John J.
Senior Member.
Guess so; it's certainly not a demonstrated fact.
I still feel the finding of a second aircraft, not reported by the claimant(s) or seen by anyone else, strongly implies that the photographs were examined in some detail.
Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
I still feel the finding of a second aircraft, not reported by the claimant(s) or seen by anyone else, strongly implies that the photographs were examined in some detail.
Absolutely — he claims so, and that might be right, or it might just be an assumption, a case of false memory, etc. Lindsay gives us a lot of details about a case that happened decades ago, even though he has no notes to back them up. Telling what's accurate and what's a mistake on his part is impossible.
Yes, it was composed to, if necessary, make the minister aware that the Daily Record was about to run a story about a UFO allegedly sighted near Pitlochry, and to inform him of the line adopted in responding to the journalist's questions. The background of this story is summarized in a few sentences, followed by an explanation of the strategy for the official response regarding the sighting. As clearly stated in the document, the MoD normally has "limited interest in the UFO phenomenon" and typically responds to public inquiries by stating that they "do not have the resources to undertake any in-depth investigations into particular sightings." In this case, however, they apparently deviated from the usual line and wanted to explain this to the minister. When reading the document, it's clear to me that it was not composed to provide an in-depth explanation of the "case" to the minister, but rather to explain why the MoD suddenly gave comments on a UFO.
Yes, JARIC is a possibility, but that doesn't really reveal how extensive the investigation was. To me, someone at the MoD (possibly JARIC) taking the time to examine some UFO photos suggests they simply wanted to ensure the images didn't show any classified equipment or similar. Once they concluded that the photos were irrelevant to the MoD, the negatives were handed back to the Daily Record, and a strategy for responding to the journalist was drawn up. From experience, we know that governments are often poor at explaining "UFO sightings," and the fact that the MoD briefly looked at some photos before returning them to a journalist doesn't convince me that they were particularly extraordinary.
No, it really doesn't. It only tells us that someone at the MoD claimed to have spotted a "barely visible" second aircraft in at least one of the six photos. (Ironically, the "jet" seen in Lindsay's photo is itself "barely visible" to me, which makes me wonder how faint the supposed second "aircraft" might have been.) Furthermore, we have no idea what Andy Allan at the Daily Record thought of the photos or whether he also thought he saw a second aircraft. And Lindsay? To my understanding, he was only provided with this single photograph and therefore couldn't really know what was visible in the other five.
As for the "witness" not seeing a second aircraft — identifying one in the photos isn't the real issue here. The real issue is that he didn't mention a second aircraft when recounting his story. Whether the photos were a hoax or genuinely showed something in the sky, the witness should have remembered whether there were one or two jets flying past for "5 to 6 minutes." And if it was a hoax, the prankster should have remembered whether he borrowed one or two toy planes from his kid brother.
In other words, the MoD claiming to have spotted a (barely visible) second aircraft in one of the photos suggests, if anything, that they probably mistook some blur or artifact for a "jet." Consequently, this might actually say something about the limited extent of the investigation conducted.
As I mentioned in my previous post, if the claimant didn't see the second jet with the naked eye, I find it hard to believe the MoD would have spotted it in a blurry photo.
Mendel
Senior Member.
A genuine witness wouldn't necessarily have remembered, due to selective attention. See for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness#Invisible_Gorilla_Test .
The argument isn't that there really is a second jet; we don't know (and the MoD said it was "barely visible" such that they couldn't even identify the type). The argument is that the MoD unit examined the photos so closely that it saw this potential second jet when it wasn't obvious to either the photographer or the photo editor, as far as we know.
Absolutely — I'm sure someone at the MoD took a closer look at the photographs, but to what extent is unclear. How did they examine the negatives, and who conducted this investigation? I don't think we'll ever be able to fully answer those questions. My point is that someone at the MoD claiming to have spotted a second aircraft in one of the photographs isn't, by itself, evidence of a close or thorough investigation.
And regarding whether the photo editor or photographer saw a possible second aircraft — well, that's the problem with this whole story. It's filled with speculation and very little fact. Do we even know if Allan had access to all six photographs when speaking to Lindsay? And Lindsay — did he ever see more than this one photo? And what did the "witness" actually claim? We know next to nothing when it comes to details.
You're obviously right. But I do find it a bit odd, since we're looking at a small portion of the sky (for the second jet to show up in the photo, it must have been close to the "UFO"), and the sighting allegedly took place over several minutes. Still, the "witness" could have missed a passing plane — stranger things have happened.
