The Calvine UFO Photo - Another Hoax?

a reply to: mirageman

So it looks like DEFE-31-180 was released in 2009, some years before the "colourised version" of the lo res photocopy of a line drawing was first seen anywhere.

Some observations, opinion and a question.

Nick Pope did come across a picture / poster in the early 90's as the incident wasn't public knowledge until he mentioned it in his 1996 book, he describes the shape which is consistent with the 2009 release.

Whatever he did see did not have another aircraft in it, otherwise he surely would not have likened the object's size to at least the size of a Harrier. So if it was a version of one of the original photos it was either cropped or one in the sequence that didn't have a plane in view.

There seems to be no evidence or reasoning around why the image released in DEFE-31-180 is described in media as a photocopy of the line drawing(s) requested of the DIS(SP)OPS imagery team. A line drawing is just that, lines, with the purpose to estimate size / dimensions, which that image is clearly not. I believe it is more likely a very poor copy of one of the original negatives.

The colourised version is similar but not identical to the lo res photocopy. If the photocopy is genuine and there were a number of pictures taken in quick succession the colour version shows the Harrier where you would expect it to be for a photo taken just before the photocopy. It would be useful to know the actual provenance of that colour version.

Harriers aren't what would be used as interceptors to incursions into airspace. If the pictures are genuine the object is either being escorted or was known to be at low altitude and slow moving.

What are VU-FOILS ?

Some seem to think they are OHP transparencies but I can't find anything to confirm that and not sure why that format would be used to send for image analysis, unless that was all that was left in the file, which on it's own tells a story (you present with an OHP). By coincidence it seems to be the original name given to a software app related to aerofoil characteristics, but which was developed after the 1991 memo reference, but has links to NASA and even Lockheeds skunk works.

This video of Nick Pope recorded Saturday Oct 17, 2015 in New Mexico gives HIS version of the story. Which may address some of your points.




He says he was flown to LA earlier that year and hooked up with a graphic artist to recreate the poster on his wall for a TV show. Which I assume was the one broadcast on Channel 5 in the UK in the summer of 2015.

Nick claims the original photos were lost by the MoD. The MoD memo, created before his tenure, claims they were returned to the Daily Record and are not classified. Perhaps he's referring to the larger version on his office wall. Nick unfortunately doesn't address whether he tried to obtain a decent copy of it for himself.


ETA: His own telling of the story is also archived here from his website : The Calvine UFO Photo - nickppope.net

a reply to: mirageman

Thanks for the additional info, there are a couple of things that don't add up.

In a 2001 interview, obviously before the document releases that confirm the presence of a military plane, Pope describes the object in the poster on the wall as at least the size of a Harrier or Hawk.

We then have the release of the image in the docs in 2009, which Pope describes as a photocopy of a line drawing. How he comes to that conclusion, which seems to have been picked up by others, is beyond me. What it is a copy of I guess we will never know for sure but as it tallies with the descriptions in other released documents I reckon there is a good chance it is of one of the photos themselves.

Then in 2015 Pope gets together with an artist to recreate the poster he had on the wall, which was there for several years and he asserts he can remember it clearly. This recreation is then almost identical to the image released and includes a Harrier, whereas Pope's poster couldn't have done or he would have either mentioned it or had a better idea of the objects size.

Shame he hadn't got together with an artist or even drawn something himself before 2009.

a reply to: chunder

In a 2001 interview, obviously before the document releases that confirm the presence of a military plane, Pope describes the object in the poster on the wall as at least the size of a Harrier or Hawk.

Here's what he says in his Book -

...A report sent to the Ministry of Defence tells of two men out walking at Calvine, a remote area twenty miles north of Pitlochry near Blair Atholl in Tayside. It was 4 August 1990. The two men became aware of a low humming sound and turned to see a large diamond-shaped object which hovered for about ten minutes before flying off vertically at great speed.

What was really intriguing was that a Harrier jet also made a number of low-level passes, as if the pilot had seen the object as well and was homing in for a closer look. One of the men on the ground had a camera and sent the photographs he took to both the ministry and the Scottish Daily Record. The Harrier remains untraced; the object unidentified.

I kept a blow—up of one of his photographs on my oflice wall until one day my Head of Division noticed it and took it away.

