Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

it's a stretch ....but could the hearsay of the american guy be referring more to "its proof of a spoof" since the alleged harriers escaped detection?
Who know why whoever chose what word thirty-plus years ago? What I do know is senior officials at that level, at least in the USAF/DoD, choose their words very carefully. They attend an extensive senior leader level course euphemistically referred to as "charm school" where they are taught, among other things, the importance of how you say something is as important as what you say. (And no, I didn't take that course, but did take concentrated instruction covering specifically that topic when I became a program manager and was requested to be interviewed by various aerospace and defense industry publications.)

Officials at that level also usually have a Public Affairs Officer on their staff, or at least on call, to review and comment on statements/documents meant for public consumption. With the advent of FOIA, we were taught to assume every document we wrote or commented on would be made public.
 
As a Brit, does "spoof" in the context used above seem reasonable to you?
Yes- it might not be the first word I'd use, but Vattic and FatPhil are right.
"Spoof" might be used in the UK for a fake or hoax, the only thing I can add is that "spoof" normally implies something done for amusement (even if the only person amused is the spoofer!)
I think most people here would think Air Cdre Baldwin was saying the Calvine photo was a hoax.

Edited to add- I've heard or read "spoof" used in the sense you (Duke) mention as well, along the lines of, e.g., "Lancasters dropped Window in an attempt to spoof German radar".
 
Last edited:
Yes- it might not be the first word I'd use, but Vattic and FatPhil are right.
"Spoof" might be used in the UK for a fake or hoax, the only thing I can add is that "spoof" normally implies something done for amusement (even if the only person amused is the spoofer!)
I think most people here would think Air Cdre Baldwin was saying the Calvine photo was a hoax.
And this is how I was accustomed to hearing the term used in the UK upon being introduced to "Spitting Image" during trips to the UK in the 90s. Their take on Prince Philip and the Queen Mother had me in stitches.

Edited to add- I've heard or read "spoof" used in the sense you (Duke) mentions as well, along the lines of, e.g., "Lancasters dropped Window in an attempt to spoof German radar".
It must be correct in that context, dictionary.com says so. ;)
 
Thinking about Baldwin's use of "spoof"- and it's conjecture on my part- is that maybe he used the term just to be polite, i.e. "spoof" implying that the image was a joke, as opposed to "hoax" implying that the image was a lie /malicious deception.
 
Yes, it's better to quote the original source, when possible, but sometimes they are not readily available.
Agreed. but in that case we dont really know if it's true or written accurately. Either way our high schools and universities say students can't use wiki as a source (just saying).
Article:
This page in a nutshell: Do not use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article.
 
Do you have a link for these pages so we can take a look?
From The National Archives website (National= UK). The UFO stuff was free to download but you have to open an account.
File DEFE 31/180/1. "UFO incidents; with redactions", dated 20 June 1991 - 10 March 1992.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=DEFE+31/180/1&_sd=&_ed=&_hb=

Pages 36, 37. A lot of empty space, but I decided to post the pages whole. Not sure what the yellow dialogue box means (it is part of the image as downloaded):
.DEFE-31-180-11024_36.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_37.jpg
Pages 54, 55, 56. Page 55 is interesting.

DEFE-31-180-11024_54.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_55.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_56.jpg

Page 55 includes the intriguing line
"...but sensitivity of material suggests very special handling"
marking it out as the form that David Clarke refers to on his blog "Dr David Clarke Folklore and Journalism"
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/national-archives-ufo-files-7/national-archives-ufo-files-3/ 17th para / text block down.

As far as I can see, the only link with the Calvine image in pages 54-56 is the reference to the requested task being
"A RETASK OF AN ORIGINAL PASSED IN SEP. 90" [Capitals in original] and the reference to
"..5 (FIVE) VU-FOILS..." (Sic?) but I think the connection is there.

Note for younger metabunkers- a viewfoil was a transparent, flexible sheet, often A4 paper size, which could be printed on or written/ drawn on with marker-style pens. An overhead projector was used to project the image onto a whiteboard. I don't think I've heard the term for 25 years! Before "Powerpoint" and the like, an OHP and viewfoils (AKA transparencies, acetates) were widely used for presentations and as teaching aids in offices, classrooms etc.

I must admit, while my suspicion is that the Calvine photo is a hoax, probably along the lines demonstrated by Wim Van Utrecht
(A Christmas tree decoration or similar, and possibly a model Harrier, hung on fishing line), "Page 55" (above) has me wondering if the diamond is indeed a flying craft as claimed (although I also think that that would be extraordinary).

Immediately before the "Calvine pictures" in DEFE 31/180/1 (i.e., originally filed immediately after the Calvine pics) there are a number of pages from Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, cell-phone shots of the originals have already been posted by Duke.
I don't know if their inclusion in DEFE 31/180/1 next to the Calvine pics is significant, or coincidence. As stated in an earlier post the materials appear to be in chronological order, the Calvine pictures and the AW&ST pages were both filed between the 3rd and 5th of February 1992 inclusive.
These are the relevant pages (28-35), I don't want those who aren't interested to get scrolling fatigue so click to enlarge!

