Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

[Fritzkquzerk]

Driving through Calvine next week, any photo requests?

Yes! Take a photo of the diamond shaped things in the sky or suspended from trees around the town!

More seriously:
The possible location of the photo?
Can it be found?

 

[JMartJr]

Keep an eye out for that fence! I assume it is gone/replaced, or perhaps never was where it is claimed that it was. But you never know, maybe you'll spot what others have missed!

 

[John J.]

Driving through Calvine next week, any photo requests?

Photos of elusive local wildlife are always appreciated.

 

[Andreas]

Driving through Calvine next week, any photo requests?

Have a great trip! I don't think I have any specific photo requests, though. I think finding the exact fence would be an impossible task, since we don't even know for sure whether the photo was taken in the Calvine area.

 

[NoParty]

What someone should do, in Calvine, is set up a little 15 foot section of identical fence,
make a little photo set, complete with a line of magician's invisible thread already hanging down,
so tourists can quickly hook up whichever "UFO" they'd like for their custom photo:
Sure, you can do the no brainer "Calvine hoverin' diamond," or you could choose a classic hubcap saucer,
1940s-'60s gigantic cigar, Star Wars black triangle, engine-less white egg, or "Mothership" light fixture, etc.
Sky's the limit!

 

[JMartJr]

What someone should do, in Calvine, is set up a little 15 foot section of identical fence,
make a little photo set, complete with a line of magician's invisible thread already hanging down,
so tourists can quickly hook up whichever "UFO" they'd like for their custom photo:
Sure, you can do the no brainer "Calvine hoverin' diamond," or you could choose a classic hubcap saucer,
1940s-'60s gigantic cigar, Star Wars black triangle, engine-less white egg, or "Mothership" light fixture, etc.
Sky's the limit!

A very marketable idea, could work at lmost any famous UFO picture site where there is any foreground lanscape... the McMinnville farm would be easy to make in miniature, for example. Perhaps you could franchise the idea!

 

[Giddierone]

Photos of elusive local wildlife are always appreciated.

View attachment 92565

Och aye!
Source: https://x.com/giddierone/status/1558528461609861121?s=46

I think finding the exact fence

I'm sure the answer is burried deep in the various Calvine threads, but what are the best estimates fir the location?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Why are we expending so much energy on this obvious hoax? We've already said everything that can be said. Let it go.

 

[JMartJr]

Why are we expending so much energy on this obvious hoax? We've already said everything that can be said. Let it go.

I think we largely have, at the moment there is a little surge of chat about it, which I think is where we are unless new data emerges...

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I think we largely have, at the moment there is a little surge of chat about it, which I think is where we are unless new data emerges...

Which it won't.
Unless the hoaxers come forward?

 

[Andreas]

Which it won't.
Unless the hoaxers come forward?

Yeah, perhaps we'll get a confession one fine day. But unless the hoaxer still has the negatives or the small UFO prop, I'm quite sure the believers won't be convinced even by a detailed confession.

 

[Giddierone]

Why are we expending so much energy on this obvious hoax? We've already said everything that can be said. Let it go.

Any energy expended is more than replenished with the appropriate (anti-gravity) foodstuff…

 

[Todd Feinman]

Any energy expended is more than replenished with the appropriate (anti-gravity) foodstuff…View attachment 92661

Nice! All the Calvine speculation drove me to this, long ago. I've been losing weight since y'all stopped. It's my "Calvine 2Qt".

 

[Andreas]

Well, Andrew Robinson is currently responding to some of my findings. Interestingly, he concludes that:

https://anthologycouk.substack.com/p/string-theory-tangled-up-in-calvine

Building on Utrecht's earlier work, Zätterqvist's proposes that rather than hanging models from overhead branches or some other form of overhead support, the models could have been attached to horizontal wires which, if the models were of sufficient mass, would provide greater stability, offer greater control of their position, and thus produce far more believable results. He successfully demonstrates this using a UFO constructed from folded cardboard and a die-cast toy model of a Hawker Hunter producing a series of six digital images showing the aircraft passing the UFO in a believable manner.

But I'm sure he'll have some objections in his upcoming second post on the matter.

Therefore, I'm planning on recreating the whole thing using an old Canon AV-1 fitted with an FD 50 mm lens and loaded with Kodak UltraMax 400. I will create a series of six consecutive negatives for him to comment on. And I will also create a B&W repro photo to "investigate".

Yeah, I know I shouldn't spend so much time on this, but I just can't let it go. To me, it's quite simple to create six rather convincing photographs. And if someone's claiming otherwise, I'm rather ruthless.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Well, Andrew Robinson is currently responding to some of my findings. Interestingly, he concludes that:

https://anthologycouk.substack.com/p/string-theory-tangled-up-in-calvine

Building on Utrecht's earlier work, Zätterqvist's proposes that rather than hanging models from overhead branches or some other form of overhead support, the models could have been attached to horizontal wires which, if the models were of sufficient mass, would provide greater stability, offer greater control of their position, and thus produce far more believable results. He successfully demonstrates this using a UFO constructed from folded cardboard and a die-cast toy model of a Hawker Hunter producing a series of six digital images showing the aircraft passing the UFO in a believable manner.

But I'm sure he'll have some objections in his upcoming second post on the matter.

Therefore, I'm planning on recreating the whole thing using an old Canon AV-1 fitted with an FD 50 mm lens and loaded with Kodak UltraMax 400. I will create a series of six consecutive negatives for him to comment on. And I will also create a B&W repro photo to "investigate".

Yeah, I know I shouldn't spend so much time on this, but I just can't let it go. To me, it's quite simple to create six rather convincing photographs. And if someone's claiming otherwise, I'm rather ruthless.

