The Calvine UFO Image is finally out

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Which means to me….if it hovered directly over the A9 Roadway……in broad daylight for 10 minutes ……then it, a 100ft object….possibly ….had to be seen by people driving on the A9 Roadway…

As the story goes, it was around 9pm on a Sunday night in early August. Not exactly broad daylight. But still fairly light in the Scottish countryside.

The road was probably very quiet at that time. But it's still a mystery why no other witness has come forward to say they saw this thing in the sky.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

There has been some work done on the location / direction of the picture, which if close to correct means it was not directly over the A9.

When I get some time I'll show that on a map and also the drone shot referenced, I'm not sure it would have been visible from the A9 at all due to the topography.

I had been of the view previously that the numerous quotes, some from respected military sources, stating the UFO phenomenon was useful as a cover for secret military projects and that many misidentifications had been made was not correct, as there was little evidence that was the case. However the more I dig around the Calvine object the more I think there is some truth to that.

The document titled "Hypothesis: The Illinois Flying Triangle is A Department of Defense, Not An ET Craft, available to download from here courtesy of Isaac Koi (item 33), hypothesises (or to me more likely explains) the couple of bits that don't fit with the sighting i.e. speed of ascent, lack of noise except the humming, size of the object and, due to the range that this airframe would have had, lack of any sightings of operation from airfields / support facilities.

I know the article relates specifically to larger triangles (or delta shapes) but the faceted diamond fits with the stealth tech of the time and as a sensor platform as opposed to a transport it wouldn't need the same lift capability. The article also references optical camouflage, which is interesting as I'm not aware that has been raised as a factor in any of the triangle cases.

I know, not the best source, but maybe this guy stumbled across a 2nd or 3rd gen version of the craft.

I think it's fair to say a few theories/thoughts on this case may change and come to light soon. We may have all been fooled on certain aspects of this case or at least deliberately sent on a wild goose chase.
These details may well become common knowledge within the UFO community.
Although it may beggar even more questions than answers........

All very good questions.
Answers (to some) coming soon

Yes and yes

I was going to say why does the original photo look so old if thats a harrier..

didnt realize the harrier entered service in 1967.

Other than that *shrugs* could be might not be, I cant tell.

a reply to: Irishhaf
The flying bedstead was a basic Thrust Measuring Rig and was 'flying' in 1954, the US created a similar machine for moon lander testing in the 60s.

aviastar.org...

a reply to: Macenroe82

Looks man made to me. It has tail fins is the first reason, Secondly there seems to be an access panel visible.

Humans......

Here’s a decent take of the Calvine sighting and purported photograph(s)…



LMH…..says there were 6 photographs……

Nicky Poo ….. had a xerox copy of the now famous photograph on his wall of the MOD office….which he failed to mention in the vid,

So if there were 6 photographs…..the least Nicky could now, currently while he still has a stable memory (I think), is to have a sketch artist make drawings of what the other 5 pictures looked at.

Any possible NDA from the day’s of his time at the MOD shouldn’t be factor……especially since it was an MOD worker who released the 1 copy of the photograph to Newsweek and the world.

How about it Nicky……what did the other 5 photographs look like???

If Lazar could sketch what he saw, and military witnesses from the Rendelsham incident can draw sketches…..why not you?

If you can’t draw…hire a sketch artist.

Throw the world a bone….Nicky….enough time has passed.

👽☕️🍩

I hope that’s not the greatest UFO photo we have. If it is we’re in trouble. To my eye, it looks like a paper mache model in the sky made by a kid, not an advanced ET UFO...

originally posted by: introufo2
I hope that’s not the greatest UFO photo we have. If it is we’re in trouble. To my eye, it looks like a paper mache model in the sky made by a kid, not an advanced ET UFO...

You infer that you know what an advanced ET UFO looks like.

Do you have any pictures of what an actual advanced ET UFO looks like?

👽😉

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: introufo2
I hope that’s not the greatest UFO photo we have. If it is we’re in trouble. To my eye, it looks like a paper mache model in the sky made by a kid, not an advanced ET UFO...

You infer that you know what an advanced ET UFO looks like.

Do you have any pictures of what an actual advanced ET UFO looks like?

