The Calvine UFO Image is finally out

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

The defence official, whose credentials were verified by Dr Clarke and his team, explained the UFO was believed to have been a “target designation companion” for F-117 Nighthawk stealth bombers.

The so-called “Calvine Vehicle” was understood to have been unmanned, very large and equipped with a high tech ground-mapping laser.

There is some debate about whether the F117 used Radar Locator sensors - but the main issue with the F117 was that it had very little situational awareness and flew on pre programmed routes which had to be calculated in advance to minimise threat.

If you are flying pre calculated routes (stored on disk in the F117) - why would you need any sort of additional dynamic in flight target designator?

The whole point of the F117 was that it was hard to find.
By setting up any sort of data link between the Nighthawk and it's alleged Laser emitting companion- you make the adversaries job much easier.


Its a fascinating discussion though - my profile pic. is in memory of the time ATS had a fairly credible Boom instructor who gave some insight on the subject.

a reply to: Macenroe82

Those unidentified flying objects are the German Bell, aka from when they were developing Die Glocke’s anti-gravity technology.

You know the murcury centerfuige.

It's not extra terrestrial FYI. Ask yourselves this, to determine terrestrial from extra terrestrial, why would EBEs need FAA regulated lighting, in space ...?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Perhaps Craig Lindsay needs to be contacted and asked what’s that in front of him …are they additional pics of the purported event?

In front of him is an envelope, the photocopy of the photograph that he is holding up and the fax header he sent with the photocopy to the MOD. So, not only did Craig Lindsay retain the photo but evidence supporting it's "realness", which has in turn enabled Clarke and Robinson to verify it is the same photograph that appears, as a photocopy, in the file released to the UK National Archives.

This graphic above prepared by Andrew Robinson compares the original Calvine image [left] with the photocopy faxed from RAF Pitreavie to MoD Sec(AS) in 1990 [centre] and the photocopy of the Calvine sighting released by The National Archives in March 2009 [right]. Red boxes highlight identifying features found on all three images. When the images are overlain, both the unidentified object and the Harrier jet lineup exactly on all three images, proving that the original print provided by Craig Lindsay is a genuine copy of the image analysed by MoD and RAF in 1990.

drdavidclarke.co.uk...

That same article ^, also points out that Richard Grieve remembers the incident being related to him by the "two chefs" he worked with, neither of whom he recalls being called Kevin Russell. Craig Lindsay, recounts contacting the witness at a hotel in Pitlochry, but nowhere does Clarke or Lindsay say what name Lindsay asked for when he spoke to the receptionist.

He either can't recall, or he can't say it on the record but I think it is safe to assume that Dr Clarke has got all the information that he is going to get from him but some of it he is unable to share.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
There is some debate about whether the F117 used Radar Locator sensors - but the main issue with the F117 was that it had very little situational awareness and flew on pre programmed routes which had to be calculated in advance to minimise threat.

I get "The server at www.twz.com is taking too long to respond." at your link. Anyway, the F-117 had its own laser target designator.

If you are flying pre calculated routes (stored on disk in the F117) - why would you need any sort of additional dynamic in flight target designator?

A pre-programmed flight route will get you to the place you need to be to drop the bomb on the target. But with guided munitions, you can "paint the target" and the F-117 could do that with its own laser designator

When a target is marked by a designator, the beam is invisible and does not shine continuously. Instead, a series of coded laser pulses, also called PRF codes (pulse repetition frequency), are fired at the target. These signals bounce off the target into the sky, where they are detected by the seeker on the laser-guided munition, which steers itself towards the centre of the reflected signal.[1] Unless the people being targeted possess laser detection equipment or can hear aircraft overhead, it is extremely difficult for them to determine whether they are being marked.

So if the adversary has laser detection equipment, they might detect the F-117's own laser target designator, thus putting the F-117 at risk.

If the F-117 was accompanied by an unmanned airship that could "paint" the target with a laser designator, it might offer several advantages. The laser detection equipment would still not be able to identify the F-117 as the source of the laser if the laser was coming from an unmanned airship, so it would actually be safer for the F-117 in that scenario to use an external designator. The airship has its own advantages, since it's harder to hear overhead compared to a jet aircraft.

The whole point of the F117 was that it was hard to find.
By setting up any sort of data link between the Nighthawk and it's alleged Laser emitting companion- you make the adversaries job much easier.

Do you need a data link between the F-117 and the laser emitting companion? If the F-117 flies its pre-programmed route, can't the laser designator PRF codes the F-117 munitions should follow to the target also be pre-programmed? So you fly the F-117 to the pre-programmed location, drop the laser guided bomb, and the airship could paint the target with the PRF code the F-117 munitions are expecting, at least I don't see why it couldn't be designed to do that, but I don't know the technical details of the actual design.

