The Calvine UFO Image is finally out

a reply to: mirageman

if its a fake or not i don't think it just a random person faking it for kicks on a site like ATS

i could imagine them doing what is called a limited hang out(the faceted shape) to see if any early stealth program stuff was leaking

the fact we are still talking about it means it has been kept Infront of us and i ask why?

if its fake that's almost a bigger can of worms

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: DartFrog44

....a D notice is a legal document from the very top of the UK government

It's a century old 'compromise' that maintains the freedom of the press. Media organizations are asked to 'voluntarily' protect national security by not reporting on matters that would be seriously detrimental to the UK's national security or UK nationals.

On the one hand, I'm sure The Daily Record would have run the story if the editor hadn't been on the D-Notice board.

On the other hand, perhaps he was unimpressed that the MoD simply flung the pics back at him. However, even Dr Clarke cannot be sure that the pics/negatives were indeed returned.

I'm pretty sure the copyright belongs to the photographer - whose name and address are on the envelope that enclosed the print. Clarke should have just taken a sneaky look at it and run with the details, even if the UK Government would have objected due to the silly recent rule about witnesses' identification - after all, the photographer sent the pics to a bloody tabloid!

Whether the photo is a hoax or not is still undetermined to me.

Like Clarke and his expert Robinson, I have - perhaps naively - assumed that the photo was taken at the location claimed, but if we're all wrong on that aspect, then all bets are off as the case would be thrown straight into the Hoax Bin.

If the location is wrong, then all the 'Rock In Water' and 'Mountain Peak' theories are no longer as laughable as they seemed.

I can't speak for anyone else. But the jury is still out for me on this one.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions.

Yes, I'm beginning to get that familiar Spidey Tingle. My initial excitement didn't take long to flatten, did it? I think it's the almost mythical nature of the case that installs the initial trust that the geography of the case is not in question, and I'd feel very sorry for Dr. Clarke if it is indeed wrong.


PS: Anyone wondering about the other five pics needn't bother. The 'leaker' saw them at the MoD, and all six are more or less identical, except for different positioning of the jet, and the one pic we do have is the clearest.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit
I agree. I don't put too much faith in any single source of imagery as not being fake, unless I took the photo myself. I think the confidence of people making statements that it's not a fake or hoax is usually misplaced, and perhaps especially in this case if such claims are made from evaluating a photo rather than a negative. It's wise to question everything in this field and not assume too much.

Now, when we have multiple witnesses photographing UFOs from multiple angles in the same place at the same time, then we have a much more solid case for it not being a hoax, but if nobody corroborates this story, it doesn't prove it's false, but that certainly doesn't help the credibility.

PS: Anyone wondering about the other five pics needn't bother. The 'leaker' saw them at the MoD, and all six are more or less identical, except for different positioning of the jet, and the one pic we do have is the clearest.

I was wondering about those on the outside chance the photographer had anything to substantiate the alleged claim about the object ascending when it left, such as the last photo showing the object at a higher altitude. Apparently they don't show that.

But even if the photos are genuine, the claim about rapid ascension, if actually made, might be fabricated, since selling photos of an object that moved like a dirigible might not yield as much money as photos of an object claimed to have extraordinary behavior. So there could be financial incentive to embellish the story to try to make the photos sound more interesting, if the photographer really said it ascended rapidly. It would be interesting to hear from the photographer at this point; maybe they will come forward now that the photo is out there.

But even if the photographer comes forward and still claims it ascended rapidly, I still couldn't get the phrase "pics or it didn't happen" out of my mind.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

I was a bit busy all yesterday so just catching up again.

On the one hand, I'm sure The Daily Record would have run the story if the editor hadn't been on the D-Notice board...

They probably would have run the story. UK tabloids have always loved a good UFO story in what is known as 'silly season'. But circumstances meant that didn't happen.

...even Dr Clarke cannot be sure that the pics/negatives were indeed returned.

