The Calvine UFO Image is finally out

Fake.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

That discussion has some chinks of gold, but I agree I don't think the over-lay is a perfect match however I do still lean toward the possibility that it is a hill- or mountain-top. Mirage-d or otherwise.

The glass shard is an interesting theory too though.

My main issue with the overlay, and the Q&A, I think that they are going the wrong way. According to Mr Illsley in that discussion, he and Dr Clarke have been told that the witness stated that they parked at Calvine and then followed a public footpath. If they were going up Struan point, why would they park at Calvine?

If they were going to Struan point, they could have parked at Calvine Caravan park - there is nowhere else to park between Calvine and Struan point. There are also a couple of public footpaths that run from there, though neither would take them directly to Struan point. If you were going to Struan point, I suspect you'd park around Struan rather than approach it by road, particularly if you were planning on returning with a deer carcass.

Back in the centre of Calvine, there is car parking directly opposite access to a public footpath but it doesn't go to Struan point. They could walk along the road to Struan, but why would they? To keep a low profile? I think it more likely that if they parked at Calvine they took the public footpath opposite the car park which would have taken them under the A-9 and up towards the General Wade Military Road.

In line with the majority on that discussion, I find it hard to believe the out poaching deer malarkey. Plus if the witness admitted a criminal offence what did they do with that information? Slapped his wrists and warned him to never speak of this again and then neither would they? The statute of limitations is well passed, I think that they would be alright now. And, what were they poaching deer with - a catapult? Bow and arrow? If not, I presume they verified that they had the necessary licenses before dropping the matter. I can see them taking the camera as a "cover" for being somewhere they shouldn't be, or doing something that they shouldn't be, but I think the suggestion that they were out collecting magic mushrooms is at least a little more likely. That, or they were just looking for a nice spot to "unwind". Not the best weather and all that, but the claustrophobia of living in on a hospitality job, peak season, I can get that, whatever the weather.

I don't know, the more I think about it, perhaps it's so absurd that it must be true. lol:

a reply to: Ophiuchus1
Isn't there a time gap between the Calvine photo and the overlay shot? I wouldn't expect the tree branches to be static, or even the fence posts if we are talking decades, fence posts need maintenance given enough time. Note the left fence post in the OP image is very skinny, unusual enough to look for a match if the original fence posts were there, but failure to match a skinny post could be due to fence maintenance.

The mountaintop would be more or less static and wouldn't change significantly over a few decades. But what bothers me the most in the overlay is the location of the harrier or whatever that plane is, I circled it in this edit:



So if the UFO is a mountaintop or a mirage of a mountaintop, what's that plane, harrier or whatever, doing there? It doesn't seem right.

Also, I never did figure out why in the OP photo, clouds not only obscure the sky, but much of the ground, suggesting poor visibility at a distance, yet visibility of the UFO and the plane seem pretty good. Not impossible but it seems like very unusual conditions, especially if someone suggests some kind of break in the clouds that just lets the mountain peak through, or peek through, or both, lol. Clouds broke just enough to let the mountain peak peek through?

The speculation is daunting ….. imo….finding the exact location from where the purported photograph was taken from is a needle in the haystack. Much time has passed and topography changes. Infrastructure like fences … dilapidates.

Finding the fence and area … imo….is not primary proof. The proof is the eyewitnesses and then their verification of the genuineness of the photograph(s) and negatives.

I think the better approach is to search for Kevin Russell himself. The U.K. is chock full of cameras everywhere…..it is said that Kevin Russell would be in his 50’s or thereabouts, by this time.

Today ….the Internet is a wondrous thing……there are sophisticated tools for searching for people, even more so the tools law enforcement use.

On the cheap there are several free low-end online tools in which you can take a photograph of someone and age the subject… as to predict what that person might have looked like throughout the person’s life right up until the person’s senior ages.

Below, I have used a cheap free online low end aging tool…..one of quite a few.

And the results are below…….this is not to say it’s exact to Kevin Russell …..but it does demonstrate that a hardcore investigator could gain perspective knowledge on what Kevin Russell may look like ….in today’s terms.



The red eyes are a function of using the particular low end aging tool I used……but speculative predictability of what an aging Kevin Russell might possibly look like today….is below..

Has anyone seen this man?


Anyone reading this post who knows someone….who knows someone…..should use aging tools (even high end law enforcement forensic aging tools) to look for and possibly identify Kevin Russell. And then possibly match to U.K.’s surveillance camera’s.