Of course this scenario doesn't eliminate all the risk, it shifts some of the risk of firing the laser target designator from the F-117 to the airship, making the airship more vulnerable, if the adversary has laser detection equipment. But it's unmanned so nobody is killed if it's shot down, and it seems like the F-117 would be safer. Such a theoretical airship would be a relatively easy target if it could be seen, but most of the F-117 missions were conducted at night making it harder to see, and the lack of any jet engine makes the airship harder to hear than the F-117 too.

As I already implied I'm not completely sold on the story of the intelligence source, but maybe I don't fully understand your concerns with the making the F-117 less safe because off-loading the laser target designator function should make the F-117 more safe. I don't see the need for a data link if the laser guided bomb can just follow the PRF code to the target being painted by the airship, but you obviously need some coordination in advance to make sure the PRF code painting the target matches the PRF code the bomb is seeking, but if everything is pre-programmed in advance for the F-117 anyway, why not pre-program the PRF codes too?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Re: Roles/Tech:
You might be right...I dont know how far the technologies of the time had advanced and a stealth blimp makes some sense (in isolation).

However - I'd argue an unmanned stealth blimp with the pre requisite equivalent (or better) stealth of the F117 - which then remains unreported/undocumented/without incident for 3 decades - represents a more valuable asset than the F117 itself.

If it was so good- why the distinct lack of "unmanned stealth blimp" influence on subsequent UAV design?


Couple of theories I prefer more if there must be a Companion:

1: Equivalently stealthy UAV (AARS/Quartz etc)/manned aircraft that occasionally lent a hand.
2: John Lear's theory that everyone got it all wrong and the "companion" was a backdoor deal set up to provision a politically sensitive US ally with a "dumbed down" version of the Nighthawk to assist in their mobile tactical ballistic missile hunting activities.

*2 is so out there- it must be included.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
However - I'd argue an unmanned stealth blimp with the pre requisite equivalent (or better) stealth of the F117 - which then remains unreported/undocumented/without incident for 3 decades - represents a more valuable asset than the F117 itself.

If it was so good- why the distinct lack of "unmanned stealth blimp" influence on subsequent UAV design?

I don't know where you're getting 3 decades from. We are talking about the Calvine image from 1990, which is the same year the F-117 was first shown to the public, so that's 0 decades.

I also don't know where you're getting "if it was so good" from. Maybe it was tested in 1990 and the test wasn't a success, so wasn't so good, at least not for this purpose, so the Calvine photo, if real, still wouldn't suggest the airship or whatever was used after 1990.

Still, rumors and claims of stealth airships and blimps circulate and there is at least one unclassified patent on file for a stealth blimp. But for whatever reason, the claimed evidence for stealth blimps is very, very weak at best. I certainly don't rule out the idea of stealth blimps or airships, in fact they may exist or existed in the past, and may have some good applications like stealthy movement of heavy cargo at night, but the claims of UFO sightings that might be blimps don't hold up to scrutiny. For example, UFO Hunters show did an episode on Phoenix lights and had aviation expert Bill Scott on the show to talk about airships or blimps, and he explained why if they wanted to keep them secret, they might never reveal them to the public. While he may be right about that, I'm fairly sure no stealth blimps are needed to explain the Phoenix lights as that TV show was trying to suggest.

James Fox to feature the Calvine photo(s?) controversy…..

Here’s Vetted…on the upcoming documentary “The Program”



👽

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I also don't know where you're getting "if it was so good" from. Maybe it was tested in 1990 and the test wasn't a success, so wasn't so good, at least not for this purpose, so the Calvine photo, if real, still wouldn't suggest the airship or whatever was used after 1990.

Why would you need/want to test a LO stealth dirigible over a popular tourist destination in Scotland at dusk?

If its good enough to leave the test range and operate over Scotland (assuming you arent saying its British LOL) - why do we see none of it's characteristics in modern UAV/ISR craft design lineage?

Too many fantastic explanations required (for my liking)- when all the evidence (with the added benefit of hindsight) suggests not a stealth blimp (in this pic).

Completely agree about Stealth Blimps as a concept..throw in partial vacuum lift cells and cover in a composite RAM that doubles as optical camo and you'd have a nice toy.

Here’s a clear “Reflection of Antelope Island in Great Salt Lake”…it is exact, imo, in every detail 1 for 1 both the island and its reflection.



When I look at the Calvine object ….. I do not see the bottom half as a reflection that some would contend….nothing about the bottom half is exact 1 for 1 to the top half.



Some might contend that it may be some sort of Christmas ornament…..

How could that be?

The Calvine object is not a smooth and an evenly surfaced manufactured product.

Look at it’s rough uneven skin, uneven shades of coloring, patchy dissimilar areas.

Even for the notion of an stealth experimental craft…….it looks like $hit. What aerospace company produces such raggedy looking craft? Certainly not a cleanly faceted prototype with consistent coloring and cleanly defined evenly symmetrical geometric shaping.

