The Calvine object – a secret US reconnaissance platform?

[Todd Feinman]

And evidence that is THAT poor is not going to do much to establish an amazing new phenomenon previously unknown to science!

A lot of speculation soup has been made with that stone --er model --er thingamajig. Unless someone else got a pic of the event from a different view, I don't know how you could squeeze any more juice out of it.

 

[Andreas]

I think the "could it be genuine" question is a serious one, not merely a lack of skepticism.

I understand what you mean, but it's almost always possible to construct a chain of events that makes something seem possible. When some people see a fishing line holding a UFO in place, their first approach is to explain it away as a scratch on the negative. In the Calvine case, I'm sure the photo could, in fact, be genuine. It's possible that the witness saw something in the sky and took a few photos of it. But for this to be true, we need to construct a long chain of assumptions to explain the parts of the case that don't add up.

Both Clarke and Pope argued somewhat along the lines of, "Sure, it could be a hoax, but if not, then it could be…" And we could do the same thing with Adamski and Meyer. Once the possibility of a hoax is set aside, suddenly a case like Calvine seems much more interesting. But in reality, it isn't.

To summarize: we don't know who took the photo, we don't know when or where it was taken, and we don't know why the Daily Record didn't find it interesting enough to publish. But after studying the case thoroughly, I'm quite sure about one thing: the MoD didn't take it seriously and made only a minimal effort to investigate what really happened. And with such a weak case with few known facts — and a photo vague enough to effectively hide all traces of a hoax — asking whether the case could be "genuine" is the wrong way to approach it.

 

[Ann K]

And with such a weak case with few known facts — and a photo vague enough to effectively hide all traces of a hoax — asking whether the case could be "genuine" is the wrong way to approach it.

I disagree. We have a pretty good grasp of things like physics and how objects behave in our atmosphere. When something is seen that is described in a way that defies those laws, we do not first react to think "Whoa, this thing breaks the laws of physics. We better throw out all the long-established laws of physics!" No, any scientist would first look for an explanation for that behavior, one that doesn't require the extraordinary proof that would be needed to support the extraordinary claims. In such a case "could it be genuine" is exactly the right question, and when it is resoundingly answered in the negative, we have no need to search for sci-fi explanations.

 

[NorCal Dave]

In such a case "could it be genuine" is exactly the right question, and when it is resoundingly answered in the negative, we have no need to search for sci-fi explanations.

I think you @Andreas are basically saying the same thing. He's saying, that given the amount of info we have, there is no need to even entertain the idea "is it genuine?". I agree with you that if something being genuine throws out long established laws and observations, there is a problem. I think in this case, there is really nothing to challenge those laws, aside from a vague, anonymous, unsubstantiated 2nd or 3rd hand story which could be a complete fabrication. There is no evidence that any laws of physics are being violated, it's just a slightly out of focus photo with an unconfirmed backstory.

Both Clarke and Pope argued somewhat along the lines of, "Sure, it could be a hoax, but if not, then it could be…"

In your conversations did you get the impression Clarke puts a lot of faith in his anonymous sources? The on-the-record sources he quotes say it was a hoax, but it's his anonymous sources that supposedly claim this was a US secret aircraft and the Brits knew what it was.

This is so similar to much of UFOlogy. We have people claiming they have learned of UFO programs and aliens from various "high ranking" people, but we never learn who they actually are. In many cases we can cross match stories and claims and get a good idea of who or where certain claims come from, but we never get to draw a straight line from claim to the actual person that could substantiate the claim.

I could even see Pope being a source, as we have similar situations in other UFO claims. People that are supposedly connected to programs or know of secret stuff making public claims, then making anonymous claims behind the scenes. Pope usually maintained the UFO aspect of the Calvine photo publicly, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was then telling Clarke something different "off the record" as an anonymous sources because of an NDA or something. Not saying he did, just we see this kind of thing. Just speculation, but after decades of hyping up this unseen photo, it turns out to be rather meh and Pope doesn't say much about it.

