The Calvine UFO Image is finally out

Another interesting snippet that perhaps has been overlooked.

This is from an interview last year in Sept 2021.



About 1 hour 4 mins in Dr' Clarke states this (emphasis mine);

....Now i'm told that this was a US experimental aircraft flying from RAF Macrahanish....

That’s where it was operating from and it wasn't being intercepted by anything. It was being escorted by one British and one American Harrier.

That makes the most sense. But it doesn't answer the question of why they were flying something that was so secret, that needs to be kept secret for 30 years, in broad daylight over the Scottish Highland?

I know it's remot-ish, but the A9 road is a very busy road in August. There's a lot of people out on the hills walking with cameras. Why would you take a risk in that way?

One of the things that's been suggested to me was that this was a pre-planned exercise that the Americans told the British .”We're going to be testing this thing we're not going to tell you where, right? See if you can spot it?

But then again, if it was over the A9 there aren't any other reports that we know of!

So it seems like they got away with it.

But I remember what this guy said, "A one in a million chance they were just in the wrong/right place at the wrong time."

Don't forget, this thing was supposed to be invisible!

And so what's caught them out is it wasn't invisible for that period of time, when they saw it and photographed it.


Time Stamped Link

So maybe we are dealing with a US TS craft complete with cloaking device

a reply to: mirageman

Thanks MM, so it looks like the aircraft was almost definitely a harrier, perhaps belonging to 4th squadron, which apparently sent 4 birds back for training in the general area of calvine, so maybe one or two were re-tasked for a special escort mission for something flying out of Machrihanish? I wonder if the US airforce had there own harriers based there also, if memory serves me right, there was a US Navy seals base there at some point too.... just a thought. If this was a flight of something American and secret (which looks possible) the corresponding documentation will never see the light of day, as they would claim it falls under national security classification and it would not be released. On a side note, referring to the object/ufos hovering and assending vertical characteristics, I read a well known members post on the aircraft forum awhile back that mentioned that the US airforce had developed something that was NOT antigravity, but acted just like it, so I imagine a propulsion system like that could enable an aircraft to to all manner of wonderful things.

a reply to: mirageman

i know for a fact that if someone snaps a GOOD shot or even a blurry one the USAF or OSI or NSA will pay BIG bucks for the rights to the photo

its like how TIME purchased the rights and film from the JFK shooting.


buying a copyrighted image is a good way to make sure it is never shown with out the new owners permission

Art of the photo would be covered under FAIR USE because it is a transformative production of the original image.


there are things on the battle field now that look very very close to what we see in the 'copy'.



i bet you the real photo is very similar but different is important ways.



the whole story is kind of fishy if you ask me, if you had a real photo of what you thought was a UFO with a Harrier clearly swinging around it, would you bring it to the small news paper or a big TV station outside of the UK to avoid any censorship

but maybe people thought different back than.

it would have been front page news.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Which also begs the question when did the appearance of Harrier jets begin?

Their presence would mean it wouldn't be silent, and any humming sound would be difficult to hear.

Overall - and I can't see anything to contradict the claim so far - it seems the jet(s) arrived a few minutes after the witnesses spotted the UFO above them, rather then being alerted to it by the jets themselves. It's something Lindsay is likely to have asked the photographer himself before committing himself to suspect this was something highly unusual.

I think it highly likely the two witnesses were poaching at the time and - although not as clear - they were preparing to photograph their prey with the SLR camera. Clarke himself hinted that they were up to no good, but didn't elaborate.

Remember the bizarre Reddit post I linked to, from a year ago, in which the poster claimed his parent was a lifelong friend of the pics' developer who alleged the cops told him to keep quiet for 30 years? It could be a UFOtainment fantasy, but it's possible, even if the poster himself seems a rabid TruBeliever. But my interest was mainly drawn to the developer's alleged chat with a THIRD witness nearby who saw the whole incident unfold, claiming there were at least two jets encircling the UFO, all of whom arrived after a few minutes.

As Clarke says, this was quite a public area, so an unknown third witness is not inconceivable, and the notion of multiple jets ties in with the MoD's own analysis of all six photos, although the second jet was barely perceivable in one pic - which is probably in the possession of the photographer; if only Clarke can find the bugger.

