Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

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!
 
Last edited:
Giddierone said:
Driving through Calvine next week, any photo requests?
Click to expand...

Photos of elusive local wildlife are always appreciated.

cln.png
 
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!
 
NoParty said:
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!
Click to expand...
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!
 
Why are we expending so much energy on this obvious hoax? We've already said everything that can be said. Let it go.
 
Z.W. Wolf said:
Why are we expending so much energy on this obvious hoax? We've already said everything that can be said. Let it go.
Click to expand...
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...
 
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
External Quote:
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.
 
Last edited:
Andreas said:
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
External Quote:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Andreas said:
Well, Andrew Robinson is currently responding to some of my findings.
Click to expand...

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,

External Quote:
...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.
Was the windspeed at the time of Utrecht's photos a coincidence, or deliberate?
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.

External Quote:
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.

External Quote:
...almost all RAF personnel we have discussed the case with, including Craig Lindsay...
Craig Lindsay was not RAF personnel.

External Quote:
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

hr hh.jpg


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
External Quote:
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).

External Quote:
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. Edited to add: No. 58 Sqn served as a ground attack trainer squadron 1973-76; the superior SEPECAT Jaguar attack aircraft entering service from 1974 had their own 2-seat trainer variant.

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).

Edited to add:
John J. said:
BAe would probably require at least one or two single seaters essentially identical to the main single-seat service variant for trials purposes.
Click to expand...
Yeah, managed to find 3 single-seat BAe-operated Harrier IIs, delivered April 85, July 85, March 86 respectively.
ZD318, text reads "Operated by BAe Warton Trials Flight", Airhistory.net website https://www.airhistory.net/photo/513738/ZD318
ZD319, "Operated by BAe Warton Trials Flight", https://www.airhistory.net/photo/329151/ZD319
ZD320, "Cumbria, Low Flying Area 17. Operated by BAE Trials Fleet based at Warton. MBDA Brimstone handling trials." https://www.airhistory.net/photo/260930/ZD320. Has clear "BAE Systems" markings (service aircraft don't).

None have RAF or FAA squadron markings. All photographed years after delivery, meaning they were operated by BAe/ BAE Systems (not the RAF or RN) for some years. Again, probably an irrelevance and I suspect if the plane in the Calvine photo is/ is meant to be a Harrier, it's a GR3, not a Harrier II. Still, fun for conspiracy theorists.

Delivery dates from SCRIBD webpage "Harrier Production Records UK", https://www.***scribd.com/doc/118731880/HAR-PROD
(cut and paste, delete asterisks if interested- couldn't find another way to prevent a segment of that document being unnecessarily displayed).

Under "operator" most aircraft listed have "RAF", a smaller number "RN". The 3 aircraft above are all listed "MOD (PE) / BAe Dunsfold".
There may be one or two others, I haven't checked exhaustively.
There's a small number of other planes listed (including first gen. Harriers) that were delivered (or transferred from frontline service) to other agencies (the Defence Research Agency and one of its successors, Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation; A&AEE).
 
Last edited:
John J. said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
Haha, yeah, it was me who wrote the article and the paper. I was asked to write about my theories for a Swedish UFO magazine, and it ended up being quite a long article. Obviously, I was prepared for some criticism from readers, since this case is something of a darling within the UFO community. Apparently, Robinson decided to respond with a series of blog posts. To me, that's a good thing, since it means he has to argue for some of the claims he's made over the years. And I'm glad he seems to be leaving open the possibility that it could be a hoax created using models.
John J. said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Most people are approaching this from the wrong direction. The same can be said of Robinson's discussion of the possibility that the photos were taken by someone visiting the Glasgow kite festival that same weekend. He concludes:

https://anthologycouk.substack.com/p/string-theory-tangled-up-in-calvine
External Quote:
Considering that the distance between Glasgow and Calvine is more than 95 miles (152 km), with a journey time of approximately 1 hour and 53 minutes, this would seem a somewhat fanciful suggestion.
But this is a rather strange claim, since we don't actually know where the photos were taken. We have the word of an anonymous claimant, but nothing else. For all we know, the photos could have been taken close to Glasgow. I'm not saying it's a kite, and the kite festival is probably just a coincidence, but the distance between Glasgow and Calvine is completely irrelevant.
John J. said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed. When David Clarke & co. say it could be some kind of US military platform, it sounds very much like a classic ad hoc hypothesis—one invented to provide an explanation interesting enough not to be a complete disappointment, while still sounding more reasonable than a spaceship from Saturn's largest moon.

But the fact remains that such claims need to be supported by evidence for the existence of diamond-shaped military craft capable of hovering and then zipping off vertically. Otherwise, one might just as well claim that the diamond is a Chinese fishing trawler.
John J. said:
Heroics & Ros made 1:300 scale white metal Hawker Hunters (and Harriers), they started up in business in 1973
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info. This is really interesting. And I'm sure there were other die-cast models as well. The Hunter was indeed a rather iconic aircraft. Perhaps there were some collectible Blue Diamonds models/toys available too, though I haven't checked.
John J. said:
here were other non-RAF/ RN squadron service Harriers in other UK organisations.
Though I think it's irrelevant (the photo is a hoax)
Click to expand...
Agreed. I don't really think it matters whether it's a Hunter or a Harrier. If it's a hoax orchestrated using models suspended on strings, just about any type of aircraft would have been available at a hobby shop.

But if it is indeed a Hunter rather than a Harrier, this could indicate that the initial MoD investigation was conducted rather hastily by people who simply didn't find the photographs interesting enough to spend much time on. And frankly, it wasn't the MoD's job to debunk UFO reports.
 
The classic deception which we see fairly often is to just take a 'fact' as foundational and solid and use it to contradict other theories when it is not actually established at all.
 
Andreas said:
Perhaps there were some collectible Blue Diamonds models/toys available too...
Click to expand...

Genuinely thought you were referring to the Calvine "diamond", and was sort of thinking, mmm, doesn't look very blue...

...but something gradually surfaced from memory. I'd almost forgotten that there was a Blue Diamonds aerobatics team.
mbx1.png


Matchbox plastic kit; this model website lists it as coming out in 1983 https://www.scalemates.com/kits/matchbox-pk-117-hawker-hunter-t-mk7-f-mk6--175351 (though it's essentially a 1976 kit with different decals and paint guide). Wouldn't be surprised if there were older Blue Diamond toys/ mementos kicking around, just as there's Red Arrows stuff now , not just from the usual model kit producers.

I guess if we could find an inflatable Blue Diamond, on a calm day it only needs a tether to a weight on the ground. Positioning probs solved!
ra.jpg
 
Last edited:
Clarke is a very competent researcher, but his hypotheses are sometimes well beyond the realms of reasonable technology. Claims of unfeasibly advanced blimp technology (and 1950s radar spoofing) are not consistent with the actual, historical way aerial technology has progressed.

We now have extraordinary aircraft like the unmanned Ghost Bat which were pipe dreams in 1990, but no floating military platforms (which would be an easy target for anti-aircraft weapons).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
The Calvine object – a secret US reconnaissance platform?
2
Replies
60
Views
12K
Fritzkquzerk
Fritzkquzerk
Charlie Wiser
Help identifying this UFO photo
Replies
13
Views
2K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf
Y
Yukon Alaska Hwy Jan 20 2025 Case – Raw Dashcam Timestamp Jump + 21:51 Orb Photo (Higher Res)
Replies
28
Views
5K
Smythe Bacchus
Smythe Bacchus
E
341.ROSWELL.41 - actually looked at the viral "crater" clip properly
Replies
16
Views
2K
NoParty
NoParty
Mick West
Vibe-Coded UFO Apps
Replies
8
Views
2K
R2robot
R2robot

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top