 

[Ann K]

I think in this case, there is really nothing to challenge those laws, aside from a vague, anonymous, unsubstantiated 2nd or 3rd hand story which could be a complete fabrication.

(@NorCal Dave )

The Calvine story was split into so many sub-threads that I'm unable to locate the one we started with and the story originally told by the photographers. To the best of my recollection they claimed it silently hovered for a number of minutes then suddenly flew upwards. Can anyone pinpoint the right thread for me?

(@Mick West , the search function doesn't seem to limit itself to titles only when asked, although I'm not sure if that makes a difference since the threads have later been broken up into several based on our interpretations. All of them seem to "start in the middle of the story".)

 

[Mick West]

I think in this case, there is really nothing to challenge those laws, aside from a vague, anonymous, unsubstantiated 2nd or 3rd hand story which could be a complete fabrication.

(@NorCal Dave )

The Calvine story was split into so many sub-threads that I'm unable to locate the one we started with and the story originally told by the photographers. To the best of my recollection they claimed it silently hovered for a number of minutes then suddenly flew upwards. Can anyone pinpoint the right thread for me?

(@Mick West , the search function doesn't seem to limit itself to titles only when asked, although I'm not sure if that makes a difference since the threads have later been broken up into several based on our interpretations. All of them seem to "start in the middle of the story".)

Search by title will also include tags, so sometime pulls in threads wihtout the word in the title.

They get listed by date, I think, and the older one is:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-1990-calvine-ufo.11574/

 

[Andreas]

To the best of my recollection they claimed it silently hovered for a number of minutes then suddenly flew upwards.

We have the handwritten note released by the MoD, and it doesn't mention whether the craft made any noise or not. Then we have Nick Pope. On page 176 of Open Skies, Closed Minds, he claims that the witness heard a "low humming sound." Then there's the claim that the craft was silent, and to the best of my recollection, that's something claimed by Craig Lindsay. But if so, those are obviously 30-year-old recollections and should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Regarding Pope's claim, he confessed to me in an email shortly before he passed away that he didn't have any Calvine-related information that wasn't already available in the public domain. In other words, the description in his book was purely based on the now-declassified documents, and the "humming sound" was likely added for dramatic effect.

In other words, we know that the witness most likely claimed that the craft was hovering for about ten minutes before taking off vertically at great speed. The rest is just guesswork, I would say.

 

[Andreas]

In your conversations did you get the impression Clarke puts a lot of faith in his anonymous sources?

Both yes and no. I asked him about this specifically in an email and he replied:

"Like you I struggled with the US secret platform but I think that we don't know enough about the type of prototypes that existed or were bring tested to be definitive."

He also wrote somewhat later:

"Like you I found it difficult to accept what the intelligence officer said about it being a US platform. I actually said to him at the time that I found that difficult to believe, e.g. that they could keep something secret for 30+ years.
But if it is true it does explain some of the unexplained aspects of the story."

In other worlds, it's hard to say what Clarke actually believes. But obviously he want to keep the mystery alive.

 

[Andreas]

I think we have come to the end of this discussion, since there's no reason to believe the Calvine object is a US reconnaissance platform. I just want to summarize this by quoting what Nick Pope wrote to me when I asked him if it was possible that he simply misremembered aspects of the case:

"Because all this took place around 35 years ago, it's perfectly possible that my memory isn't 100% accurate."

I think this is the key to analyzing what really happened. In 1990, it wasn't even interesting enough to result in an article in the Daily Record. Thirty-five years later, the case is suddenly considered the best UFO case ever. Personally, I don't think the person who initially faked the photos even remembers the whole fuss, but that's just my personal guess.

 

[John J.]

Other than the one known remaining (copy of the) photo, supposedly the best of the "UFO" -the one sent to Craig Lindsay- our knowledge of what was claimed to have been seen is limited to (1) the second- or third-hand summary in the National Archives,

post #70, "Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo" thread,
and (2) the recollection of a 'phone call by Craig Lindsay.