Considering all six pics were analysed at least twice by UK defence intelligence, and not junked as hoaxes (even reaching the Pentagon by 1992), is it naive to assume they would easily have noticed an 'inversed rock in water' trick, or the more dubious claim of a distant mountain peak?

One more idea. Although it is deemed highly unlikely that Harriers were active in Scotland at the time, especially on that day of the week (Gulf War or not), is it possible the pic was taken in England at an earlier date? The photographer himself was certainly English, according to Lindsay. That would of course drive us into a cheeky hoax territory if so.

a reply to: TheGeneral33

This is almost 30 years later....



But you gotta start somewhere. So what if this wasn't actually a craft under test BY the military, but FOR the military?

a reply to: Macenroe82
a reply to: ConfusedBrit
a reply to: mirageman


So nobody like Prof' Simon's idea in the Youtube vid that it was just a rock?

I genuinely thought it was a good explanation, I'm not sure if it is or not but the research in the vids I posted about earlier does leave you wondering if it is something more mundine??

a reply to: mirageman

The so called invisibility shield looks ok, but it's not 100%, the military grade version would have to be alot better than that I would suggest, as you can still see shadows and shapes behind that screen, but yes it's a start. I wonder for how long they have been working on this tech? Like you said MM, it was very interesting that Dr Clarke mentioned that it was supposed to be invisible, not just to radar, but to the naked eye presumably, so yes, at least 30yrs!!!
The video link below was posted on the aircraft projects forum, it's a vid from the skunk work division guys at LM, have a look at the 0:53 and 1:03 marks, for maybe a hint, of what the skin of the object/ufo may have been made of.

youtu.be...

I'm not sure if the object/ufo would of still been in the testing phase when this alleged photo was taken, I mean, they have area 51 (station D) , boscome down, BAE worton and pine gap for that sort of thing don't they? In my humble opinion I think it must of been an already operational craft, that flew into and out of an RAF base on a regular basis, Machrihanish? maybe it was departing for the gulf region in a hurry, when something went wrong with its invisibility mechanism, and it had to be escorted by the jets somewhere across land, giving our secret squirrel photographer, that one in a million chance to get his happy snaps.

a reply to: Kurokage

I wouldn't discount anything as yet. There's a similar theory about the mountain peak showing through the cloud cover causing the diamond shape from a similar spot to where the photo is claimed to have been snapped. But even with a hi-res version of the photo we are still in a low information zone.

However, when any of us posts a video without making a very specific point and giving the time stamps to reference it [youtube allows you to copy a video URL at a specific time] then it means others have to invest time, sometimes significant time, to watch. Not everyone can watch it immediately. Many others will just gloss over it and forget about it.

Clarke and team have said that they tracked down the hotel where the photographer was working. Then some of the personnel from 1990. The manager and most other staff were totally unaware of any UFO story back in 1990. With just one vague reference from another hotel worker hearing a story at a party disco. . It was also more than a month before the Daily Record received the photos/negatives, and no one else has ever claimed to have seen anything unusual. Which is sort of strange and adds to the feeling this might be a hoax. But if it was a hoax then it was so good it fooled the military on both sides of the Atlantic.

a reply to: TheGeneral33

The so called invisibility shield looks ok, but it's not 100%, the military grade version would have to be alot better than that I would suggest, as you can still see shadows and shapes behind that screen...

Agreed and would this tech have even been possible 32 years ago? The video you linked is interesting, but that's technology 24 years on from 1990 too. Could something like this have been developed and kept secret since the late 80s?

Possibly.

I guess, if you have the power of invisibility, then how many people are going to see it?

originally posted by: mirageman

So maybe we are dealing with a US TS craft complete with cloaking device

I'm leaning that way but I don't think out of Machrihanish as too public and plenty of military people who worked there during the time posting on other forums that nothing out of the ordinary flying out of there. Oy maybe they would say that even now.

I was thinking more camera and projection / screen tech to render invisible hence the flat surfaces, plus may also have some radar stealth effect. If "invisible" obviously it doesn't need any extreme flight capabilities. May be able to incorporate a "disappear" display where someone on the ground below gets the appearance of it rapidly ascending when in reality it doesn't move.