But again, my point is that we shouldn't take a statement about a possible second aircraft as evidence of an extensive investigation by the MoD. We simply don't know that. It's a "UFO report" — the object is already referred to as a "UFO" in both the handwritten PM and the Loose Minute. After confirming that there were no Harriers operating in the Calvine area at the time, I don't find it hard to believe that further investigations into the matter were somewhat cursory — but that's just my opinion.
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
But is also, I'd contend, a claim that remains to be proven... or have I missed something?
Second! In my limited exposure to being around a Harrier at an airshow, they are not hard to notice. If it was so far away as to not be seen or heard, was it involved in chasing or escorting or observing the UFO? Wouldn't it want to get a bit closer if it was doing that? If it was NOT involved, are we being asked to believe that there was one Harrier buzzing about a mysterious UFO (or escorting a super-secret experimental aircraft) and another just happened to be in the distance but close enough to capture anf be recognized on film?
To me, the second claimed aircraft unnoticed by the "witness" makes the story less credible.
John J.
Senior Member.
Totally agree.
Fighter jets/ attack aircraft routinely operate in pairs, not always close together.
I think it's extremely unlikely that there was some extraordinary aircraft (or spacecraft) as the witness(es) claimed, but a photograph/ series of photographs capturing a military jet with its wingman in the distance is possible.
If the photographs did not originate with the claimant(s), this might explain their not knowing a second conventional aircraft being present.
There is absolutely no evidence that anyone saw a second aircraft prior to the photographs being passed to the MoD.
It is not part of the original claim. No-one involved in handling the photos (claimants, Daily Record staff, Lyndsey) mentioned more than one (conventional) aircraft.
To the extent that they observed a second aircraft, "probably" a Harrier.
Military photo analysis sometimes uses specialised optics and other techniques, as these can reveal details not evident to the naked eye.
The fact that we can't see a second plane doesn't make its reported presence less likely, unless we verge on conspiracy theory territory:
(1) Whoever reviewed the photographs made it up, or
(2) whoever reviewed the photos was so inept, they identified something that wasn't a plane as "probably a Harrier".
(3) The reported find of a second aircraft is an indication of an unreliable investigation, not the use of professional resources
None of these are impossible, but I think unlikely- and they are only really relevant if we have reason to believe that there wasn't a second aircraft present, based on our digitised copy of one of the photos, remembering the MoD had the six originals.
The RAF had a "UFO desk" at the time, Secretariat (Air Staff) Sec (AS) 2a.
National Archives (UK) press release, "UFO Desk: Closed", https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/final-tranche-of-UFO-files-released.pdfExternal Quote:
I suspect that determining what aircraft were where on 4 August 1990 would be handled by different personnel than those tasked with examining the photos (if the photos were examined by suitably qualified personnel, which as Andreas points out we don't know). We don't know if the photos were examined before or after it was established that there were no Harriers in the area, or, if the latter, whether whoever examined the photos was told- if they were, it rather scuppers any theory that psychological biases or framing made them "see" Harriers.
Military personnel- I'd guess not just in the UK- are routinely tasked with doing stuff they might privately consider pointless, but are expected to do it to the best of their abilities. I agree with @Andreas that it is unlikely that the Calvine photos were considered "of defence significance" or of any great interest, particularly given the wider events of August 1990.
There might have been political considerations; the ruling Conservative party had been increasingly unpopular in Scotland since the early 1980s, and had the widely-read, Labour party-supporting Daily Record published the story, and the relevant Conservative defence minister been found not to know about it, it could have supported a narrative of the Conservatives not really caring about events "north of the border".
On balance, if the MoD claimed two Harriers were present in the photo, there must be a fair chance this is correct.
But this doesn't establish where or when the photographs were taken, other than probably not Calvine, 4 August 1990.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Hadn't thought of that, thanks.
Ann K
Senior Member.
The length of this thread and others on the topic make it hard to look up the source, but I recall early on in the discussion that mention was made of aircraft on training runs in Scotland, where a number of them would zoom down a loch at fairly low altitude, one after another, before they all turned and headed back home to base. There were reported to be several photos, although we only have the one remaining, and it seems not improbable that aircraft were seen in other pics - not necessarily the SAME plane, of course, but perhaps another in the series.
We have no reason to believe that anyone at the MoD deliberately fabricated anything—but government officials make mistakes, particularly when it comes to analyzing "UFO sightings."
