The Calvine UFO Image is finally out

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

There is only one picture available, and that's the one discovered recently by Dr David Clarke which had been in the possession of a former RAF press officer for 32 years who kept it for posterity.

The plane is some distance behind the object. Equating the objects size with the planes without first accounting for the difference in distances from the camera is going to make your figure way off.

And are you suggesting the photographer and the pilot were in cahoots to make a hoax picture? Planes appear in the glens of Scotland without any real warning. One second you're alone, the next there's a jet screaming past you at high speed. So for your theory to make sense would require collusion between the parties.

I believe it would be worth your time to do some research on this one, if you are genuinely interested in it. I have little doubt the picture is not a hoax. And I think there is a decent chance that it's a picture of a black project aircraft.

Kind regards,
Richard

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

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

What second color photo? As far as I can tell there has only been one original photo/print, found/released, has there not?
Also, The aircraft is a considerable distance behind the object/ufo I believe, it is not parallel to it, so it would not be as big as you thought, I think it has been estimated at around 100ft long, if memory serves me right.

a reply to: DiZZyViZiON

Well said DIZZY, you got in before me.
Incase you are interested, Dr David Clarke and his investigater friends at disclosure team, over on there YouTube channel, are doing a live Q@A and photo analysis tomorrow evening.
UK BST 20.00 22/08/22. Link below -

youtu.be...

a reply to: TheGeneral33
Thanks general, I have the reminder set on youtube

I would very much like to highlight to them that the fence at Struan Point; the location they think the photo's were taken, isn't actually barbed. Whereas the fence in the photo is. This suggests Struan Point is not the location.
I'd also like to give them the coordinates of an alternative site from which the faint outline at the bottom of the photo matches the skyline of the mountains in the distance. Unfortunately the fence here has been ripped out and replaced with a 7 foot high fence, with the old one lying discarded nearby in a heap. This location has a mix of silver birch and scots pine trees so would correspond better with trees in the photo which looks to have silver birch drooping in from the top and scots pine poking in from the left. Struan Point only has scots pine.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
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.

600 feet long is likely too long for a blimp, but as I posted on page 3, look at how much larger a rigid hull airship can be made than a blimp; this is the Graf Zeppelin next to the Goodyear blimp:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The rigid hull airships also have some advantages overcoming engineering limitations of blimps which can only be made so large...the rigid hull airships can be made much larger. Here's a comparison of a rigid hull airship (the Graf Zeppelin) with the Goodyear blimp, look at the size difference!

Rigid Airships and Blimps: Two structural approaches to cargo transport

Hindenberg class airships were 803 feet long and could fly around 80 mph top speed with four 1100 hp diesel engines so it didn't really require "massive amounts of energy". They worked pretty well, other than the fire hazard of using hydrogen and problems in strong winds. Modern rigid hull airships would likely use helium instead or have extra safety measures if using hydrogen.

So I wouldn't be too hasty about ruling out a rigid hull airship, nor would I rule out a model or hoax of some sort without examining the negatives. Question everything.

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

As Dizzy and General already said, only one photo is currently available. There were 5 other photos but we haven't seen those, though there is a re-creation by Nick Pope's comissioned artist floating around, so I'm not sure what you're referring to as the first and second photos.

originally posted by: DiZZyViZiON
a reply to: TheGeneral33
Thanks general, I have the reminder set on youtube

No problem DIZZY, let's hope you can get in on the act, and ask your very good question on air.

originally posted by: TheGeneral33
a reply to: DiZZyViZiON

Well said DIZZY, you got in before me.
Incase you are interested, Dr David Clarke and his investigater friends at disclosure team, over on there YouTube channel, are doing a live Q@A and photo analysis tomorrow evening.
UK BST 20.00 22/08/22. Link below -

youtu.be...

Bit of a fixture clash there at 8:00pm!!! So I'll be catching up at a later date & time. I feel like Clarke and team are probably a bit further down the investigative road then they've so far revealed to the public.