Source: Open Skies Closed Minds in p.1996.

So he was well aware of the report of a Harrier long before the documents were released via FOIA. But there again I assume he would have had access to these files after commencing duties in July 1991 at Air Secretariat 2a.

I've highlighted the note about the craft making a "buzzing" sound in the book because in his blog from 2012 linked earlier he says the craft was silent.

...The saga began on 4 August 1990 when two members of the public out walking in the vicinity of Calvine, near Pitlochry, in Scotland, sighted a massive, diamond-shaped, metallic UFO. The UFO was virtually stationary and hovered silently...

a reply to: chunder

We then have the release of the image in the docs in 2009, which Pope describes as a photocopy of a line drawing. How he comes to that conclusion, which seems to have been picked up by others, is beyond me....

He would have had seen the documentation that has now been released which is requesting the " line drawings". The memo date is 29 Nov 1991. Which is four months after Nick had been in his, then, new role.

Specifically DEFE 31/180 on page 55-56



Note it's a "RETASK" and mentions that the original negatives were not available.

That thing looks like a tin can cobbled together by some kids with nothing better to do!
Probably with crazy glue.

Seriously though, what I don't get is why a paper wouldn't publish the pictures?

a reply to: peaceinoutz

That thing looks like a tin can cobbled together by some kids...

It's based on Nick Pope's memory of the original.

There was an earlier 'reconstruction' created around a decade ago. Although the provenance of it seems lost in time now.

Seriously though, what I don't get is why a paper wouldn't publish the pictures?

The newspaper obviously felt the need to send the photos into the MoD for comment. Rather than just running a story.

Maybe the Daily Record staff originally suspected that photos were hoaxed? Although that normally wouldn't stop a tabloid from printing the story.

What might be more likely is that the paper was genuinely concerned this was something top secret and erred on the side of caution by contacting the MoD. Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2nd 1990. Just two days before the photo was supposedly taken.

But there's something off about this whole story.

originally posted by: mirageman

So he was well aware of the report of a Harrier long before the documents were released via FOIA. But there again I assume he would have had access to these files after commencing duties in July 1991 at Air Secretariat 2a.

Ok so he was aware of the report but the point I was making is that the poster on the wall couldn't have had a plane in it, or he would have been able to make a better estimate of the size of the object in the 2001 interview.

Likewise if he had access to the files he would have been able to see the low res photocopy image and estimate size. I don't think he had seen anything other than the poster until the public release in 2009.

But then he was already taking some artistic license in the 1996 book by intimating he had taken a blow up of one of the photos and put it on the wall.

a reply to: mirageman

As mentioned I don't think he saw those documents until their public release (although strangely he does reference detail incl dates in the 1996 book, maybe his memory is better than I give him credit for) and the image in question is clearly not a line drawing with estimated dimensions.

Yes, negatives not available but 5 VU-FOILS, whatever they are.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
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.

so maybe the hiker tells the police and they take the film to be developed thinking the hiker is overreacting and there's nothing to it.
then they develop the film and find the whatsit. now we get Higher Authorities involved with the hush order etc.

originally posted by: chunder
a reply to: mirageman


Ok so he was aware of the report but the point I was making is that the poster on the wall couldn't have had a plane in it, or he would have been able to make a better estimate of the size of the object in the 2001 interview.

Maybe?

There were supposedly six photos of the craft. I've not got anything to clarify whether it showed a Harrier or other aircraft.

As mentioned I don't think he saw those documents until their public release (although strangely he does reference detail incl dates in the 1996 book, maybe his memory is better than I give him credit for) and the image in question is clearly not a line drawing with estimated dimensions.

Would it be possible he saw the memos in the early 1990s as part of his job? Hence, the detail in his book. But he'd largely forgotten specific details when being interviewed in 2001 without any notes.

....Yes, negatives not available but 5 VU-FOILS, whatever they are.

According to Dr. Clarke's blog, they were transparencies taken from the original negatives to project onto a whiteboard.

