Diamond-shaped Calvine "UFO", alleged US Navy/USAF black project

O

openskies

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
20 July 2021
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
There's a lot of noise online at the mo on certain sites about the discovery of a once thought lost "UFO" photo:

www.mailplus.co.uk

Revealed after 32 years, the top secret picture one MOD insider calls ‘the most spectacular UFO photo ever captured’

www.mailplus.co.uk www.mailplus.co.uk

Some say black project, others hoax, others long since cancelled prototype:

www.metabunk.org

Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo

At around 9pm on the evening of Saturday, 4th August 1990, two men on a hillside near Calvine, a small hamlet situated just off the main A9 road, some 35 miles north-west of Perth in Scotland, managed to take six colour photographs of a large, diamond-shaped craft in the fading summer daylight...
www.metabunk.org www.metabunk.org

Anyone any thoughts on the validity or otherwise of the diamond?

1660913487355.png
 
Mr London 24/7 said:
Mr London 24/7 said:
Then I suppose both of you have missed the point: I replied to Black Dog as he is referring to posts made on ATS. My point was that a particular poster there is the source for the jalopnik article. The idea of a companion aircraft has credibility for me due to that one individual. Companion mission is something still only hinted of ('buddy-lasing' is of the TR-3a/F-19 theme).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

quellish said:
Mr London 24/7 said:
Talk of a 'TR-3A' or 'F-19' completely discredited all early mention of an F-117 Companion from late-Eighties/early-Nineties (and continues to do so).

However... the former boom operator who has given brief details of such an aircraft on ATS in the last year is the real deal:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/confessions-of-a-usaf-kc-135-flying-gas-station-boom-op-1578048155

(See also http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16089.msg170370.html#msg170370)
Click to expand...


The idea that the "TR-3" serves as a high altitude lasing platform for the F-117 is odd. Lasers don't work so well from high altitude, or through weather. The F-117 wasn't designed to hit mobile targets which might necessitate such a "buddy" platform.


Throughout the 80s the press reported that the stealth fighter was the product of the "CSIRS" program (Covert Survivable In-Weather Recce/Strike). When the F-117 was revealed to be a strike aircraft, some people wondered where the covert recce component was. This may have been where the idea of a "buddy" aircraft came from, at least in relation to the "TR-3". Now there is some certainty that there was no "CSIRS" program at all.
Click to expand...

Hello,

Alongside Dr David Clarke of Sheffield Hallam University, I was recently involved in a small way in finding and publicising an original print of the 1990 Calvine "diamond" photo (see: https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2022/08/12/the-calvine-ufo-revealed/)

snip.jpg

Assuming, for a moment, that the photo shows a real vehicle, and perhaps ignoring the alleged witness claim that it was hovering and silent, I was wondering whether anyone with knowledge of black project UAVs could say whether they feel it fits the bill as having been created under/within AARS, please? I am specifically thinking of QUARTZ, TEAL CAMEO, TEAL RAIN, etc.

I have been reading "Air Force UAVS - The Secret History" by Thomas Ehrhard (https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA526045.pdf) and several other detailed posts on SP - many from quite a few years ago - that hint that there might well have been a super-UAV (very expensive, long-endurance, stealthy, etc) made in the late 80s and early 90s that was the "cat's pyjamas", a real quantum leap in tech, to be used for locating and tracking Soviet SS-24 and SS-25 rail- and road-mounted ICBMs in the days preceding WW3.

Elsewhere, I also know that Dr Clarke was interviewing a former high-level defence source when the latter, unprompted, turned the conversation to Calvine and said:

that the diamond was real,
that it was American,
that it had been tested over the low countries (presumably playing a part in the 1989-1991 UFO flap),
that it was used in the Gulf War,
and that its defining purpose had been to loiter over enemy territory and scan for targets to be subsequently destroyed by B-2 stealth bombers.

If anyone is also able to privately share a copy of the PhD thesis, Ehrhard, Thomas, "Unmanned aerial vehicles in the United States armed services: A comparative study of weapon system innovation", I'd be grateful to hear from them, too.

Thank you.
 
illsleymatthew said:
Elsewhere, I also know that Dr Clarke was interviewing a former high-level defence source when the latter, unprompted, turned the conversation to Calvine and said:

that the diamond was real,
that it was American,
that it had been tested over the low countries (presumably playing a part in the 1989-1991 UFO flap),
that it was used in the Gulf War,
and that its defining purpose had been to loiter over enemy territory and scan for targets to be subsequently destroyed by B-2 stealth bombers.