I've cobbled together a basic timeline based on Clarke's Youtube interviews, blog and records from the National Archives up until 1996. Although I still find the month gap before the photos arrive at the Daily Record and the lack of any local knowledge in Pitlochry of the event rather odd.

Please feel free to correct anything.


* 04 Aug 1990
Two Hikers/Chefs/Kitchen Staff/Poachers spot huge diamond craft hovering over Calvine area north of Pitlochry and take 6 photos. A Harrier was reported circling some minutes later.

---------------------------------------

* BETWEEN 5TH AUG 90 AND 10 SEP 90
6 Photos/Negatives received at Daily Record office Glasgow. They are filmed in black and white but printed on coloured paper.

---------------------------------------

* 10 Sep 1990
Endell Laird editor of the Daily Record (and also a member of the UK D Notice committee) is absent when the photos/negatives arrive at their office. So his deputy calls the local MoD office nearest the area and asks for advice from Craig Lindsay (RAF Information Officer)

* "Retired RAF officer Craig Lindsay calls one of the hikers at their place of work The Atholl Hotel but was not taking it seriously until the witness claimed the object ""didn't make any noise at all".

* Daily Record agrees to courier the negatives/photos via train from Glasgow to Edinburgh for collection by MoD. Lindsay then faxed a copy of the best print to the Ministry of Defence’s to AirSec 2A in London. "

MoD HQ in Whitehall (London) receives "six photographic negatives" for investigation.

---------------------------------------

* 14 Sep 1990
MoD issues loose minute to Office of UK Under Secretary of State for the Armed Forces over possible publication of the UFO photo in the media. Confirming receipt and that 'relevant staff' (JARIC) consider the aircraft to be a Harrier (plus a second barely visible one). With 'no definite conclusion reached over the diamond object'.

* Negatives supposedly returned to Daily Record. But at least one poster size object exists and is place on the office wall. Lindsay confrims he saw it when he attended a meeting the following year.
* Clarke claims a source says that prints were retained. Also that this inside source was told they showed a secret US test aircraft out of RAF Machrihanish. "‘No one else other than the Americans had anything like it at the time. But we knew what it was‘. "

---------------------------------------

* 29 Nov 1991

RETASK ORDERED by MoD

"Attached are 5 (five) vu-foils of an unidentified flying object. Please produce line drawings of object with size and dimension where possible. This is a retask of an original passed in Sept 90. Original negatives are not available.

1. Task already discussed with Ops 4 Sqn

3. Since revisit exists, official tasking would be in order, but sensitivity of material suggests very special handling. Suggest therefore an ad hoc on DI55's IP 4005 with minimum handling by listed personnel.

Please return all material to DI55c1."

---------------------------------------


* 1992 -

A numbor of diplomatic exchanges take place between the US and UK. Caused by the confusion as to whether the pictures show an experimental craft of US/UK origin.


---------------------------------------

* Early 1993 -
Nick Pope's boss JRG Clark asks US Air attache in London whether the craft could be the 'Aurora'. A long rumoured secret test aircraft.


---------------------------------------
* (Before) June 1994 -
JRG Clark removes poster from Nick Pope's office wall, believing it to show a secret US aircraft.

"Speaking on the record, Air Commodore Baldwin says he is confident the photographs taken in Scotland were ‘a spoof’ or prank and this assessment was shared by the Pentagon. There is no doubt if there really was a Harrier present there would be no problem whatsoever in identifying its pilot...The image was so blurred you could not reach a conclusion. When I discussed it with the Lt General we both agreed that it looked like a Harrier. But the thing above it so clearly was something that could not possibly fly...‘Whatever the explanation, no one seriously suggested it was a UFO...I think someone has taken a picture of a Harrier and drawn a large object alongside it. It was definitely a spoof. An aerial version of the Loch Ness Monster‘."
---------------------------------------

* 03/06/1996
Nick Pope reveals details of the case and his 'poster' in his book Open Skies Closed Minds.

---------------------------------------

* 24/07/1996
Official parliamentary records question raised concerning Calvine UFO.