True. I'm confused why a pair of hikers would also give up their only 'proof', the negatives, to the newspaper. Or did they copy the negatives? The film stock used was also unusual. A type used for 'artsy' type shots in black & white but printed on coloured paper to give it colour toning.I believe Nick Pope claimed the poster on his office wall was in colour and clearly showed the countryside.

Don't forget as well that the photos were supposedly snapped on 4th August 1990. The MoD didn't receive them until over a month later on Sept 10th!!

Then of course there is the mystery of the 'Harrier'. The MoD said "...there is no record of Harriers operating in the area at the time.... Remember this was an internal memo not for public consumption. Are we to believe that they simply accepted it was a Harrier, checked the records, ignoring any other possible military aerial activity, and left it there?

...I'm pretty sure the copyright belongs to the photographer - whose name and address are on the envelope that enclosed the print.

Legally, copyright is with the photographer. But their name and address was not on the envelope that Clarke showed on his blog. The prints/negatives had been sent to the Daily Record's Glasgow office then to Edinburgh where the RAF PR officer collected them. There's also a name and address of another journalist from another paper scribed upside down in the upper right corner of that envelope. But maybe it was written after the contents were opened and has nothing to do with the case?

..I have - perhaps naively - assumed that the photo was taken at the location claimed, but if we're all wrong on that aspect, then all bets are off as the case would be thrown straight into the Hoax Bin.

I am guessing that because the names are redacted until 2072 that the photographer was around 18 at the time. By 2072 they will be 100 (or more likely gone). Unless this person comes forward and tells the truth, or more information is forthcoming from somewhere else, then we may never know if this was a hoax that backfired badly or not.

After the initial excitement has died down, there are still more questions than answers.

There's also a Youtube video for those with the time featuring Dr. Clarke and the team who investigated the story behind this photo.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

...the claim about rapid ascension, if actually made, might be fabricated,..

I stand corrected that the claim of the object rising rapidly came from Nick Pope. There is a case report that is handwritten, unsigned and undated contained within the MoD files.

I now believe it was written by Craig Lindsay, the RAF officer in possession of the photo. He telephoned the photographer at their place of work and jotted down a handwritten report.

It is there that the claim is made about "..a huge diamond shaped UFO hovering for about 10 minutes before ascending vertically upwards at high speed."



Whatever happened, the UK MoD were twitchy about this and investigations continued in 1992 when line drawings were requested.

The Harrier is bugging me for the following reasons.

You don't fly a Harrier around the same as you may decide to take a random drive in the countryside of an evening, which leaves 2 options both of which are problematic.

1. The pilot noticed the object whilst on route and decided to take a closer look.
2. The pilot was tasked to take a look.

The chances of 1 seem slim but either way I imagine any detour would require permission, especially if involving low level flight (the headline pilot crashes Harrier buzzing hot air balloon wouldn't look good). Even if not prior permission then surely mentioned in a debrief.
2 would also require knowledge from wherever was controlling the Harrier (but then begs the question how was it known the object was there).

So both scenarios involve wider knowledge than just the pilot, yet there is no record of a Harrier in the location at that time.

originally posted by: Substracto
I love it, but to me looks like a blimp, an alternative kind of blimp.

A Blimp would partially explain the tailfins.
2nd.

a reply to: mirageman

That's a good find. Now I'm curious, but I have no expertise in this subject.

In the handwritten report, two witnesses are mentioned (one unidentified), presumably the two cooks. There is no official mention of the fighter pilot that supposedly engaged the UFO apart from the witness testimony. However, the weather information seems a bit more detailed than the photographer could have estimated or remembered. Is it possible that (a) those details came from the pilot's report or (b) from a local weather observatory?

If there had been a pilot report, would it be included in the MoD case file or kept separate by the RAF or some other National Defence agency? Could it be the presence of a pilot briefing the reason that certain aspects of the case will remain sealed until 2072?

originally posted by: mirageman
There's also a Youtube video for those with the time featuring Dr. Clarke and the team who investigated the story behind this photo.

