Calvine UFO / UAP photo

[Big Les]

I couldn't find a thread on this - does anyone have a view on the new photo that Dr David Clarke has discovered, and/or on his revised opinion (published yesterday) on the Calvine UFO photo? He now claims it to be some sort of US government 'black' aircraft project;

https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2022/08/12/the-calvine-ufo-revealed/

Link includes reasonably high res version of the photo showing a diamond-shaped object. For me the problem is that just because it's (probably) not a fake and (almost certainly) not an alien spacecraft, we can't assume that it's a totally unknown type of terrestrial aircraft either, surely?

edit - I suppose the presence of a Harrier jet does point toward something military-related. Perhaps an aerial radar target of some kind.

edit 2 - Metabunk have picked it up; https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/#post-276519

 

[MBDK]

I don't claim to know anything more than what is identified in the links, other than what is NOT a legitimate conclusion. From your Dr David Clarke link:

He says: ‘My conclusion is that the object is definitely in front of the camera, i.e. it’s not a fake produced in post production, and its placement within the scene appears to be approximately halfway between the foreground fence and the [Harrier jet] in the background.

And this quote from your second link:

Relative measurements of objects of known size within the photograph allow a calculation of an estimate of the approximate size of the unidentified object of between 30m and 40m with a height of between 8m and 12m.

I posit that there is not enough information to make such conclusions (though the first one does say "appears to be", which CAN be considered a disclaimer) regarding its size and location. Example: Imagine the "object" is actually the top of a mountain in the background peaking out of the clouds (it isn't, of course, but this just shows how much we assume without proper reference frames). That certainly changes the size and location perspective. With such shoddy analysis, it makes any other "conclusions" suspect to me.

 

[Olmstead]

I'd really like these photography experts to provide their methods and data. Every time it sounds like they looked at the photograph over breakfast.

 

[Checkmite]

It's probably a kite.

ETA: "In my opinion", of course.

 

[Stellafane]

Looks legit.

 

[Trebuchet]

He's a Professor of Folklore. Very appropriate for UFO's.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's probably a kite.

ETA: "In my opinion", of course.

Yeah, I think you may well be right. To be fair though I couldn't have told you the plane in the background was a Harrier. I thought it was a commercial airliner.

I'm curious that it's a black and white photo. Black and white film was a bit hobbyist niche in 1990. Press photo, sure, but is it a monochrome print the newspaper made from a colour negative?

If the original photo shows the object is bright orange and very obviously a plastic kite, perhaps the story only has any residual interest because so much information has been discarded.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I don't claim to know anything more than what is identified in the links, other than what is NOT a legitimate conclusion. From your Dr David Clarke link:



And this quote from your second link:




I posit that there is not enough information to make such conclusions (though the first one does say "appears to be", which CAN be considered a disclaimer) regarding its size and location. Example: Imagine the "object" is actually the top of a mountain in the background peaking out of the clouds (it isn't, of course, but this just shows how much we assume without proper reference frames). That certainly changes the size and location perspective. With such shoddy analysis, it makes any other "conclusions" suspect to me.

Plus, his "conclusion" is:

When I last published an update on this story I concluded it must be a hoax. But now I am convinced the Calvine UFO photograph shows one of these US classified ‘Black Project’ programs.

So the author does not think it is anything other than Earthly made mundane (although a bit exotic).

And I'm a bit worried that the photographer has never been identified.

The complete analysis at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QPqd-G9f7vMW77orEHlvQHagrxm3uZ9r/view is very, very detailed but hugely speculative. In the absence of such things as the date, location, the type of camera, the lens used it just piles one assumption on another.

YMMV

 

[MBDK]

In the absence of such things as the date, location, the type of camera, the lens used it just piles one assumption on another.

YMMV

*sigh* Yes. The all-too-often uniting factor in the vast majority of any CT enthusiast's "evidence".

 

[autumn1971]

Looks to me like a chip in a window

 

[Big Les]

Thanks everyone - I note the Metabunk guys are saying similar things and having gone over that analysis myself I agree it seems to be built on something of a house of cards.

And I'm a bit worried that the photographer has never been identified.