We could debate this endlessly, speculating about the extent of the investigation and how seriously the photographs were taken, but at the end of the day, it's still just speculation. What we do have is one surviving photograph and a handful of documents released by the MoD. The rest is hearsay and should be taken with a large grain of salt.
But since we do have the Loose Minute, let's break down what it actually says. Firstly:
"…the MoD press office invariably responds to questions [about UFOs] along well-established lines emphasising our limited interest in the UFO phenomenon and explaining that we therefore do not have the resources to undertake any in-depth investigations into particular sightings."
To me, it's reasonable to assume that the Secretary of Air Staff wanted to explain why they treated this UFO sighting differently than they normally would in similar cases. The minister shouldn't have to read about it in the press without any prior context.
"On this occasion however, the MoD has been provided with six photographic negatives of an alleged UFO by the Scottish Daily Record and has been asked for comments almost certainly for inclusion in a forthcoming story."
This tells us that there were a total of six negatives, handed over by the Daily Record. It also confirms that the MoD was asked to provide a comment to be included in an upcoming article.
"The photographs, which were received on 10 Sept…"
To me, this indicates that the MoD received the negatives on Monday, 10 September. The low-quality faxed photocopies probably came earlier, but they were clearly not good enough for any in-depth investigation. In other words, the negatives arrived just four days before the Loose Minute was written. What does this tell us? First, four days is a relatively short time for any detailed study. Why the rush? Likely because the Daily Record was preparing an article and needed a statement before publication. This necessitated a hastily conducted investigation—and when things are done in haste, the risk of errors is high.
"They [the photo negatives] show a large stationary, diamond-shaped object past which, it appears, a small jet aircraft is flying. The negatives have been considered by the relevant staffs who have established that the jet aircraft is a Harrier (and also identified a barely visible second aircraft, again probably a Harrier) but have reached no definite conclusion regarding the large object."
What does this really tell us, and how should we interpret it? To me, it indicates that a jet-like object is visible flying past the main object in at least one of the frames. I've always assumed that the "jet" was said to be moving across the scene between shots, but there's nothing in the Loose Minute that actually confirms this. It can be interpreted that way, but that may not have been the writer's intent. And what about the second jet? Possibly the writer implied that in one of the other five frames, a blurry dot could be interpreted as a jet.
"The negatives have now been returned to the Scottish Daily Record."
In other words, the negatives were received on Monday and, by Thursday, had already been sent back to the Daily Record. In my view, the only reason for including this information in the memo was to indicate that the negatives had been returned and that, as far as the MoD was concerned, the matter was considered closed.
Attachments
I think you're referring to the Mach Loop. Reddit has lots of awesome videos from there. Here's one:
. People will set up camp all day with the hopes of capturing a minute of footage like this.
Sidenote: Funny timing you mention this as I was thinking about this just yesterday that perhaps the Calvine photos could be related to the Mach Loop training runs, but the distance seems too far. Google maps. Mach Loop is down in Wales, but Calvine photos were taken way up in Scotland. This of course doesn't preclude the possibility of training runs being performed somewhere in Scotland when the Calvine photos were taken.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Nearby Loch Tummel, near both Pitlochry and Calvine, is eleven kilometers long, and seems a likely place for training runs.
I was able to find this very helpful PDF Military Low Flying in the United Kingdom, and tl;dr, it firmly establishes that Calvine is within Low Flying Areas (LFA) used by the Royal Air Force, and the system predates the photos.
LFA 14 is basically all of Scotland. Regarding 14T:External Quote:
14C isn't explained in this document, but it appears to have a special designation due to higher civilian traffic in the area. 14T might be too far for the Calvine photos, but don't take my word on that.External Quote:
John J.
Senior Member.
But what is that based on?
The RAF routinely operated reconnaissance flights near the inner German border (Germany reunified October 1990), and similar operations less frequently elsewhere.
The British Army Air Corps (and occasionally RAF) was operating surveillance flights in Northern Ireland.
Much of the intelligence gathered would become less useful over time.
Four days is a long time to not know where (e.g.) the 3rd Shock Army's major units are: long enough, IIRC, for uninterdicted Warsaw Pact forces to have overrun many major NATO units had the Cold War in Europe turned hot. Hence the NATO doctrine of Follow-on Forces Attack (Wikipedia):
This would require multiple photographic intelligence units (and other intel. resources) able to interpret lots of imagery, in wartime conditions, well within a 4-day window. The North European Plain is excellent "tank country", and the USSR trained extensively in large-scale manoeuvre warfare. Sub-units of JARIC, along with equivalent allied units, would have been vital to processing photographic intelligence as rapidly as possible. That was their key task.External Quote:
The investigation was conducted at short notice, it is supposition that it was done in haste (as is my supposition that examining 6 photographs might be done competently in less than four days, but I think there is circumstantial evidence this might be so).