Otherwise…continuing to look for the exact same spot of where the photograph(s) was taken may never be found….. even til the cows come home.

👽🧐☕️

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Ophi, unfortunately, we also have to consider a few other factors in the search for the elusive Kevin Russell.

- He may have moved to another country or off world (abductee, etc.);

- He may have had a sex change and not be recognisable so easily anymore;

- Worse case scenario, he may have passed to a better place, especially with the Covid chaos...

In the UK alone, there are 298 death records for Kevin Russell...

From Archive.com

Unfortunately, you have to sign up to view records, so I haven't gone through the list to see how many of them can be excluded because of wrong era/decade.

Yep, needle in a haystack indeed.

a reply to: Encia22

I read ya…..

Law enforcement Face Recognition tools might have also helped once the possibility of an aged face surfaced.

Oh well….perhaps someone who really really wants to pursue the mysterious Kevin Russell to go to great lengths to track him down whether he has a pulse or not…

Had he have and indicated a middle name or middle initial on the back of the photograph……that may have narrowed down the field…..but alas a middle name or initial was not in our favor.

👽🤔🍺

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Isn't there a time gap between the Calvine photo and the overlay shot? I wouldn't expect the tree branches to be static, or even the fence posts if we are talking decades, fence posts need maintenance given enough time. Note the left fence post in the OP image is very skinny, unusual enough to look for a match if the original fence posts were there, but failure to match a skinny post could be due to fence maintenance.

You can see the skinny, metal posts, around the area often mixed with wooden posts, or combined with dry-walling. But you'll find the same in Cumbria or the Yorkshire Dales, probably upland Wales too. If we just go by the fencing alone it could literally be any sheep farming area in the UK.

It's not just the trees that wouldn't be static. The entire area is managed land. The Atholl Estate, which own Struan Point, is undertaking a huge regeneration of the Point - they've planted something like 350,000 trees already and they are restoring the peat bogs further down. The tree planting has involved the upgrading of fencing to deer-proof the new plantation. On the Bruar side, further up where the public footpath from Calvine comes out, what was a small wood or large copse on earlier maps has since been felled and replanted.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So if the UFO is a mountaintop or a mirage of a mountaintop, what's that plane, harrier or whatever, doing there? It doesn't seem right.

If it is just a mountain, or hill top, peeking over the clouds, then I agree, a fighter plane, or two, seems incongruous however, if it is a superior mirage, then the conditions that cause the mirage can also cause a "mirage" visible on radar.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Also, I never did figure out why in the OP photo, clouds not only obscure the sky, but much of the ground, suggesting poor visibility at a distance, yet visibility of the UFO and the plane seem pretty good. Not impossible but it seems like very unusual conditions, especially if someone suggests some kind of break in the clouds that just lets the mountain peak through, or peek through, or both, lol. Clouds broke just enough to let the mountain peak peek through?

If you take Andrew Robinson's interpretation of the photograph, that the faint lines at the bottom of the picture, behind the wires of the fence, are the contours of the hills, then position the photographer about a metre or two from the fence, in a low crouching position (maybe even laying on the ground, propped up on elbows) with the camera pointed upwards at about a 45 to 60 degrees-ish angle towards the object - the image makes a lot more sense than if you presume you are in a standing position, staring straight ahead.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

How do we know that that photograph is of Kevin Russell or that Kevin Russell took the photograph? Has Craig Lindsay gone on the record to say that it was a Kevin Russell that he spoke to? Did he write that on the back of the photgraph?

He has, on the record, said that when he contacted the person who gave the photos to the Daily Record he spoke to an Englishman. The report was made by one person, we know this from the documents. That one person claimed that there was another witness, but as the report notes, that person was not identified. The Englishman only gave their own name and contact details presumably. If Kevin is from Falkirk, who is the Englishman? If Kevin is from Falkirk and is the photographer and wasn't identified in the initial report, when did Kevin's name become attached to the photograph?

Or perhaps Craig Lindsay is mistaken about the Englishman part. Which appears to be the general assumption.

If the purpose of keeping the file under locks was to protect personal identity, ie it was more Data Protection Act than Official Secrets Act, then Lindsay kind of blew it by leaving Kevin's name on the back of the photo unless, it is not Kevin's identity that requires protecting but the Englishman's.

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

Wow….that’s some investigative questions…..have you ever thought of being a Gumshoe?😆

Yes indeed…..who was Kevin’s mate at the field on the day the picture(s) were taken?