👽😉

There are videos, pictures, and testimonies of silvery solid-looking UFOs.
That one to me just looks kind of amateurish...of course, I could be wrong...just my impression.

originally posted by: introufo2

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: introufo2
I hope that’s not the greatest UFO photo we have. If it is we’re in trouble. To my eye, it looks like a paper mache model in the sky made by a kid, not an advanced ET UFO...

You infer that you know what an advanced ET UFO looks like.

Do you have any pictures of what an actual advanced ET UFO looks like?

👽😉

There are videos, pictures, and testimonies of silvery solid-looking UFOs.
That one to me just looks kind of amateurish...of course, I could be wrong...just my impression.

Perhaps all it needed was a good wash at the UFO hangar…. We wash aircraft all the time….

Alien UFO washers are lazy 😆

👽

originally posted by: introufo2
There are videos, pictures, and testimonies of silvery solid-looking UFOs.

Do any look advanced, though? Example? I don't know how to tell if something is "solid looking", see the metallic looking spheres below, which I couldn't tell from a distance how solid they actually are, and in fact they are hollow.

Mellon showed this picture of a metallic looking UFO while talking about maneuvering capabilities that defied the laws of physics. It would have to be advanced to defy the laws of physics, but it doesn't really look advanced, does it?



Can we really tell if that's "solid-looking"?

Fravor claims he saw something advanced, but failed to flip the switch on his helmet to photograph it, even though he was told in advance his mission was to identify a UFO so why would he not bother to take a photo?

Instead he sent another pilot out after him to try to get images, and that pilot comes back with a video of a distant fuzzy blob that doesn't do anything interesting.

The only images I've seen that look technologically advanced are either artist's conceptions based on eyewitness statements, or else fictional images or hoaxes.

This UFO seen by 30 eyewitnesses looks technologically advanced from this artist conception, but now that we know what they actually saw, it wasn't so advanced. Grifters are still pushing this story a decade after we found out what they saw, though before that it was a genuine UFO:



Now a picture like this would probably finally settle the debate about aliens if it was real, but I've seen no real pictures like this:



Regarding the Calvine photo this thread is about, it's an interesting image, whether it shows a real craft, or whether it's a hoax or fake. It certainly has a more interesting shape than a plain old orb or sphere that seems to impress some people, but even a metallic appearance doesn't mean much, since appearances can be deceiving:



It may look like metal, but it's not really metallic.

a reply to: Macenroe82

Could someone help to briefly elaborate what is the story behind this photo? The OP link is behind paywall.
My concern with the object is if it was a jet plain then camera would need to move along to capture this overall good photo.
My line of thinking is the object either slow move or standing still.

Where I can read the whole enconter story?

a reply to: DaydreamerX

Here’s the story as it was exclusively released to Newsweek in 2022. Newsweek is notorious for ads…..you’ll have to scroll pass them as you see them. It suck’s…I know.

'Best' UFO Picture Ever, the Calvine Photo, Found After 30 Years Missing



Notice the caption says ‘pictures’ plural…..on the surface of the table/desk looks to be the rest of the pictures from the backside dimensionally…imo…no one has yet to see those others publicly……



👽

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don’t know what Mellon is showing but it's not the kind of crafts I refer to.
And there are pictures and testimonies of solid silvery UFOs.
“Advanced” is based on attributes of their movement.

Kenneth Arnoald’s description of the nine crafts he witnessed in 1947

As the objects passed Mt Rainier, Arnold turned his plane southward on a more or less parallel course. It was at this point that he opened his side window and began observing the objects unobstructed by any glass that might have produced reflections. According to Arnold, the objects did not disappear and continued to move very rapidly southward, continuously moving forward of his position. Curious about their speed, he began to time their rate of passage: he said they moved from Mount Rainier to Mount Adams where they faded from view, a distance of about 50 miles (80 km), in one minute and forty-two seconds, according to the clock on his instrument panel. When he later had time to do the calculation, the speed was over 1,700 miles per hour (2,700 km/h). This was about three times faster than any manned aircraft in 1947. Not knowing exactly the distance where the objects faded from view, Arnold conservatively and arbitrarily rounded this down to 1,200 miles (1,900 km) an hour, still faster than any known aircraft, which had yet to break the sound barrier

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Nick Pope never had copies or access to the 6 photos and inherited the one alleged photocopy on a wall in an office he moved in to.