Agreed. There's not much evidence that the Ministry of Defence had any further interest in the matter (or any particularly serious interest in the Calvine photographs at any time)(but, see below). The finding that there were no Harriers present in the Calvine area at the claimed time of the sighting- and remembering the minute's wording that the photos were
(my emphasis) and the "lines to be taken" support this.External Quote:
To me, the likely presence of a second jet in the photographs, not noticed by the claimant(s) "on the day", is a strong indication that the claim isn't true.
But I certainly concede that if there wasn't actually a second jet- and I (grudgingly!) accept your (@Andreas') points that we can't be sure- it doesn't alter the fact that the Calvine photo/s is/are almost certainly a hoax, and with the possible exception of a civil service desire to spare a minister's blushes, the MoD probably wasn't very interested.
Or at least most of the MoD;
The National Archives (UK) file DEFE-31-180-1 (PDF attached below) has these records, made some months after the MoD had received and returned the Calvine photos.
The subsequent references to "...sensitivity of material..." and "...very special handling..." were noticed by David Clarke.External Quote:
There are 2 low-quality Calvine "Vu-foils" in DEFE-31-180-1, but the results of this re-tasking request are not included.
Dr Clarke's opinion that the "diamond" might be a secret, probably American, aircraft is perhaps partly based on this.
I'm wondering if it's more likely that someone belatedly came across the Calvine material and ill-advisedly thought the photo(s) might have captured a secret programme, and then acted a little over-zealously. I'd guess most of us here accept that the claimant(s) description of events is not likely to describe an existing human technology, now or back in 1990.
Last edited:
Sure, four days is a long time to investigate a few photos. But my point was merely that the photos arrived sometime on Monday (obviously, none of us knows exactly what time the mail arrived that day). Then someone had to open the letter, decide when, who, and what to do with them, and hand them over to the appropriate person. By Thursday, when the loose minute was written, the negatives had already been returned and the Secretary of Air Staff briefed on the matter.
Let's assume the actual investigation was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday, and that the Daily Record was promised a comment before the weekend. That would still leave enough time to analyze a few photos, provided they were deemed of no interest to the MoD. My point is merely that the Monday–Thursday span is a short period if there had been any uncertainties about the possibility that the negatives showed either a secret military craft (or something extraterrestrial, for that matter). Had such possibilities existed in the minds of the MoD, a more thorough investigation would surely have been conducted.
Yes, indeed. The "lines to be taken" seem to imply that the MoD was mainly interested in controlling how they would be quoted and portrayed in an upcoming article.
Yes, the main reason why the story falls apart is the alleged testimony by the "witness," which doesn't match how a possible blimp or balloon would behave. That's also the main reason why I don't think the MoD took this seriously. They couldn't identify the jet since they had no records of jets flying in the area at the time, and the testimony didn't match any of their (or the U.S.'s) equipment being tested at that time.
John J.
Senior Member.
Ah, good point. Sorry for being a bit slow on the uptake.
Had there been any realistic chance that the photos showed something really secret, I'd guess the MoD would hold onto the photos as you say.
They'd perhaps issue a D-Notice (Wikipedia) to the relevant Daily Record staff, which is a request not to publish material if it might impact (UK) national security. They didn't have force of law, but they used to be taken reasonably seriously by "mainstream" print and broadcast media.
Disclosure of some types of classified information might have involved the Official Secrets Act, but even if the Calvine sighting/ photos were genuinely of a secret aircraft, I'd be surprised if this applied to the witnesses or a newspaper printing their story- if you want to keep an aircraft secret, don't fly it in a public area where it can be photographed.
It would be hard to reverse engineer the incredible Haggis Aerospace Grey Diamond from the witness accounts and the photo(s), I think.
Yeah, I mean, nothing in the Loose Minute indicates that the MoD had any issues with the Daily Record printing the story. On the contrary, I would say they were actually quite helpful: they agreed to analyze the photos, did so in a hurry to provide an answer before the article went to print, and even prepared an official statement.