And who can answer the rest of your questions? Hmmmmmm

👽☕️🍩

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

We should not only look for this guy. Jet in a picture is not an optical illusion. A lot of people were involved into giving data and command scrambling a fighter jet into intercept or reconnaissance.

Sure, the picture with a jet could be taken prior and then an object added to the picture. But then, it rules out an optical illusion that poses as a UFO, lets say.

originally posted by: DaydreamerX
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

We should not only look for this guy. Jet in a picture is not an optical illusion. A lot of people were involved into giving data and command scrambling a fighter jet into intercept or reconnaissance.

Sure, the picture with a jet could be taken prior and then an object added to the picture. But then, it rules out an optical illusion that poses as a UFO, lets say.

One of David Clarke's students/colleagues did a bit of digging (to no avail).

First on the Army rumour website (where he gets led up the garden path)
www.arrse.co.uk...

Then on the Pilot rumour forum:
www.pprune.org...

Then on the UK spotters forum:
www.fightercontrol.co.uk...

TLDR: Lots of people who would be in a position to know about this alleged event have low confidence in the alleged Jet being in that location at that time.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Then in this case, the illusion was real and jet was added to the picture later... Also a valid argument. I have to look at the pictures again to see if I can see an illusion for myself.

a reply to: DaydreamerX

Knock yourself out.

Its a blurry pic that doesnt make sense using any black project/ET theory, with no known witnesses and no known way to verify when/where it was taken and people are spending hours researching whilst ignoring all the obvious issues.

On the other hand - there's Chris Gibson's sighting with definitive date, time, location, a credible witness (who still posts online) who has over the last 30 years- proven himself to be one of the least crackpot "Black project" witnesses on record.
And everyone's like- "Meh - rather spend hours researching what could be an Xmas decoration on fishing line" .

a reply to: Jukiodone
There's a a saying "pics or it didn't happen" which while not strictly true, pics do make a UFO sighting more interesting.
In the Calvine case, I'm bothered by only having one image out of the 6 taken and even that one is said to be lower quality than the original images being reviewed when it happened, which apparently showed more detail. Even with the picture, people have raised questions about whether the alleged harrier is actually a harrier, but without pics, we have even less to go on when trying to interpret an eyewitness sighting.

If Chris Gibson had a photo or two, he might be able to dispel speculation that he might have seen a plane that today, would not be considered a UFO, but back then, they might have been. In fact F-117s were flying around seven years before they were officially shown to the public, so to people who didn't know what they were, they were UFOs. Even after they were announced to the public, I still wouldn't be surprised if F-117s accounted for some UFO sightings, especially in cases with no photos.

Revealed: The Secret SR-91 Aurora Mach 5 Hypersonic Spy Plane

According to FighterJetsWorld.com there have been a couple of unverified sightings of what may or may not have been an SR-91. The most "well-known instance" that could suggest the aircraft is real was the sighting of a triangular aircraft over the North Sea in August 1989 by oil-exploration engineer Chris Gibson, but this could be a case of trying to suggest that what was sighted was a hypothetical plane rather than an existing aircraft such as a B-2 Spirit – which certainly has a triangular shape and did in fact have its first flight earlier that year.

A more likely answer could have been that the triangular-shaped aircraft was a Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, which had been tested by the RAF in the late 1980s.

I don't know what Gibson saw, but if he had a photo, we'd be talking about it more I think, and trying to analyze that photo, if it wasn't actually an F-117, which was operational in 1983, but didn't make a public appearance untill 1990. (though some people probably saw it flying before the 1990 public appearance, and didn't know what it was).

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Didn't Calvine became (in)famous when there was no pic.?
It rode the hype train of being the "best UFO pic evaah!!!" - only existing as a photocopy of a photocopy of a redaction for decades.
Many internet research hours were spent prior to the pic. surfacing- purely based on the crap Nick Pope was spewing on the UFO conference circuit.

Agree with your general sentiment but I suspect lots of people who claim to be interested in investigating "UAPs" are actually only interested in the Alien/ET variety - (present company excluded).
This then allows outlets like Pope or Clarkes favourite - the Daily Heil - to run their little green men for suckers revenue model.

Re: Gibson.
Still adamant (to this day) that whatever he saw hasn't matched any other planform to date.
He could of course be mistaken- but goddamn he's persistent for someone in any doubt.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Wow….that’s some investigative questions…..have you ever thought of being a Gumshoe?😆

Funnily enough, in a certain light I bear an uncanny resemblance to Peter Falk

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Yes indeed…..who was Kevin’s mate at the field on the day the picture(s) were taken?

