The Calvine UFO Image is finally out

a reply to: TritonTaranis

Yes, that was already established in the posts above yours.

It has a tail fin, when did ufo's worry about human problems in aircraft. Most pics of ufo's show designs that don't worry about stability or being aero dynamic.

originally posted by: Jaaaaamazing
Nick Pope has come out and said he can't confirm or deny if this was the photo he had up in his office at the MOD as it may still be classified.

So basically confirming it is the one he had up

Yes. That's just Nick Pope being Nick Pope.

Although Nick Pope's name is redacted from this memo in June 1994. We know it was him from the department that sent it.



He's confirming that anyone who submits photos to the MoD retains the copyright to them. In this case the Daily Record newspaper and the original photographer(s) would be applicable.

The Calvine photos weren't ever officially classified. The MoD in the UK was expecting a press story that never materialized. And the photos were supposedly returned to Daily Record in 1990. That was a year before Nick even began his job as desk officer in the Air Secretariat 2A (or UFO Project as he called it). In fact, the poster on his wall was already there before his appointment.

I've detailed all this with references in this old thread.

The UK National Archives have given more information here : Link

I am confused what that has to do with Nick Pope's statement which was soley about weather or not that was the poster in his office, it clearly was

a reply to: mirageman

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Mirror article from 10 Oct 2020 so this is not new.

A secret dossier that details one of Britain's most famous UFO sightings is to be kept secret for another 50 years.

It apparently contains incredible colour photos taken in 1990 that allegedly show a 100ft craft hovering over Calvine in the Scottish Highlands.

Two hikers were walking in the area when suddenly they say they saw a diamond shaped aircraft over the landscape before speeding off into the distance.

You should view the image at full size by opening it in another tab if you're on a PC.

This photo is higher quality than the one in the newer article and shows good detail.

Enlarged only, no other manipulation...

Looking at the older version before it was manipulated the object is clearly close to the camera and small. I'd say the detail is actually printed on the surface of whatever the lighter-than-air toy or kite it is.

Odd they forgot it was already out there. I smell a hoax. Just my opinion of course.

yes the tail fin doesn't make sense to me.

I posted in the Aviation duplicate that`d probably be closed but reading a few posts here I recall the aircraft being a Hawker Hunter and not a Harrier in the original pic.

In a grainy image the silhouette of both aircraft can be extremely close when banking as it is.

ba reply to: 19Bones79

Did you not read anything?
It's because your looking at an artist rendition of the original picture.....that is posted in the OP. Your commenting on the fake picture.

a reply to: 11SK1180

Did no one ready the OP?

Your commenting on an artists rendition of the photo in OP. It was classified. So nick pope worked with an artist to make a representation of...the picture in the OP for a TV show.

Meaning your looking at a fake picture. Look at the black and white one in the OP that picture with the tailfins was based on.

a reply to: sarahvital

It has a tailfin because it is a fake picture. Made by an artist based on Nick Pope's description of the photo posted in the op. Your commenting on nonsense and didn't read the post.

This site has gone downhill over the last 10 years. Wild.

a reply to: StratosFear

I’ll have to take a look at a Hawker Hunter for comparison.

On a side note, I wonder if the object was tracked via radar and for how long.
It must of been tracked since there was RAF in the area.

originally posted by: StratosFear
I posted in the Aviation duplicate that`d probably be closed but reading a few posts here I recall the aircraft being a Hawker Hunter and not a Harrier in the original pic.

The official MOD line was that there were no Harriers in the area, and I was wondering if that was truthful or not. If it's not a Harrier, then the MOD could be telling the truth about no Harriers being in the area.

a reply to: Macenroe82

I could be mistaken as well, By the 90`s the Hunter wouldve been retired as front line aircraft decades ago for sure. I had it in my head the photo was taken earlier.

Fascinating to see the real deal after artist impressions and a crude 'traced' version did the rounds for decades.