If anyone is also able to privately share a copy of the PhD thesis, Ehrhard, Thomas, "Unmanned aerial vehicles in the United States armed services: A comparative study of weapon system innovation", I'd be grateful to hear from them, too.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

The aircraft you are describing was the QUARTZ/AARS UAV, during the period where Lockheed was prime contractor and the program was an intelligence agency project.
It was a large flying wing, similar in shape to the X-56.
It was (supposedly) able to fly at very low air speeds, below 100 mph. From the ground it would appear to be barely moving or stationary.
The center body / fuselage was faceted, and from some angles may have looked vaguely like a diamond.
It was not used in the Gulf War. In the late 1980s a prototype or demonstrator crashed, resulting in a redesign and restructuring of the program and greater USAF participation as well as Lockheed partnering with Boeing. During the Gulf War it is very unlikely that anything related to this program was flying.

During the 1990s there were rumors that American classified aircraft were tested / flown in the UK. I tried through the late 1990s and early 2000s to find anything to substantiate that. I never found anything at all to substantiate it. It seems very very unlikely that any US classified aircraft was tested over the UK. There was no compelling reason to. The inverse, however, probably did happen (UK aircraft tested in the US).

The diamond pictured in the photograph does not correspond to any classified aircraft or research in the US that I am aware of.
 
publiusr said:
If you had really strong material…a vacuum filled balloon?
Click to expand...
No such material exists. The best you might hope for is some sort of extremely low density aerogel that can withstand the many, MANY tons of pressure; but the likelihood of such an aerogel having a lower density than hydrogen gas is frankly ludicrous.
 

Attachments

  • 19.01.vacuum.pdf
    2.3 MB · Views: 22
sublight_ said:
Orionblamblam said:
publiusr said:
If you had really strong material…a vacuum filled balloon?
Click to expand...
No such material exists. The best you might hope for is some sort of extremely low density aerogel that can withstand the many, MANY tons of pressure; but the likelihood of such an aerogel having a lower density than hydrogen gas is frankly ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That report suggests that it would be possible to construct a vacuum "balloon" with a lower bulk density than air. That's nice... but it needs to compete with a simple mylar balloon filled with *hydrogen.* A conventional balloon envelope is always going to be cheaper than anything that requires technology we don't actually have.

Additionally, a vacuum balloon will be restricted to spherical or, *perhaps* cylindrical. The same technology used with hydrogen, helium or even hot water vapor can be built to any shape you like since the pressure issue will be essentially nil.
 
But that's the thing. At really high altitudes you have a problem with gas bags bursting, whereas a vac balloon will have stresses of almost nil.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sublight_ said:
But that's the thing. At really high altitudes you have a problem with gas bags bursting, whereas a vac balloon will have stresses of almost nil.
Click to expand...

And just how exactly would a fixed volume vacuum balloon generate buoyancy at high altitude? Think it through...
 
Orionblamblam said:
sublight_ said:
But that's the thing. At really high altitudes you have a problem with gas bags bursting, whereas a vac balloon will have stresses of almost nil.
Click to expand...

And just how exactly would a fixed volume vacuum balloon generate buoyancy at high altitude? Think it through...
Click to expand...
The altitude depends on its max lift potential which is dictated by its volume, and weight, there is no inherent limitation based on it being a vacuum envelope.
 
sublight_ said:
Orionblamblam said:
sublight_ said:
But that's the thing. At really high altitudes you have a problem with gas bags bursting, whereas a vac balloon will have stresses of almost nil.
Click to expand...

And just how exactly would a fixed volume vacuum balloon generate buoyancy at high altitude? Think it through...
Click to expand...
The altitude depends on its max lift potential which is dictated by its volume, and weight, there is no inherent limitation based on it being a vacuum envelope.
Click to expand...
Sigh.

An elastic or flexible balloon will expand with altitude, increasing volume and reducing bulk density. A vacuum balloon retains the same density no matter altitude. The NASA report suggested that a vacuum balloon could potentially be made less dense than air. But air at what altitude? A vacuum balloon designed to withstand the air pressure at 80,000 feet would fold like a cheap suit if brought lower; a vacuum balloon designed to withstand sea level pressure would probably be able to ascend only a few thousand feet before its bulk density matched that of the air around it.

