The Calvine UFO Image is finally out

a reply to: alldaylong

If you had read further on it says.

As explained above, the only closed information within this file is personal information exempt under s40(2) of the FOI Act. The remainder of the file is open and available to download.

So it means just the witness names have been redacted from the file.




Anyone can read the file with those redactions. I've posted links above where you can see them for free.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: peaceinoutz

That craft just doesn't look like a real ufo with that thing on the back.

If it's just a " landing pod " from a mothership, i suppose it could look unsophisticated, just designed for traveling short distances.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in Ufos, but this one looks too unsophisticated from the usual ones reported.

Also, IMO, we'll never prove much from pictures or even videos.

a reply to: sg1642

Thanks for the fascinating story - food for thought.


a reply to: mirageman

Dr. David Clarke was on UK TalkRADIO just now, clarifying that aside from the witness names the case is not classified, and also laughing at some of the more outlandish debunking attempts out there. One listener even insisted he could see "strings"!

I'm reminded again of Nick Pope's current non-committal stance. To be fair to Pope (again!), he may be referring to the Civil Service Official Secrets Act that applies for life regarding all his work in the office, rather than this case itself.

If so, why doesn't he simply say that, instead of cultivating a tiresome SpookyPope aura?

a reply to: peaceinoutz

The photographer felt bold enough to approach the Daily Record newspaper with their UFO photos and the likely publicity it would bring to them.

However, it appears that the newspaper editor, Endell Laird, was part of the MoD’s D-Notice committee (look it up if you don't know what a D-notice is). Next thing we know the MoD is sent the photo negatives for comment from the Daily Record.

Coincidence?

After that the negatives are returned within days, the Daily Record doesn't run with the story and the photographer remains silent to this very day.

There are still many possibilities there. But it looks like one of the motivations for the photographer running silent might well be that the MoD was now taking an interest.

So are we looking at a daft prank that went too far?

Or was this something genuinely of interest to the MoD resulting in the photographer's silence?

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

There has been an ongoing sourness between Pope and Clarke for years.

In fairness to Pope, or at least early 1990s Pope, he did bring this case to into the public domain with the publication of his book. But he moved on in 1994 and by the early 2000s concentrated on positioning himself as a UFO pundit. Something the mainstream media struggles to find.

Since then Clarke, despite being a sceptical figure, has done a lot of the heavy work to get the UK UFO files released to the public including Condign. While Pope has dined out on his inflated public reputation.

I still wonder why Pope refuses to confirm or deny any details about a poster on his office wall that he has talked about for over 25 years. It was put there by his predecessor and was never classified. None of the photos from Calvine were classified.

If someone makes a FOI request to the MoD for any correspondence with Pope over this matter, then it could confirm or deny whether he's just 'pontificating'.

a reply to: mirageman

Sadly, Endell Laird died in July 2015, aged 81, regarded as "Scotland's last great tabloid editor" - at least according to The Scotsman. When he died, a lot of our answers may have been buried with him.

Dr. Clarke, who is pondering writing a book about this whole saga, is unsure if the negatives were indeed returned to The Daily Record:

"I'm pretty sure that the negatives, if they were returned to The Daily Record, they didn't go any further than that, shall we say, once they were returned to the photographer."

[Link to the TalkTV live feed - Clarke's interview began just after 10pm.]

Which also begs the question: why didn't the photographer take the story to another newspaper, even a UK-wide one? Maybe he never did get the negatives back. This point in the whole story could be the most important of all.


PS: Regarding Pope's poster on the wall, he could technically have breached the Official Secrets Act (relating to his general Civil Service work, I hasten to edit) by even mentioning it! Seriously, though, it's also possible that he is protecting the photograph's 'leaker' on this occasion, being unsure of the legal ramifications after 32 years - if any. If that's the case, again, why doesn't he say so? But the pic is NOT classified....... my head hurts, MM.

PPS: That's the third time I've been fair to the Pope within 24 hours!

This does remind me of this old ufo thread which is somewhat similar.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That certainly appears to be camouflage to me. Military surveillance craft? Good of a guess as any at this point.

I agree that i see military camouflage colors but why not paint it the color of the sky if it's supposed to be hidden

a reply to: mirageman

Yes, I think we are looking at a daft prank that went too far. However, we need to understand the context in order to understand the initial concerns of the Ministry of Defence and the British military of the time. The prank probably came at the worst timing, the period when the development of home stealth programs was at its peak.

If I were to be a military image interpreter working for the RAF at the time, if I were given the original image, and if I were assured that the image is legit, my first impression would have been that the image most likely shows the typical radar cross section test mockup of the Replicaprogramme, which was intended to be UK's own stealth plane, and which expanded from 1988 to 1999. Were that the case, the mockup I guess would be made of carbon-fibre composite.

For what we know, Germany was also working on its own stealth program since 1981 with its Lampyridae, having even produced 3/4 scale piloted models of the aircraft, so it seems obvious UK would also be interested in developing its own stealth program, which includes blimps as mockups in order to cheaply test radar cross section configurations. So yes, the entire story could make sense, somehow.

However, if I were to be a military interpreter working for the RAF at that time, I would have readily detected the impossibility of the image because I'm sure any test of such a sensitive platforms shouldn't have happened over populated areas. I think the entire story was a prank that came at the worst time for the pranksters.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: mirageman

If I were to be a military image interpreter working for the RAF at the time, if I were given the original image, and if I were assured that the image is legit, my first impression would have been that the image most likely shows the typical radar cross section test mockup of the Replicaprogramme, which was intended to be UK's own stealth plane, and which expanded from 1988 to 1999. Were that the case, the mockup I guess would be made of carbon-fibre composite.

