Calvine UFO: Do you believe in magic?

Photo of a reportedly magical craft, Calvine 1990. (c) Kevin Russell

The Calvine UFO made a comeback in 2022. It is, according to UK academic David Clarke, "the best image of an unidentified flying object ever taken" - an unsurprising opinion from the man who tracked down the photo 32 years after it was taken.

Before he became a part of the story he was investigating, Clarke found no good evidence the craft was real (alien or otherwise) and preferred the conclusion that it was a hoax.

Now he promotes the mystery of the photograph as a high-tech black project craft hovering over the Scottish moors in full view of two hapless hikers (but no one else) taking a break from their menial hotel jobs. He hasn't explained why his previous analysis was wrong. And he not only ridicules skeptical theories but misrepresents them.

The way Clarke has been dishonestly reporting on one aspect of this story in particular, for no apparent reason other than to mislead, leads me to conclude that he believes the photo is a hoax - specifically, that it is a 3D star ornament, a theory first proposed by Wim van Utrecht.

His accomplice in this deception is Andrew Robinson, the photography expert who analyzed the Calvine UFO. Robinson has softened his stance to include the possibility of a hoax, but can't come right out and say it's a model without undermining his "expert" analysis.

Are you blind?

In this June 2024 article on the case, Clarke discusses his preferred theory, that the Calvine UFO is a black project craft:

"Several RAF and MoD personnel have contacted us to say they saw the photograph/s during the 1990s or were involved in the analysis of the images. Their impression was the image was undoubtedly genuine and it showed either the F117A Stealth fighter or a secret prototype operated by the US or UK."

He then spends seven paragraphs talking about the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk and similar experimental craft, with a picture of their silhouettes compared to Calvine.

As anyone can plainly see, the profiles of these craft don't match the Calvine UFO, not to mention the Calvine UFO photo depicts a featureless grainy object and not a plane.

​(Note that Robinson modified the Calvine craft silhouette, adding bumps to the hull and squaring off the bobble on the end. Because god forbid you start thinking it's the bead at the top of a Christmas star.)

As to whether the UFO is some other secret craft, nowhere in Clarke's article does he include the pertinent witness testimony that it hovered for 10 minutes then shot vertically upward at high speed. In other words, it defied gravity (with no visible means of propulsion!). Humans do not possess this technology now, and did not possess it in 1990.

Any plausible theory that assumes the witness testimony as true must include an explanation of the craft's magical behavior. Clarke simply omits that testimony. He is not serious about the black project theory.

Original witness testimony transcribed by MoD, describing the alleged craft's movements. If the witnesses are lying about that, nothing else they say is trustworthy.

Strawman Star

Clarke has written a little about the skeptical theories for the Calvine UFO - a mountain peak in fog, a rock reflection, and a 3D star. 

The first clue that Clarke has no intention of talking about any debunks in good faith is his claim that logically, these three skeptical theories can't all simultaneously be true. He trots this out to ridicule the skeptical angle, as if it's a good argument for none for them being true. Nobody has ever claimed all three theories are simultaneously true. For an academic to use this strawman is confounding.

Clarke presents the strawman that somewhere out there is someone saying that three contradictory theories are simultaneously true.

The skeptical theory I consider most plausible is the 3D star, so I'll set aside the other two.

​A second indication of Clarke's bad faith approach to the star theory is that he misrepresents it to encourage ridicule. His article includes this photo from a 2023 talk where he waved a 60cm patterned paper star lampshade from a fishing rod: "we tried to reproduce the hoax".

Well, you're not trying very hard, David.

This demo bears no resemblance to van Utrecht's theory - a small glittery star hung motionless from a wire and shot at a specific angle to present a diamond-shaped profile. The faces of the audience tell us that Clarke successfully put the idea into their heads that the theory (as invented by him) can be dismissed as laughable.

Clarke dangles a 60cm paper lampshade from a fishing rod, supposedly to demonstrate how the Calvine photo could have been hoaxed, except that nobody is claiming it was hoaxed this way. (c) David Clarke

Similarly, in his Oct 2024 article about whether the UFO could be a model, Andrew Robinson photographed the same star. For a photography expert, it's unfathomable that he couldn't set up his demo using scenery and lighting conditions that matched the Calvine photo. It's almost like he wants us to dismiss the theory because the original photo can't be replicated with any accuracy.

Andrew Robinson's test photo of the 60cm paper lampshade

60cm Paper Star Lampshade from Amazon UK similar to the one used by Clarke in his demo

Except that it can.

​Compare those bad faith recreations to van Utrecht's recreation which accurately illustrates his own theory that Clarke and Robinson claim to be discussing. The only reason to throw around pathetic strawman demonstrations instead of the actual mock-up by the actual person who presented the theory is to deflect and deceive.