You go!! I looked around for film cameras, but I was surprised at the amount of money people wanted for them. Didn't seem worth it.

Looking forward to your re-creations.

 

[John J.]

Well, Andrew Robinson is currently responding to some of my findings.

Robinson's "STRING THEORY – Tangled up in Calvine (Part 1)" which you link to is an interesting read- thank you.

I was going to say Robinson quotes Zätterqvist's Reconstruction of the Calvine photo, February 2026, and reading through that was beginning to think that author's choice of a Dinky Hunter might have implied you (@Andreas) should have received an acknowledgement, but on paying attention realised why that might not have been required

A few things about Robinson's article,

...Utrecht found it was "not as easy to accomplish as I had anticipated" because "the model was constantly rocking to and fro, making it difficult to capture it in a horizontal position" (Utrecht, 2023). The wind speed when he took the photos was 19 km/h (10 knots), similar to the wind speed reported at Calvine on the 4th​ August.

Presumably the windspeed at the time of Utrecht's photos was a coincidence?
If the Calvine photo involves a model aircraft masquerading as a real one, it is a hoax.
The hoaxers could choose a time (and possibly place) most convenient to them, they could wait until the wind wasn't an issue.
If the photo is a hoax, as Robinson is hypothesising, then there's no real reason to believe it was taken at the location, or the time, that the hoaxer(s) claimed.

Although it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that the diamond shape object captured in the Calvine photograph could be a kite, blimp or some form of inflatable or radio-controlled model, neither West nor Zätterqvist present us with any evidence that this is actually the case.

The existence of kites, lighter-than-air craft and radio-controlled models is beyond doubt. Large-ish aircraft of a shape seen in the 1990 Calvine photo is not, and seems very unlikely. To be pedantic, the Calvine object is unlikely to be a blimp, which is a non-rigid airship (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blimp), something as angular as the Calvine object might require a rigid frame or skin.

...almost all RAF personnel we have discussed the case with, including Craig Lindsay...

Craig Lindsay was not RAF personnel.

Zätterqvist calculates that at the distance required to reproduce a 7 cm long Dinky Hawker Hunter (Model 736) at the size of the aircraft on the Lindsay Print, the length of wire required to cover the field of view of a 50mm lens would be 2.65 metres. More readily available larger toy models, such as the 1/72 scale Airfix plastic kit (20 cm long), would need to be much further from the camera position (10.4m) in order to be reproduced at the correct size requiring horizontal wires over 7m in length.

Heroics & Ros made 1:300 scale white metal Hawker Hunters (and Harriers), they started up in business in 1973 (though I don't know when those planes joined their range). They sold mainly through mail order from modelling/ wargaming magazines, individual planes would've been cheaper than their 1:72 kit counterparts. I had a few of their models as a boy; it's fair to say some were recognisable representations more than accurate scale models. Purely speculation, but maybe this would make it harder to definitively identify the aircraft type in a blurry photo.

From E-Bay https://www.ebay.ca/itm/176656811605

Somewhat under 2 inches/ 5 cm long, like the Dinky Hunter it might have been less prone to being disturbed by the wind than a larger, less dense plastic model, and it could be closer to the camera position on a shorter length of fishing line.
On a quick Google, some 1:100 construction kit Hunters are available but I don't know if they were in 1990. It's likely cheap generic small toy Hunters and Harriers existed just as toy planes of many sorts, of various degrees of accuracy, exist now.

Aircraft pedantry corner,

Talking about non-RAF/ RN/ USMC Harrier operators Robinson says

BAE systems had been in possession of at least one Harrier since 1975...

There were other non-RAF/ RN squadron service Harriers in other UK organisations.
Though I think it's irrelevant (the photo is a hoax), small numbers of Harriers were operated by the Royal Aerospace Establishment (RAE) and the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE), post #547, Reflection in Water Hypothesis thread. The 1975 Harrier mentioned by Robinson would be a first generation machine, we know British Aerospace (BAE Systems from 2000) also owned al least one Harrier II for development and trial purposes. The ZH 653 machine pictured in post #547 was delivered in 1994 but it must be highly likely it was preceded by others in BAe ownership; Harrier II made its first flight in 1985 but entered RAF service in 1989. ZH 653 is a two-seat trainer variant, BAe would probably require at least one or two single seaters essentially identical to the main single-seat service variant for trials purposes.

Similarly, a (probably larger) number of Hunters continued with RAE, A&AEE and ETPS for various trials, research and specialist training purposes outside of RAF/ RN squadron use (post #655, Reflection in Water thread).

Although the Hunter was withdrawn from tactical weapons units in 1980...

I think the date is questionable if we're talking about aircraft available for combat or front-line service in any role.
Hunters serving as fighters (tasked with fighting other aircraft) left UK service in 1963 (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter).
They continued with modifications as ground attack aircraft, Hunter FGA9, until late 1971 (Royal Air Force Museum, Hunter FGA9, https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/collections/hawker-hunter-fga9/ ).
Both types were massively outclassed by their immediate successors (and by potential adversaries) at the times of their retirement.

2-seater Hunter trainers continued as advanced jet trainers but were replaced by Hawker Siddeley Hawks even in that support role from 1976.
Perhaps a few continued in that role as late as 1980? That could include basic weapons training but I'm not sure we would call a training squadron, using a dedicated training aircraft not in front line use, a tactical weapons unit.
We know Hunters served as Buccaneer crew trainers until (perhaps) 1994 but they probably weren't weapons trainers; they couldn't carry the specialised weaponry a Buccaneer would be expected to carry. The Royal Navy operated unarmed Hunters to simulate attacks on warships up to c. 1995. No RAF or RN Hunters ever carried guided air-to-air missiles or other guided munitions AFAIK (Hunters owned by some other nations were modified to do so).