... The DI55 UFO files released at The National Archives in 2009 reveal how, 16 months after the photographs were taken the branch sent copies of five ‘vu-foils’ to the RAF’s Joint Air Reconnaissance Centre (JARIC). Oddly, these were in the form of acetates taken from the original negatives. This was, I am informed, to allow analysts to project the images onto a wall-mounted whiteboard for more detailed scrutiny...

Case Files : Calvine UFO Photographs

a reply to: ElGoobero

so maybe the hiker tells the police and they take the film to be developed thinking the hiker is overreacting and there's nothing to it. then they develop the film and find the whatsit. now we get Higher Authorities involved with the hush order etc.

I don't think the police were involved.

The photographer sent the negatives to the Daily Record newspaper. Who supplied the photos to the MoD Press Officer at RAF Pitreavie near Edinburgh. Allegedly, a DI55 officer [from the MoD] was then sent to interview the men.

originally posted by: mirageman

According to Dr. Clarke's blog, they were transparencies taken from the original negatives to project onto a whiteboard.

I have found a few references to vu-foil being an OHP acetate transparency.

Glad to know that our finest military image analysts are using OHP's and whiteboards for enlargement and detail scrutiny, maybe it's watching James Bond movies that had me expecting something more technologically advanced.

a reply to: chunder

Glad to know that our finest military image analysts are using OHP's and whiteboards for enlargement and detail scrutiny..

In 1990-91 computer software and pixel resolution wasn't up to today's HD standards. Those James Bond documentaries were all disinformation to fool the Russians!!

a reply to: mirageman

So, likely the photographer would be the hoaxer? The gov couldn’t be since they're hiding the photo, or maybe Pope?

a reply to: peaceinoutz

There's still questions about whether it was a hoax or not. But if it was, then the photographer is the likely culprit. Unless someone at the Daily Record was in on it?

As far as I know, only Pope has ever claimed publicly to have seen the blow-up on his wall. It was there for at least 3 years. He didn't acquire a copy of it or even take a snapshot of it. So maybe it isn't as convincing a picture as he likes to make out?

Nick is regularly prone to 'exaggeration'

As an example he told the Daily Star earlier this year

“We had a wave of sightings over a six-hour period in late March 1993, with several dozen witnesses in different parts of the country.

“Many of the witnesses were police officers and military personnel, who saw a huge, triangular-shaped craft, emitting a low-frequency humming sound.

“Two military bases in the midlands - RAF Cosford and RAF Shawbury - were directly overflown. No definitive explanation was ever found, despite an extensive investigation.

Daily Star

However, Spanish ufologist Snr. Ballester Olmos contacted Nick while he was still in his 'UFO' desk role with an explanation for the sightings in March 1994 [enclosing copies of a NORAD statement showing the UFO was actually the booster rockets from the Russian Cosmos 2238 satellite] The information is contained in the MoD File DEFE 1967/1.



Nick's reply (dated 6th April 1994) Nick Pope stated:

“I think it is clear that most of the UFO sightings that occurred on the night in question can be attributed to this event”

Source : MoD - DEFE 24/1967/1

Yet 27 years later that had conclusion had morphed into "no definitive explanation".

a reply to: mirageman

You do know that picture you posted in your OP is NOT what was submitted or claimed as an actual photo right? It's a photoshop of the original image which was a low resolution SCAN

So yeah...the photo you posted is fake but it was never stated it was the ACTUAL photo. Details matter.

a reply to: Type1338

This thread is about a photo that has never been released publicly and mistakenly claimed to be classified until 2072. Anyone who reads the thread would realise it is an illustration.

Are you suggesting a disclaimer is required for people who only look at pictures?

Whilst it is clear that is a recreation to be fair I think it is the scan that needs to be focused on as if you ignore Pope's assertion it is of a line drawing and accept Clarke's source that it is a scan of an OHP transparency taken from the original negative (which ties in better with the info in the releases) then that is the only image available of the potentially hoaxed pictures.

a reply to: chunder

The line drawings were requested on 29th November 1991 (See p55 of MoD File DEFE 31/180.

On pages 37- 38 are the poor quality photocopies. It is unclear whether the memo on the following page [p39], dated 3rd Feb 1992, Subject - UFO photo asking for an 'expert opinion' refers to them specifically. But I'd wonder why the memo contains such a poor quality photocopy when it is asking for an ''expert opinion'.