The NASA report says a 100 meter radius vac-balloon could lift 3,005,114 kg at sea level, with air density of 1.225 kg/m^3. A 100 meter radius sphere is 4,188,787 cubic meters; that volume of air masses 5,131263 kg. This means the balloon masses 2,126,150 kg, or 41.4% as dense as air at sea level... 0.506 kg/m^3. According to the Standard Atmosphere, that's between 8000 and 9000 meters altitude. This does not include any of the fittings and cables and whatnot needed to connect the sphere to a payload. Above that altitude, the balloon SIMPLY WILL NOT RISE. And I don't know what factor of safety they included in their analysis, or if they included the mass of the actual pressure resistant exterior bladder/coating, all that stuff.

And of course if the thing is neutrally buoyant with its payload just above sea level, the only way it can rise would be either propulsively or by *dropping* payload. Any payload at all will reduce maximum altitude.

Feel free to check my math.
 
Last edited:
quellish said:
illsleymatthew said:
Elsewhere, I also know that Dr Clarke was interviewing a former high-level defence source when the latter, unprompted, turned the conversation to Calvine and said:

that the diamond was real,
that it was American,
that it had been tested over the low countries (presumably playing a part in the 1989-1991 UFO flap),
that it was used in the Gulf War,
and that its defining purpose had been to loiter over enemy territory and scan for targets to be subsequently destroyed by B-2 stealth bombers.

If anyone is also able to privately share a copy of the PhD thesis, Ehrhard, Thomas, "Unmanned aerial vehicles in the United States armed services: A comparative study of weapon system innovation", I'd be grateful to hear from them, too.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

The aircraft you are describing was the QUARTZ/AARS UAV, during the period where Lockheed was prime contractor and the program was an intelligence agency project.
It was a large flying wing, similar in shape to the X-56.
It was (supposedly) able to fly at very low air speeds, below 100 mph. From the ground it would appear to be barely moving or stationary.
The center body / fuselage was faceted, and from some angles may have looked vaguely like a diamond.
It was not used in the Gulf War. In the late 1980s a prototype or demonstrator crashed, resulting in a redesign and restructuring of the program and greater USAF participation as well as Lockheed partnering with Boeing. During the Gulf War it is very unlikely that anything related to this program was flying.

During the 1990s there were rumors that American classified aircraft were tested / flown in the UK. I tried through the late 1990s and early 2000s to find anything to substantiate that. I never found anything at all to substantiate it. It seems very very unlikely that any US classified aircraft was tested over the UK. There was no compelling reason to. The inverse, however, probably did happen (UK aircraft tested in the US).

The diamond pictured in the photograph does not correspond to any classified aircraft or research in the US that I am aware of.
Click to expand...
BSAX starts in 1976
Tacit Blue/NG started work in 1978
ATB started in 1979.
NG design/Senior Ice was chosen in 1981.
Tacit Blue was flying in 1982. (4 years after NG was awarded contract)
1984 B2 Low Altitude Redesign
Tacit Blue placed in storage in 1985
First B2 flight in 1989
First B2 was delivered in 1993

But. AARS/Quartz pops up out of right field with a cranked kite design that crashed in the late 80s and was being flown in 1991 with speculation of a manned version incorporating active stealth and technology so advanced they would “have to bomb the hell out of it“ it it was ever downed.

Was Quartz a progression of Senior Peg with Lockheeds love of faceting? And what made it seemingly much more advanced than what the B2 turned out to be.
 
Its ALL based on unfounded bs. but heres a note on the relevant file at Kew for anyone wanting to check for themselves ... TNA. DEFE 24/1940



1990 Calvine UFO incident - Freedom of Information

Request In October, The Scottish Sun reported that MoD files relating to the August 1990 Calvine UFO incident, which should have been released as per the “30 year rule”, were blocked for release by the Ministry of Defence until 2072...
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
 
Last edited:
I wondering is this hier some prototype of lenticular-shaped hybrid airship.
The Soviets in time worked on Thermoplan - ALA-40

thermoplane-jpg.70525


snip-jpg.684084
 
Looks like side-view of that hobby-built 'facetoplane'... ( IIRC, AKA 'But Yet It Flies !!' )

Um, if they've got hold of original, un-cropped photo, is there also an aircraft off to left of pic ??
 
Don’t think it’s an EKIP.

Now…I have some questions about some recent advances I have seen in the civilian world at phys.org.