The deceptive reframing of the 3D star theory doesn't stop there. In this earlier article from March 2023, Clarke calls van Utrecht's theory "carefully argued" but dismisses it because one of the photos (so far unearthed) allegedly shows a second Harrier jet, which is one jet too many for a couple of pranksters and a fishing rod. Clarke doesn't bother with the idea that the star is a model but the jets are real (even though Robinson does). If van Utrecht is wrong about the jets, he seems to be arguing, he must be wrong about the star, ergo a giant magical craft is more likely.

In the 2024 article he makes this statement about the set-up required if models were used:

“Ingenious but if true this would not be the first UFO image faked by suspending small object from a thin wire.”

I assume he means "Ingenious, although if true..." to indicate this is a common way to fake UFO images. Hardly an effective debunk of the model-on-a-string theory. But that's all he's got.

Enter the Expert

Clarke cites Andrew Robinson's thoughts on the skeptical hoax explanations: "many of these suggestions are simply implausible. Even those that might be plausible create more problems than they solve. The simplest explanation, that we are seeing a photograph of a real object in the sky, is by far the most convincing."

Yes, Robinson believes, or pretends to believe, that a giant hovering gravity-defying diamond-shaped craft with no visible means of propulsion that nobody else saw at the time and that has never reappeared or anything like it in three decades, is a more convincing theory than a couple of lads hoaxing a photo with a model. 

But let's look again at that statement. In his own article from Oct 2024, Robinson calls the 3D star theory "one of the most credible" non-UFO explanations. But, by his statement above, that means it's one of the plausible theories that "create more problems than they solve".

So what are these problems created by the 3D star theory? Robinson doesn't say. Instead, his article gives a decent summary of the theory (albeit with the stupid recreation photo) and includes the possibility that the jets are real while the star is a model (which Clarke doesn't like to talk about). Robinson's main objection to it being a model is "there is no evidence that this is actually the case."

Andrew, the evidence is that it looks exactly like a 3D Christmas star. Duh.

Now show me evidence that the US or UK military or any military or anyone on planet Earth had gravity-defying technology in 1990. I'll wait.

Features of the Calvine UFO that match a 3D star: dimensions, shape including bead (on van Utrecht's model), uneven glittery surface, and outline/point of the forward-facing arm.

Robinson has another objection that, again, is bizarre coming from a photographer: it would be hard to take six photos of a hanging object in the same place. Because... tripods weren't invented yet?

"I’d question how easy it would be to construct a total of six convincing consecutive faked images in this manner. … the images are on continuous frames of the film and show the unidentified object in more or less the same place and position in each frame with the plane circling around it and even a second plane visible in some images. This would be very hard to achieve using a hanging model on an open hillside – but clearly not impossible."

He doesn't say why this would be hard to achieve. Instead, he then describes exactly how it could be achieved:

"Harriers and other jets made regular sorties in the area surrounding Calvine. If the photographers were indeed intending to fake a picture of a model UFO, they could have set up their camera and model and waited, hoping to catch a jet flying past on a day when flights might be expected."

Sounds pretty easy to me. And of course we don't know how many times these hoaxers went out to hang their star before they got the money shot. Nor do we know what date the images were taken in order to determine what planes were flying at the time. (Nor, for that matter, do we know the actual location.)

Robinson offers no counterargument to his proposal (which I personally find extremely plausible and have written about).

Robinson is in a bit of a bind, I get that. Before van Utrecht came out with his theory, Robinson had already done his analysis for Clarke and released his report, which concluded the object was large and distant. He'd have to contradict his own "expertise" in order to embrace the model theory that I sincerely feel he so desperately wants to do.

In fact, he already contradicted himself: in that most recent article he doesn't explain how a small close model can be "credible" given he expertly calculated it to be 30 meters long.

Christmas Crisis

Clarke and Robinson are evidently not acting in good faith when it comes to the Calvine UFO photo. Robinson claims the model theory is credible but also that the object is large and distant, and fails to provide any counterargument to the "star model plus real jets" theory.

And Clarke falls back on "I'm just a storyteller!" while failing to properly confront a plausible hoax theory, except to misrepresent it for laughs.

"What I also know - as a folklorist - is that charting the evolution of the story and the continuing reactions to it, from a spectrum of skeptics and believers, is proving far more interesting and insightful than the true or false status of the photograph itself."

If they genuinely doubt the photo is a star, they wouldn't need to misrepresent the theory. And honestly, I don't think either of them is dumb enough to believe in the magic of anti-gravity.

Clarke and Robinson think the Calvine UFO is a 3D Christmas star. I'm certain of it.

---

Copyrighted material is reproduced for research, study, criticism, review, parody and satire under The Copyright Act 1968 fair dealing exception to copyright infringement.