I'm not - GDPR regulations in the UK prevent it. Clarke should know this, yet he makes a big deal over the redaction and refusal to remove it and also demands (to no-one in particular) that MoD should answer his questions. I respect his work, but it does seem like an overreach of his expertise to conclude that this is some sort of experimental heavier-than-air aircraft, and I don't really see the reasoning behind his sudden change of opinion. It could be something mundane like a balloon or dirigible, or something even less exciting. As a piece of UFO belief folklore/material culture though, it is a cool find, though, especially after all this time.

 

[Trebuchet]

Somebody on some page I googled a while ago thinks it's just a rock in the water, with it's reflection. Which seems more probable than aliens. And the "Harrier" is more of the same, just a twig sticking above the surface.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Somebody on some page I googled a while ago thinks it's just a rock in the water, with it's reflection. Which seems more probable than aliens. And the "Harrier" is more of the same, just a twig sticking above the surface.

That actually works better, yes.

Rather than a rock, I say an island in the far background top half being the island, the bottom being its exact reflection on still water, and the harrier is a harrier in the foreground. The picture itself is from a hilltop looking down on the lake/body of water.

 

[jadebox]

That actually works better, yes.

Rather than a rock, I say an island in the far background top half being the island, the bottom being its exact reflection on still water, and the harrier is a harrier in the foreground. The picture itself is from a hilltop looking down on the lake/body of water.

Yeah, it appears to be a pretty cool optical illusion (similar to one we saw recently that was probably a capsized boat). The island, or whatever it is, is reflected onto the water or glass or whatever giving it a symmetrical appearance. And, looking at the angle of the fence makes it clear that the photo was taken from a high vantage point looking down.

That might be a shadow of an aircraft, rather than a direct view of it.

In any case, I am sure the photographer knew what was being photographed and may have intentionally shared a blurry, black-and-white version to make it more intriguing.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Thanks everyone - I note the Metabunk guys are saying similar things and having gone over that analysis myself I agree it seems to be built on something of a house of cards.



I'm not - GDPR regulations in the UK prevent it. Clarke should know this, yet he makes a big deal over the redaction and refusal to remove it and also demands (to no-one in particular) that MoD should answer his questions. I respect his work, but it does seem like an overreach of his expertise to conclude that this is some sort of experimental heavier-than-air aircraft, and I don't really see the reasoning behind his sudden change of opinion. It could be something mundane like a balloon or dirigible, or something even less exciting. As a piece of UFO belief folklore/material culture though, it is a cool find, though, especially after all this time.

Yup. I understand that part. But the fact that the photographer has not come forward to be interviewed after apparently identifying himself to the press originally (if I read things correctly) is, to say the least, suspicious.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I posted this link in another thread recently: Mystery Solved: We Now Know What's Going On In Area 51. It debunks the existence of the Aurora though not other “black project” aircraft. Why the US would fly such any such thing in the UK without telling the DoD is hard to understand.

 

[Stellafane]

...I'm curious that it's a black and white photo. Black and white film was a bit hobbyist niche in 1990. Press photo, sure, but is it a monochrome print the newspaper made from a colour negative?

That seems to be de rigueur for UFO photographs, which always look like they were taken on an overcast day in the Depression-era Great Plains with grandma's old Brownie.

 

[MBDK]

Somebody on some page I googled a while ago thinks it's just a rock in the water, with it's reflection. Which seems more probable than aliens. And the "Harrier" is more of the same, just a twig sticking above the surface.

Revisiting the image with that in mind, I have to concur that this explanation seems to be the most likely, so far.

 

[jadebox]

Revisiting the image with that in mind, I have to concur that this explanation seems to be the most likely, so far.

Once you decide that the "UFO" is an island or rock, it seems obvious and it is hard to see it as anything else.

I thought the "Harrier" might be the shadow of an aircraft, but I agree that it could very well be just something else in the water.

 

[MBDK]

Once you decide that the "UFO" is an island or rock, it seems obvious and it is hard to see it as anything else.

I thought the "Harrier" might be the shadow of an aircraft, but I agree that it could very well be just something else in the water.

Pure conjecture here, but that also might be why the photo was at least printed in black and white, as a color picture may have given the scenario away.

ETA: Just noticed you wrote pretty much the same thing in post #14. Perhaps I subconsciously plagiarized your post?