And who can answer the rest of your questions? Hmmmmmm

While not entirely rhetorical, I'm not holding my breath for answers.

And, I am not entirely sure what we should expect the gentlemen in question to be able to tell us if they are found that would make a very great difference, other than if they were to inform us that it was a hoax.

Either way, it's quite an accomplishment for Dr Clarke to have tracked down the photo, not to mention all the work that he has done with FOIAs and curating the UFO archives at Kew. All credit where it's due, but that most recent article I linked earlier, Richard Grier's account doesn't tally too well with what we know already - or if it is true, raises a couple of questions that Clarke fails to ask.

It's kind of curiousity inducing.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
TLDR: Lots of people who would be in a position to know about this alleged event have low confidence in the alleged Jet being in that location at that time.

It's an odd one. The spotters almost universally nay-say the possibility of jets flying on a Saturday. A fair proportion of the pilots though do appear to be of the opinion that that is perfectly possible. Generally though, I'd say the vote is against it being a Harrier. Hunter seems to be the most popular alternative. Very few of either the spotters or the pilots do not see a jet at all and no-one seems able to explain the photo one way or another.

We're just left with hoax or WTF?

It's a fun one.

Not wanting to dig through the past thread pages……I’ll post, re-post(?) these pics….to make a hypothetical point that perhaps the material turned over in front of Craig Lindsay… may just be the remaining pics, or some of, we might want to see….especially if there’s a pic of the craft….and not one, but two military aircraft which is rumored to exist….




Perhaps Craig Lindsay needs to be contacted and asked what’s that in front of him …are they additional pics of the purported event?……..before he drops dead of old age…if he hasn’t already.

👽🍺

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: DaydreamerX

Knock yourself out.

Its a blurry pic that doesnt make sense using any black project/ET theory, with no known witnesses and no known way to verify when/where it was taken and people are spending hours researching whilst ignoring all the obvious issues.

On the other hand - there's Chris Gibson's sighting with definitive date, time, location, a credible witness (who still posts online) who has over the last 30 years- proven himself to be one of the least crackpot "Black project" witnesses on record.
And everyone's like- "Meh - rather spend hours researching what could be an Xmas decoration on fishing line" .

Ok. To myself I have to assume the picture was not tempered with.
If it wasn't, then, as possible explanation, it is either a blimp or the real deal.

a reply to: Jukiodone
Yes, Nick Pope was good at over-hyping things, including his responsibilities for the MOD.


a reply to: Ophiuchus1
I'd be very interested to see the other 5 photos, instead of the "re-creations" of them which are undoubtedly inaccurate in some ways, as they would be if any of us tried to recall the details of 5 photos from memory. But at least the re-creations give us some foggy idea of what's in the other photos. By the way, 6 photos seems like a lot of photos to hoax if you're making a hoax, though I guess Billy Meier hoaxed a lot more than that, but his photos and especially his videos were obvious hoaxes.

I find it hard to imagine that David Clarke wouldn't have already asked Craig Lindsey for additional photos.

originally posted by: DaydreamerX
Ok. To myself I have to assume the picture was not tempered with.
If it wasn't, then, as possible explanation, it is either a blimp or the real deal.

"real deal"? What does that mean? Blimps aren't real?

Earlier in the thread, I explained the difference between a blimp and a rigid hull airship. You may want to go back and read that.
I also explained why it's very unlikely to be a blimp. But there's no reason to rule out a rigid hull airship.
If it's not a rigid hull airship, it's probably a hoax.

I don't have any pre-conceived bias about whether the calvine photo or photos are hoaxes or not. I find stories that it's not a UFO to intelligence officials because they know exactly what it is to be intriguing, though certainly not verified. Well, David Clarke verified the credentials of the intelligence official who told him that, but he didn't verify the story itself, which may be difficult to do if the craft is real and still classified.

An ex- defence intelligence officer has revealed the secret behind the massive, diamond-shaped vehicle in the “world’s best” UFO photo.

A former defence intelligence officer has revealed the secret behind the “world’s best” UFO photo, claiming the massive, diamond-shaped vehicle captured in the image was a top secret US aircraft...

The defence official, whose credentials were verified by Dr Clarke and his team, explained the UFO was believed to have been a “target designation companion” for F-117 Nighthawk stealth bombers.

The so-called “Calvine Vehicle” was understood to have been unmanned, very large and equipped with a high tech ground-mapping laser.