I gather that low level flying practice isn't ordinarily carried out on a weekend either.

a reply to: mirageman

Thanks for the reply.
Will have to look how you to cut out a clip??
I didn't know if it was appropriate to post the series as I didn't want to appear as if i was promoting it.
Most of the videos in the 5 episode series are about 10 mins each and after the first, the next 2 are mostly about the man made loch and the rock mound thats near to Calvine.

a reply to: mirageman

Who knows what else they were developing out in the desert alongside stealth in the 70's and 80's, I agree it seems a bit of a leap to think they might of had tech that we are getting glimpses of today, back then, unless the US military's tech is 40-50yrs more advanced than what is available today.

Maybe it's all just smoke and mirrors, I wonder if David Copperfield was the pilot of the craft, haha

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: mirageman

Thanks for the reply.
Will have to look how you to cut out a clip??

Is Prof Simon really a prof?

You can make a link for the video to start playing at a certain time (though you can't do that with embedded videos), but referencing a time index is fine, and avoids the need to cut the video, like this:

originally posted by: TheGeneral33
The video link below was posted on the aircraft projects forum, it's a vid from the skunk work division guys at LM, have a look at the 0:53 and 1:03 marks, for maybe a hint, of what the skin of the object/ufo may have been made of.

youtu.be...

Cool video! But if you are doubting that tech existed at the time of the Calvine photo, I tend to agree. Maybe some more primitive version of would have been possible.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Is Prof Simon really a prof?

Visiting Professor of scatological studies no less.....
Did his PhD at Hogwarts.

The investigative team, "The Dave Clarke Five" hint that the photographer was a young chef at the Atholl hotel during the summer of 1990. So who do we know that was a young Scottish chef back in 1990?

I've got my prime suspect down as Gordon Ramsay.

There's evidence he's been traumatized about the consequences of exposing a secret black project, for years.



He's a bad-tempered middle-aged chef now. Just look at all those lines on his face! You don't get to look like that from worrying about whether your roast potatoes are golden enough, do you?

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Is Prof Simon really a prof?

Visiting Professor of scatological studies no less.....
Did his PhD at Hogwarts.

Also invented the game "Simon Says" after meeting a pieman on his way to a fair. (That was before he was professor by the way).

a reply to: mirageman


You and Juki are shocking.

And now back to the serious stuff..

The copyright of the image should lie with the photographer.

So why has the photo been published containing the message "..with permission of Sheffield Hallam University & Craig Lindsay"?



Lindsay knows the name of the photographer. In fact it was written on the back of the photograph (according to Clarke). So has the photographer sold the rights, passed away, or is this a way of protecting the image rights because the photographer cannot be traced?

I visited Struan Point and the 'rock in the loch' site at Loch Errochty yesterday. The fence in the Calvine photo is barbed (second wire down), but the fence at Struan Point isn't. And trust me, that fence looks ancient - the wire on it looks like something dug up from a roman fort. As for Loch Errochty, the protruding rock though 'loosely' resembling the shape (I'm being kind), it is very rough with non-straight lines and is covered in bouldery bumps. The 'tail' part is proportionally very different. And also, it is about 200 metres from the shoreline- very far away. Even if it was possible for the water there to be perfectly still and glass-like (which it simply isn't - the water there is about 20-30 metres deep I reckon, and on the calmest day would still have ripples), to expect a reflection of a plane at that distance is not realistic. Oh, and there was no fence or trees anywhere near the shoreline, and no evidence of them being there in the past. The search continues.

Lets use some visual sense. First, I still contend someone took a photograph of a plane flying by (real) with this object closer to the camera in the frame hung, tossed in the air, whatever and the photo was taken to make it seem they are in the same frame flying together. I think it's fake. Or the artist that created the image naively didn't include motion blur to exactly match and simply pasted it into the scene. Again the jet is blurry in comparison to this object, appearing to be on two different planes of space.

Using the claim that photo shows it's being chased- the average airplane say is 150 feet long. That would make the object  nearly 600 feet long! Doesn't physics come into play when describing an object that large? The largest plane to date is 285 feet front to rear. Largest blimp is 302 feet. The massive amounts of energy required for a 600 foot flying craft seems ridiculous. Still convinced 100% hoax photo.

The second color photo looks more real. At least the artist got the motion blur between the two right.