I don’t know what it is, but imo…..the object is not of an island and it’s exact symmetrical reflection in water.



Humorously…..It appears made of rock that’s been cut and chiseled into the shape you see…..but then we know rocks can’t fly …don’t we.

Yet, anciently…..during the monolith ages ……huge and heavy stone was geometrically cut and chiseled and moved by methods we have yet to understand.

Hmmmm

Just throwing this in for the hell of it……

Jesus speaking….an analogous parable

Matthew 17:20 He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

👽🧐🤔🍺

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Even for the notion of an stealth experimental craft…….it looks like $hit.

Do I see some trees Ophi.

originally posted by: baablacksheep1
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Even for the notion of an stealth experimental craft…….it looks like $hit.

Do I see some trees Ophi.

Here’s one for ya BB…….

How about the spearhead of an ancient spear….used for hoaxing the Calvine photo(s)?

I don’t think that’s ever been mentioned….as a possibility….hmmmm.



Over the centuries….artifacts of ancient weaponry come to the surface by storms, erosion, the elements…. an ancient spearhead could have surfaced at some point and found…..and a hoaxing for fun ensued at some point after.

👽🍺😉

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Me saying 'real deal' means an alien vessel..this is my personal slang for ufo and aliens.

To further my hypothetical hoaxing of the Calvine photograph(s) using an ancient spearhead from an ancient spear….



The objects tail appears to be a outer double tang to fit a pole in between the tangs and spiral wrap a cord to secure the spearhead to the pole.



For the hoaxing theories out there….an ancient spearhead should be considered as a hoaxed object in the Calvine photograph……

As for the aircraft…..well I don’t have an opinion on that yet…other than the spearhead could have been added to make the photograph….

It’s all my hypothetical though…

Hmmm

👽🤔🧐🍹

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

This ufo looks a lot like a mirror reflection of a mountain top. May be those photo enhancements were made to mislead the viewer. Fighter jet was to enhance the credibility of the fake.
But we still consider the photo as genuine, right? No tampering.

originally posted by: DaydreamerX
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

This ufo looks a lot like a mirror reflection of a mountain top. May be those photo enhancements were made to mislead the viewer. Fighter jet was to enhance the credibility of the fake.
But we still consider the photo as genuine, right? No tampering.

I believe the photograph itself to be genuine ….it’s elements within the photograph that has the opportunity to be faked…..such as staging before the photograph has been snapped.

The photograph after snapping…and developing, the type of paper…on its own merit …is genuine, ie no signs of hard physical editing onto the photograph itself …imo.

👽

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: DaydreamerX
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

This ufo looks a lot like a mirror reflection of a mountain top. May be those photo enhancements were made to mislead the viewer. Fighter jet was to enhance the credibility of the fake.
But we still consider the photo as genuine, right? No tampering.

I believe the photograph itself to be genuine ….

👽

Yes. Also you know, taking a photograph of a fake photo, might count as genuine photo.

originally posted by: DaydreamerX

Yes. Also you know, taking a photograph of a fake photo, might count as genuine photo.

Yes indeed 🍻

I’m curious to see the upcoming James Fox documentary to see what’s said about the Calvine incident and photograph(s)..

👽

Source article by Dr. David Clarke …UFO Cover-Up at Calvine…Fortean Times magazine issue 423, October 2022

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I suppose Dr. Clarke could have asked Craig Lindsay what was the additional turned over material in front of Lindsay when Dr. Clarke took the picture of Lindsay holding up the infamous photograph….only we don’t know what Lindsay might have told Dr. Clarke about the additional material.

Dr. Clarke is credited for the photos….(plural)



a reply to: DaydreamerX

Also…in the article was the following….


Digest it as you will..


As for my possible hoaxing theory of the object itself….I’ll still float the ancient spearhead from an ancient spear …hypothetical.

👽☕️🍩

originally posted by: Jukiodone
Why would you need/want to test a LO stealth dirigible over a popular tourist destination in Scotland at dusk?

If its good enough to leave the test range and operate over Scotland (assuming you arent saying its British LOL) - why do we see none of it's characteristics in modern UAV/ISR craft design lineage?

There is also, to my mind, the issue with the photographs and report, not actually ever being officially classified.

If the image was shown to have been some kind of secret, advanced US/UK/BAE tech, why wasn't the file classified for reasons other than "privacy" - which falls under the Data Protection Act not the Official Secrets Act? If the two men were warned off, why would the information that they had provided, including photographs have not been classified as sensitive? And after January 1993, when the documents released to the National Archives indicate that the "best" photo was to be taken by Defense Intelligence to the USA to be looked at with CIA/DOD representatives, if it was identified at that stage, why was it not then placed under a classified status retroactively?