You made a thread about a year ago based on an article Clarke had written where he leaned toward the hoax as most likely explanation, though he didn't rule out the other two possibilities he mentioned.

Then he started waffling about the hoax possibility, and now in that video, I didn't detect even the slightest hint he is still considering the hoax possibility. I can't say I'm surprised because I didn't realy understand why he was favoring the hax hypothesis so much a year ago.

In that video they mentioned the names being redacted for so long was unprecedented and they had been releasing names in similar cases, so they made it sound like the lengthy redaction of names was special to this case. I haven't really loked into if they started such a lengthy name redaction for all other similar cases.

Another comment I found interesting in that video was the idea that the US at one point thought the UK was flying around that UK made craft which was a knock-off of a US craft design, which was apparently not the case, since it apeared UK officials didn't know what it was and hadn't made any such knockoff (or had they? Clarke didn't seem to think so from information provided from his sources).

originally posted by: mirageman
I stand corrected that the claim of the object rising rapidly came from Nick Pope. There is a case report that is handwritten, unsigned and undated contained within the MoD files.

I now believe it was written by Craig Lindsay, the RAF officer in possession of the photo. He telephoned the photographer at their place of work and jotted down a handwritten report.

Craig Lindsay seems like a straight shooter, so I expect he did his best to relay what the photographer told him up his chain of command. But that doesn't mean we can take everything the photographer said at face value.

originally posted by: chunder
So both scenarios involve wider knowledge than just the pilot, yet there is no record of a Harrier in the location at that time.

Is there any chance it wasn't a Harrier? I'm not sure if there are any other possibilities.

The local RAF base was transitioning from phantoms to tornado aircraft . No4 squadron ( harriers ) we’re based in Germany at the time however they had 4 aircraft at RAF leuchars practicing low level flying

a reply to: chunder

a reply to: Encia22

...In the handwritten report, two witnesses are mentioned (one unidentified), presumably the two cooks. There is no official mention of the fighter pilot that supposedly engaged the UFO

At the time the memo was written, here had been no investigation into the details of the case. However, another official document dated 14th Sept1990 claims that "...no Harriers were operating in the area..." at that time. So they hadn't identified the aircraft, let alone the pilot. Hence no report.

This memo, especially section 2 of it may provide more clarity.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You made a thread about a year ago based on an article Clarke had written where he leaned toward the hoax as most likely explanation..... now in that video, I didn't detect even the slightest hint he is still considering the hoax possibility. I can't say I'm surprised because I didn't realy understand why he was favoring the hax hypothesis so much a year ago....

Yes there are currently a number of theories still promoting a hoax. A mountain top, a reflection in water and a maybe it wasn't even taken at the time or place reported. But Clarke seems to have had a complete change of mind since last year. All without really saying precisley why.

...Craig Lindsay seems like a straight shooter, so I expect he did his best to relay what the photographer told him up his chain of command. But that doesn't mean we can take everything the photographer said at face value. ..

I find it slightly odd after 32 years that he just turns up out of the blue, nonchalantly hands over his photo to Hallam University and states that he had been waiting for someone to come to him and ask for it. He also knew the name of the photographer. Maybe Clarke does too, now. But that's all speculation, of course.

originally posted by: mirageman

I find it slightly odd after 32 years that he just turns up out of the blue, nonchalantly hands over his photo to Hallam University and states that he had been waiting for someone to come to him and ask for it.

Why was he "waiting"? If he's trying to convey a sense of 'relief' about disclosing it, why was he ready and willing to give it to the first Tom, Dick or Harry who asked him for it? That doesn't sound like a particularly straight shooter (that's aimed at Arby). Unless he was being ultra careful about the photographer's copyright, but if not, the pic wasn't classified, so what was his problem?

I suppose if he wanted to offload it, he could have simply sent it to The Daily Record!