Replica ?
Replica was basically what the British side of the contactor community picked up from their ATF and JSF involvement so it looks more F22/F35 - hence the monicker.

theaviationist.com...

Stealth doesnt need to be faceted...(as demonstrated by the earlier Boeing 1967 Quiet Bird or the more contemporaneous B2).
The main reason LM's designs of the time were so obviously "wobblin gobblin" is because they were using a fairly revolutionary design methodology which used a computer program (Echo 1) to do the heavy lifting on the underlying math ("method of edge waves" borrowed from the Russians).

The absolute best you could do as an analyst on this is note the apparent faceting as "reminiscent" of Echo 1 designs from the 70's

Agree with your comments about the unlikeliness of daytime flight/testing .

a reply to: mirageman

There has been an ongoing sourness between Pope and Clarke for years.

Yes, call it a never ending story. Quite the fiasco.

a reply to: Direne

Yes, I think we are looking at a daft prank that went too far. However, we need to understand the context in order to understand the initial concerns of the Ministry of Defence and the British military of the time. The prank probably came at the worst timing, the period when the development of home stealth programs was at its peak......

In support of the 'prank' theory we have no other witnesses beyond the photographer, and his pal who have so far remained silent. On a summer's evening in August there would surely have been locals and tourists out and about who saw something in the sky. An object that was supposedly hovering for 10 mins with an aircraft making passes beneath it. Yet in 32 years no one has ever come forward to my knowledge. The fact that the 'Harrier' aircraft could not be traced also suggests it may have been a prank. There doesn't seem to be any radar tracks or other information either.


It would be interesting to see all six photographs. Because at the moment all we have is a picture of an unidentified object. The question is whether anyone else has already identified it?

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

To be fair to Pope (again!), he may be referring to the Civil Service Official Secrets Act that applies for life regarding all his work in the office, rather than this case itself. ...

Hmmm

The Civil Service Code

....You Must Not

... misuse your official position, for example by using information acquired in the course of your official duties to further your private interests or those of others


Source

a reply to: Jukiodone

"Replica was basically what the British side of the contactor community picked up from their ATF and JSF involvement so it looks more F22/F35"

Sure, but that statement does not contradict the fact that Replica mockups or unmanned scaled-down models could
be flying by the time of the Calvine alleged sighting (1990). Replica full-scale model was finished in 1999.

"Stealth doesn't need to be faceted"

Indeed, though this depends on the mission profile of the intended aircraft. Any radar reflection reduction team needs first to figure out what the mission profile is in order to be able to define the operational environment the aircraft will meet, which in turn defines the expected electromagnetic environment behavior and what can and cannot be reduced in terms of electromagnetic returns. Only then can you pass the requirements to the structural team, which then can propose different shapes, faceted (for specific mission profiles) or non-faceted (for generic mission profiles).

Already during the work on the ECHO 1 program, the working team submitted a request for financing RCS tests of generic shapes in an anechoic measurement chamber. It is also then when you create mockups and scaled-down models to test the concept. At Skunk Works, at that time (the days of the Hopeless Diamond), many engineers believed that the most correct approach to the aircraft of the stealth category is a more or less intuitive choice of the shape of the fuselage, adapted to a specific mission and covered with a thick layer of RAM-type materials.

But if the Echo program proved anything, it was that the faceted shaping of the hull was definitively something to have. And so it is even today, except that today we have wonderful metamaterials that can do the trick and help us get rid of faceted designs.

Anyway, stealth technology is not a panacea, as the shotdown of the F-117 over Serbia proved (when the F-117 opened its bomb-bay doors to release weapons, causing its radar cross-section to briefly bloom). That was in 1999, the year the Replica full-model was finished. You can imagine what happened to the Replica project after news from Serbia came in...

a reply to: mirageman

Fully agree, question everything.

I take the "original negatives not available" as just that but that the 5 vu foils were available - none of which are in the public release either.

a reply to: mirageman

So I assume Craig Lindsay is the RAF Press Officer (see here) whose name was redacted.

Then you have one hikers name redacted and the other hiker is "1 unidentified other" then a phone number from somewhere that closed in 1996 !

BTW the oil rig sighting I referenced previously was earlier than the Calvine one - August 89

a reply to: Direne

I think we are looking at a daft prank that went too far

If the analysis by Sheffield Hallam Uni is correct, they determined the size of the object as 60-100 feet in length.

That is a large size for someone to rig up as a prank. In fact i would say it was impossible to have kept that hidden then transported to the location.

a reply to: mirageman

D-notice? Sounds like the UK version of a government stooge.

This affair is a typical ufo incident: doubt, uncertainty, unknown things on all levels, government intervention, media control, and a source of the incident who is either scared or sincere or a hoaxer.

a reply to: mirageman

I have to say....man I love this thread its like peering back into old ATS

but my fav thing is watching you guys deciminate Information....that in itself is a thing of wonder

If ATS ever falls there are few places to find that to the degree we have

a reply to: Direne

the Serbian SAM commander saw that the nighthawks were flying the same path no matter the mission into the area so he set up his missiles and radars along the path and with a few men as 'early warning' they were able to shoot down the 117 almost with a visual track with a BUK.

it was the missile commanders brain that brought down the 1117 as well as the poor mission planning on the USAF's side

there was a saying on the nighthawk program that with enough thrust you could make a brick fly.

but all that being said there are no normal control surfaces in use in this picture, you can see the flaps and what not of the Harrier but there are none on the other craft visible or in use at the time, as well as no jet wash or other effects of an aircraft hoovering over the grassy hillsides.

what ever this was it was either a rigid ISR stealth blimp type thing or a drone.

there is no cockpit, so that would more than likely mean it is a drone considering the period of time the picture was taken the existence of an ADVANCED stealth drone would be a HUGE national security asset.