And their official take? That the photo showed a Harrier and a diamond-shaped object about which they had "no definite conclusions." Such a statement is practically a dream for any journalist looking for a sensational story. Without lying, one could have written something like: "RAF baffled – have no idea what the mysterious craft is!"
And yet, the Daily Record didn't print the story. This is indeed a bit surprising, not least because they had already spent considerable time and effort on it — speaking to the "witness," calling the RAF press office for a comment, making a copy of the photo for Lindsay and sending it to him, and acting as the middleman when the MoD requested the negatives. But there are several plausible explanations that don't involve D-notices or cover-ups.
To me, the most plausible explanation is simply that by mid-September, the witness was no longer anywhere to be found. If he really was a seasonal worker, he had possibly moved home by then. Perhaps the involvement of the MoD and tough questions from the Daily Record also made a prank less amusing. Without a witness and without permission to use the photographs, there was simply no longer a story to print.
It's often claimed that Andy Allan seemed unwilling to talk about the whole thing, and that's possibly not unlikely if he was frustrated after investing time in a story only to be ghosted by the "witness." Just speculation — but to me, that's far more plausible than a D-notice and secret aircraft being tested over the A9 on a Sunday evening in August.
John J.
Senior Member.
Yes. Agreed that there's no reason to believe a D-notice (or anything heavier) was involved.
I have idly wondered- supposition really, and no way to prove it without Andy Allan, unless other (retired?) Record staff remember something- that maybe, whatever their thoughts about the authenticity of the photos, Allan/ other relevant staff decided it just wasn't a suitable time to run the story.
We've seen the Record would quite happily print silly/ sensationalist front page stories once in a while, but maybe in the context of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, 2nd August, and over 340 Britons held hostage (alongside many other nationalities), Allan (or whoever) didn't think it was the time for a light-hearted Little Green Men piece involving the RAF. Equally; if there were some suspicion that the photos might show a secret aircraft of radical design, perhaps better to think of "the greater good" in the short term, sort of self-censorship.
All that said, if the original claimant(s) had just moved on without leaving contact details as you (@Andreas) theorise, that would explain everything equally well, and with less reliance on second-guessing other people's motivations, so I guess Occam's razor supports that.
And more importantly, there are several explanations that don't require things like a D-notice, government cover-ups, or experiments with ultra-secret military technology. It could simply be that the "witness" regretted creating a hoax and disappeared without leaving any contact information. Or perhaps a journalist assigned to interview the witness realized it was all a hoax and decided not to pursue the story. Or maybe the editor had doubts (rightfully, I'd say) and chose not to run a sensational story involving the military, especially considering what was happening in the Middle East at the time. All such hypothetical scenarios are to me plausible, and they require few unknown facts and chains of unknown events.
Considering the lack of evidence and the fact that most people involved have now passed away, we'll probably never know for sure what really happened. To me, it's key to understand that several weeks had passed by the time the Daily Record finally had a statement from the MoD and the six negatives. During this time, they had plenty of opportunity to examine the story in more detail — and the potential hoaxer also had time to rethink the whole thing.
owntheissue
Member
Apologies for the late reply.
The Cairngorms in summer are extremely popular with hikers/tourists.
I've been twice myself and it is normal to see ramblers dotted around remote locations before the sun goes down.
Don't know where you are based but it's almost impossible to fly anything secret in the UK at low levels.
(As evidenced by secrets of the last 25 years being shipped in boxes to Woomera or one of the adequately sized US sites.)
In terms of plane spotters- it's not so much the lack of observers with eyes on at the location- it's the fact many plane spotters in the UK are based near airfields.
Where did this famous mystery military aircraft take off from and where did it land?
Planes need logistics and logistics to support aircraft are hard to hide.
IIRC - people have even "spotted" temporary FOB's of the type used by STOL/VTOL craft being in use in other areas for unpublicised excercises previously.
Base activity, movements, known excercises etc, are all part of the lead generation process for these guys.
The only hope for that aircraft being "real" (i.e in alleged location at the alleged time) is if it's a Harrier (unlikely IMO) AND it was launched from sea AND the operators managed to do it without anyone seeing their aircraft carrier.
Last edited:
Giddierone
Senior Member.
A BBC Article published today about the upcoming 35th anniversary of the Calvine photo, and a local talk about it being conducted by David Clarke.
What might be news to some here is Clarke's clear skepticism about the whole thing.
He's quoted as saying:
What might be news to some here is Clarke's clear skepticism about the whole thing.