He also knew the name of the photographer. Maybe Clarke does too, now. But that's all speculation, of course.

Oh, I'm sure Clarke knows it. The name and address were on the envelope, so I suppose it's possible Lindsay allowed Clarke - and ONLY Clarke - to see it, with a little nudge and a wink on the side. Indeed, it would have potentially solved any copyright issues Lindsay may have had. In Clarke's own words from Sept 2021:

"If I find out who this person is who took the photographs, I'll be outside his house tomorrow morning with my foot in the door, because that's what I do as a journalist and I''ll find some way, prising the information out of them."

www.youtube.com... (40 mins in)

If Clarke isn't trying to track him down right now as I type, I'm a Bigfoot's cousin twice removed.

PS: Are we fairly confident now that Pope is the only source for the "low hum" of the UFO? It's worth remembering that the complete silence of the UFO is what perked up Lindsay's interest after nearly dismissing the case and pics.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

....Are we fairly confident now that Pope is the only source for the "low hum" of the UFO? It's worth remembering that the complete silence of the UFO is what perked up Lindsay's interest after nearly dismissing the case and pics.

I am not aware of any earlier mentions of the case before Nick's book 'Open Skies, Closed Minds' was published in 1996 where he mentions...

...as far as I can recall ...two people who had been out walking in Pitlochry who had heard a low humming sound, looked around, done a double take, shot off I think, I’m not sure if they shot off a few pictures or just one …

However, on Pope's own website he describes it as silent.

...two members of the public out walking in the vicinity of Calvine, near Pitlochry, in Scotland, sighted a massive, diamond-shaped, metallic UFO. The UFO was virtually stationary and hovered silently for what the witnesses believed was several minutes, before accelerating away vertically at massive speed...

The recent Daily Mail piece quotes the press officer who interviewed the witness by telephone, who said.

...As a press officer for Scotland, I dealt with many UFO reports...this one was different. When I asked what sort of noise it had made, the man said, “It didn’t make any noise at all.”

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.

Has Dr Clarke established beyond doubt, that the aircraft pictured alongside the object/ufo is definitely a us/uk harrier? Could it not be a hawker hunter instead? Very hard to tell from that picture. If the aircraft was not a harrier, the MOD will of course deny that type of aircraft being in the area at the alleged time/location the picture was taken. I presume Dr Clarke or another investigator will have filed a FOI request on this matter by now? It may help answer some questions maybe.

a reply to: da pickles

Thanks, seems like Dr Clarke has more info than being made overtly public - link

This has the time they left Pitlochry as 8pm

the incident began when 2 men drove 13 miles from Pitlochry around sunset (8pm)

Also links the MOD release with 4 squadron.

There is also some good research on a few other forums that has confirmed the exact location of where the picture was taken which corroborates the hikers story (easily found with a google search).

I think the fact 4 Harriers returned to Scotland is a clue to the identity of the object, why send 4 back for low level flying practice.

As it looks like the photo is not digital, the real question should be "where is the negative". The negative would go some way to prove fake, or not, plus may provide more detail.

a reply to: TheGeneral33

...Has Dr Clarke established, beyond doubt, that the aircraft pictured alongside the object/ufo is definitely a us/uk harrier?

It was MoD staff that investigated and identified the aircraft as a Harrier in September 1990. See the memo I posted above here. They are not infallible though.

A further re-task was ordered in 1991

Enclosed are 5 (five) vu-foils of an unidentified flying object. Please produce line drawings of object with size and dimensions 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. [#name redacted#]

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.

Source : DEFE 31/180

It also confirms that 4 squadron had already been consulted!!!

I feel there is some documentation missing and not released.

I don't know if you guys are interested, but Prof' Simon has a done a series of Youtube Videos on this.
There are 5 parts so far but I'll just post the first one.
In episode 2 he has an interesting take on what he thinks the "UFO" could be..


If you guys watch them, let me know what you think of his conclussion..