Someone at The Daily Record must have spoken with the claimants, probably the late picture editor Andy Allen who spoke with news editor Malcolm Speed:

'Later when I returned from holiday and quizzed Andy about the photographs he told me he had sent them to the RAF who had told them they were fakes.
'I was surprised he sent them to the RAF before they were published, especially given issues such as copyright and ownership.
'Andy was very reluctant to talk about the photographs and said he had given his word to the photographers to protect their identity. I was never told their names.

Malcolm Speed quoted by David Clarke on his website, 23 October 2022 https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2022/10/23/the-calvine-photographs-mod-response-to-mps-questions/, my emphasis.
But other than the claim by Speed that the RAF told Allen that the photos were fakes- a second-hand and hard to corroborate, but perhaps not trivial detail- we have very little additional information from whoever at The Daily Record spoke with the claimants.

It seems likely David Clarke and Nick Pope were reliant on these sources too- the one photo, the Sec (AS) 2a documents now in the UK National Archives and Lindsay's recollections.
Craig Lindsay has been honest in stating that his recall isn't 100% (nor should we expect it to be)

In the podcast, Clarke played the interview with Lindsay where he attempts to recall what the witness told him when he called the hotel in 1990. What Lindsay actually says: "... and that as far as their trip out that night was: uh, they parked the car, they went - [sighs] what, he couldn't - I can't remember now whether he said it was a long distance, I don't think it was terribly far but, the bits that I do remember was...

So we have a large diamond-shaped UFO that hovered for about 10 minutes before ascending "at high speed" .
And that's it. From a claimant or claimants who didn't want to be identified and who have never come forward. There were no other witnesses.

Estimates of time are notoriously difficult in stressful situations, but 10 minutes must rule out a fleeting glance and perhaps a short duration sighting of 1 minute or so. Long enough to see if the UFO was moving or not, even if it were moving directly towards/ away from the claimants -this is a (claimed) structured object, not an aircraft landing light which can give the impression of hovering for two or three minutes if it moves towards an observer.

As @Andreas discussed in post #46, it's unclear if the claimants said the UFO made any sound at any time,

Pope says the witnesses "became aware of a low humming sound" and then turned to see the object (now generally described as being silent)

In Clark's Daily Mail article, he says it happened this way:

...They hadn't gone far when they saw a huge, solid, diamond-shaped object... ...hovering silently in the sky above them.

Where Pope gets the humming report from isn't clear. Maybe Clarke's "hovering silently" comes from his discussions with Lindsay.
But it is perhaps likely the original claim narrative did not refer to the UFO making a loud noise, as might be expected from vectored jets/ rocket motors/ helicopter-type engines and rotors. Small contemporary drones can have relatively quiet electric motors, but larger drones/ powered aircraft in 1990 would probably have needed a hydrocarbon-burning engine of some type.

As others have pointed out, it seems unlikely a secret prototype or service aircraft would be flown near the location of the Calvine sighting.

We don't know of any actual aircraft (or realistic proposals) that resembled the Calvine UFO in 1990 in shape and claimed flight characteristics (hovering, rapid vertical flight). Nor has anything similar been revealed in the ensuing 36 years.

There have been some proposed candidates in terms of shape,

Lockheed had an original design called the "hopeless diamond"

From some angles the "Hopeless Diamond" concept might resemble the Calvine UFO,

...but it never flew. It was never built as a viable aircraft.
The above pictures are artwork for a scale model hobby kit, https://www.unicraft.biz/on/hd/hd.htm.

"Hopeless Diamond" was the nickname for development that progressed through to two flying prototypes, Have Blue...

...which led to the F-117 (Wikipedia Lockheed Have Blue, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Have_Blue

Tailplanes produce drag, and are surfaces that might reflect radar. Had there been a successfully-flying Hopeless Diamond without tailplanes, it would make sense for that feature to be preserved in later development: And there's a reason why the uncharacteristically negative nickname "Hopeless Diamond" came about:

Project Harvey, an initiative to develop a radar-undetectable aircraft, was followed by a tailless rhomboid design, quickly renamed the Hopeless Diamond when Lockheed engineers discovered that while it was truly stealthy, it was uncontrollable in flight. This drawing shows the outboard wings and single tail that were tacked on to improve stability. The Harvey studies evolved into Lockheed's Have Blue stealth demonstrator, the direct precursor to the F-117.