He's quoted as saying:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjwngn293pvo?app-referrer=searchExternal Quote:
Last edited:
That's true. I actually asked Clarke about his personal opinion a few months ago, and he was pretty clear: it's either a hoax or some kind of military equipment. Personally, I find him to be a reasonable guy with both feet on the ground.
That said, I do think his way of promoting the story is a bit problematic because it tends to give the UFO crowd more fuel than they need. Sure, it's fun to stare at that blurry photo and try to guess what we're looking at (I've done that myself for way too many hours…), but let's be honest — it's NOT proof of anything extraordinary.
As a "UFO case," it's weak: we've got an anonymous witness and zero supporting evidence. Yet somehow Nick Pope and other sensationalists keep calling it "the best case ever." As an investigative journalist, Clarke really should be more careful to give the full picture and all the facts when covering something like Calvine. Even though he personally seems to think it's either a hoax or maaaybe some secret military tech, that nuance doesn't really come across in his reporting.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Given how weak the corpus of evidence is, these are not inconsistent points -- it is not necessary to be particularly good evidence to still edge into the position of "best case ever."
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Absolutely. Clarke is one of my favourite investigators, and he has uncovered vast reams of data about UAP reports and released them into the public domain, without ever finding anything that suggests extraterrestrial (or extradimensional) involvement.
However, Clarke does sometimes seem to have an overenthusiastic faith in the capabilities of terrestrial military technology. He has suggested that many of the most mysterious aspects of certain visual/radar cases in the 20th century could be explained by experimental radar spoofing technology, stuff that is probably not physically possible even today, let alone thirty, fifty or seventy years ago. And the Calvine witness report includes descriptions of flight behaviour which is completely unphysical, if we are to take the report at face value.
One should not forget that every element of the Calvine case is based on second-hand or third-hand accounts, apart from the photo, which is itself a positive print on colour paper of lost black-and-white negatives.
owntheissue
Member
Its a bit like Clarke knows it is a hoax- but is afraid to give up any free publicity the UFO connection brings.
The "experimental radar spoofing technology stuff" is a good call (although as you point out - it doesn't explain everything).
People were onto radar spoofing as soon as they worked out how radar worked so it is a relatively mature tech.
"Flight behaviour which is completely unphysical" is a stretch because we know balloons hover silently then seem to instantaneously accelerate when untethered.
If we consider this type of idea: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190001133/downloads/20190001133.pdf - the only limitation is fabricating materials which can handle the stresses involved.
If someone cracked the fab process in 1986 and built a "stealth vacuum blimp" - it would likely look a bit like a diamond UFO and do all the things suggested in Calvine - all well within recognised physics of flight.
Last edited:
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Whenever I've corresponded with him he's been straightforwardly skeptical. His early books, written with Andy Roberts, are among the best on the topic with reams of citations and interesting observations and findings. But then there's the association with truly credulous characters of the current scene, that is a bit disappointing.
E.g. I'd agree he knows that no photographer will ever come forward.
Source: https://x.com/shuclarke/status/1664672120654159873
Ann K
Senior Member.
I think it's fair to acknowledge the basic fact that we are never going to know all the stuff that the military deems to be secret. But that means that any speculation about details is worthless. It's the old "I don't know ___, therefore it is ___" stuff, and not to be taken seriously.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Even though I have used 'vacuum balloons' in my own (amateur) science fiction, I am well aware that they pose engineering problems that would probably never be solved in the real universe. Worse than that, the support structure required to prevent a balloon 'filled' with vacuum from collapsing would be so heavy that the buoyancy of such a system would be significantly lower than a balloon filled with hydrogen or helium.
Basically they are not really worth the effort.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
I find this quite a lot. Someone (not Clarke) who I've collaborated with on various hard SF projects is now collaborating with Avi Loeb, so I'm a bit miffed.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
I disagree. Every technological advance that has been utilised for military use has eventually been adapted for public or commercial applications (except, perhaps, for deadly weapons like nuclear bombs - and even these systems can be adapted for peaceful uses, or used in power generation).
If there really were craft capable of hovering and accelerating in this way, the technology would revolutionise commercial aircraft in short order. But first, they would have been used in combat at some point over the last 35 years - a time which has not been peaceful, and has included a very significant move towards drone technology.
Ann K
Senior Member.
But while something is still secret, the fact that it is not yet disclosed to the public has been used by conspiracy theorists to claim, without any evidence at all, "Then it must be ___". That's the worthless speculation to which I refer, leading people down paths of wild fantasies and paranoia.