"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 the negatives were not retained and we have no record of any photographs having been taken from them."

---------------------------------------

a reply to: mirageman
Lets hope the witnesses are still around and willing to talk. And that Dr Clarke knows at least one of them.

I have a feeling that at least the name of the photographer is known. Whether they've tracked this person down is another matter altogether.

We don't even know if this photo was taken at the time and place claimed. If it wasn't then it points to a hoax. In which case maybe no one will ever come forward.

Clarke points out in one of his blogs the MoD was fooled by including the faked pic of the Belgian UFO on the cover of the Condign Report.



It was later admitted to be a hoax.

a reply to: mirageman
That's right. I believe he also mentioned one of Simon Hollands videos, because it included a false image of a triangle flying over a Scottish north sea oil platform.
I'm sure you're aware that during the time of the Belgian UFO flap a certain Charles Halt was based at a US airforce base in Belgium. I'm not so convinced that the photo on the Condign report is fake. The US have the resources to convince us it was a fake picture.

a reply to: DiZZyViZiON

If you believe the location is as per the DM pics (may have missed something but where exactly did Dr Clarke get the info location - the RAF press officer or the photographer ?) then it is about here

This is a nice drone shot from not far away showing the valley.

a reply to: chunder
From the drone shot you would be looking south west towards a mountain called Schiehallion. I believe the location may e on the Bruar Estate - about a half mile almost directly west of the Falls of Bruar, just to the north and across the A9 from Calvine. There was an old fence here which has now been replaced with a 7 foot high deer fence. I was there on Saturday looking at all the possible locations and despite the fence being replaced, it had the correct outline of mountains in the distance, and the correct tree types that can be seen in the photo (scots pne and silver birch)

a reply to: DiZZyViZiON

Hi, I have used the unique tree lines in the 2 DM photos and tractor lines in fields to triangulate the location and believe it is within a fairly small radius of where I pinpointed. Take a look at the shape of the tree lines - it matches exactly and where you have a small square shaped chunk of trees taken off of a corner there are tractor lines lining straight up with the DM pics so I'm pretty confident that is the location.

Note the drone shot was taken from some 800m North East of the actual location of where the DM photos were, which seem to be at a slightly higher altitude than the drone and somewhere just over the ridge of the hill in the Dalchalloch direction from the drone pic.

Whilst it isn't a highly populated area there are enough houses around that you might think a Harrier circling overhead for a few minutes would cause someone to take a look on a warm August evening.

Although there isn't anything in the original photo to link it to this location other than a similar looking fence and branches.

a reply to: mirageman
Could I email you directly please? It concerns something possibly related to this event that I hope you can help with. Kind regards- richard

a reply to: chunder
I think you may be using the Nick Pope recreation picture? There is only 1 photo in the public domain and that is the recently revealed photo which doesn't have any tractor lines on it. Before this, there was only the photocopy of this photo to go on. And Nick Popes CG recreated image.

a reply to: DiZZyViZiON

I'm using the DM photos as posted by mirageman on page 4 of this thread, which are supposedly of the exact location where the original pictures were taken from.

a reply to: chunder

I see it now, apologies chunder.
I was there on Saturday. But that picture is looking eastward from the location. You would look south from here- at the fence directly rather than along it. Problem with this location is that the fence is not barbed. Whereas the fence in the photo is. And I can tell you that the fence here has not been changed or amended in uber decades. Perhaps 60 or more years. It is very very old.

a reply to: DiZZyViZiON

I think I was about 10 m off with my location as you can actually see a small bunch of trees slightly further up the fence line.

As I said no idea where the original was taken from but that is the exact location shown in the 2 pics, 1 from the Daily Mail article and 1 from Clarkes blog site where he says it is where he believes the original was taken from, although not clear how he came to that conclusion.

originally posted by: DiZZyViZiON
a reply to: mirageman
Could I email you directly please? It concerns something possibly related to this event that I hope you can help with. Kind regards- richard

Just use the ✉️ icon in the top right of the screen to send me a message.