Smithsonian Magazine, August 2014, "Secrets of the Skunk Works", Chad Slattery https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/secrets-skunk-works-180952122/ (my emphasis). (Note engineers, not pilots, realised "it was uncontrollable in flight").

Unrelated, a sort-of rhomboid aircraft concept has cropped up from the pages of Popular Mechanics (post #169, Original Calvine UFO thread) and Aviation Week & Space Technology, 24 Dec 1990 (post #186) magazines. It would not have been capable of hovering.
A copy of one of the articles was in the Sec (AS) 2a documents released to the National Archives (maybe implying "the UFO desk" probably wasn't privy to particularly sensitive MoD-held information about aircraft development).

This design would supposedly use externally-ignited fuel for hypersonic flight, something no real-world aircraft has demonstrated AFAIK. Lots of missile-attracting IR. And this would be large, it carries 121 nuclear bombs. Which are ejected by springs or something similar.
It is hard to understand why the magazine editors took this monster seriously.
The drawings are by the late Mark McCandlish, an aviation artist known for believing conspiracy theories (post #172, Original Calvine thread).
I don't know if this has any bearing on the articles (the AW&ST one was credited to William B. Scott).
There is no evidence I'm aware of that this concept was ever seriously considered by anyone in a position to fund meaningful development.
Some US aerospace manufacturers have proposed extravagant and probably impractical designs in the past, where the major design work seems to have been done by an artist told to paint something spectacular.
There are some examples in Future Fighters and Combat Aircraft, Bill Gunston, 1994, Salamander Books, viewable on Scribd
[Edited to add: issues with direct link, please use URL (below) if interested, item is top of page, uploaded by user Stotza 18 August 2012]
https://www.scribd.com/search?query=Bill Gunston - An Illustrated Guide To Future Fighters and Combat Aircraft (1984)
...including (under "Lockheed-California Projects") this flying airbase, estimated mass 3000 tons. Those are fighter jets under the wings, not missiles.

So even if a major aerospace manufacturer proposes a concept, it would seem there's no guarantee that the concept is realistic (or feasible, or even desirable), and I strongly suspect the AW&ST rhomboid comes into that category (if it has its origins with such a manufacturer).
Nothing like the rhomboid and its spring-loaded arsenal was seen near Calvine, or anywhere else.

I don't think an F-117 or any other known aircraft of 1990, or before or since, can account for the shape in the Calvine photo.
Proposed aircraft of similar-ish "diamond" shape have not flown as far as we know; and proposed aircraft are not always practical; many lead nowhere.

If we assume the claimed Calvine UFO was of substantial size as reported- say, the size of a modest fighter jet/ medium helicopter or larger- and was a heavier-than-air machine, it has characteristics that make it unique:
(1) Apparent shape (though we only see it from one angle, and surface details are at best indistinct). It doesn't seem to have wings or rotors.
It would have to rely on downward thrust alone to stay aloft, we can build aircraft that do this but it guzzles fuel and is loud.
(2) Quietness. Quiet engines able to lift a substantial load would be immensely useful to both military and civil operators.

We don't see these characteristics in any known aircraft of this approximate scale, then or now. They are, however, common in UFO lore.

Depending on what "ascending at high speed" means, a lighter-than-air craft might have problems with rapid vertical flight from an apparent hover. Presumably a means of propulsion would be necessary (if it moves faster than its buoyancy would cause), which might be noisy.

In post #35, "4k UFOs Video" in the Serra do Rio Rastro..." thread, a number of modest-sized disc-shaped/ spherical drones were mentioned,

but if the Calvine UFO were a small drone/ RC aircraft- perhaps with a ducted fan and intakes/ exhaust conformal with its visible shape, or somehow hidden by louvres- it must have been reasonably close to the claimant(s).
The small/near vs. big/ far away problem is a regular feature of UFO reports, but I'm not sure that the claimant(s) making this sort of mistake is likely in this case. If a small drone were close enough to be mistaken as a much larger object, wouldn't its motor be audible?

We have several examples of strangely-shaped recce drones/ RC helicopters etc. from this era (and earlier), they're not secret so why would this one be?
Plus, a modest drone is unlikely to require a chase aircraft, and yet again there's the issue of why test it there?

It must be very unlikely the Calvine photo and account describe a chance sighting of a secret human-made aircraft, that has remained secret for 36 years.

 

[Ann K]

@John J.
From your quote:

'Later when I returned from holiday and quizzed Andy about the photographs he told me he had sent them to the RAF who had told them they were fakes.
'I was surprised he sent them to the RAF before they were published, especially given issues such as copyright and ownership.

If there had really been any concern that there might have been something secret or mysterious going on, I'd have been concerned if they had done the reverse, published them BEFORE sending them to the RAF. I'd expect them to have been in a lot of trouble if they had published anything secret without a prior OK from the authorities.

 

[Andreas]

our knowledge of what was claimed to have been seen is limited to (1) the second- or third-hand summary in the National Archives,

Probably written by Owen Hartop while being informed about the whole thing by Lindsay over the phone — or shortly afterward.

(2) the recollection of a 'phone call by Craig Lindsay.

Again, these are Lindsay's old recollections.

Where Pope gets the humming report from isn't clear

It's unclear indeed, but since he never spoke to Lindsay about the case, and since he (according to his own account) had no Calvine information unavailable in the public domain, I'd say it was most likely added for dramatic effect in the book.

but it never flew. It was never built as a viable aircraft.

I totally agree with you. The Calvine object looks a bit like this, and the conclusion would then be that since the Hopeless Diamond couldn't fly, the Calvine object couldn't either.

even if a major aerospace manufacturer proposes a concept, it would seem there's no guarantee that the concept is realistic (or feasible, or even desirable), and I strongly suspect the AW&ST rhomboid comes into that category (if it has its origins with such a manufacturer).
Nothing like the rhomboid and its spring-loaded arsenal was seen near Calvine, or anywhere else.

Agreed again. We have no reason to believe this freaky concept was ever taken seriously. And as you say, it doesn't even matter, since it wasn't a hovering craft.

We don't see these characteristics in any known aircraft of this approximate scale, then or now. They are, however, common in UFO lore.

Exactly. It looks nothing like any actual aircraft ever flown, and the described behavior doesn't either. But it's kind of UFO lore 101: "hovering silently and then zipping off into the unknown" appears in many sightings from that era — not least the totally made-up Craigluscar Reservoir event, which unlike the Calvine story actually made it into the Daily Record.

We have several examples of strangely-shaped recce drones/ RC helicopters etc. from this era (and earlier), they're not secret so why would this one be?
Plus, a modest drone is unlikely to require a chase aircraft, and yet again there's the issue of why test it there?

Apart from the problems with aerodynamics and hovering capability, this is the main issue with the "secret black project" hypothesis. It would have had to remain completely secret for all these years, without leaving any trace in known serially produced aircraft.

To me, there's still a small chance this was some kind of lighter-than-air object, like a balloon, or possibly some kind of radar decoy suspended from one. But if so, then the photographer would probably have been well aware of what he was looking at and decided to invent a UFO story around it. That said, I still think a straightforward hoax is the most plausible explanation.

 

[owntheissue]

If there had really been any concern that there might have been something secret or mysterious going on, I'd have been concerned if they had done the reverse, published them BEFORE sending them to the RAF. I'd expect them to have been in a lot of trouble if they had published anything secret without a prior OK from the authorities.

If you are in the UK in a public place and photograph something classified- you have broken no law - so publishing that picture does not require an OK from the RAF/MoD.

The much confused D-Notice was/is more of a friendly agreement between publishers and the MoD than an enforceable piece of legislation,
Cancelled memberships at central London Members clubs might be the worst they can do.