For example—there is a part of me that wonders if militaries the world over already had an anti-fog coating before this was perhaps “re-invented” privately:

phys.org

Optical coating approach prevents fogging and unwanted reflections

Researchers have developed an optical coating system that combines antifogging and antireflective properties. The new technology could help boost the performance of lidar systems and cameras.
phys.org

Now, we know militaries have been working with directed energy yes? Now, see below:


phys.org

Researchers create an optical tractor beam that pulls macroscopic objects

Researchers have developed a way to use laser light to pull a macroscopic object. Although microscopic optical tractor beams have been demonstrated before, this is one of the first times that laser pulling has been used on larger objects.
phys.org
www.wired.com

Researchers Levitated a Small Tray Using Nothing but Light

One day a “magic carpet” based on this light-induced flow technology could carry climate sensors high in the atmosphere—wind permitting.
www.wired.com www.wired.com

Okay…now—-if I wanted a sky-cursor…maybe something I want to pantograph across the sky with beams in place of struts…might I want to nix pure aerodynamics in favor of a faceted design like that above?

More foosball than flight.
 
Last edited:
I'm concerned that this is the medium sized one. How do they know?

Chris
 
Does anyone think there may be a connection with Calvine and Cash-Landrum that was speculated to be a black project?

Cash-Landrum was in 1980 was a “huge diamond-shaped object, which hovered at about treetop level, and that its base was expelling flame and emitting significant heat.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash–Landrum_incident

Its description is pretty much the same as Cash-Landrum but oriented vertically.
 
Yes. Theoretical, fake and generic projects.
Into which you introduced the Cash-Landrum thing.
Your call.
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
Yes. Theoretical, fake and generic projects.
Into which you introduced the Cash-Landrum thing.
Your call.
Click to expand...
Well what are the odds of two ladies describing a very specific diamond shaped object? They didn't say flying saucer, they didn't say "Millenium falcon". It was simply odd for that time. But as time as gone by, we learned that faceted stealth was big in the 80's. So yes, I could see where somebody might assume there was a connection there.
 
It wouldn't matter if you had a photo, it would be called a fake.
Unless it was taken by The Pope or the Dalai Lama.

Chris
 
True. For the sake of speculation, a smidgen of evidence would be nice, though.
 
But the Air Force was following very strict OPSEC with these things to make sure a smidgen of evidence never had a chance. But it still happens. That is why I firmly believe there are some nuggets of ancient secret projects hidden away in some UFO reports. Yes, there is going to be a lot of garbage, but sometimes a real pattern will emerge (stealth blimp).
 
I think it also landed on a local golf course, the diamond in the rough, nobody was playing any cow pasture pool at the time though.
 
martinbayer said:
The very first thing that illustration brought to mind is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_lantern
Click to expand...
There was a large and acknowledged military response with chinooks. There is a lot of physical evidence from the incident. Additionally the road was torn up in the middle of the night and replaced. Much like scattering scrap parts from older military jets when an F-117 crashes.

It’s a really fascinating story that has more fact than fiction.
 
Hansblix said:
martinbayer said:
The very first thing that illustration brought to mind is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_lantern
Click to expand...
There was a large and acknowledged military response with chinooks. There is a lot of physical evidence from the incident. Additionally the road was torn up in the middle of the night and replaced. Much like scattering scrap parts from older military jets when an F-117 crashes.

It’s a really fascinating story that has more fact than fiction.
Click to expand...
Do you have a trustable online link to an authoritative official report to corroborate any of these claims? I'm asking because at least one website I checked with regard to those assertions thoroughly debunked them. The only way to settle this is documented proof positive, and the onus is on the claimant, i.e. you. Per the Sagan Standard, ECREE. Otherwise, sky lanterns rule!
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Hansblix said:
martinbayer said:
The very first thing that illustration brought to mind is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_lantern
Click to expand...
There was a large and acknowledged military response with chinooks. There is a lot of physical evidence from the incident. Additionally the road was torn up in the middle of the night and replaced. Much like scattering scrap parts from older military jets when an F-117 crashes.

It’s a really fascinating story that has more fact than fiction.
Click to expand...
Do you have a trustable online link to an authoritative official report to corroborate any of these claims? I'm asking because at least one website I checked with regard to those assertions thoroughly debunked them. The only way to settle this is documented proof positive, and the onus is on the claimant, i.e. you. Per the Sagan Standard, ECREE. Otherwise, sky lanterns rule!
Click to expand...
Prove it didn’t happen.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom