Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
I too agree. After looking more closely at the image, both the UFO and the "airplane" have near perfect horizontal symmetry.
I too agree. After looking more closely at the image, both the UFO and the "airplane" have near perfect horizontal symmetry.
Ah, I see, apologies.
To those saying that the photo is black and white - it isn't. If you follow my original link to the image Clarke has hosted, you can see greens and browns - notably on the 'UFO', which also supports the idea that it's a landscape feature.
There's a compelling overlay from Reddit that appears in the Metabunk thread
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/page-2
Although I don't quite understand how a mountaintop poking through mist could also reflect as though it's in water.
Having properly read around this now, it seems Clarke's mind has been changed not so much by the clearer image, but by a DI55 (Defence Intelligence) source and some documents that prove that this was (sigh) 'Aurora'. See this article;
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/
He elaborates somewhat at this point in this recent video, although for some reason deliberately avoids mentioning the claim that the photographer's name is sensitive because he was *poaching at the time*, which would surely explain the MoD/National Archives reluctance to reveal the name and confirm the fact that MoD concealed a crime due to their interest in the photo. But even that isn't necessary to invoke, because as Clarke admits in the video UK GDPR (data protection regulations) are now a thing. His beef is with those regulations and National Archives interpretation of them (which is in line with my own organisation and others), and does not really support the 'coverup' that he claims.
Yet he seems to be reaching massively. He assumes that the US "must have" admitted to the UK MoD that they were operating such an aircraft, yet he also says that supposedly the US was sent the photo and assumed it was an experimental British aircraft using their technology. Why wouldn't they know it was theirs, or even assume it was theirs rather than a spectacular illicit reverse-engineering project by their ally? It's all very muddled and not at all conclusive, unless these "four or five documents" make it any clearer. Why hasn't he published these documents, and why doesn't he outline this case properly on his site?
Apart from any of that, why on earth he thinks that a hypersonic high-altitude aircraft would look anything like this on a photo taken at ground level, I have no idea.
Finally, on 22 August you can ask Clarke questions about all this - please do feel free! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQqt0d34nbI
https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/
He elaborates somewhat at this point in this recent video, although for some reason deliberately avoids mentioning the claim that the photographer's name is sensitive because he was *poaching at the time*, which would surely explain the MoD/National Archives reluctance to reveal the name and confirm the fact that MoD concealed a crime due to their interest in the photo. But even that isn't necessary to invoke, because as Clarke admits in the video UK GDPR (data protection regulations) are now a thing. His beef is with those regulations and National Archives interpretation of them (which is in line with my own organisation and others), and does not really support the 'coverup' that he claims.
Yet he seems to be reaching massively. He assumes that the US "must have" admitted to the UK MoD that they were operating such an aircraft, yet he also says that supposedly the US was sent the photo and assumed it was an experimental British aircraft using their technology. Why wouldn't they know it was theirs, or even assume it was theirs rather than a spectacular illicit reverse-engineering project by their ally? It's all very muddled and not at all conclusive, unless these "four or five documents" make it any clearer. Why hasn't he published these documents, and why doesn't he outline this case properly on his site?
Apart from any of that, why on earth he thinks that a hypersonic high-altitude aircraft would look anything like this on a photo taken at ground level, I have no idea.
Finally, on 22 August you can ask Clarke questions about all this - please do feel free! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQqt0d34nbI
Yep. Would have thought one of the first steps in analysing this if you were serious would be to go to the location and take new photographs.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,350
Well I'm slightly taken aback to be told this is actually a colour photo, not monochrome. It's not exactly a riot of colour but I guess on reflection it is.
Speaking of reflection, I quite like the idea this is a photo taken looking over a fence slightly downwards into a body of water and the plane is a reflection. The UFO can then be anything partly submerged. Even something as mundane as a cardboard box.
If it is one of those opportune illusion photos the photographer would obviously know that perfectly well but since their identity is not revealed there's probably not much more to be gleaned, absent the location or the rest of the allegedly 6 photos.
Speaking of reflection, I quite like the idea this is a photo taken looking over a fence slightly downwards into a body of water and the plane is a reflection. The UFO can then be anything partly submerged. Even something as mundane as a cardboard box.
If it is one of those opportune illusion photos the photographer would obviously know that perfectly well but since their identity is not revealed there's probably not much more to be gleaned, absent the location or the rest of the allegedly 6 photos.
I've copied the photo from the article - the larger sized one. And noted a few things.
1) It is a colour photo - there is green in what appears to be the leaves in the vegetation, and there is some blue - predominately in the bottom 2 thirds of the photo i.e. all around the triangular object.
2) At the bottom left - I'm convinced that is showing lapping water
3) The little plane - I don't think it is a plane, it's merely some random object sticking out of the water.
4) The quality of the print is atrocious; I can't see how you could have a colour photo on any 1990s era camera and paper that would look so bad - by accident. I've albums of such photos and most look like they were taken and printed yesterday.
5) If this is the "best" photo - where are the other 5 that weren't the best?
Take the "plane" out to help stop you making scale assumptions, look at the bottom left as lapping water and it becomes something sticking out of the water, could be an island, could be a rock or something else as there is no detail left in the photo to be able to sure of what it is.
ETA:
The UFO is also green:
1) It is a colour photo - there is green in what appears to be the leaves in the vegetation, and there is some blue - predominately in the bottom 2 thirds of the photo i.e. all around the triangular object.
2) At the bottom left - I'm convinced that is showing lapping water
3) The little plane - I don't think it is a plane, it's merely some random object sticking out of the water.
4) The quality of the print is atrocious; I can't see how you could have a colour photo on any 1990s era camera and paper that would look so bad - by accident. I've albums of such photos and most look like they were taken and printed yesterday.
5) If this is the "best" photo - where are the other 5 that weren't the best?
Take the "plane" out to help stop you making scale assumptions, look at the bottom left as lapping water and it becomes something sticking out of the water, could be an island, could be a rock or something else as there is no detail left in the photo to be able to sure of what it is.
ETA:
The UFO is also green:
Last edited:
I'm not too sure - considering how close the shoreline is and the vegetation framing the photo I think it was took at eye height looking across the water.
The MoD not only identified it as a plane, but specifically a Harrier. See the Clarke article I linked (https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/)
According to the interview with the owner of the print, more of the same, but with the aircraft in different positions. See;
As to going to the original location, perhaps MoD photo interpretation (JARIC, who were sent it) did do that. If so, no record survives (but then, no negative or print of this survived in the archives either; just a fax copy).
Clarke and his chums claim to have found the location; https://youtu.be/IgekUVzMSCc?t=2121
If so, it would tend to suggest that it's not a view looking down with a reflection (which is still my preferred explanation), although of course it might not be the correct location. Alternatively, as I noted above, Metabunk have proposed that the UFO is actually the peak of a mountain surrounded by dense mist/fog. Not sure I buy that, but either way that 'aircraft' is definitely brown and green, with flecks of white (possibly cloud or mist).
Then we have Clarke's claims that someone from DI55 confirmed this was a US experimental aircraft and that documents he'd obtained via FOI supported this; see the same article with a snippet from one of the documents; https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/the-calvine-ufo-photographs/
Edited for clarity and links. Edited again to say on reflection I still don't get why Clarke is suddenly convinced. Other than a nicer pic, what's changed since he wrote this above-linked sceptical take?
Edited yet again (sorry) to highlight this post; https://www.metabunk.org/threads/calvine-ufo-photo-reflection-in-water-hypothesis.12572/post-276648
Despite what that poster says, that is quite convincing for me i.e. the UFO is likely (as previously suggested) a reflected piece of land in the water and the 'Harrier' is quite possibly a rowing boat with a hunched over occupant!
Last edited:
Good points Big Les.
The identification of the Harrier remains weak for me - all we have is the one line "confident that jet aircraft is a Harrier" - but we have nothing like a photo of sufficient quality to make a positive identification that it is a plane, never mind a specific type of plane. I struggle now to even think it looks like a plane.
Have to see a much better quality of photo to change my mind.
Looked at where they think the photo was taken - they are wrong - the fence posts are different in the two locations. There are none like the one I circle below in the claimed location.
Of course this is all predicated on the photo not having being deliberately altered in the first place....
Yet again we are left with a crappy copy of a photo that has lost so much detail that it is now impossible to be confident about anything.
The identification of the Harrier remains weak for me - all we have is the one line "confident that jet aircraft is a Harrier" - but we have nothing like a photo of sufficient quality to make a positive identification that it is a plane, never mind a specific type of plane. I struggle now to even think it looks like a plane.
Have to see a much better quality of photo to change my mind.
Looked at where they think the photo was taken - they are wrong - the fence posts are different in the two locations. There are none like the one I circle below in the claimed location.
Of course this is all predicated on the photo not having being deliberately altered in the first place....
Yet again we are left with a crappy copy of a photo that has lost so much detail that it is now impossible to be confident about anything.
But then it can't be an island. Imagine the horizon was the top edge of the picture. There's way too much water above the island. There's no way to take the photograph without the horizon being in the shot unless you're doing it from way up.
But if it's a smaller object like a rock, it works, because it's closer.
Last edited:
MBDK
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2018
- Messages
- 678
Not that it makes a LOT of difference, but there is also the possibility that one or more fence posts have been altered (repositioned/mended/replaced) over the years.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,350
I very, very much doubt the idea of the object being a hilltop sticking out of a layer of cloud or fog. It's an ingenious explanation but the profile of the top of the diamond shape would have to match precisely the hilltop, and the candidate I've seen is not a good match. Plus of course it requires the lower half of the diamond to be a reflection off the fog layer (does that ever happen?) or more of the hill seen through a weirdly coincidental v=shaped gap in the fog.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,350
Absolutely. After 30 years I'd expect many posts to variously lean over, fall down or break. Also, the item Darat shows circled above looks to me like a piece of rope tied to the fence rather than itself being a post.
Agreed on the Harrier thing Darat. I'm going back and forth on this all the time, maybe it's the heat! If there are indeed 5 other photos of an aircraft flying around this... thing (meaning it's not a rowing boat or any other object), then it must be a Harrier or a Hunter.
This is the 'best' UFO photo for me in terms of a) superficially looks the most like something otherworldly and b) defies easy debunking. But it's a low bar, of course!
This is the 'best' UFO photo for me in terms of a) superficially looks the most like something otherworldly and b) defies easy debunking. But it's a low bar, of course!
Looks like a metal stick post to me. But if we remove that from consideration there aren't enough fence posts in the UFO photo to match the claimed location. Whichever way you slice it there is nothing distinct that can be used to say it is the same location.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,350
I'm tending toward Harrier rather than Hunter (or Hawk or Tornado or Jaguar or Buccaneer or Gnat for that matter) as the sweep of the wings seems about right and the "bulk" towards the front of the wing roots seems about right for Harrier's large cowling. But that's so dependent on stepping back and vaguely squinting a bit that I wouldn't even be surprised if it turned out to be an A4 Skyhawk. I'm equally happy to see it as right-way-up or a reflection upside-down (or the aircraft momentarily flying inverted for that matter).
The thing that surprises me most (or raises my suspicion most) is that there's no visible horizon in the picture. Unless it's in line with the lower fence wire but I find that unconvincing. So the horizon is out of shot either below or above what we can see.
The perspective (or perspective-like) lean outward of the fence posts encourages us to see them as being below us and we're looking down. (I accept it needn't necessarily be true as the posts may not be vertical.) If true though that's a pretty solid indication that the horizon is out of shot above the frame, the plane is reflected in water and it was just an amusing photo opportunity which the photographer spotted and later decided to send to the newspaper as a prank.
The thing that surprises me most (or raises my suspicion most) is that there's no visible horizon in the picture. Unless it's in line with the lower fence wire but I find that unconvincing. So the horizon is out of shot either below or above what we can see.
The perspective (or perspective-like) lean outward of the fence posts encourages us to see them as being below us and we're looking down. (I accept it needn't necessarily be true as the posts may not be vertical.) If true though that's a pretty solid indication that the horizon is out of shot above the frame, the plane is reflected in water and it was just an amusing photo opportunity which the photographer spotted and later decided to send to the newspaper as a prank.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
GDPR protects the privacy and anonymity of someone who wants to remain private and anonymous. The issue here is that the photographer wishes to remain private and anonymous. The GDPR doesn't prevent them from coming forward with a transparent account of how this photograph came to be. As far as I'm concerned, without that account, there's no UFO, and nothing to investigate. Clarke is playing silly buggers, and you're falling for his antics.
Speaking of which...
That links to a claim by Clarke that an MOD document makes the identification. But that link, in turn, links to another page of Clarke's own report. On that page, Clarke links to a general document dump website.
Have you found where Clarke actually identifies the specific MOD document that makes the identification? Have you checked the document yourself, to see if it matches Clarke's description?
Why is it that "serious" UFO reports always look like a silly buggers at first glance, and then when you give them the benefit of the doubt and look more closely, they still look like silly buggers?