The Calvine UFO Photo - Another Hoax?

a reply to: Jukiodone
Yes, flying around at night sounds about right for the F117 when it was still classified.

Apparently you, David Clarke and I all agree the chances it was a secret aircraft are slim, but slim doesn't mean zero. This is what Clarke said about that possibility:

The UFO that Never Was?: the Calvine photographs
Possibility #2:

the ‘object’ in the photographs is a super-secret US experimental project ...This is the explanation offered by my Defence Intelligence source. I am convinced he is telling the truth as he remembers it. This is not impossible but seems unlikely.... if it is so super secret, why risk flying it in broad daylight on a weekend evening in Scotland when it could have been tested in secrecy at Area 51 or above the ocean? ...

Even so it remains possible the images show a UAV or some other experimental platform that was undergoing tests shortly after the outbreak of hostilities in Kuwait. Only the full release of UK and US analysis of the images – and the photographs themselves – can resolve this question.

It's interesting how Clarke's different intelligence sources are telling him completely different things, from "it was identified" to "it was a spoof". But how much can you really trust what intelligence agents tell you even if their stories don't conflict with each other? So yes it's unlikely to be a secret craft because normally they wouldn't fly them in daylight. However, the outbreak of war with Kuwait was not "normal", which was allegedly right around the time the photo was taken, so even though a secret craft is unlikely, let's look at the photo, or the analyses performed on the photo, before ruling it out completely.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: mirageman

This big long drug out thread then at the very end a conclusion the photo is a fake with no supporting evidence.

Basically. The problem is that from what I understood the witness supposedly took quite a few photos of the thing but we only have (well, had) a description and recreation of one of them. Might be easy enough to fake one, but a half-dozen? But that's hearsay.

But it may beg the question as to whether or not it was a black project aircraft, possibly from the U.S. I might suggest that what they saw was a variation or test platform of the BBT (Big Black Triangle), which has been suspected to be a dirigible of some kind with advanced propulsion systems (not anti-gravity, necessarily). The Belgium BBT sighting wave was also in 1990.

Why was it hanging on the wall for everybody to see? Because it's outlandish enough to not be taken seriously, even if it is?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

...It's interesting how Clarke's different intelligence sources are telling him completely different things, from "it was identified" to "it was a spoof". But how much can you really trust what intelligence agents tell you even if their stories don't conflict with each other?...

Indeed. It's entirely possible Clarke's sources are obfuscating the truth by feeding conflicting stories. Knowingly or not.

But the matter was taken seriously by the UK MoD as per this memo. Preparing for questions when the Daily Record published the photos. Something that never happened.



The memo noted there was no record of RAF Harriers operating in the area at the time the photo was supposedly taken. It suggested the media should be told "no definite conclusions reached regarding the large diamond-shaped object".



Then came questions asked in the Houses of Parliament 6 years later in 1996.

Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence [Soames] what assessment his Department made of the photograph of an unidentified craft at Calvine on 4 August 1990; who removed it from an office in secretariat (air staff) 2a; for what reasons; and if he will make a statement. [39248]

Mr. Soames: A number of negatives associated with the sighting were examined by staff responsible for air defence matters. Since it was judged that they contained nothing of defence significance, were not retained and we have no record of any photographs having been taken from them.

Source : Hansard 23rd July 1996

Nick Pope's hyperbole ever since has kept the story alive for 25 years now.

What doesn't really make sense is why certain parts of the story have been made public but the photos and names of the original photographer(s) are still being kept under wraps?

It may have something to do with the fact that despite all the denials about certain secret aircraft for decades, this UK Restricted minute ‘Wrap Up of UAP Material’ dated 22 March 2000 clearly refers to there being photographs in a 'secret' UK MoD file.


Source

a reply to: mirageman

Never seen that before......interesting in context of Condign comments.

It is hard (as in almost impossible) to believe there is something which was photographed by third parties in the 80's- yet is still Black.

One of the major concerns for a defence contractor is preventing competitors from stealing their ideas....
If a pic of your prized classified asset got out (even to a friendly nation).....your OPSEC is spectacularly FUBAR'd as it's now community gossip.

If I was betting.... Sweetman misinterpreting consolidated classified technology budgetary items would be where my money goes.

ETA: Although I dont think the Calvine photo/story is legit .....wouldn't bet against classified stealthy low altitude penetrators flying around in the late 80's/ early 90s (only at night though )

There's a woman (or a guy) - some kind of nurse - on Reddit r/ufos claiming to know the person who took the roll of pictures who is providing some small bits of information about it. Apparently the witness snapped off a whole roll of film using a disposable camera. Seems there was a 30-year "hush" order -- don't talk about this to anyone for 30 years -- but since that time has passed there are more people who can talk about it without necessarily getting a visit from the Men in Black.

Not much detail in the posts, as the person doesn't want the witnesses or anybody else to still get in trouble. Make of it what you will. The poster isn't making outlandish claims, but they also don't have a lot of substance to them as a result. Check it out if you desire:

www.reddit.com...

a reply to: Blue Shift
He says the hiker who took the photos was shocked and called the police. That's plausible enough, but after that the story kind of falls apart. Somehow the police gets the film and takes it to a photo developer who he makes sign an agreement to not discuss what he sees for 30 years. That's not very plausible. Why would the police do that? If it's a highly classified project, it's unlikely the police know any more than the general public.

I suppose someone could claim it was a MOD official pretending to be the police, but that wouldn't make any sense either, because we would have to believe the MOD doesn't have their own discreet photo-processing facilities they can use, without the hassles of A getting someone who doesn't have any clearance to sign a secrecy agreement for 30 years, and B then having to trust that unvetted person will honor the agreement for 30 years.

Recall that David Clarke is getting contradictory stories from two different intelligence sources, one saying it was identified and another saying it was a spoof. For all I know, that reddit poster is a third intelligence source posting more misinformation, or could just as easily be a basement dweller having fun testing the credulousness of the reddit readers, but the story doesn't make sense to me.

We had this discussion loads of times in Aviation and as far as anyone could intelligibly argue- there is no legal mechanism (in the US or even less likely in a foreign territory like the UK) for silencing a none NDA'd witness of a classified project.

The operators of the classified project could offer witnesses cash for a binding NDA - but without proper legal representation at the time of signature- this could subsequently be considered coercive by an independent third party (such as a judge).
You cant try Mrs Jones from no.23 at a closed military court hearing.
Before you know it- you've got a potential legal case with private citizens and national security implications - on top of the semi impossible task of trying to satisfy yourself the pics. you bought were the only copies.

All the evidence suggests this is not the way things are done.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
For all I know, that reddit poster is a third intelligence source posting more misinformation, or could just as easily be a basement dweller having fun testing the credulousness of the reddit readers, but the story doesn't make sense to me.

It's possible. And those counter-arguments were made and somewhat addressed in the following posts. I would like the poster to try to recreate some of the photos they claim they saw personally which show a much larger object in relation to the many jets flying around it. But it may not be fruitful since it was a long time ago. (Yes, the 90s are history now.) I can barely remember what happened last week.

Still, I'm always interested in some possible new information appears on an old case, since so many of the recent cases are discouragingly weak and non-compelling.

a reply to: Blue Shift

This could be just someone relating a friend of a friend story with their details muddled up, or maybe mischief and more obfuscation. It just adds more layers of mystery in my opinion.

The object is now described as large as Hampden Park. Which is a football stadium that hosts crowds of 52,000. Much larger than the original reports of a 75ft long -100ft long object initially reported.

Why were the local police called?

Where would you find a photo developer shop open after 9pm on Sunday in a small Scottish Village in 1990?

Who sent the photos and negatives to the Daily Record if the police originally confiscated them?

If the Daily Record knew of Police involvement, who send the photos/negatives to a Press Officer at RAF Pitreavie.

If the photos were taken on 4th August 1990 why did the MoD not receive them until over a month later on 10th September 1990 as recorded in the official memo?

Dr. Clarke's intelligence source from his Calvine Case Files say :

...The hand-written report does not say why the men were in the area but a source from Defence Intelligence claims they were poachers who had killed their prey and were posing with the animal when the ‘UFO’ appeared.

He claims a DI55 officer was sent to Scotland to examine the evidence and interview the men. The two photographers were reassured they not in any trouble as a result of their activities. Afterwards they simply ‘went on their way’. Their identity remains unknown and, since that time, they have not come forward with their version of the story....

So were these men detained overnight awaiting a DI55 officer to arrive? Or where they released

And also regarding the reason why the files are currently being withheld until 2076.

We understand this query to relate to file DEFE 24/1940,...

...the only closed information within this file is personal information exempt under s40(2) of the FOI Act. The remainder of the file is open and available to download....

UK National Archives Comments

DEFE 24/1940 [with redcations] can be downloaded here : Link

There's a lot of smoke here.

originally posted by: mirageman
The object is now described as large as Hampden Park.

Seems legit.

originally posted by: mirageman
There's a lot of smoke here.

that's just the Scotch Mist laddie.

Here is Dr Clarke waffling away about it.


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: mirageman
Clarke feels that there are only three options:

1) An unknown possibly ET spacecraft and a cover-up.

He points out that if this was so secret why was a poster sized version of the photo allowed to be displayed in an MoD office in view of civilian employees/visitors?

Why was Nick Pope allowed to tell the story in a book he claims was subject to security clearances, and why release the low quality image of the photo in MoD UFO files to the public?

2) A top secret US/UK aircraft

Clarke finds this unlikely. To test it in broad daylight over Scotland when other locations like over the ocean would be more secure seems foolish. Although he doesn’t completely rule it out.

3) A Hoax

Clarke is leaning towards the whole thing being a hoax and explains why:

So as that says, Clarke wrote a blog post (2 months ago) saying he thought the #3 option, HOAX, was most likely.

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
Here is Dr Clarke waffling away about it.

www.youtube.com...

Now in that video posted yesterday, Clarke says he thinks he was leaning toward the wrong option in his blog post, and now he thinks option 2, experimental aircraft is most likely.

But it's not clear at all to me exactly what made him change his mind in the last two months, just some fuzzy comments that he got some feedback after he published his blog article but it wasn't clear to me exactly what made him reconsider.

One thing he emphasized in that interview is that 2005 was a pivotal year for how privacy laws affected the release of names, and that there's nothing special about the 50 year rule applying to the Calvine case since it also applies to every other case where the files were released since 2005, preventing the release of names. For files released before 2005 the new rule didn't apply and names could be released sooner.

Of course the topic of why they would fly an experimental aircraft over Scotland in broad daylight was brought up and there is still no answer to that in Clarke's interview, but he did answer something else about the case, which is why the newspaper never published the photos. That's a rather interesting and somewhat strange story; lots of things about this case are strange.

If the photo was legit and it shows an experimental craft being escorted by the harrier, then presumably the direction of the harrier (which is clearly flying to the left) would be the same direction as the experimental craft, though one account says the object was hovering. If it was some kind of rigid hull airship, it could hover quite easily, and the lack of an aerodynamic shape wouldn't be a huge problem since they tend to travel rather slowly, and the size could conceivably be quite large, but there are all kinds of logistics problems with moving such craft around, especially flying a US craft over scotland...where would it have come from, and how did it get there?

If it was flying to the left like the harrier, I must point out that you don't have to be an expert in aerodynamics to see that those sharp points on the top and bottom are not conducive to smooth airflow over a fast-moving aircraft. I'm not sure how it's even a good design for a rigid hull airship since they usually have smooth surfaces for the smoothest airflow, but at least it's feasible for that; it doesn't really seem feasible for a fast moving aircraft.

Clarke's changing his mind doesn't really affect me since as I said in an earlier post, I wasn't ready to rule out experimental aircraft, but I still think the experimental aircraft idea has lots of problems.

Jeremy Corbell is now having cognitive problems with the details of this case and shows what a poor researcher he is.




* The UK MoD did not classify the Calvine photos for another 50 years.
* If Jeremy had searched on the UK national archives website he would have found out that the UK MoD have not classified the photographs at all
* The MoD redacted the names of those who provided the photos
* The existing files which are available by using the links on page 1 of this thread.

THE PHOTO NEGATIVES WERE RETURNED TO THE SCOTTISH DAILY RECORD. The copyright remains with the photographer. Who has never come forward or even chosen to make the photos public anonymously.

1990 Calvine UFO incident
FOI request reference: CAS-66677-Q1R4R1
Publication date: February 2021


Q1: Did MoD transfer this dossier to The National Archive?
We understand this query to relate to file DEFE 24/1940, a record which was transferred to us from the originating department, the Ministry of Defence.

Q2: Was it just the dossier, or were supplementary materials included? (eg. the 6 colour photographs)

As noted on our catalogue, the full contents of DEFE 24/1940 are closed until 01 January 2076. A redacted version of the file is open and available to download from our catalogue here. There are three folios within this file that relate to the incident in question (pages 35-37 of part 2). There are no photographs contained in the file. The file itself states that the original negatives were returned to the Scottish Daily Record.

Q3: Are these files marked as classified, or somehow FoIA exempt? If so, what is the specific reason/exemption given?

The redactions you will see in the open version all cover personal information (names and addresses) of members of the public who wrote to the Ministry of Defence reporting UFO sightings and also the names of the Ministry of Defence staff who investigated these reports. These details are exempt from release under section 40 (2) (personal data) of the FOI Act. Further information on section 40 is provided in the explanatory annex below.

