mother's Day I arrived at the nightclub toting my cousin's 1 1 0 Instamatic Camera.
The club was packed and I was barely able to snap some pictures of the musical group called "El Gran
Combo". I managed to take a few. When the night was over I headed home. My feet were aching and
all I could think at the time was about getting home and having something to eat.
I took the usual route home, the one which one of my other relatives had showed me to utilize going to
and from the night club. I was driving very slowly. It was about 4:30 a.m. I had to keep in mind what
some of my family members had warned me about; they said that while driving along these country
roads one had to watch out for stray cows or horses that often wandered on to the roads. What they
really should have warned me about was something else!
As I drove through this lonely stretch of unpopulated country road named "La Bajura" (literally
translated means "the low part"), I came across a thick mass of fog. I didn't find this strange because I
had encountered this cloud of fog other times on my way home from work. I slowed down even more so
and kept my eyes on the road at all times. Suddenly I heard what I initially thought were the sounds of
hooves on the paved road. Calves? The sound was coming from the left side, the driver's side, my side.
I turned my head towards where the sound was emanating from and to my great surprise what I saw in
that moment changed my whole sense of reality. Jogging alongside my old car was a ... midget? child?
"What the __ is it?", I remember thinking to myself. My mind was going wild. I didn't know what to
think. Demons? "Oh, my God, it's a demon," I thought. I was scared beyond description. This thing was
about three or four feet tall. It had a huge head and black bulging eyes. The eyes are what really
freaked me out. The being looked at me with those black pools it had for eyes and it had a strange
effect on me. This thing had eyes that seemed to penetrate my very being. They were like those of a
Pekingese dog except a lot larger. Its skin was white, almost like if it were wearing clown makeup. The
nose was a pugged one and the mouth was no more than a slit. It wore what seemed to be a small one
piece suit; the color being olive green. What in hell was this? The farthest thing from my mind was that
this strange creature was an extraterrestrial being. At that place in time I didn't think about space
beings or UFOs. My mind did not ponder into those realms.
I didn't believe in UFOs so I didn't think about UFOs or their occupants. I was so frightened and
nervous that when I attempted to speed away from the horror, instead of stepping on the accelerator I
stepped on the brakes. When I was about to move on I see movement on the right hand side in front of
my car. Coming in from the fog was that same creature. How could this be? I thought. How did it get
from where it was running beside my door to where it was located now? In those few precious
moments in which I debated whether to run the thing over with my car something even more
unexpected occurred. Someone or something opened my car door. I jerked my head to the left and
there it was staring at me. There were two. Not one - but two. I gasped and held tight to the steering
wheel. My foot felt like lead on the brake pedal. Mentally I prayed to God and asked him to forgive my
many sins. I urinated in my pants and helplessly passed out.
When I woke up I had no idea of my whereabouts. I was still seated in my car but I was no longer on
the road. I found myself in a strange place where there were other cars. These other cars were empty. I
distinctly remember looking around for a sign that would read "Exit." There were none in this place that
looked like an underground parking lot. There were no doors that I could see; no windows either. The
colors of the walls were a non metallic light grey. As I sat there confused and gripping the steering
wheel, the thing appeared next to the drivers seat door - mine. This time I did not hear it approach my
car. I just happened to look towards my left in search of a way out and there it was. Those eyes! It
reached out to me with its skinny arm. The hand, I noticed, had five fingers but they were all about the
same length. With his white hand he, or it, touched me. He placed the palm of its tiny hand upon my
forehead. With this action on the creatures behalf, I faded into darkness.
When I regained my mind I found myself seated in another room along with 14 other people. This
room was also the same color as the previous one; a light grey. There were no light fixtures visible to
the eye, yet the place was illuminated. I saw no doors or windows. The rest of the people looked as
terrified as I felt. None of us spoke. Out of what seemed nowhere, from some point of departure behind
us, walked in the two small beings and right behind them came a man.
This man was dressed in a black shirt and black pants. His shoes were of the same color. His skin was
a dark tan complexion. Like the skin color of an Arab or a Hindu. He did not appear to be tall; maybe 5
feet 7 inches or so. He stood before us and the two small beings situated themselves - one to his right,
the other to his left. This man with long black shoulder length hair spoke to us in perfect Spanish. He
claimed to be as human as we are but from a different planet, another world which rotates around an
alien star (sun).
In this room the extraterrestrial human displayed to us all various projections which seemed to be
totally real in appearance. At the end of these events, the small beings, (the ones that the E.T. human
had informed us were in fact made by his people) touched everyone of us on the forehead. Everything
went away and I awoke seated in my car.
It was now daylight outside and I was in a different area of my home town. At the time I didn't have any
idea of where I was. I knew this was not the "Bajura Road". Where was I? I had woken up in a total state
of confusion and I couldn't stop crying. The Bajura was a paved road and this was a dirt road.
The next thing I knew, I heard the roar of military jets flying above. When I looked out the window of
my car I saw it for the first time. It was hovering without making a single sound. The F-14 Tomcats were
on their way back. Like a zombie I took hold of my cousin's camera and found the disc-shaped object
through the lens. I just stood there observing it through the lens when suddenly out of nowhere I
started to hear a strange beeping sound. Automatically I would snap a photo on every second beep.
Beep-beep-snap-beep-beep-snap.
The disc tilted itself at an odd angle and shot off straight into the sky. The jets flew into formation and
they took off frustrated in their attempts to ground the alien aircraft.
After this experience my life was never the same. These photographs have brought me lots of grief. In
the near future I hope to be able to publish my book which I'm now completing, where my experience in
its totality will be described in depth. There are many wonderful things out there awaiting us, but let us
not forget the many wonderful things that we have right here on earth .... Amaury Rivera Toro

Source: The Missing Link, No.122, November 1992

 

[NorCal Dave]

Highlights Include a grey alien running alongside a moving car, an alien abduction then the UFO sighting and taking of the photos.

It's quite the story huh?! I came across at while tracking down the photo. I think it was long time UFO skeptic @Robert Sheaffer that first pointed it out in relation to the Calvine photo, though he credits Scott Brando for alerting him. I think I found the back story through his blog: https://badufos.blogspot.com/search?q=Amaury+Rivera+Toro

 

[Chundered]

In relation to the alleged photographer Kevin Russell does anyone not find the following strange ?

https://archive.ph/uV3Vd#selection-1135.133-1141.157

Meanwhile, we have learned a man of the right name and age currently works for the Ministry of Defence as a photo analyst at the same base to which the photos were sent for analysis in 1990.

A profile of the person at a well known careers networking site can be found easily online by searching his name and MOD photo analyst.

Could just be a coincidence of course (assuming the profile / info is real) but if not would be useful to know when he started working for them as if shortly after the photo was supposedly taken then at the least explains why he has never come forward.

 

[John J.]

In relation to the alleged photographer Kevin Russell does anyone not find the following strange ?

The whole Falkirk Herald story is a bit strange...

By James Trimble
8 hours ago- 2 min read
Updated 8 hours ago

(28 February 2025)

A copy of one of the images made headlines when it reappeared last year.

...But "our" photo reappeared in 2021, not last year.

I'm wondering if it's a bit of clickbait- or perhaps the writer used a bit of (ahem) AI "assistance".

Matthew said: "Despite all our efforts, we have been unable to definitively trace the photographer, although according to all the evidence we have amassed, he is still alive and in his 50s."

So they don't know who the photographer is, but "the evidence" (which David Clarke's claimed associate Matthew does not share) shows he's alive and in his 50s. If the photographer was a young man in 1990 (and I have considerable doubt about the reliability of the account), say aged 16 - 24, of course he'd be in his 50s, and there's a good chance he's still alive.
I suspect Matthew is just fishing for leads.

Edited to add: The Falkirk Herald story also says

This witness is also adamant the photographer was not a Perthshire native, but he was actually from the Falkirk area, was a Falkirk FC fan, and that he left the hotel and returned to his home town a short while after the photo was taken.

I don't think it was ever proposed that the photographer was from Perthshire/ Perth and Kinross. It was said both the photographer and the other witness were English (or at least had English accents). A young man from the Falkirk area, to the extent of being a Falkirk fan, is unlikely to have an English accent (though of course it's not impossible).

Note also the "RAF Tornado"; the "jet" doesn't look like a Tornado and wasn't identified as such.

 

[Andreas]

...But "our" photo reappeared in 2021, not last year.

It seems to be an old archived article though, probably written in 2022.

 

[John J.]

It seems to be an old archived article though, probably written in 2022.

Ah, yes- I didn't read the URL. The webpage is still saying "Updated 8 hours ago".

 

[Chundered]

In relation to comments that it can't be a black project the Mitchell Institute Study Air Force UAVs - The Secret History appears to be a well-researched and respected document. It has several references to an aerial platform that to this day has not been identified.

The pdf can be downloaded from here.

https://www.mitchellaerospacepower.org/air-force-uavs-the-secret-history/

As one CIA engineer said in an anonymous interview, this project was "the cat's pajamas," and "the single most fun project I ever worked on" because it stretched every conceivable technology area.

The technologies were so secret, and the value of the payload and the air vehicle was so great that its loss over unfriendly territory was unthinkable. One defense official remarked, "If one had crashed, it would have been so classified we would have had to bomb it to ensure it was destroyed.

There are further references to the platform in the document and it appears that the development period fits with something being operational in 1990 and I believe there is a chance that what is being described could be the object in the Calvine photo.

If a LTA vehicle powered by electric thrusters with onboard power generation it could loiter indefinitely, the shape could have a very low RCS and among the conceivable technologies of the time was a camouflage skin providing VLO in the visual range.

Maybe it was in Scotland for some final tests with the Harriers either escort or part of the test before being rushed out to the gulf. Maybe the camouflage failed for a period.

Lots of maybes and anonymous references but it is a scenario that doesn't break the laws of physics or any technologies that haven't at least been in military R&D programs at the time and fits the available evidence.

Further conjecture but there are also similar references by unnamed military sources that some parts of the 1989 / 90 Belgium triangle wave were caused by a US military asset which, if so, may have been part of the same programme as the Calvine object and which had the ability to track and paint targets for laser guided munitions whilst remaining undetected - which I imagine would have been very useful in the gulf war, especially for mobile targets.

 

[Mendel]

Maybe it was in Scotland for some final tests with the Harriers either escort or part of the test before being rushed out to the gulf.

unlikely if as secret as claimed

Maybe the camouflage failed for a period.

impossible

If a LTA vehicle powered by electric thrusters with onboard power generation it could loiter indefinitely,

impossible

that's 3 strikes

 

[FatPhil]

[... electric thrusters ...]
impossible

Yup. An unfortunate shoehorning of real technology into a completely unsuitable scenario:

If electric rockets are so efficient, why aren't they used for everything?

The high efficiency of electric propulsion comes at the cost of a much lower thrust. Electric rockets do not generate enough thrust to launch a rocket from ground to orbit or to fight against the atmosphere. Additionally, even though electric rockets can do more with less propellant, the low thrust makes it so that it will take a longer time to do it. Electric propulsion is most useful for systems that are already in space and ones that value saving mass over a short misson duration.

-- https://spacepropulsion.mit.edu/electric-propulsion/

How much lower thrust? Technology that's known to work, and doesn't need a nuclear power station to power it:

Ion thrusters in operation typically consume 1–7 kW of power, have exhaust velocities around 20–50 km/s (Isp 2000–5000 s), and possess thrusts of 25–250 mN and a propulsive efficiency 65–80%[3][4] though experimental versions have achieved 100 kW (130 hp), 5 N (1.1 lbf).[5]

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
Enough force to hold up some popcorn. Handy, as the heat can be used to pop it.

 

[NorCal Dave]

There are further references to the platform in the document and it appears that the development period fits with something being operational in 1990 and I believe there is a chance that what is being described could be the object in the Calvine photo.

Where is the quote for that? I haven't read the whole thing yet, but the AARS UAV program seemed to get better funding in the late '80s only to be cancelled in '92 with the end of the Cold War. The paper seems vague on exactly what was happening when. Without copying large chunks of it, here is timeline that I got starting with some sort of program that may have dated back to the '70s but really got going in the '80s:

The stealthy, very high-altitude, intercontinental range UAV, known as the Advanced Airborne Reconnaissance System (AARS), was one of the grandest UAV conceptions ever. It had its roots in the re-heated Cold War and the associated US defense buildup of the 1980s.

pg: 13

I interviewed the last AARS program manager, who revealed some interesting aspects of this phenomenal UAV. David A. Kier, who was NRO deputy director from May 1997 to August 2001, disclosed that the large, stealthy high altitude, subsonic reconnaissance bird resembled a substantially scaled-up version of DARPA's DarkStar (a "white world" spin-off discussed below) and was a program funded by the intelligence community.116

Kier acknowledged that AARS had a long history, dating to the early 1980s, "maybe even into the 1970s," and said the program assumed many different forms and functions over that period.

pg: 15

As Cold War spending ramped up, congress established an oversight type agency for arial reconnaissance programs:

When Congress directed unified management of Department of Defense UAV projects in 1988, they also ordered centralized control of secret, "national" airborne reconnaissance projects through a new agency called the Airborne Reconnaissance Support Program (ARSP) in the National Reconnaissance Office.119

pg: 15

The author suggests that the Air Force may have been enthusiastic about getting into the AARS and ARPS as a means to unburden themselves of the aging and costly SR71 program, which had been transferred to them from the NRO:

The Air Force wanted an SR-71 replacement, or at least a developmental program pointing in that direction, because SR-71 operations and support costs (transferred from NRO control in 1974) were biting deeply into the Air Force budget as the platform aged. Furthermore, the SR-71 did not help with the mobile intercontinental missile threat.

If the Air Force pushed AARS, the program could provide the rationale for the SR-71's cancellation. They could then reprogram the SR-71's substantial budget into other programs while funneling only small amounts into a cooperative AARS development project shared by other agencies.

pg. 15

Whatever AARS and ARPS was attempting to create, there were several problems. The author claims the bulk of the Black Funding occured in the mid to late '80s"

Although "black" money abounded during the mid to late 1980s and AARS fit the Air Force's need for a mobile missile tracker, Kier still had to garner broad-based support for the concept, which undoubtedly had both competitors and skeptics.127

pg. 16

But funding was still tight, due the competing interests involved:

First, funding for the project had been spotty over its development history as one agency or the other took over responsibility for the project.

pg. 16

Such that, and important to us here (bold by me):

In a highly classified report to the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence in January 1990, NRO Director Martin C. Faga said that Congress was concerned that "ARSP advocacy for an advanced airborne reconnaissance program has not resulted in funding for a full scale development program."

pg. 16

Despite the influx of black money, the structural problems with ARPS seems to have resulted in no actual program going forward as of 1990. And then the Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War ended and there was no need for AARS/ARPS:

The end of the Cold War brought the expensive program to a halt. An Air Force general familiar with the project said: "When AARS was invented, there was more money than they [the NRO] could spend. After the Cold War, the money went away and projects like that could not possibly survive."133

...the Air Force pulled funding on AARS, and it was terminated in December 1992 by the intelligence community hierarchy just as it was to enter full scale development.137

pg. 19

The paper goes on the talk about various UAVs that were developed prior to 1990, when our Calvine photo was taken. The are all variations on conventional aircraft, including Amber, which gave way to the Gnat 750 and eventually the Predator UAV:

He designed Amber with a unique inverted "V" tail, a pusher propeller, and a long, thin, high-lift wing—

Amber was canceled after having demonstrated successful canister and runway launch and endurance of some 40 hours at 25,000 feet.

pg. 21

Condor, which never made it but had very large wings:

It featured innovative high altitude propulsion concepts, non-metallic (composite) structures, and a new wing design. Its massive wings deflected 25 feet upward in flight and its all-composite airframe weighed only 8,000 pounds without fuel.

pg. 22

All the others were like Amber and Condor, if they flew at all, it was like any conventional aircraft. I didn't see anything in this paper that could remotely be considered a floating silent aircraft with no lifting properties or any means of propulsion.

 

[Chundered]

unlikely if as secret as claimed

impossible


impossible

that's 3 strikes

If something can't be seen or detected no reason for it to be tested out of sight but there could have been other reasons why Scotland - RAF Machrihanish has ties to US black projects and maybe it was timing and needs must. As I said conjecture anyway, I'm just providing an alternative narrative and can't prove it.

How is something failing impossible ? If you mean impossible because the technology doesn't exist then being more specific would help. BAE were working on the technology at the time (I will come back with a reference) and maybe it was a joint project and another reason it was in Scotland.

When I said electric thrusters the wording may have misled - I mean electric motor powered propellers but housed internally with minimal inlet and outlets. If there was onboard power generation then as long as it could hold station against wind conditions what would stop it from being able to loiter indefinitely ?

 

[Mendel]

If something can't be seen or detected no reason for it to be tested out of sight

it was not out of sight

How is something failing impossible ? If you mean impossible because the technology doesn't exist then being more specific would help.

I mean "impossible" because that technology is impossible.
Thinks that can't be seen or easily detected (e.g. trace amounts of helium in the athmosphere) cannot suddenly fail to be invisible, and vice versa.

When I said electric thrusters the wording may have misled - I mean electric motor powered propellers but housed internally with minimal inlet and outlets. If there was onboard power generation then as long as it could hold station against wind conditions what would stop it from being able to loiter indefinitely ?

The weight of the onboard power generation stops it.
The tried and tested solutions for sky platforms that can loiter indefinitely is to either have them float, or to refuel them in the air, or be in orbit.
A nuclear submarine does not have that problem because it is easier to achieve buoyancy in water than in air.

Note that actual military platforms intended to loiter for long intervals, like AWACS or GlobalHawk, have wings, because that's efficient.

 

[JMartJr]

The weight of the onboard power generation stops it.
The tried and tested solutions for sky platforms that can loiter indefinitely is to either have them float, or to refuel them in the air, or be in orbit.

Would an aerostat with solar cells be possible? Buoyancy keeps it aloft, solar-electric lets it move about or keep station? Something like this https://www.rc-zeppelin.com/solar-blimp.html

The 10 m Solar Blimp is designed for hours of flight autonomy and able to carry a payload of up to 2 kg. It has a single front motor, back reverse motor, stabilizers with ailerons all synchronized for maximum power efficiency.The rail system allows simple payload attachment for various remote sensing equipment. Several subsystems were developed to make this Blimp possible. Most important is the intelligent power distribution unit that is, in essence, an automated switch that diverge the solar power to batteries or system. The power to the Blimp comes from the batteries and the solar modules are in the same time gives energy to the system and charge the batteries.So It flies until sufficient sun power!

If it WAS something along these lines, back in the day, it might turn out to have been impractical for (m)any real word applications particularly with existing tech, and so never really deployed -- and since it involves no radical tech there would be no impact on the rest of Science And Technology As We Know it, which would explain why we see no such impact decades later...

Of course to explain the Calvin picture as a blimp, the solar powered bit is not really necessary. And a blimp/balloon does not provide for sudden zoom departures, or for stealthiness, though I'm not sure how stealthiness got into the conversation as the witnesses don't claim that, do they? Nor would a balloon answer the "Why didn't lots of other people see/report/photograph it?" question. A hoax still seems the best explanation, to me.

Note that actual military platforms intended to loiter for long intervals, like AWACS or GlobalHawk, have wings, because that's efficient.

Or be tethered balloons.

 

[Mendel]

Would an aerostat with solar cells be possible?

Yes, that's one of the things that float. The Chinese high altitude platform shot down over US territory had some of the characteristics you describe, i.e. a solar cell array, and electric propulsion.

Or be tethered balloons

I've not seen the word "loiter" applied to tethered balloons before?

 

[FatPhil]

How is something failing impossible ? If you mean impossible because the technology doesn't exist then being more specific would help.

So you default to thinking @Mendel is saying that sci-fi technology has arrived here but went wrong somehow in preference to thinking he's saying that the sci-fi technology is impossible?

Not just that, but you even acknowledge that the latter interpretation is a possible one, just one that you considered unlikely compared to the former one?

There's a maxim oft stated regarding online discussion: "don't assume the other party has ill-intent"; I think that "don't assume the other party meant the least likely interpretation of what was written" is an even more important one.

 

[JMartJr]

I've not seen the word "loiter" applied to tethered balloons before?

I mean... they just hang around and dont go anywhere. That's the colloquial meaning of "loiter," I don't know if the military might have a variant definition...

 

[John J.]

I've not seen the word "loiter" applied to tethered balloons before?

I mean... they just hang around and dont go anywhere.

I think you're both sort of right, though I probably wouldn't use the word for tethered balloons. Maybe someone holding a tethered balloon, or a kite, if he looked shifty .

Thinking about it, my idea of loitering might be someone or something hanging around the same smallish area when they/ it have the capacity to move on to somewhere else. Perhaps with overtones of maintaining a low profile or being surreptitious.

Various militaries use the term "loitering munition" for (mainly) drone-like air vehicles with an integral warhead, which can stay aloft for a while until it, or more likely the user, detects a target. It's a relatively recent term.
Wikipedia article here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loitering_munition. Several armies now have man-portable systems like "Switchblade".

Wouldn't be surprised if "loiter" has other specific meanings for various air arms/ navies etc., which might be different to the broad dictionary definition of the word- a bit like "assault"; in most English-speaking forces an assault ship or helicopter is one that carries troops; an air attack / airstrike is not the same as an air assault (which uses heliborne infantry or parachutists).

 

[Mendel]

Article:

In aeronautics and aviation, loiter is the phase of flight consisting of flying over some small region.

In military flights, such as aerial reconnaissance or ground-attack aircraft, the loiter phase is the time that the aircraft has over a target. Cruise is the time period the aircraft travels to the target and returns after the loiter.[citation needed]

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loiter_(aeronautics)

For a tethered balloon, there's no need to distinguish these phases, which is probably why I haven't seen the word applied that way.
It makes sense for a maneouverable platform such as the Project Loon balloons.

If we want to split more hairs, we can now debate whether alleged Calvine UFO would be said to have been "loitering" or "holding position", if it existed.

 

[Chundered]

So you default to thinking @Mendel is saying that sci-fi technology has arrived here but went wrong somehow in preference to thinking he's saying that the sci-fi technology is impossible?

Not just that, but you even acknowledge that the latter interpretation is a possible one, just one that you considered unlikely compared to the former one?

There's a maxim oft stated regarding online discussion: "don't assume the other party has ill-intent"; I think that "don't assume the other party meant the least likely interpretation of what was written" is an even more important one.

It's not sci-fi technology though is it, I'm not talking about Klingon cloaking (just google adaptive military camouflage) and I did qualify earlier that the conjecture was based on tech that had at least been in an R&D programme and whilst admittedly I cannot now find a reference to BAE's involvement in this prior to 2011 the tech existed back in 1990 for a very basic system, if not with LCD then at least via projection.

So no, I didn't immediately jump to the former interpretation but thanks for the advice.

 

[Mauro]

If we want to split more hairs, we can now debate whether alleged Calvine UFO would be said to have been "loitering" or "holding position", if it existed.

I vote for 'hovering'

 

[Mendel]

It's not sci-fi technology though is it

yes, it is, it's not in actual use

, I'm not talking about Klingon cloaking (just google adaptive military camouflage)

i just googled it, and found no example that would work with a hovering thing. Though admittedly, the overexposed b/w photography might make it look like it did.

and I did qualify earlier that the conjecture was based on tech that had at least been in an R&D programme and whilst admittedly I cannot now find a reference to BAE's involvement in this prior to 2011 the tech existed back in 1990 for a very basic system, if not with LCD then at least via projection.

that would involve not only a hovering aircraft, but also a hovering projection screen.
In that case, a "technology" like the one used in April 1983 by illusionist David Copperfield to make the Statue of Liberty disappear could well be employed, but its military applications are somewhat limited.

So no, I didn't immediately jump to the former interpretation but thanks for the advice.

Remember, your supposed camouflage is not supposed to work in IR, or on a grainy b/w photo, but in bright daylight, presumably in full view of a busy motorway. It's now 35 years later, and there is no system like that, so it would certainly be science fiction in 1990.

The rabbit hole you want to avoid here is the thought that "the government" can do incredible things that we don't know about because they're covering them up. Historically, government secrets have turned out to quite credible, not secret enough, or both.

 

[Andreas]

As several people have already done in this thread, I just had to try recreating the picture using a sheet of glass. I decided to use a small sheet—something easy for someone to bring on a "hike" and easily hidden in a backpack. The one I used was about 8x10 inches.

I created the "UFO" by cutting a 2x2-inch square from a sheet of copper and bending it into the shape I wanted. I then used a glue gun to attach it to the glass at an angle.

Below the UFO, I painted a small airplane. (I didn't prepare this in advance, and I didn't try to imitate any existing plane—sorry about that.) In total, I spent less than half an hour on this project. I snapped a few pictures with my phone, and I'm fairly satisfied with the result.

Here are two of the photos—I converted them to black and white but didn't make any other edits. I'll try using my old analog camera later to see how the results compare. I'm confident I can recreate something similar to the Calvine photo.

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that a potential hoaxer in the Calvine case would have likely used a small cardboard or plastic silhouette of a plane rather than painting it directly onto the glass. Otherwise, it would have been quite difficult to repaint it for each photo taken. (Obviously, the hoaxer could have used several different sheets of glass, but it seems unlikely.)

Considering the poor quality of the Calvine photo, I'm convinced it could have been done this way. I also disagree with claims that a large sheet of glass would have been necessary. On the contrary, I'm sure a small sheet of glass, a tiny UFO, and an even tinier jet are all it would take. I didn't even use a stand or tripod—I just held the glass in one hand and took the pictures with the other.

And all the talk about different components of the scene being more or less out of focus is nonsense. We simply can't tell due to the poor quality.

My point is: if we can recreate the scene using cheap materials in less than an hour, it's fair to say the entire Calvine case falls apart. Without the photographer's name, any further research is both impossible and unnecessary. It's just another picture—no different from those taken by Billy Meier and George Adamski. Sometimes it's a hubcap, sometimes it's a bent piece of metal. Either way, a hoax is a hoax.

 

[JMartJr]

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that a potential hoaxer in the Calvine case would have likely used a small cardboard or plastic silhouette of a plane rather than painting it directly onto the glass. Otherwise, it would have been quite difficult to repaint it for each photo taken. (Obviously, the hoaxer could have used several different sheets of glass, but it seems unlikely.)

Cut the shape out of masking tape or duct tape or such, can reposition it pretty much instantly and very easily.

Edit to add: can even make it fly back the other way by sticking it on the other side of the glass...

 

[Andreas]

Cut the shape out of masking tape or duct tape or such, can reposition it pretty much instantly and very easily.

Exactly. That's the way I would have done it.