DEFE-31-180-11024_28.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_29.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_30.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_31.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_32.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_33.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_34.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_35.jpg

The image from DEFE 31/180/1 page 30, copied from Aviation Week & Space Technology December 1990 does have a resemblance, as Duke and former member Rory have pointed out.
I would be surprised if whoever was responsible for the "UFO file" hadn't noticed the similarity between this and the Calvine picture considering they were filed within two days of each other, so maybe these images following the Calvine picture wasn't a coincidence.
(Here's a clearer image, borrowed from David Clarke's blog, link as above):
AW&ST Dec 1990.JPG

(I find the detail of the weapon-release mechanism utterly unconvincing, though- seems a bit pointless having such an amazing aircraft if you then have to slow down directly over the target and use big springs to deliver stores apparently modelled on WW1 artillery shells).

The pdf of National Archives file DEFE 31/180/1, "UFO incidents; with redactions" is attached,
pdf, 36.6MB, 204 pages.

EDITED 07/04/23- I meant to say "Page 55 is interesting." Page 56 is boring as.
 

Attachments

  • DEFE-31-180-1.pdf
    36.6 MB · Views: 110
Last edited:
/
Pages 54, 55, 56. Page 56 is interesting.

DEFE-31-180-11024_55.jpgDEFE-31-180-11024_56.jpg

Page 55 includes the intriguing line
"...but sensitivity of material suggests very special handling"
marking it out as the form that David Clarke refers to on his blog "Dr David Clarke Folklore and Journalism"
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/national-archives-ufo-files-7/national-archives-ufo-files-3/ 17th para / text block down.
Do I understand correctly, the "...but sensitivity of material suggests very special handling" on this form was part of the "retasking" effort a year or two removed from the original event? If so, I suspect this may refer to domestic partisan political sensitivities as to whether the US was flying black a/c through UK airspace, as opposed necessarily to the particular "craft" in the Calvine photos.
 
Agreed. but in that case we dont really know if it's true or written accurately. Either way our high schools and universities say students can't use wiki as a source (just saying).
You can't use any encyclopedia as a source in a scholarly work (unless you're studying encyclopedias). Fortunately, metabunk doesn't aspire to such high standards, so using wikipedia as a source is both fine and useful.
Article:
This page in a nutshell: Do not use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article.
From that same page, right above your excerpt:
This page is about using Wikipedia as a citation in another Wikipedia article and not about using Wikipedia in general.
For critiques of Wikipedia's reliability for readers, see Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. For information on citing Wikipedia as a source in an academic setting, see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia.
Content from External Source
See also:
Article:
Normal academic usage of Wikipedia is for getting the general facts of a problem
and that typically helps focus metabunk discussions.
 
Wikipedia supports a particular claim of evidence. It can be debunked with a superior claim (or claims) of evidence. It is better to use Wikipedia as a jumping off point for further research. Wikipedia is fine for Metabunk. It just may be wrong.
 
Do I understand correctly, the "...but sensitivity of material suggests very special handling" on this form was part of the "retasking" effort a year or two removed from the original event?
Yes, I think so. The cover note (page 54) with the same reference number as p.55 (00920009) is dated 29 January 1992 if I understand it correctly.
 
if some random person at the New York Times (like Leslie Keane) or on Twitter agrees with you, then what you are saying is automatically less wrong. everyone knows that ;)
Just seemed ironic. Someone making a definitive claim ("even more true") on the credibility, or lack thereof, of unnamed sources, without naming a source to support that definitive claim.
 
Al
Well I was wrong...I took this well away from any roads.
Also discussed on the "Reflection in water hypothesis" thread (I wasn't aware of flarkey's earlier post to the same effect here):
Is the 'fence post' seen here a type of temporary 'fence pin' like this.....?

(A quick aside- I feel that Giddierone, or anyone else, deserves credit for posting and acknowledging something that contradicts an earlier "hypothesis" when new evidence comes to hand).

"Reflection In Water Hypothesis" thread:
Looking at the 22Mb image of the claimed Calvine UFO linked to by Rory (28/10/22)
I think it's likely that the first fencepost on the left- if it is part of the fence- is some type of fencing pin (sometimes called a pin stake).
6801.jpgfarmers weekly.jpg

They're often used for temporary fencing, to support wire strands where a "permanent" fence-post is missing for whatever reason, or simply to demarcate areas where work is to be done etc. (sometimes used on construction sites for the same purpose or to mark out temporary "lanes" for vehicles). Some types have insulated heads to support electrified wire.
Pin stakes (or fencing pins) come in lots of variations on the basic theme. Not at all rare.
 
Wikipedia supports a particular claim of evidence. It can be debunked with a superior claim (or claims) of evidence. It is better to use Wikipedia as a jumping off point for further research. Wikipedia is fine for Metabunk. It just may be wrong.

At the end of the day, all the arguments about fences, reflections in lakes, etc, etc, are really just a symptom of one unarguable fact. The evidence from the photo simply isn't good enough. I'm content to leave it at that.
 
Back
Top