I reread Clarke's quote and noticed an interesting nuance. When I asked him for his personal thoughts in an email a few months ago, he replied: "I think it's either a very clever hoax or a genuine photograph showing military technology. These are the only 2 explanations IMO."
But in the quote you provided, he used the words "some kind of military exercise." That's a small but important difference. To me, the latter suggests something like a balloon, blimp, or decoy combined with a fabricated story from the witness. On the other hand, when you talk about "military technology," most people immediately think of some super‑secret, high‑tech craft capable of performing the maneuvers described by the photographer.
Personally, I'm fine with keeping the door open for this being a balloon or something similar (even though I'm personally convinced it's a pure hoax). But when people start talking about anti‑gravity craft or the Aurora project, I just can't take it seriously. I'm glad Clarke was a bit more careful than usual in his choice of words in the BBC article.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Aren't you inserting the notion of secrecy into his response to you? Not all military tech is secret, so I take him to mean that it could have been something that just looked odd in a photo and which ballooned into a UFO story.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
If there is military tech that would look like that in a photograph, which is NOT secret, I suspect it would have been pointed out by now...
John J.
Senior Member.
Generally agree with your points, even an upside-down full-sized wind tunnel model of a Tempest II (or whatever it might be called) fuselage was photographed from a public area while being moved on a low loader inside the grounds of BAe System's Warton site a few years ago IIRC.
A genuinely secret craft wouldn't be flown, well, near Calvine. Woomera or US facilities (maybe BATUS, Sudbury, Canada for some drone types) might be available for UK aircraft testing, but all require host government knowledge and agreement, so genuinely unilateral, secret, overland aircraft testing is a bit of a problem for HMG (there's the Falkland Islands, I suppose. But limited nightlife and chances of a suntan).
HMG might have cleverly circumvented this problem by not developing a secret aircraft.
Harriers are a different issue. I think it's highly unlikely that there were Harriers operating near Calvine at the time and date in question because the MoD has said so.
If any of the various walkers/ hikers around (remembering it was dusk) happened to be keen aircraft spotters, it would be difficult for them to check where an aircraft passing overhead had come from, or if it was "out of place". For our purposes, there was no internet and very few mobile phones in 1990. I don't know if any cellphone network covered Calvine in 1990.
Harriers squadrons were never based in Scotland but Harriers visited regularly- the Cape Wrath training area in particular.
Wikipedia, quoting the MoD, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Wrath;External Quote:
I'd take that with a pinch of salt but Cape Wrath was an important training area frequently used by Harriers. All UK Harriers (GR3 on) could refuel in flight (and frequently did).
@yoshy's useful post (and the document it links to) shows that pretty much all the UK might experience planned low-level military flights, with the possible exceptions of an extended area around Greater London, an unexplained enclave in Somerset, and around the Solent/ Isle of Wight; the latter surprised me having spent a few minutes watching a Typhoon II pulling some impressive manoeuvres over sea west of the Needles (west tip of the Isle of Wight) one day end of August or early September last year (not long after the Bournemouth airshow).
owntheissue
Member
Here's the poster for the "35th Anniversary Celebratory Talk," and it perfectly illustrates the problem with the lore surrounding this case. Sure, Clarke agrees that it could be a pure hoax, but every single time the case is presented, it's all about huge, strange craft in the sky, "top secret" labels, and military jets roaming over the Scottish landscape. As is often the case with "UFO sightings," the case itself is weaker than eggshells, but the "investigation" turns it into something it simply isn't.
Interestingly, it's stated that the illustration on the poster was made by "A Robinson." Could this be Andrew Robinson? If so, it's rather remarkable that someone who claims to have conducted an impartial photo analysis of the image would also create such a sensationalist illustration. I'm not saying it is Andrew who drew it, but if it is, it might offer a glimpse into his own mental image of what he thinks he sees in the blurry photo.
John J.
Senior Member.
A flyer depicting someone photographing a small object on nylon fishing line, or through a pane of glass, might not generate the same interest, except perhaps from photography hobbyists.
I kind of agree with your point, but as you say, it's all part of the "lore"- some people want to believe in esoteric things, but don't want to find out about more likely, earthbound explanations.
In a couple of posts I've mentioned my affection (on and off) for Fortean Times magazine. It frequently has highly sensationalist cover art, but I guess that's what the editorial team thinks sells the most issues, although maybe it deters some more sceptical people, or some people with a more measured interest in some aspects of unusual phenomena, extraordinary claims, strange archaeological finds, natural rarities, historical conspiracies and fringe beliefs etc. etc.
(If memory serves, I think @NorCal Dave made a similar observation after acquiring a copy- the cover was off-putting but some of the content quite entertaining- apologies if I've misremembered!)
Well, if it is the work of Andrew Robinson, the senior lecturer in photography at Sheffield Hallam University (https://www.shu.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-profiles/andrew-robinson#firstSection) who analysed the Calvine photo for David Clarke, remember he is in effect selling a product (or at least trying to generate interest).
There are illustrators called "A. Robinson" who are not Andrew Robinson at SHU, but it would be interesting to know if "our" A. Robinson was responsible- well-spotted, @Andreas.
The Sheffield Hallam University's Andrew Robinson is a member, along with David Clarke, Diane A. Rodgers (senior lecturer in media, SHU) and Sophie Parkes-Nield (researcher, National Folklore Survey of England, SHU) of the Centre For Contemporary Legend, part of the Sheffield Creative Industries Institute at Sheffield Hallam University https://contemporarylegend.co.uk/about/.
(I bristle a bit at the use of "industries" in this context; Sheffield used to be famous for its steel production. That was creative. Such is life.)
They have an interest in folklore and contemporary legend/ myths. They (at least Clarke) clearly have an interest in the Calvine UFO narrative, and I get the impression Clarke has a genuine interest in what the Calvine photo actually shows/ represents (whether it is a hoax or shows a real flying vehicle). However, I also get the impression that they have an interest in Calvine as a folkloric event almost independent of whether the original claim (and remaining photo) are authentic or not, which I have trouble understanding. -If something is a hoax (and I believe the Calvine account/ photos are hoaxes, though we've yet to find conclusive evidence of this) then it has little value, except perhaps as evidence that some people are eager to believe extraordinary claims on the basis of dubious evidence- perhaps of more value as a subject for psychologists, legal professionals and police than folklorists.
I would mention that the jet in the illustration is a complete dog's dinner, I'm wondering if "AI" was involved. It's a mess.
I don't think it's a depiction of a real aircraft of any sort. It isn't an accurate picture of anything in service in 1990 anywhere, certainly not in the UK (and not with the United States). Goodness knows what's meant to be happening at the rear end.
The angular tailfin is not that of a Hawker Hunter, Hawker Siddeley (later BAe) Harrier or Hawker Siddeley (later BAe) Hawk, all of which had a graceful curve to the leading edge/ top of the tailfin. It doesn't have the large, almost semi-circular air intakes of a Harrier or the modest in-wing triangular intakes of a Hunter (which didn't have a bubble canopy like the plane in the picture).
Unless it has a ridiculously deep belly-mounted air intake, the starboard (farside) wing appears to have a "glove" as per swing-wing (variable geometry) types (see in orange ellipse below). The port wing might also have this feature, but the glove extends, as an apparently very thick wing root, forward of the canopy (see green line below).
The only swing-wing aircraft in western service at this time (if memory serves) were:
(1) General Dynamics F-111 (USA). But the proportionately large bubble canopy of the plane in the illustration, the short nose and proportions of the tailfin rule out an F-111.
(2) Grumann F-14 Tomcat (USA). The single tailfin in the illustration rule out an F-14, as does the short nose.
(3) Panavia Tornado (Italy, West Germany, UK). The bubble canopy, nosecone shape, tailfin proportions and lack of ECM housings on the tailfin rule out a Tornado.
Regardless of the specifics, this just isn't a successful attempt to depict a real aircraft.
Last edited:
Yeah, I suspect the illustration is AI. But it's a bit strange they didn't bother asking for a Harrier or Hunter, since this is such a crucial part of the folklore. And you're obviously right—a picture of a Christmas ornament hanging from a tree branch would hardly get as much attention as a huge, mysterious craft in the sky. Personally, though, I'd prefer a poster that looked something like this
John J.
Senior Member.
Excellent!
Maybe it could start a trend amongst alternative thinkers.
Erich Von Däniken's famous work of 1968 is made even better with just two little words, and George Adamski and Desmond Leslie's Flying Saucers Have Landed (1953) could do with an update too.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In post #1758 I mentioned Western swing-wing jets of the 1990s; forgot the Rockwell B-1 Lancer (but the picture clearly isn't supposed to be a B-1, a large bomber aircraft). Coincidentally the B-1 featured in 3 Calvine-style photos (UFO and military jet) from 1994; see @NorCal Dave's post #137.
Similar threads