Q4: Is it normal for files to be delayed 50+ years? Have you, the person replying to this request, ever seen this happen?

It is usual for material exempt under section 40(2) to be closed for the lifetime of the subject, which is assumed to be 100 years from subject’s date of birth. Closure dates therefore are dependent on the age of the individual whose details are given, and duration of the closure could well be over 50 years.

Q5: Is The Scottish Sun’s claim that you are actively withholding these files accurate? If so, who gave you this right?

As explained above, the only closed information within this file is personal information exempt under s40(2) of the FOI Act. The remainder of the file is open and available to download.


Source : UK National Archives

Ufology goes nowhere once again.

Just in case anyone is in any doubt about the Calvine Photographs. There are a lot of people out there who can't get past Jeremy's tweet for some reason. Even though the truth has been posted in replies.

The Calvine photos have not been classified. Nor were they ever classified.

The MoD confirmed in a 14th Sept 1990 Memo that the negatives were returned to the Scottish Daily Record newspaper.

As you can see, the MoD was expecting the paper to feature pictures in a news story as featured in a MOD Memo DEFE-24-1940 [p116]



The negatives were returned 31 years ago. Even before Nick Pope, who was the 'poster boy' for this story even started his job at the Air Secretariat [which he calls the UFO desk) in July 1991. Nick has also chosen to ignore this in his recent comments about the story. He obviously prefers to further his UFOtainment career over telling the whole truth.

a reply to: mirageman

MM, whilst you are correct in what you are saying we don't know that the negatives, or copies, aren't held in a classified file somewhere, just not this file.

Unless there is confirmation the paper received the negatives back from the MOD - which even then wouldn't have stopped them making copies. Which I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have done especially considering they expected the pictures to be printed in the paper.

I mean we have the admission that the negatives showed a large diamond shaped object with a Harrier flying past it - I can't believe some kind of a copy of that wasn't retained. Did they need to develop the negatives to identify the Harrier(s) and if so what then was sent back to the paper.

Whilst some may be barking up the wrong tree seems to me there is still something not right with this one.

a reply to: chunder

...Whilst some may be barking up the wrong tree seems to me there is still something not right with this one.

I totally agree with you.

The memo on the 14th Sept 1990 [posted above] was sent years before the UK had a freedom of information act. It is preparing the MoD Press Office and government ministers to expect questions should the Daily Record publish the photos. I don't have reason to doubt the MoD were expecting awkward questions.

But it's what happened afterwards that's the mystery.

- The Daily Record never published the story or the photos.
- Nick Pope however, claims he had one of these photo displayed on his office wall.
- The photographer has never come forward or even attempted to stealthily release the photos anonymously


However there is also this UK Restricted minute ‘Wrap Up of UAP Material’ dated 22 March 2000 [posted above] which clearly refers to there being photographs in a 'secret' UK MoD file.



And that may or may not be a clue to what the Calvine photos show. Perhaps the Daily Record and the original photographer were 'persuaded informally' not to publish or maybe it was all a hoax?

a reply to: mirageman

Do you know if there is any info available about the "artists recreation" photo shown in your original post ?

It seems to show the same objects as in the purported low res photocopy of one of the original photos and is a pretty good "recreation".

Another article here (page 30) with a bit of additional info.

a reply to: chunder

If I recall correctly, the "recreation" was a CGI still from a Channel 5 (UK) documentary aired in 2015 : www.dailymotion.com....

If the details of the sighting are accurate then it was only a year after the Belgian UFO wave too. Another case that has never been properly resolved or explained.

a reply to: mirageman

It's not a still from the CGI sequence but was used in the piece and from my armchair search I can't find any reference prior to that airing so places it at some point prior to 2015.

I can't access the MOD releases at the moment but do we know which one contained the low res "photocopy" of a supposed "line drawing" (that clearly isn't) of one of the alleged photos ?

a reply to: chunder

It's not a still from the CGI sequence but was used in the piece and from my armchair search I can't find any reference prior to that airing so places it at some point prior to 2015.

OK, I did think the mock-up photo was originally created with Mr. Pope's assistance for the Channel 5 TV UFO show. But released as a pre-publicity item before broadcast. But maybe not?

I can't access the MOD releases at the moment but do we know which one contained the low res "photocopy" of a supposed "line drawing" (that clearly isn't) of one of the alleged photos ?

Here is the freely downloadable archived pdf copy of DEFE 31-180

Page 37 -38 contain the line drawings, but they are so low-res they aren't of much value.

The other relevant files are also linked on page 1 of this thread and are also archived [free to downlaod] versions.