This is quite a momentous revelation due to the years of intrigue and the fact Pope had this on his wall for years at the MoD, causing folks' jaws to drop as they passed his 'UFO desk' [sic] - lots of speculation abounded, so to finally see the genuine article is a real scoop for ufology.

As already mentioned, it's a shame we don't have the negatives, but hey, 'that'll do' (that's the Yorkshire in me speaking).

My first instinct is Black Ops, and always was, but I'm content to leave a little window of "What if?" whilst this pic undergoes some no doubt intensive analyses.

Also, these could be oddly shaped dirigibles?

originally posted by: Arnie123
Also, these could be oddly shaped dirigibles?

Could be a dirigible.

Could be an alien craft.

Could be a Black Ops craft based on alien tech.

Could be very earthly Black Ops tech.


Take your pick!

Seriously though, I've only just started to study the photo analysis in the link provided by MM, so I may pop back with further thoughts. But we can say for certain: the photo is genuine; and the objects ARE there in front of the camera rather than due to any suspicious processing.

a reply to: Blaine91555


How come the areas look like completely different places then the OP pic? OP pic has a fence in it, different terrain

originally posted by: MisguidedAngel
a reply to: Blaine91555


How come the areas look like completely different places then the OP pic? OP pic has a fence in it, different terrain

There were six original photographs - this was considered to be the best one. All six were taken in a rush by one of two chefs who were both stunned to see this large 100ft object hovering in the sky, and hid in a bush.

Important points to note:

1) The witnesses said the aircraft arrived MINUTES LATER rather than 'escorting' it, and the pilot seemed just as curious as the two witnesses as he/she encircled the UFO before flying away.

2) The witnesses did not describe the UFO as "flying", rather hovering before suddenly shooting upwards until it disappeared. Which is curious.

3) The object was silent, aside from a low 'hum'.

4) Why did the MoD almost OBSESSIVELY shroud this case in secrecy? Was it a secret Black Op?

5) If it was a secret Black Op, why the hell did Nick Pope have a blown-up version of it on his wall for years? The general gossip of the time at the MoD office was that it was indeed of unknown origin.


As Dr. Clarke would agree, there are still many unanswered questions about this case. Personally, I would like to know what happened to the two original witnesses!


PS: Some bizarre debunking efforts doing the rounds, one of the most popular being that the object is simply a rock in a lake, the bottom half a reflection and the aircraft a reflection too as it flew above. What are these guys smoking?

Or - get ready for this - a 'mirage' because some of the mountain peaks in recent pics of the area allegedly resemble the object. Mirage pics do exist aplenty but the context of this case ditches that theory.

I'm usually very cautious and sceptical of UFO pics, but those two debunking efforts are pretty desperate.

a reply to: Macenroe82


Ok, thanks I missed that.

a reply to: Skyhigh00


It was a long day.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

It is not a matter of whether the pic is genuine or not. It is a matter for the ufologists to prove it is not a blimp.

The pic was taken in 1990 in precisely an area whether we know military blimps were heavily tested, in a time in which military blimp development was at its peak (as air remote sensing platforms specially devoted to shore control and monitoring). Different blimp development programs existed in UK, USA, and Japan. Military blimps even made headlines in the New York Times both in 1987 and 1989 (just search for U.S. Turns to Giant Blimp for Defense of the Nation's Shores, 1989, and The battle to build the Navy's blimp, in 1987.

Moreover, if you read any book on blimps' history and development you would convince yourself there is no reason not to believe military blimps were flown over Scotland at precisely that time period. So, in my mind, a more interesting approach would be trying to identify which particular blimp was the one shown in the pic, instead of discussing whether the pic shows a UFO, or whether the pic is real or fake.

That Mr. Pope had a photograph of the blimp in his desk in the belief it was a UFO only tells a lot about Mr. Pope ignorance about MoD blimp development programs. Or perhaps he simply had no right to know about those projects.